902 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

Didn't they learn from the mistake of rushing QoS - shooting without a polished script?

Sure, the script's never really finished 'til the film's cut, but you still want to allow your prestigious, well payed writer (was Haggis, now Morgan) to be happy with it (Haggis said he wasn't, and if it's fast-tracked then Morgan won't be over the moon either).

QoS made stacks of cash, but much of that is from those who liked Casino Royale so much on DVD/Blu-ray, so they invested in QoS. If that trend continues it means much lower ticket sales on B23, since it split the audience.

Sorry, but that is speculative tosh.

It's based upon plenty of viewer/critic feedback in the media. You can't deny that a great many people were disappointed with QoS. That's not tosh, or did you only read the good reviews and speak to people you knew would liked it?

Who said Haggis wasn't happy with it?

How about this....

"I just finished the second draft of the Bond movie and was doing the polish when this thing stopped”, Haggis said. “And I don’t want that movie shooting where it says “something happens here.” I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves. It sort of does that at one point. Whatever, I can’t tell you what it is, but it says “something is like that,” and I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves.
—
Haggis went on to say that he has been contacted by the production during the strike, but would not break picket lines to help out Bond 22. “I get calls from Amy (Pascal), I get calls from Michael (Wilson). They hope this thing resolves. They’re really, really good people."

To be honest, I don't see where that Haggis quote suggests any 'unhappiness' beyond his hands were tied by the WGA strike - but thanks for the considered response. Seriously.

[Odd Jobbies]

To be honest, I don't see where that Haggis quote suggests any 'unhappiness' beyond his hands were tied by the WGA strike - but thanks for the considered response. Seriously.

Well i guess it's down to interpretation, but does anyone here think that quote is by a man happy with the state of the script that's going before the cameras?

BTW, i agree that while Martin Campbell has made two of the best Bond movies, he's certainly 'middling' in the Director's Hall of Fame. Forster was a step in the right direction - Mendes is a huge leap in that direction. I hope it pans out.

[Dr.Fell]

Well i guess it's down to interpretation, but does anyone here think that quote is by a man happy with the state of the script that's going before the cameras?

It dosen't sound like he was overall dissapointed. He basically said the producers could fill in the blanks though he wish he did put some more meat in the script.

[Odd Jobbies]

Well i guess it's down to interpretation, but does anyone here think that quote is by a man happy with the state of the script that's going before the cameras?

It dosen't sound like he was overall dissapointed. He basically said the producers could fill in the blanks though he wish he did put some more meat in the script.

I must've been crazy to presume that an Oscar winning screen-writer wouldn't be happy being forced to sign-off on a script he hadn't finished writing...

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I must say it's good to have some news about Bond 23 which doesn't focus on how delayed it's going to be! I really hope Mendes comes on board to direct as Road To Perdition is one of my favourite films of all time, and I also really enjoyed American Beauty.

[Dr.Fell]

Well i guess it's down to interpretation, but does anyone here think that quote is by a man happy with the state of the script that's going before the cameras?

It dosen't sound like he was overall dissapointed. He basically said the producers could fill in the blanks though he wish he did put some more meat in the script.

I must've been crazy to presume that an Oscar winning screen-writer wouldn't be happy being forced to sign-off on a script he hadn't finished writing...

I repeat, he didn't seem OVERALL dissapointed. Also lets not tout the Oscar title as some sort of infalibility in the movie world; I really get sick of that.

[AgentBentley]

Mendes is a great director but I still doubt whether he's the right one for Bond 23, given he's not a major action director. Just like with Marc Forster, I guess I'll only be able to judge once the movie is out there on the screen.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I'm unsure at Mendes.
At first i was very excited, that may have been more to do with the whole fast tracked production idea and the fact we were actually hearing something to do about the film.
He's a good director, the whole 'dosen't know action' angle doesn't bother me at ll, he's just a bit well know, people thought forster was a tad arty for Bond, but instead he had art house elements in his movie, but he effectively contained himself to what he thought a Bond movie nedded, whetehr it was what we thought was another issue. I really like QOS, and think it gets unfair stick, in years to come people will see it better, I have a feeling it'll age well in the franchise.
mendes seems to trapped in his own films, and its hard to imagine a Bond movie made by Sam Mendes, without it becoming a Sam Mendes movie.
I'm not so such, big names have been touted by fans in the past but nothing has really come of it, but history has proved that Bond is better made by journeymen with something to prove, then art directors 'slumming' in.

[plankattack]

Getting late to the Sam Mendes conversation, and while I'm curious at the potential of his involvement, I don't find it that big a news. It's big news in that he is a big name, with a more "artistic" sheen to his resume than say, a Tony Scott. But it's not big news in that ultimately, Bond, or any franchise picture, is really a producers' medium than a director.

I'm not suggesting that Mendes wouldn't be a terrific choice, but I think any enthusiasm should be tempered with the knowledge that unless an auteur is in on the project from the very start, then the depth of their contribution is lessened ever so slightly by every step that they're late to the process.

To me, the more interesting discussion is the presence of Morgan on the writing staff. Has he been involved from the first blank page? Or has he, like Haggis on CR, come into the game to polish or re-write an outline already established by P&W? If he has been the first stop, then maybe we might get something "different", definitely more so in influence than a Sam Mendes-type director coming on board. Extreme example - if Sam Mendes is given P&W's script for, say, DAD, then you're still getting what we got, rather than a "Sam Mendes"-type film.

My only point here is that it's the script that's going dictate the type of film we get, rather than the director. That's the way this series (and most franchises) work. Lewis Gilbert came with Alfie-type films on his resume, but Dahl's script demanded that he deliver an epic.

Michael Apted (no less a "serious artistic" type director than Mendes, and if you're not sure, watch the 7-Up series) came on board and helmed TWINE, a film much-unloved in these parts (though I, like a few others defend it, living Defiance-style among these threads!!!), and Forster, with a similar, story-telling background, delivered QoS, a Bond film that provokes strong feelings on both sides, more so than any other in the series.

My only point (taken a long time to get here, I know) is that the hiring of any director is not in itself any great indicator of the style of film to follow. On the other hand, if Mendes and Morgan are working together from Day One, that very first blank page, then it would be fair game to speculate on the type of film we might get.

[MattofSteel]

Don't know.

I like a lot of Mendes' work, but I look at him and think the same thing as I did with Forster - "There's NOTHING on his resume to suggest he'd make a good Bond director."

But I wasn't entirely displeased with Marc.

[Dr.Fell]

Now it's being said that Mendes will simply be a counsultant.

Edited by Dr.Fell, 06 January 2010 - 03:27 PM.

[The Shark]

Fleming's Bond is fundamentally a flawed, often-unlikeable, Bryonic hero, and nothing highlights that more today than smoking a cigarette.

I agree whole-heartedly that Bond should be attracted to social taboos, however, and i can't believe i'm being this sensible, i'd draw the line at smoking, since a lot of young people watch Bond and will inevitably conclude that smoking is cool - it's definitely not.

There're many frowned upon things i'd love to see Bond enjoy, but not one that really could lead hundreds of thousands of people to develop lung cancer.

But then surely one should stop Bond from killing people, because that's also bad, along with unprotected sex with women, alcoholism etc.... Why hypocritically single out smoking? Because everybody else does?

I say give back Bond his cigarette because it is both considered repugnant and is crucial Fleming's character. What did he say again?

"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."

Bond shouldn't be health conscious. He's primarily a hedonist, who due to the requirements of his job has to accept the fact that he could die the next day.

[Dr.Fell]

Fleming's Bond is fundamentally a flawed, often-unlikeable, Bryonic hero, and nothing highlights that more today than smoking a cigarette.

I agree whole-heartedly that Bond should be attracted to social taboos, however, and i can't believe i'm being this sensible, i'd draw the line at smoking, since a lot of young people watch Bond and will inevitably conclude that smoking is cool - it's definitely not.

There're many frowned upon things i'd love to see Bond enjoy, but not one that really could lead hundreds of thousands of people to develop lung cancer.

But then surely one should stop Bond from killing people, because that's also bad, along with unprotected sex with women, alcoholism etc.... Why hypocritically single out smoking? Because everybody else does?

I say give back Bond his cigarette because it is both considered repugnant and is crucial Fleming's character. What did he say again?

"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."

Bond shouldn't be health conscious. He's primarily a hedonist, who due to the requirements of his job has to accept the fact that he could die the next day.

Well said The Shark. Bond is a man of some vices so having the occasional cig is not going end the world.

[Skudor]

Now it's being said that Mendes will simply be a counsultant.

He would be hired as a consultant to work on the film as if he would be directing it. Once the MGM situation is resolved he would then be hired as a director. It's just a way to get around whatever agreements exist between MGM and EON, to prevent B23 being a locked-in MGM film.

[Dr.Fell]

Now it's being said that Mendes will simply be a counsultant.

He would be hired as a consultant to work on the film as if he would be directing it. Once the MGM situation is resolved he would then be hired as a director. It's just a way to get around whatever agreements exist between MGM and EON, to prevent B23 being a locked-in MGM film.

Oh okay, that does make sense.

[Judo chop]

Part of me just wants Campbell back for another safe but good Bond film. But the part of me that loved Quantum of Solace is thrilled at the prospect of another not-so-safe choice for another fresh, not from the mould Bond film.

I agree with this. However, the devil is in the details, and my "parts" are probably divided something like 20/80.

A small part of me wants EON to run back to the Campbell safehouse, but the LARGE MAJORITY of me wants EON to (continue to) explore uncharted, perhaps even dangerous territories.

On this Mendes business, I will have to revisit ROAD TO PERDITION before I can give a solid opinion. But to be honest, shooting right from the hip here, I don’t feel like Mendes is that big of a departure from Forster. AMERICAN BEAUTY might have been a Forster film. JARHEAD I have yet to see at all, but I will once this rumor proves true.

I agree with those who yearn for Bond’s pace to ease up after the QOS firecracker, and I still do expect that is what we will get - but at the same time, “speed” wasn’t exactly Forster’s modus operandi (just the opposite), so I don’t automatically see Mendes as a guaranteed solution in that regard.

[zencat]

Excellent. Nikki Finke has a bite into this story. Now we will learn all the behind the scenes whatnot. There is no better source than Nikki Finke.

EDIT: Ah, I see it's already on the main page.

[Dr.Fell]

I hope this time a better editor is used or secound unit director. The action in Quantum was just down right terrible.

[Skudor]

Part of me just wants Campbell back for another safe but good Bond film. But the part of me that loved Quantum of Solace is thrilled at the prospect of another not-so-safe choice for another fresh, not from the mould Bond film.

I agree with this. However, the devil is in the details, and my "parts" are probably divided something like 20/80.

A small part of me wants EON to run back to the Campbell safehouse, but the LARGE MAJORITY of me wants EON to (continue to) explore uncharted, perhaps even dangerous territories.

On this Mendes business, I will have to revisit ROAD TO PERDITION before I can give a solid opinion. But to be honest, shooting right from the hip here, I don’t feel like Mendes is that big of a departure from Forster. AMERICAN BEAUTY might have been a Forster film. JARHEAD I have yet to see at all, but I will once this rumor proves true.

I agree with those who yearn for Bond’s pace to ease up after the QOS firecracker, and I still do expect that is what we will get - but at the same time, “speed” wasn’t exactly Forster’s modus operandi (just the opposite), so I don’t automatically see Mendes as a guaranteed solution in that regard.

It certainly seems like the MO with Forster was to get a filmaker known for non-action films to do his version of a Bond film (rather than to completely reinvent
Bond as a non-action film).

[Judo chop]

It certainly seems like the MO with Forster was to get a filmaker known for non-action films to do his version of a Bond film (rather than to completely reinvent
Bond as a non-action film).

Yes. I have no complaints whatsoever with EON's new apparent MO. Times have not been this exciting in a while.

[Harmsway]

But to be honest, shooting right from the hip here, I don’t feel like Mendes is that big of a departure from Forster.

He's not. Mendes carries a bit more prestige than Forster (he does have one of those gold statues), but really, he's more or less in the same vein. That said, I would be surprised if he was as playful as Forster was with his stylistic choices.

[SecretAgentFan]

When Mendes becomes director (and I don´t say "if") it will be a tough act to follow if you´re "just" an action veteran. Which is good, isn´t it?

[Loomis]

But to be honest, shooting right from the hip here, I don’t feel like Mendes is that big of a departure from Forster.

He's not. Mendes carries a bit more prestige than Forster (he does have one of those gold statues), but really, he's more or less in the same vein.

More or less. The difference is that Mendes is one of the most powerful directors in Hollywood. Forster is a B-lister in the scheme of things, whereas Mendes is genuine A-list and on a "power par" with the likes of Ang Lee, Michael Mann and Ridley Scott.

If it is indeed the case that Mendes will direct RISICO (might as well give up calling it BOND 23), then this marks a seismic shift for the series - the first time that it has been handed to a star director with real independent clout. It'll be interesting to see whether Mendes will be happy to tailor a Bond flick to Eon's usual specifications (as Forster did), or whether he'll truly take 007 and make it his own thing.

[Dr.Fell]

Forster is a B-lister in the scheme of things, whereas Mendes is genuine A-list and on a "power par" with the likes of Ang Lee, Michael Mann and Ridley Scott.

I think that is a stretch declaring he has so much clout.Lee, Mann, and Scott have larger box office draws under their names.

If it is indeed the case that Mendes will direct RISICO (might as well give up calling it BOND 23)

Is there something I missed here ? Why ?

[Judo chop]

But to be honest, shooting right from the hip here, I don’t feel like Mendes is that big of a departure from Forster.

He's not. Mendes carries a bit more prestige than Forster (he does have one of those gold statues), but really, he's more or less in the same vein. That said, I would be surprised if he was as playful as Forster was with his stylistic choices.

I wish I had more experience with Mendes, because what I'd like to see in his portfolio is some variety. Something to show that the man has an innate desire to explore. Not in a completely radical way, but just a willingness to... as you said, "play" around a bit. Your surprise is not exactly encouraging, although that’s not to say he might not surprise anyway. QOS certainly did not deliver what I’d have most expected from Forster.

Have you seen JARHEAD?

As for that gold statue... um, yeah. I’ll thank him for keeping the inspiration that brought him that, far, far away from Bond 23.

[Loomis]

Forster is a B-lister in the scheme of things, whereas Mendes is genuine A-list and on a "power par" with the likes of Ang Lee, Michael Mann and Ridley Scott.

I think that is a stretch declaring he has so much clout.Lee, Mann, and Scott have larger box office draws under their names.

Scott, perhaps (although what was his last real smash? GLADIATOR a decade ago?). But Lee and Mann bigger box office successes than Mendes?

Is there something I missed here ? Why ?

The rumour in fandom that BOND 23 will be called RISICO. Which is a rumour with a strong foundation (albeit still a rumour).

Have you seen JARHEAD?

I have. It's pretty good - nothing staggering, but certainly worth seeing. It's no HURT LOCKER, but you won't feel cheated if you rent it and watch it on a rainy afternoon.

[MkB]

Sam Mendes directing Bond 23? That would annoy me.

The only thing I have seen from him was Road to Perdition, and I remember having problems with the film, mainly with how the film was cut and built... there was something awkward, demonstrative and boring there.

[Judo chop]

If it is indeed the case that Mendes will direct RISICO (might as well give up calling it BOND 23), then this marks a seismic shift for the series - the first time that it has been handed to a star director with real independent clout.

I agree. EON's philosophy is the best news here because it's not speculative. It's solid.

FACT: EON are aiming 'high', even if time later proves they did not aim wise.

[The Shark]

It certainly seems like the MO with Forster was to get a filmaker known for non-action films to do his version of a Bond film (rather than to completely reinvent
Bond as a non-action film).

Yes. I have no complaints whatsoever with EON's new apparent MO. Times have not been this exciting in a while.

Surely Micolli have realised now this MO fails completely for Bond. Forster, Apted, Tamahori and now Mendes.

Get a bloody thriller director for Christ's sake.

[Judo chop]

Re: Mendes' JARHEAD

I have. It's pretty good - nothing staggering, but certainly worth seeing. It's no HURT LOCKER, but you won't feel cheated if you rent it and watch it on a rainy afternoon.

I know nothing about it (yet), but since you’ve compared it to HURT LOCKER (which I also know nothing about (yet), except that it’s ‘actiony’), I presume that JARHEAD is also ‘actiony’. How do you find it sits in with the rest of Mendes’ work? Is it something that gives you hope for a Bond which will strike a balance while pushing the envelope?