902 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

HURT LOCKER (which I also know nothing about (yet), except that it’s ‘actiony’)

Actually, HURT LOCKER ain't nearly as actiony as you'd think. It trades much more on (brilliantly built) suspense.

I presume that JARHEAD is also ‘actiony’.

Somewhat.

How do you find it sits in with the rest of Mendes’ work?

It doesn't. Actually, I sat down to it without knowing it was Mendes and was surprised to see him credited as the director. I'd never guess it was the work of the AMERICAN BEAUTY and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD geezer. Which goes to show either that Mendes is versatile, or that he has no real signature style in the first place.

Is it something that gives you hope for a Bond which will strike a balance while pushing the envelope?

I guess.

[Judo chop]

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.

There’s a point there, but when I talk about EON’s MO, I’m talking about the big picture. Not merely just the director, but the writers and actors and the whole kit and caboodle. Don’t even begin to tell me that the only difference you see between TWINE and QOS is the change of directors.

[Dr.Fell]

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

Well yes actually. Take a look Rotten Tomatoes at their box office grosses since 2001. Ridley Scott is number 1 at $742.3 million and Mendes is last at $155.4 million.

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

I hope isn't true because it's a damn lousy title and so are the other remaining short story titles. I was on a fan blog recently and someone suggested "Only the Devil Knows" after Kronsteen's discription of Rosa Klebb. Now that is a good title

[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...

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.

The context in which i used 'oscar' wasn't using the award as a bench mark, if you noticed, but about how an oscar winning writer may feel about it himself. I'm obviously suggesting that it doubtless places some peer pressure upon a writer.

I got 'OVERALL' the first time round. My point was that 'overall' may not have felt good enough for Haggis in the above context.

[Judo chop]

How do you find it sits in with the rest of Mendes’ work?

It doesn't. Actually, I sat down to it without knowing it was Mendes and was surprised to see him credited as the director. I'd never guess it was the work of the AMERICAN BEAUTY and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD geezer. Which goes to show either that Mendes is versatile, or that he has no real signature style in the first place.

That is good news.

Is it something that gives you hope for a Bond which will strike a balance while pushing the envelope?

I guess.

I guess that is good news.

[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.

The context in which i used 'oscar' wasn't using the award as a bench mark, if you noticed, but about how an oscar winning writer may feel about it himself. I'm obviously suggesting that it doubtless places some peer pressure upon a writer.

I got 'OVERALL' the first time round. My point was that 'overall' may not have felt good enough for Haggis in the above context.

You mis-understood, I was saying he was somewhat disappointed. And I know you weren't Oscar as an bench mark but where you not using at some sort of prestige ?

[double o ego]

Has Mendes made a thriller? Most of his films seem to be about professional couples and how hard their lives are, which is not exactly 'edge of your seat' stuff.

Really, this film shouldn't be about whether Bond can find decent organic Cupuaçu in Mashhad.

The tendency for people to dismiss a director they haven't ever seen really staggers me. Sam Mendes slapped British theatre around the face and did so with the great good will of directors, actors and writers alike. His CABARET and THE BLUE ROOM were landmark productions as was his other work at the Donmar Warehouse. He is a respected force of theatre and film - something that the likes of Barbara Broccoli will be well aware of when pinpointing any director (she is an avid theatre goer and supporter).

JARHEAD, AMERICAN BEAUTY, ROAD TO PERDITION, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and the sublime, beautiful and lovingly crafted AWAY WE GO are great testaments to Mendes ability for ANY film. Unlike most potential Bond directors he is not tied to a genre or style, country or success rates.

First things first. Imo, QoS wasn't a bad film. It was a clearly rushed film with a dodgy script. Additionally, Forster's decision to edit the movie the way it turned out was his decoision and of course wasn't going to sit well with some members of the audience but at the end of the day, the 2 key things to note are the lacking script and Forster's conscious decision to edit the movie the way he did.

That is only opinion. And be careful quoting Micheal Wilson on his editing thoughts when most people commenting here were not privy to the context of the discussion in question.

What is only opinion? My comment regarding the lacking script? If so, it's a known fact that the script was indeed lacking, rushed and had to be written as the movie itself was being filmed. As for the editing, I don't see why I need to be careful when quoting Wilson if I'm essentially repeating what he himself said. If other people didn't read it or hear about it, I fail to see how that's my problem. Facts are facts.

[Harmsway]

I wish I had more experience with Mendes, because what I'd like to see in his portfolio is some variety.

Mendes has plenty of variety. There's not much in common between ROAD TO PERDITION to AWAY WE GO (and that's not even taking into account his very accomplished work for the stage, like his award-winning revival of CABARET). He's not an easy guy to pin down.

Not in a completely radical way, but just a willingness to... as you said, "play" around a bit.

My point was not that Mendes will seem bland next to Forster, or be any less bold. I think Forster's "playfulness" is a bit of a mixed bag; it sometimes pays off and sometimes doesn't, and is often very flashy and overt. QUANTUM OF SOLACE often feels like Forster made his artistic choices more out of whimsy than out of some consideration for a unified whole. In interviews it seemed--to me, at least--that Forster saw Bond as a great big toybox and he could just play and construct as he saw fit.

Now, I have no doubt that Mendes will make some strong and distinctive aesthetic choices. But I suspect he'll be deliberate, rather than playful, and as such I'm anticipating a more controlled and unified film than QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Now, I could be wrong. It's possible Mendes will treat Bond as an opportunity to just have fun and go crazy. But while I had seen a level of playfulness in Forster's films prior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I haven't seen that in Mendes' work to date.

Have you seen JARHEAD?

Parts of it, but never in its entirety.

[Loomis]

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

Well yes actually. Take a look Rotten Tomatoes at their box office grosses since 2001. Ridley Scott is number 1 at $742.3 million and Mendes is last at $155.4 million.

But creative clout isn't based purely on box office. I'm somewhat certain that Mendes is used to having final cut on his work, which would make him unique among directors hired for the Bond series. And I don't care whether Mann has made more money than Mendes or vice-versa - my point is that Mendes is roughly comparable with directors like Mann and Scott, in terms of being a powerful, acclaimed and respected filmmaker with enough clout to get his own projects made instead of having to work as a hired gun.

I hope isn't true because it's a damn lousy title and so are the other remaining short story titles. I was on a fan blog recently and someone suggested "Only the Devil Knows" after Kronsteen's discription of Rosa Klebb. Now that is a good title

I disagree. ONLY THE DEVIL KNOWS would be a wretched title for a Bond film.

[Odd Jobbies]

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.

I'm not going to try and defend it - you're right, it's hypercritical.

Still don't want him smoking though. I didn't think Craig portrayals so far have been compromised by the absence of chain smoking.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him on a Benzedrine & Champagne fueled card game with Drax, though....

Yep, you're right, i'm definitely a hypocrite

[The Shark]

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.

There’s a point there, but when I talk about EON’s MO, I’m talking about the big picture. Not merely just the director, but the writers and actors and the whole kit and caboodle. Don’t even begin to tell me that the only difference you see between TWINE and QOS is the change of directors.

No. But there are still obvious similarities in the writing department.

Purvis & Wade - Only known before Bond for dramas, most notably the highly charged "Let Him Have It".

Paul Haggis - Liberal Oscar winning writer and director, also known almost unanimously for trite, sentimental, emotionally manipulative dramas, loved by Hollywood and the Oscar crowd.

Pure Bond material, right?

Still don't want him smoking though. I didn't think Craig portrayals so far have been compromised by the absence of chain smoking.

Not considerably, though it would be a big plus. He doesn't have to visibly chain smoke either, they could be well placed throughout the film.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him on a Benzedrine & Champagne fueled card game with Drax, though....

Yep, you're right, i'm definitely a hypocrite

Hey we all are.

[Dr.Fell]

But creative clout isn't based purely on box office. I'm somewhat certain that Mendes is used to having final cut on his work, which would make him unique among directors hired for the Bond series. And I don't care whether Mann has made more money than Mendes or vice-versa - my point is that Mendes is roughly comparable with directors like Mann and Scott, in terms of being a powerful, acclaimed and respected filmmaker with enough clout to get his own projects made instead of having to work as a hired gun.

But did you not just ask about the box office ? However regarding Mendes' creative clout in Hollywood I again strugle to see how he can be highly regarded as the film makers you mentioned. Mendes hasn't directed a popular film for sometime; Critically or Finanically.

I disagree. ONLY THE DEVIL KNOWS would be a wretched title for a Bond film.

I think it's perfect and the exact play on words Fleming would have used. RISICO means nothing and dosen't even sound well. Yes Fleming used it but it dosen't mean it isn't clunky.

[Judo chop]

Not in a completely radical way, but just a willingness to... as you said, "play" around a bit.

I think Forster's "playfulness" is a bit of a mixed bag; it sometimes pays off and sometimes doesn't, and is often very flashy and overt about its stylistic choices. QUANTUM OF SOLACE often feels like Forster made his artistic choices more out of whimsy than out of some consideration for a unified whole. In interviews it seemed--to me, at least--that Forster saw Bond as a great big toybox and he could just play and construct as he saw fit.

I’d say that’s all very fair.

Now, I have no doubt that Mendes will make some strong and distinctive aesthetic choices. But I suspect he'll be deliberate, rather than playful, and as such I'm anticipating a more controlled and unified film than QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Now, I could be wrong. It's possible Mendes will treat Bond as an opportunity to just have fun and go crazy. But while I had seen a level of playfulness in Forster's films prior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I haven't seen that in Mendes' work to date.

“Strong and distinctive”, as well as expected elegance and subtlety. And all deliberate and unified. Is this not all entirely positive? Why your hesitation to celebrate the (yes, yes… rumored) acquisition of Mendes?

[Odd Jobbies]

You mis-understood, I was saying he was somewhat disappointed. And I know you weren't Oscar as an bench mark but where you not using at some sort of prestige ?

Crossed wires.

Regarding his oscar, i meant it in relation to the pressure Haggis would feel about meeting his own bench mark. It's not about what we think the worth of oscars, it's the fact that he knows the critics and general film-going public now expect a high standard from him.

Can't be pleasent turning in an unfinished script knowing the vultures are waiting to messure it up with Crash.

[double o ego]

It doesn't. Actually, I sat down to it without knowing it was Mendes and was surprised to see him credited as the director. I'd never guess it was the work of the AMERICAN BEAUTY and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD geezer. Which goes to show either that Mendes is versatile, or that he has no real signature style in the first place.

And this can only be a good thing, which ever way one wants to look at it. Versatility in a director means he's able to adapt and use various styles to create an end product that may be and is easily distinguishable from his other works. Having no signature style essentially states that, you'd be hard pressed to know who the hell directed the movie, which by the sound of some people's comments here is a concern as they dont want Bond 23 to be a Sam Mendes film.

What is only opinion? My comment regarding the lacking script? If so, it's a known fact that the script was indeed lacking, rushed and had to be written as the movie itself was being filmed. As for the editing, I don't see why I need to be careful when quoting Wilson if I'm essentially repeating what he himself said. If other people didn't read it or hear about it, I fail to see how that's my problem. Facts are facts.

Were you in the room with Haggis? Did you see him turn in a draft? Did you read the draft? Have you taken meetings with Haggis or Michael G. Wilson? Have you ever even met these people? If you haven't, then you're not qualified to talk about anything related to the 007 universe. Furthermore, don't bother quoting Haggis or Wilson, because even though they wrote and produced the last film, they're not qualified to talk about 007 movies either. Anything Barbara or Michael or Paul had to say is "purely speculation" and "tosh". We can't trust the media to accurately quote them; we can't trust video footage of them talking about the progress of the Bond films because it could be doctored. The only person we can trust to keep us informed about all things 007 is ZORIN INDUSTRIES. He knows all. He tells all.

QFT, brother.

[Dr.Fell]

Crossed wires.

Regarding his oscar, i meant it in relation to the pressure Haggis would feel about meeting his own bench mark. It's not about what we think the worth of oscars, it's the fact that he knows the critics and general film-going public now expect a high standard from him.

Can't be pleasent turning in an unfinished script knowing the vultures are waiting to messure it up with Crash.

Well according to that quote he didn't feel that way so I have to disagree. He only seemed somewhat unconfortable about leaving some blanks.

[Judo chop]

But there are still obvious similarities in the writing department.

Ok. But I think the differences are just as obvious. We don’t necessarily need a 180 turn in every facet of production for criminey’s sake.

Purvis & Wade - Only known before Bond for dramas, most notably the highly charged "Let Him Have It".

Sorry for the apparent contradiction, but I didn’t know they were known before Bond.

Paul Haggis - Liberal Oscar winning writer and director, also known almost unanimously for trite, sentimental, emotionally manipulative dramas, loved by Hollywood and the Oscar crowd.

Yes, that’s right. Oscar winning. As I said, they are definitely setting their sights higher, even if you think not necessarily wiser.

Pure Bond material, right?

I guess it depends whether you want your Bond to include “drama” or not at all. I don’t mind this Bond having some emotional conflict. I never really minded it in concept, though I admit I’m extremely tired of seeing it come in the same weak packaging time and time again. CR was a refreshing break, and QOS may not have nailed it, but I don’t think it can be said it was the same ol’ same ol’ of the Brosnan era. There is change. If you want 60’s/70’s back, then I suppose Haggis isn’t your best pick.

But at least the jokes are better.

[Harmsway]

“Strong and distinctive”, as well as expected elegance and subtlety. And all deliberate and unified. Is this not all entirely positive?

Yes.

Why your hesitation to celebrate the (yes, yes… rumored) acquisition of Mendes?

I don't love any of his films, that's why. I acknowledge that Mendes is a talented filmmaker in many respects, but I think he also tends to produce work that is pompous and hollow.

[The Shark]

Ok. But I think the differences are just as obvious. We don’t necessarily need a 180 turn in every facet of production for criminey’s sake.

I think we do, in many ways. Something that should have been dealt with when they wiped the slate clean after the Brosnan era. Ideally they should have dropped Arnold, P&W, and Dench.

Sorry for the apparent contradiction, but I didn’t know they were known before Bond.

In the business yes, though not to Joe public.

Yes, that’s right. Oscar winning. As I said, they are definitely setting their sights higher, even if you think not necessarily wiser.

Oscar Winning yes. But what are they winning their Oscars for? Taut, highly-British, old fashioned thrillers? Or insipid dramas?

[Harmsway]

Taut, highly-British, old fashioned thrillers?

Does anybody even make those anymore?

[Harmsway]

I suspect that if you liked TWINE you'll love BOND-23.

If I have a fear regarding Sam Mendes directing BOND 23, that's it, right there. I furthermore believe that it's an altogether very rational fear.

[Judo chop]

“Strong and distinctive”, as well as expected elegance and subtlety. And all deliberate and unified. Is this not all entirely positive?

Yes.

Why your hesitation to celebrate the (yes, yes… rumored) acquisition of Mendes?

I don't love any of his films, that's why. I acknowledge that Mendes is a talented filmmaker in many respects, but I think he also tends to produce work that is pompous and hollow.

I see. Well, I'll just be excited about the "yes" part for now. Hopefully Mendes gets handed a crackling script and doesn’t feel the need to make significantly more or less of it.

For whatever it’s worth, the article suggests that Craig had a strong hand in this decision and that his reasons for choosing Mendes had to do with fixing some of the errors of QOS, which I presume has more to do with narrative substance than photographic recklessness. Hopefully that can be seen as a good sign.

[baerrtt]

I suspect that if you liked TWINE you'll love BOND-23.

If I have any fears regarding Sam Mendes directing BOND 23, that's it, right there. There is no Bond film I despise more than TWINE.

I have no worries as Mendes, from genre to genre, has more of a distinctive style than Apted whose movie work post COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER reeks of ' bland director for hire' (almost like a British Chris Columbus).

[Odd Jobbies]

Crossed wires.

Regarding his oscar, i meant it in relation to the pressure Haggis would feel about meeting his own bench mark. It's not about what we think the worth of oscars, it's the fact that he knows the critics and general film-going public now expect a high standard from him.

Can't be pleasent turning in an unfinished script knowing the vultures are waiting to messure it up with Crash.

Well according to that quote he didn't feel that way so I have to disagree. He only seemed somewhat unconfortable about leaving some blanks.

Come'on Doc, we're debating the difference between 'somewhat uncomfortable' and ' unhappy'!

How about he was 'he wasn't all that happy about being somewhat uncomfortable' ?


[Edited because i was somewhat unhappy with my spelling ]

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 06 January 2010 - 05:28 PM.

[Dr.Fell]

Crossed wires.

Regarding his oscar, i meant it in relation to the pressure Haggis would feel about meeting his own bench mark. It's not about what we think the worth of oscars, it's the fact that he knows the critics and general film-going public now expect a high standard from him.

Can't be pleasent turning in an unfinished script knowing the vultures are waiting to messure it up with Crash.

Well according to that quote he didn't feel that way so I have to disagree. He only seemed somewhat unconfortable about leaving some blanks.

Come'on Doc, we'll debating the difference between 'somewhat unconfortable' and 'unhappy'!

How about he was 'he wasn't all that happy about being somewhat uncomfortable' ?

Let's just say this; We disagree about the amount of criticism he put on himself.

I suspect that if you liked TWINE you'll love BOND-23.

If I have a fear regarding Sam Mendes directing BOND 23, that's it, right there. I furthermore believe that it's an altogether very rational fear.

It is a rational fear, but it's not one I share. I've never understood any complaint about TWINE other than Richards' involvement in it. There were some amazing performances in TWINE, it had an intelligent story, a back story, and gave M the chance to get out of the office and give us more of the brazilliant Judi Dench. I'm hoping Mendes will be Apted 2.0.

I thought TWINE was the most childish approach to human emotion in any James Bond film ever.

[The Shark]

I suspect that if you liked TWINE you'll love BOND-23.

If I have a fear regarding Sam Mendes directing BOND 23, that's it, right there. I furthermore believe that it's an altogether very rational fear.

It is a rational fear, but it's not one I share. I've never understood any complaint about TWINE other than Richards' involvement in it. There were some amazing performances in TWINE, it had an intelligent story, a back story, and gave M the chance to get out of the office and give us more of the brazilliant Judi Dench. I'm hoping Mendes will be Apted 2.0.

Considering it's the cinematic antithesis to Ian Fleming, I hate it, yes. Even more so than DAD.

[jrcjohnny99]

Just one thought (and admittedly, i'm a big fan of the decision to hire Mendes);
The last time DC and Mendes worked together was "The Road to Perdition"; that happens to be one of my top 25 films of the decade.
If THAT's the standard that Craig & Mendes have for Bond 23, thats good enough for me.

[plankattack]

For whatever it’s worth, the article suggests that Craig had a strong hand in this decision and that his reasons for choosing Mendes had to do with fixing some of the errors of QOS, which I presume has more to do with narrative substance than photographic recklessness. Hopefully that can be seen as a good sign.

The article is right to "suggest" DC's role. He does get a large say in things - something reported in Sight and Sound magazine's coverage of QoS back in December of '08. DC was integral in Roger Michell being approached for QoS, and then the selection of Forster for the director's chair.

[Joe Bond]

The problem I have with posters saying Bond 23 is going to be bad because of Sam Mendes' past films without having seen the finished product and basing this opinion on Mendes' previous work. Could have anyone have predicted that Martin Campbell would have directed a great film like Casino Royale looking at his previous work where Goldeneye and The Mask of Zorro are his only good films but CR ended up IMO to be his best film of his career which is not really reflected in his previous work. Another example could be Guy Ritche, even though I have not seen Sherlock Holmes, I have heard people who don't like his previous films that actually like Sherlock Holmes and its just so happens that its his first mainstream film since most of his previous work is low budget and independent. I agree with Lommis that Mendes is a powerful and well respected director in Hollywood and this has nothing to do with the Box Office performance to his films since a lot of his films are lower budget independent fare rather than mainstream films that have bigger budgets and are intended to make a lot of money. I think that Craig wanted a director he trusts can deliver on a good script. Additionally, I think that Craig may not want to do a film as dark as Quantum of Solace so the tone could possibly be lighter in tone more in tune with CR before the ending since dark tone was one of the criticisms of Quantum of Solace. Who knows, Mendes may want to make a modern equivalent to Goldfinger or a down to earth thriller ala From Russia with Love but we don't know what type of Bond film he will want to make but I am quite sure that it will be similar to what Craig envisions for Bond 23 and that makes me satisfied with this decision.

[Harmsway]

It is a rational fear, but it's not one I share. I've never understood any complaint about TWINE other than Richards' involvement in it. There were some amazing performances in TWINE, it had an intelligent story, a back story, and gave M the chance to get out of the office and give us more of the brazilliant Judi Dench. I'm hoping Mendes will be Apted 2.0.

I've said it many times before, but I think THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is the pits. No Bond film has been drearier. It's horrendously written. But above all, it's horrifying overacted; everyone from Brosnan to Marceau to Dench delivers career-worst performances. It also didn't help that the film was completely schizophrenic, an odd mix of Roger Moore and something that passed for gritty "seriousness."

I respect the basic intent behind THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but a film has already come along and succeeded at everything THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH tried and failed to do: CASINO ROYALE.

I have no worries as Mendes, from genre to genre, has more of a distinctive style than Apted whose movie work post COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER reeks of ' bland director for hire' (almost like a British Chris Columbus).

My fear is not that BOND 23 will have TWINE's stylistic drabness (or even its astonishingly ineffective action sequences), but rather that it will contain that same seed of tedious melodrama and an overall atmosphere of pompousness. I'm just cringing at the thought of what use Mendes will make of Dench.