33 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

In addition to that, I don't think Mendes and Forster are that far apart, visually speaking. (Their films I mean. Not they themselves. Mendes is way hairy.) They're of the same cloth, IMO. I think Forster had some great stuff in QOS. Enough to pave the way for what I expect from Skyfall. Of course Forster had some failed stuff too, but I think at least Forster was of a mind to reach for the same goals that Mendes proabably will acheive.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE never really mucked up the cinematography as much as it mucked up the editing. Indeed, the editing is the number one problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. (I'm not really talking about the action sequences as much as I'm talking about everything else.) Visually, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was above-average for the Bond franchise. The locales were sometimes a bit squalid and personality-less for my tastes--even the villain's grand fundraiser takes place at a barely glossed-up ruined building--but Schaefer's cinematography was generally pretty strong.

My expectation is that SKYFALL will look exceptionally lovely. Deakins is a first-rate cinematographer, and the small glimpses we've had of SKYFALL's cinematography suggests he's going to make SKYFALL look exceptionally stylish. Further aiding SKYFALL is that the locations would appear to be much more exotic and colorful than those from QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and that Stuart Baird is back in the editing room, which will hopefully mean that the film's fine images will be sustained for more than brief flashes.

[Judo chop]

For me, the movies divide around into two around about Moonraker. Moonraker is when the movies became an action adventure spectacle. Pre that, they're more like thrillers with a great sequence thrown in. The fight on the train in From Russia with Love or the boat chase in Live and Let Die, but fundamentally they're structured like thrillers." [/i]

It just seems like a really odd thing to say to me. I mean, how is For Your Eyes Only any less of a thriller than Diamonds Are Forever, for instance?

Yes. Very odd. I want to say 'ignorant', in fact. Even if one were to draw a line separating the films (which already is a silly thing to try to do as you've pointed out), why pick MOONRAKER of all places. If there are two films that I find to be essentially carbon copies in terms of content and structure, it's TSWLM and MOONRAKER.

[univex]

Maybe the Man meant they pushed the limits on that one, giving room for further limit-crossing in other films to come, hence, it all changed with MR. Just my two cent here though.

In addition to that, I don't think Mendes and Forster are that far apart, visually speaking. (Their films I mean. Not they themselves. Mendes is way hairy.) They're of the same cloth, IMO. I think Forster had some great stuff in QOS. Enough to pave the way for what I expect from Skyfall. Of course Forster had some failed stuff too, but I think at least Forster was of a mind to reach for the same goals that Mendes proabably will acheive.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE never really mucked up the cinematography as much as it mucked up the editing. Indeed, the editing is the number one problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. (I'm not really talking about the action sequences as much as I'm talking about everything else.) Visually, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was above-average for the Bond franchise. The locales were sometimes a bit squalid and personality-less for my tastes--even the villain's grand fundraiser takes place at a barely glossed-up ruined building--but Schaefer's cinematography was generally pretty strong.

My expectation is that SKYFALL will look exceptionally lovely. Deakins is a first-rate cinematographer, and the small glimpses we've had of SKYFALL's cinematography suggests he's going to make SKYFALL look exceptionally stylish. Further aiding SKYFALL is that the locations would appear to be much more exotic and colorful than those from QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and that Stuart Baird is back in the editing room, which will hopefully mean that the film's fine images will be sustained for more than brief flashes.

As always, my feelings exactly Harms. There´s no way, come, say, 2013, that SF will be compared with QOS or CR for that matter. All different films on account of different locations and overall feeling, not just crew and direction. I´d say, not wanting to do some futurism here, that SF will stand on a league of its own.

[Luigi Ferrari]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-18525498

Mendes: Bond has 'strong similarities' with Shakespeare

Shakespeare and James Bond have more in common than might first appear, claims Oscar-winning film-maker Sam Mendes.
"There are actually quite strong similarities," the American Beauty director told Radio 4's Front Row. "You have a kind of familiarity with it."
Mendes is currently editing Skyfall, the 23rd official James Bond film, ahead of its autumn release.
He is also the executive producer of a series of BBC films based on Shakespeare's history plays.
Because of his involvement with classical theatre, Mendes said it was "not an unusual feeling... to deal with characters [like Bond] that already exist".

"Where [Skyfall] differs is it's a totally new story," he went on. "We're not remaking Live and Let Die or The Spy Who Loved Me.
"You don't have that certainty that you have with Shakespeare, that there is a structure there that will hold you, a story that fundamentally works that has been tried and tested over many years."
Mendes is producing BBC dramatisations of Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II and Henry V that will air from June as part of the Cultural Olympiad and the BBC's Shakespeare Unlocked season.
Earlier this week it was confirmed the 46-year-old would direct a new musical based on Roald Dahl's novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, to open in London's West End next year.