Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Sam Mendes Willing to Do Another


84 replies to this topic

#61 When In Egypt

When In Egypt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 149 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 12 January 2013 - 03:08 PM

I love Moonraker.  I honestly can't understand why everyone hates it.  Surely not because of a couple of terrible jokes?  

 

I love it because it's Roger Moore, it's the 70s, and it's absolutely awash with excess and spectacle.  Fantastic!

 

The Bond movies would be very boring (not to mention defunct) if they were all like From Russia With Love.  Celebrate the diversity!

 

Sorry.  Went a bit off topic there.  I'm alright now.



#62 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

I love Moonraker.  I honestly can't understand why everyone hates it.  Surely not because of a couple of terrible jokes?  

 

I love it because it's Roger Moore, it's the 70s, and it's absolutely awash with excess and spectacle.  Fantastic!

 

The Bond movies would be very boring (not to mention defunct) if they were all like From Russia With Love.  Celebrate the diversity!

 

Sorry.  Went a bit off topic there.  I'm alright now.

I'm fine with Bond going OTT and having spectacle. The problem with MR (and DAD) is that it goes too far. Bond in space? Really? And it has the worst special effects in the whole series.



#63 lechero

lechero

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 278 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

 

I love Moonraker.  I honestly can't understand why everyone hates it.  Surely not because of a couple of terrible jokes?  

 

I love it because it's Roger Moore, it's the 70s, and it's absolutely awash with excess and spectacle.  Fantastic!

 

The Bond movies would be very boring (not to mention defunct) if they were all like From Russia With Love.  Celebrate the diversity!

 

Sorry.  Went a bit off topic there.  I'm alright now.

I'm fine with Bond going OTT and having spectacle. The problem with MR (and DAD) is that it goes too far. Bond in space? Really? And it has the worst special effects in the whole series.

 

Uhm, what? The MR miniature work still holds up very well today. The tsunami surfing scene in DAD however looked horrible and dated even on release.



#64 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:35 PM

 

 

I love Moonraker.  I honestly can't understand why everyone hates it.  Surely not because of a couple of terrible jokes?  

 

I love it because it's Roger Moore, it's the 70s, and it's absolutely awash with excess and spectacle.  Fantastic!

 

The Bond movies would be very boring (not to mention defunct) if they were all like From Russia With Love.  Celebrate the diversity!

 

Sorry.  Went a bit off topic there.  I'm alright now.

I'm fine with Bond going OTT and having spectacle. The problem with MR (and DAD) is that it goes too far. Bond in space? Really? And it has the worst special effects in the whole series.

 

Uhm, what? The MR miniature work still holds up very well today. The tsunami surfing scene in DAD however looked horrible and dated even on release.

 

Need I remind of the laser fight in space?



#65 lechero

lechero

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 278 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

 

Doesn't look too bad for 1979.



#66 When In Egypt

When In Egypt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 149 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:00 PM

I don't have a problem with Bond in space ... in that particular film.  It's just a natural extension of Stromberg's underwater kingdom.  Not a trace of realism, and in Moonraker that's fine.  

 

You must agree, though, that the space station set was fantastic.



#67 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:19 PM

 

Doesn't look too bad for 1979.

Yes it does, compare it to Star Wars which was released 2 years earlier and looks about 1000 times better.



#68 Mr. A Martin

Mr. A Martin

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 10 posts
  • Location:I could tell you, but then...

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:28 PM

He's a good director, no doubt, but..I just had higher expectations for this film. It was for me a little to dark, the mood was depressing, and the connective tissue between scenes was to inconsistant. When moneypenny shot Bond by accident, she stll had time for a second shot and if you follow the premise that she was a good enough marksman to hit a extremely fast moving target, then as a professional the asassin would have been toast before that train traversed another hundred feet. to many plot holes like this to recommend this film and director.

 



#69 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:53 PM

Use the force Bond.

 

I suppose that Mendes hasn't announced any upcoming projects thus far that I know of. So that is a good sign for those who are hoping for his return.



He's a good director, no doubt, but..I just had higher expectations for this film. It was for me a little to dark, the mood was depressing, and the connective tissue between scenes was to inconsistant. When moneypenny shot Bond by accident, she stll had time for a second shot and if you follow the premise that she was a good enough marksman to hit a extremely fast moving target, then as a professional the asassin would have been toast before that train traversed another hundred feet. to many plot holes like this to recommend this film and director.

 

That's one of the little things that disappointed me too, I felt the film was a little to over dramatic at times and that was one of them. Welcome to the Club. 



#70 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:44 PM

who cares about plot holes every movie has them..........every fan should love this movie.....screw the plot holes and Moneypenny would never be able to shoot PAtrice too inexperience.........sigh it the critic job............



#71 Mr Teddy Bear

Mr Teddy Bear

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1154 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:02 AM

He's a good director, no doubt, but..I just had higher expectations for this film. It was for me a little to dark, the mood was depressing, and the connective tissue between scenes was to inconsistant. When moneypenny shot Bond by accident, she stll had time for a second shot and if you follow the premise that she was a good enough marksman to hit a extremely fast moving target, then as a professional the asassin would have been toast before that train traversed another hundred feet. to many plot holes like this to recommend this film and director.

 

Didn't the film make a point that she was not cut out to be a field agent?



#72 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:16 AM

With news of Mendes' new series, is it possible that he is done with Bond 24?



#73 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:03 AM

With news of Mendes' new series, is it possible that he is done with Bond 24?


I doubt it'll tie him up to the point that he couldn't do BOND 24 if he wanted. Logan is already on board for the next Bond and he sounds as though he'll be more involved in the series than Mendes.

With that said, I would greatly prefer a different director for BOND 24, but I don't think this new series will result in a change. I think monetary issues are the most likely reason we won't see Mendes back. If the money is right, I'm sure he'll be on board.

#74 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:51 AM

 

With news of Mendes' new series, is it possible that he is done with Bond 24?


I doubt it'll tie him up to the point that he couldn't do BOND 24 if he wanted. Logan is already on board for the next Bond and he sounds as though he'll be more involved in the series than Mendes.

With that said, I would greatly prefer a different director for BOND 24, but I don't think this new series will result in a change. I think monetary issues are the most likely reason we won't see Mendes back. If the money is right, I'm sure he'll be on board.

 

The film is most likely going to pass TDKR for the second highest grossing film of 2012 and close in on $1.1 billion. I don't think money will be an issue.



#75 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:10 AM

 

 

With news of Mendes' new series, is it possible that he is done with Bond 24?


I doubt it'll tie him up to the point that he couldn't do BOND 24 if he wanted. Logan is already on board for the next Bond and he sounds as though he'll be more involved in the series than Mendes.

With that said, I would greatly prefer a different director for BOND 24, but I don't think this new series will result in a change. I think monetary issues are the most likely reason we won't see Mendes back. If the money is right, I'm sure he'll be on board.

 

The film is most likely going to pass TDKR for the second highest grossing film of 2012 and close in on $1.1 billion. I don't think money will be an issue.

 

 

You're right in that they'll probably find the money.  One never knows when it comes to a negotiation, but unless Mendes wants far too much money (especially considering this is a producer-driven franchise) or has other projects lined up he wants to work on instead, he'll most likely be back.



#76 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:07 AM

He's a good director, no doubt, but..I just had higher expectations for this film. It was for me a little to dark, the mood was depressing, and the connective tissue between scenes was to inconsistant. When moneypenny shot Bond by accident, she stll had time for a second shot and if you follow the premise that she was a good enough marksman to hit a extremely fast moving target, then as a professional the asassin would have been toast before that train traversed another hundred feet. to many plot holes like this to recommend this film and director.


That's a screenplay issue, not direction.


 
Doesn't look too bad for 1979.

Yes it does, compare it to Star Wars which was released 2 years earlier and looks about 1000 times better.

 



Of course it does. That's from the 2004 Special Edition.

#77 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:12 AM

Given how much input and control over the script that Mendes claims to have had (as well as how long the script was in development), I think it's reasonable to assign some blame for any issues one might have with the script to Mendes.



#78 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:36 PM

 

He's a good director, no doubt, but..I just had higher expectations for this film. It was for me a little to dark, the mood was depressing, and the connective tissue between scenes was to inconsistant. When moneypenny shot Bond by accident, she stll had time for a second shot and if you follow the premise that she was a good enough marksman to hit a extremely fast moving target, then as a professional the asassin would have been toast before that train traversed another hundred feet. to many plot holes like this to recommend this film and director.


That's a screenplay issue, not direction.

 


 
Doesn't look too bad for 1979.

Yes it does, compare it to Star Wars which was released 2 years earlier and looks about 1000 times better.

 

 


Of course it does. That's from the 2004 Special Edition.

 

Oh whatever.



#79 JamesPup

JamesPup

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:08 AM

One of the next Bonds should have an ex- KGB agent have his own illegal weapons trafficking with legitimate cover businesses. It could be that he was longing and had a weakness for his old KGB work of selling arms and trafficking that lead him into crime. He could have left the KGB because of a MI6 agent that shot him in the leg and he can look like Blofeld and be like FDR and need a cane and wheel chair at times but is strong. He can have people from different countries that help sell the weapons by regions throughout the world. Like having a black man selling in Africa and an Arab man selling in the Middle East. They could be like SPECTRE and have many ways to fool the world of their weapon selling. They can throw off the balance of power between countries and regions with their weapon deals, so much so that James Bond is sent out to stop them.



#80 Dan Gale

Dan Gale

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 185 posts
  • Location:The British Isles, gawd blessum

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:14 PM

Campbell can do the next one so long as Michael France isn't writing cliched dialogue for it, that he gets a decent continuity girl/guy in and he doesn't let Eric Serra anywhere near it. He didn't have the hutzpah (at the time) to admit all of the above were at fault in his first Bond - making G*ldeneye the first Bond film where the video game was better than the movie - and yet HE was in charge. I can see he's learnt from this but I still have my doubts... though they're not as strong as they were in late 2006 up until I saw Casino Royale (and then went "phew".) Even masters can cock it up...look at Hitchcock's run after The Birds, two 'meh's and then a total stinker with Topazzzzzzzzzzz.

#81 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:21 PM

Campbell can do the next one so long as Paul Haggis isn't writing clich├ęd, phoney, dialogue for it, that he gets an actress that has chemistry with the lead actor, and he doesn't let David Arnold anywhere near it. He didn't have the chutzpah to admit all of the above were at fault in his second Bond.


Corrected. ;)



#82 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

Star Wars is 2000 times better than Moonraker both special effects both plot-wise.

 

Edit: also the soundtrack. I like the Moonraker song, but it's nothing compared to Williams' Force Theme and Imperial March (and all of the other themes).


Edited by Walecs, 21 January 2013 - 01:04 PM.


#83 rubixcub

rubixcub

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:23 PM

http://www.007.info/...e-set-for-2014/

 

First from the rumor mill.  Apparently he's been a reliable source in the past.

 

This would probably push up the release date for Bond 24 to December instead of November, if true.

 

Dave



#84 Double-0-Seven

Double-0-Seven

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2710 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:10 AM

Not necessarily - Casino Royale started filming in January of '06 and made it's November release. It really just depends on how extensive the shoot is.

 

I think that report is believable. The box office of Skyfall alone makes it almost a certainty that they'll try to get Mendes back. They've asked Campbell back both times he's directed (I mean they asked him for TND and then again for QOS), so I don't see why they wouldn't ask back the director who gave them the highest grossing film.



#85 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

I wonder if those films would have been better with Campbell. I think they would. Being QOS' script awful, the movie wouldn't have been good, but maybe Campell'd do a good job.