612 replies to this topic

[Orion]

I wasn't criticising it, i just meant that his direction is intentionally low on spectacle to allow the scripts and performances to speak for themselves, even his famous single shot from Atonement is more to enforce the horror of what's happening than the ingenuity of the shot. There's no overly composed shots such as those that Mendes and Paul McGuigan go for.

[SecretAgentFan]

I beg to differ - the famous uninterrupted shot in "Atonement" is designed to capture the desperation of the situation and to connect it with all people involved.  If that´s not a perfectly composed shot...

 

And "low on spectacle"?  Clearly, you haven´t seen his other films...

[JohnnyWalker]

I get what you mean, his films thus far have been like BBC costume dramas or the sort of films Judi Dench does outside of Bond. Pretty to look at, heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight.

Sleight is a good word for it.

 

 

I get what you mean, his films thus far have been like BBC costume dramas or the sort of films Judi Dench does outside of Bond. Pretty to look at, heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight.

 

 

Excuse me - but you´re very wrong.  

 

"Pride and Prejudice", while an Austen adaptation, was nothing "like a BBC costume drama or the sort of films Judi Dench does".  Like his stellar "Atonement" it features extremely well directed actors and breathtaking fluid camerwork, often in uninterrupted takes that are much more complex than the Mexico sequence in SPECTRE.  Also, Wright can do action ("Hanna") very well.  

 

"Heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight"?  Not at all.  Just the opposite.

 

Hanna isn't really a good example, it's much more focused on the style than the action. Hanna's early escape is too much of a music video, and in the scene where Eric Bana fights a bunch of agents the focus is more on the rotating camera.

[SecretAgentFan]

So, what is it now - sleight or too busy?

 

Anyways...  I´m not Joe Wright´s agent, and he won´t need the gig.  But I think he would be qualified.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

I get what you mean, his films thus far have been like BBC costume dramas or the sort of films Judi Dench does outside of Bond. Pretty to look at, heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight.

 

 

Excuse me - but you´re very wrong.  

 

"Pride and Prejudice", while an Austen adaptation, was nothing "like a BBC costume drama or the sort of films Judi Dench does".  Like his stellar "Atonement" it features extremely well directed actors and breathtaking fluid camerwork, often in uninterrupted takes that are much more complex than the Mexico sequence in SPECTRE.  Also, Wright can do action ("Hanna") very well.  

 

"Heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight"?  Not at all.  Just the opposite.

 

You are absolutely right Orion! You are absolutely wrong Saf.

[S K Y F A L L]

Omg Mendes sucks my fat d%^&! None of his films are really worth re watching except for his Bond films. Because Bond is in them.

Let him go back to f&^%$#@ up stage plays, lol.

and he just seems so pretentious.

[Odd Jobbies]

I like Wright's work and hate to say anything bad about him as we were briefly on our fine art foundation course together at Camberwell. But... I wasn't a fan of the 'breathtaking fluid camerawork' on Atonement. It was a little too...mmm, is 'pretty' the word i'm looking for?

 

It's a dark and disturbing story with it's darkest moment - this devastating sight - saying to me 'look at how lovely i've made it look', while simultaneously needing to say 'The horror...the horror.' It didn't manage to do both, for me - the 'horror' surrendered to the 'loveliness' of the 'fluid camerawork'.

 

I'm a much bigger fan of his camerawork in Hanna, an underrated film IMO. Not saying it's a masterpiece by any stretch, but a noteworthy, satisfyingly 'edgy' change of gear by Wright. As mentioned he works very well with actors as the consistently fine performances in his films suggest and would make an interesting Bond movie, so long as it has no overtly staged fluid camera moments a la the beach scene of Atonement.

 

As for Pan, well Spielberg's Hook is certainly no masterpiece and there's no finer company to fail in. I'm sure great things are yet to come from Wright, but whether that should involve Bond... I'm sure even Wright himself would be excited to see a Nolan Bond movie and though Dunkirk puts him out of Bond 25 (should the latter stick to schedule), only a madman [IMHO] would bet against Nolan doing one, or two...or three at some point.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

I get what you mean, his films thus far have been like BBC costume dramas or the sort of films Judi Dench does outside of Bond. Pretty to look at, heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight.

 

 

Excuse me - but you´re very wrong.  

 

"Pride and Prejudice", while an Austen adaptation, was nothing "like a BBC costume drama or the sort of films Judi Dench does".  Like his stellar "Atonement" it features extremely well directed actors and breathtaking fluid camerwork, often in uninterrupted takes that are much more complex than the Mexico sequence in SPECTRE.  Also, Wright can do action ("Hanna") very well.  

 

"Heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight"?  Not at all.  Just the opposite.

 

You are absolutely right Orion! You are absolutely wrong Saf.

 

 

Well, that´s settled then.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

I get what you mean, his films thus far have been like BBC costume dramas or the sort of films Judi Dench does outside of Bond. Pretty to look at, heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight.

 

 

Excuse me - but you´re very wrong.  

 

"Pride and Prejudice", while an Austen adaptation, was nothing "like a BBC costume drama or the sort of films Judi Dench does".  Like his stellar "Atonement" it features extremely well directed actors and breathtaking fluid camerwork, often in uninterrupted takes that are much more complex than the Mexico sequence in SPECTRE.  Also, Wright can do action ("Hanna") very well.  

 

"Heavy on dialogue, but a bit sleight"?  Not at all.  Just the opposite.

 

You are absolutely right Orion! You are absolutely wrong Saf.

 

 

Well, that´s settled then.

 

 

Lol

 

Wright's last few films have been very style-over-substance, and haven't impressed me. Then again, SP could really have done with more style to jazz up the weak story...

[Harmsway]

I think we need a director capable of making a lean, mean picture, capable of avoiding the excesses of the past few Bond pictures and making sure they get the basics right.

[SecretAgentFan]

You are absolutely right.

[Marcin]

I think we need a director capable of making a lean, mean picture, capable of avoiding the excesses of the past few Bond pictures and making sure they get the basics right.

So basically we need Martin Campbell.
I have a strange feeling that he will direct Bond 25. It would be a good and SAFE choice, in my opinion.

[tdalton]

It won't be Martin Campbell.  He's already stated that his two films were enough.  

 

Plus he'll be 75 years old when Bond 25 debuts in 2018.   

[Marcin]

Didn't know about his statement. Shame.

[SecretAgentFan]

Campbell will be doing a Hemingway adaptation with Brosnan next, by the way - after he finishes his work on the Jackie Chan/Brosnan-thriler.

[Orion]

Basically Campbell has been singing the same tune regarding Bond since 95, he has no interest in doing just Goldeneye again, or just Casino Royale again. Studio briefs for sequels to both those was just wanting the same again, so no Campbell.

[JohnnyWalker]

So we want a tv director then. Unless people think Campbell was a visionary when he made Bond movies, but somehow incapable of doing anything else.

[Orion]

So we want a tv director then. Unless people think Campbell was a visionary when he made Bond movies, but somehow incapable of doing anything else.

Well, the first Zorro is good, the rest is...well...

[RMc2]

In a perfect world, Campbell would make Bond 25 with Craig and it would be brilliant. But I'd prefer Campbell weren't given the opportunity to sully his perfect Bond record. Most third-time Bond directors drop the ball (Gilbert-MR, Glen-AVTAK, even Hamilton-LALD depending on your opinion).

 

And yeah, it doesn't help that Legend Of Zorro and Green Lantern happened!

Edited by RMc2, 23 February 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Pierceuhhh]

Apparently Craig & Campbell didn't get on at all, so Campbell won't be back.

[SecretAgentFan]

Apparently Craig & Campbell didn't get on at all, so Campbell won't be back.

 

Apparently?  Never read anything about that anywhere.  Trying to start rumours?

[Orion]

 

Apparently Craig & Campbell didn't get on at all, so Campbell won't be back.

 

Apparently?  Never read anything about that anywhere.  Trying to start rumours?

 

Welcome to the internet where it is assumed all people in entertainment are unprofessional jerks to each other despite everyone who ACTUALLY works in the industry knowing the first rule for survival in the industry is "Don't burn bridges no matter what you feel"

[Pierceuhhh]

Read it online a couple of years ago & don't remember where - sorry! But with that in mind, it makes sense when you realise they never seem to talk about or express interest in working with one another in interviews.

I'd say Campbell was a slavedriver. The Goldeneye special features seem to back this up! Brosnan candidly talks about how scary Campbell is, but also seems to respect and value him, and seems eager to work with him again - which he now is. Maybe Craig is a more SENSITIVE SOUL than Pierce.

I think Royale was quite a lazy movie anyway, compared to the quite sharp Goldeneye, so conside Campbell well past his prime.

[SecretAgentFan]

Read it online a couple of years ago & don't remember where - sorry! But with that in mind, it makes sense when you realise they never seem to talk about or express interest in working with one another in interviews.

I'd say Campbell was a slavedriver. The Goldeneye special features seem to back this up! Brosnan candidly talks about how scary Campbell is, but also seems to respect and value him, and seems eager to work with him again - which he now is. Maybe Craig is a more SENSITIVE SOUL than Pierce.

I think Royale was quite a lazy movie anyway, compared to the quite sharp Goldeneye, so conside Campbell well past his prime.

 

Wow, a whole post of mud-slinging based on a personal impression that is questionable at best.

 

By the way: Brosnan not only signed up for co-starring in the next Jackie Chan-movie directed by Campbell but also will star next in a Campbell-directed Hemingway adaptation.

[Agent 76]

I wouldn't mind watch Shane Black handling a Bond movie. I think he knows how to blend action with humour as well, with dramatic elements thrown in the mix.

[Double-Oh Agent]

The thing that gives me great pause about Shane Black is his work on Iron Man 3 which totally ruins/makes a mockery of a great character in Iron Man's arch-nemesis the Mandarin. I'd rather go elsewhere.

[Odd Jobbies]

The thing that gives me great pause about Shane Black is his work on Iron Man 3 which totally ruins/makes a mockery of a great character in Iron Man's arch-nemesis the Mandarin. I'd rather go elsewhere.

Personally i thought the Mandarin twist was genius and written, directed and performed with real aplomb. It was smartly self-referential, but not at all in a way that undermined the characters; in fact it's by far the most 3-dimensional rendering of the character yet shot, IMO.

[rubixcub]

I guess if "The Foreigner" does OK, Campbell might be asked again; or it may have nothing to do with that.  Feel like it's going to be Morten Tyldum (who has no projects currently lined up after "Passengers") or Denis Villeneuve (less likely, since "Blade Runner" comes out in 2018, likely the release year of Bond 25).

 

Dave

[Revelator]

I haven't read over every post in the thread, so my apologies if this has been raised and dismissed before, but what about Spielberg? His craftsmanship is beyond debate and he's wanted to direct a Bond film for decades. One possible objection is that his last Indiana Jones film was rather bad, but few directors could have overcome such a script. A second objection is that Broccoli and Wilson would be loathe to have a big-name director take on Bond, but hasn't that already happened with Mendes? And while Spielberg's decisions as a director would certainly have to be accepted, at other levels, such as scripting, he's less likely to dominate the production (no more than Mendes anyway).

Edited by Revelator, 05 March 2016 - 01:42 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Spielberg would completely dominate the production, bringing in his whole staff, pushing EON into an executive producer status at best.

 

Spielberg also only works for a huge part of the back end profits - which EON would not allow and rightly so.  It´s their franchise.

 

Spielberg, I believe, would not even be interested anymore in directing a Bond film, and is overbooked with potential projects, including another Indiana Jones film.