It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wasn't here then... what happened?
Sadly, I think you are right. I jumped on the poster because he established an account just to post the rumor, so I didn't believe him. But he was not snarky or nasty about the rumor as I recall, and by this time EON should have said something to blunt the tons of replacement rumors in the press and they haven't said a word. So it makes me think where there is smoke etc. etc. I was really looking forward to Craig, Lea and Waltz continuing the SP storyline in B25. I hope it's not true, but...
Seriously? Oh...
Gee, we're discussing the end of the movie now. I've written this already 10 times but this thread should not exist, or should be tagged "leaks / spoiler" to the max.
Agreed
Dans actual and only quote regarding this
“I’ve been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it. But they won’t let me go, and I’ve agreed to do a couple more, but let’s see how this one does, because business is business,” he told Rolling Stone two years ago.
Wow, lets see if you can find someone to agree with you.. I think Barbs has done a fantastic job, everyone makes bad calls sometime but her good calls massivley outweight the bad.
FYI Foster was a highly sought after director after Finding Neverland's 7 academy awards including best picture and received critical acclaim, and he proved post QOS he could deliver with World War Z he was working under huge financial and timing problems and screen writers strike at the time of QOS, are you saying Foster having won 7 Oscars you would say no thanks?
Tamahori again received praise for his adaptation of the Patterson Alex Cross novel Along Came a Spider. Considering what he had done with transfering that charachter to film it made sense, its considered one of thee great thrillers. It made sense to give him the chair on DAD.
Your easy in hindsight to be critical but both directors had the credentials and prior sucess to support their ability to do a Bond film.
I agree. They had the credentials (except for Apted).
However, I think EON must take blame for not keeping their directors on a tighter leash. The brief must be clearer/stricter so that these journeymen don't take too much creative license (editing mishaps in QoS & nearly everything about DAD/TWINE imho). Tough thing to do.....I realize.....in a creative profession.
Seriously what all this talk about Cubby being so great, yeah we owe him a great debt and yes he did steer the ship but this was the guy that told Spielberg to come back a bit later even though he'd already directed that shark film.
Spielberg then went to Lucas and George said look I've got something better than Bond and boy he wasn't wrong. Then a a few years later we get some tacky Raiders rip off sequence with racist overtones directed by Glen that looks ridiculous compared to the beards masterpiece.
Personally I feel Babs and MGW have had their missteps but Cubby played it safe for far too long and if they'd followed down this trajectory I don't think we'd be talking about Bond like we are now. Yes personally you might not like it but to say they've made a mess of this, this looks a bit silly when you considered they delivered a billion dollar grossing entry just under 3 years ago.
If that is cocking things up I can only imagine what the series will be like when they make better decisions. Some people want this to resemble the Bond they remember but it won't, these films are long way away from the Moore type adventures that came out every two years.
I actually think some people would accept an OK action actor (like Statham) in the role if they could have something like those cosy Moore adventures. Lets face it the James Bond series is not your bitch.
I always assumed that comment about wanting to get out since he got in was clearly jokingly said, and found it weird (though typical) that it was reported as a serious statement. It's pretty clear that he has enjoyed Bond, and he could have not signed a contract continuing his tenure had he actually wanted out.
I agree on the point you're making. It's always easy to be critical afterwards.
A correction though, Finding Neverland was nominated for several Oscars, yes, but only actually won one (for the score). Also, Forster himself was not nominated for that or other movies at the Academy Awards, but was nominated for GG and DGA (didn't win either). But still, yes, he had credentials.
I think he made the best move possible by shunning Spielberg and I'm a massive Spielberg fan, particularly 75-93. It wasn't the right time (I still don't think it is) to have an uber-director step into the franchise, irrespective of his talent and Raiders is one of my favourite films. It's a similar scenario to fans clamouring for Nolan to step in. So Spielberg pulls off a great film... what next? Does he do another? Or does he step away. Is the next film now judged as a Bond film or the Bond film that follows the 'Spielberg' Bond film. And if they don't get a bigger name, what then? Cubby made the films a producer led gig, he was effectively a showrunner before that became an actual job, which was a master stroke because it was the bedrock of the legacy, no director could step in, ego in hand and really fuck it up (Tamahori). He laid the enormous foundations which allow this franchise to continually flourish. People expect Bond in their life. It's not a franchise that dies for decades at a time, or one people expect to run out of steam.
Aside from that, I really don't understand the reverence people have for certain directors when it comes to Bond. Martin Campbell is not regarded as an auteur, yet he's put together two of the greatest Bond films of all time. No pretension, no nonsense. The key is to Babs and MGW staying strong and maintaining this role of 'showrunners', because if they let it slip, one day they'll hire a big time director who's spent their career always getting their own way and mark my words they will royally fuck it.
100% in agreement on Campbell. I don't think anyone in the recent past gets Bond as well as he does. Including Mendes imho.
to me, Campbell strikes the perfect balance between action and drama, has pitch-perfect sense of tone and rhythm and I would love him to come back for more. imho GE nad CR are their actors' best films (so far, regarding Craig) and it's only a pitty that Campbell is at 72 this year, so let's hope he'll have a third chance at Bond sooner than later
My genuine belief is that it should be the job of MGW and Babs to unearth directors like this, who just 'get' Bond. Not necessarily people who are Oscar nominated Bond fans.
No director would take a job under those terms.
TBH I have to agree with the Martin Campbell comments he just gets it and delivers the goods. QOS would have been a stronger film with him at the helm.
Campbell is fine and if he returned I'd have no problem but I think using Mendes has now changed what type of director gets the job and when he decides he's had enough I don't see it not being another acclaimed director, not one that wants all control like Nolan but someone with a style, I don't want Bond films all looking the same anyway. They need an individuality to them.
Like I said these films aren't the ones under Cubby anymore and Babs & MGW despite a few missteps are doing allot better than some of you give them credit. Personal opinion aside these films are not flopping are they?
Granted if SPECTRE becomes a huge financial flop then maybe they need to look at things but really do you see that happening on the back of Skyfall?
No. They are not flopping and neither will SP. But at the same time I don't and never have judged movies in terms of monetary success, purely the movie. Whether SF made 500m or 1bn is irrelevant to me, I still find it an inferior film, by quite some distance in areas, to CR.
After the CR relaunch, the subsequent films are helmed by Oscar winners, yet to me CR stills stands well above both. A film directed by someone with a sense of style, storytelling verve and visual panache, but perhaps not in the 'marketable' name bracket that appears to be in vogue.
I don't recall them putting up as much of a fight to get Campbell back for QoS, as they did Mendes for SP. That I find strange. Money and hype talks, though.
Last years best big budget flick, GOTG was directed by a (in Hollywood terms) newcomer. This years best thus far, MM:FR is directed by a veteran whose last two movies were 'Happy Feet'.
We can't forget these films are ultimately popcorn flicks and there are great directors out there who know how to perfectly balance story, character and action without the need to feel the overly artistic burden of being considered 'Oscar' worthy.
The Oscar hype after SF was just nonsense.
I hope SP is awesome, but whatever the outcome I definitely don't think they need to get into the routine of hiring the 'flavour of the month' or 'talent du jour', whether that's actor, director, cinematographer...
Writing seems, to me, to be where a lot of potential lies when taking Bond to the next level.
Forster is not an Oscar winner. Anyway, I agree Oscar (or other award) stuff can be given more importance than it deserves and also fitting to do something particular does not require having awards, nor do awards mean the result will be better.
Finding good people can be tricky though (directors, cast...). Campbell not having been used more was indeed a pity. Otherwise, somebody may seem like the right person beforehand, and isn't. Newcomers may turn out to be awesome, as may people who haven't done anything big before, or anything that good before, or not for a long time. Some people also say no, or aren't available due to schedule conflicts. I'm sure the producers have the franchise's best interests at heart, but it's always more or less a risk, that may or may not work. Previous proven credentials presumably make it a safer bet.
I haven't seen GOTG (nor can I claim any interest in seeing it), so I can't comment. With MMFR though, I understand the director owns the rights, so it was his baby to make. I do agree it's excellent. (And I enjoyed both Happy Feet movies, too, btw, apart from the irritating singing).
Spot on.
You're right to a limited extent but to say you can't get a positive spin out of it is shortsighted and far from the truth. It's worked for many movies, a classic example being Bale's batman. It not being the last Bond movie is obvious, Bond is here to stay and after 53 years on the screen and seeing a massive resurgence in popularity last seen in 1964, it's not even up for discussion. However, the next Bond actor is an itch no scratch can relieve so that's always going to be a bothersome distraction irrespective of who's in the role and how long they've been in it or have it but a very positive outcome could definitely come from announcing Craig's last Bond movie when the time comes, which won't be for a good few years. It just depends how they spin it.
I have a feeling though there is going to be a very long gap after Craig leaves though.
I very much doubt it. With the amount of money Bond films make now, there won't be another long break, apart from unforseen things (legal issues, for exemple). If the rest of the Craig era stays on the level of SF's box office, there is no way EON and the studio linked to them will want to wait before making the next film with the new actor and continue bringing in the big cash. If anything, the wait between Craig's last and Bond 7's first will be shorter than between DAD and CR, as there won't be a period of uncertainty after the universally panned DAD.