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
Never seen Sherlock, but any remotely competent director is better than Mendes in my book.
Re: Paul McGuigan...hiring a "brass tacks" action flick director (and especially one who isn't a "name") would be a surprising yet not at all unwelcome move from the producers. They've hired a wide range of director types in the past, from those who've been more known for their action directing to those more familiar with human drama.
I'm not personally familiar with any of the film work of Paul McGuigan, but I will say this much in his favor: the man has previously worked with David Arnold on four episodes of Sherlock...
@Some_Kind_Of_Hero, I forgot about the Arnold connection there. Very true.
As Craig gets more expensive, they have to cut costs somewhere...
Lol. Yes, I'm sure Arnold will be willing to work within a reasonable budget for Bond. I don't know that film composers in general demand the kinds of bucks that actors do, however. Maybe if you're John Williams or Hans Zimmer you do. Still, I think they're a modestly compensated profession.
+1 I think even the bigger Mendes fans would agree a change is due. Is there anyone actually on here that would really love to see Mendes return to complete a trilogy, and is so why? And what would you like his approach to be this time?
I think an overwhelming number would agree that Sam Mendesed all over those films. I count myself as more of a fan than most here, but his films were very atypical Bond films in major ways, hence my comment about him stamping his mark all over the place. He worked with the Bond elements, sure, but those films aren't geared to be regular old Bond movies. Most here don't want him dead and gone for no reason...
Bravo @PanchitoPistoles
My feelings exactly.
With SF, it was clear that Mendes had an agenda. Bond was just the vessel for him to express it. He wanted to make his own film, and we are left with something that was wholly distinct. Not only was SF hermetically sealed but it worked within the broader brushstrokes of the series. It's a singular piece of filmmaking in a franchise that often celebrates homogenisation and tradition.
SP was Mendes' attempt to make a 'Bond film' - he was cutting loose and following the formula. With SF he was challenging himself. He was asking important questions about class, nationality, middle-age, relevancy, etc. But with SP, he wanted a paycheck.
If he comes back - and I hope he does - let's hope he strips it down. He ditches the emphasis on background characters. No Madeline, no MI6 subplots, just focus on Bond (just like how CR did).
Mendes would make a brilliant character piece about an old spy on his last mission, especially in a post Brexit/Trump world. That's a tantalising proposition for Bond 25.
He currently has numerous films in development:
Beautiful Ruins (Nothing heard on this for a long while)
James and the Giant Peach (Once again, it's been quiet, but with his theatre background, I can imagine him wanting to move on this one.
My favourite Thing is Monsters (Probably the most interesting of the three)
He's just about to open The Ferryman in London (written by SP's Jez Butterworth) - could Babs convince them to both com back for Bond 25?
He should never have attempted to make a more formulaic Bond film though. He doesn't have a clue, and neither do P&W imho.
So if he does come back (and I'm definitely open to it) he should stick to what he knows, and not try to cloak it in formula that he, Tweedledee & Tweedledum & the lead actor cannot properly deliver without it being obvious and inauthentic.
However, as @DaltonCraig007 says, it doesn't make sense for Mendes to return and not continue his story. As I've mentioned before, I believe Craig means Mendes and vice versa. I still think that's how it's going to play out despite rumours of late.
I think SP's production and what he went through well put him off of going down that road again.
1. His love of S word titles: maybe I am being unfair here and I figured I would start with this perhaps it was coincidental that both his films were one word S titles or maybe this EON playing it safe due to the back lash of usuing a Fleming title in 2008 ( again I buy Wilson's reasoning for usuing Quantum of Solace and that Bond needs that post Vesper heck if Fleming were alive in 08 I think he would of agreed clearly I am the only one who listened to Wilson during the announcement but oh well) still it's getting boring and that is not how I should feel when they announce the new title I should be intrigued excited but if Mendes came back and Bond 25 is Shatterhand I will only feel boredom.
2. Poor use of music: Again Newman is Mendes's guy and I feel he doesn't work plus both title songs have been the same wish washy depressing nature I get it times are tough both sides of the political spectrum are upset blah blah blah I want fun bombastic music hell Nixon and Vietnam were going on and we got two of the most fun bond themes live and let die and the man with the golden gun ( and rock is not dead so they could hire Muse or hell Rush to do the theme)
3. Too much of an ignorance of what worked in the first two films: ok skyfall was going to be Craig's Goldfinger ok then spectre comes along and says wait no they were all part of Spectre and I'm like what? Quantum as a sequel to casino has its flaws and makes some retroactive changes to Royale (if Guy Haines was a quantum member in Royale I doubt he would of had Bond at the table against Le Chiffe but instead a worse card player) but with Spectre the changes feel sloppy and kind of weird we still aren't given an explanation of what happened to Quantum and why they changed their name (yes I know in the original script once the name was leaked White and Blofeld changed the name based on their old army unit) but we weren't told that and Characters in both films I feel are either Overplayed (Silvia for example) or underplayed (Mr. white in spectre which is a shame as he was the best thing of the Craig era)
Add to that the constant theme of family which doesn't work here and yeah Mendes shouldn't return that being said if we got Sam Mendes presents Shatterhand I wouldn't complain to much as well both skyfall and spectre sit comfortably in the middle of my ranking are they as good as Casino Royale License to kill Quantum of Solace or From Russia with love no but they aren't as bad as Moonraker either.
I don't know anything about Paul Mcguin's work and I don't need to I didn't know anything about Campbell pre Goldeneye or Royale (besides Goldeneye and Zorro) and heck in my youth I championed Adrian Paul and Wes Craven to direct (ah the joys and innocence of youth) so I am willing to give this guy a chance and see what story he is willing to tell but if this is all BS and it is Mendes again I will go through the motions and say Ah well we are doing this or that again when the beats come up (another s word title another bland pop artist doing a slow paced depressing song etc)
Well, Dan called the shoot more fun than all his other Bond films combined. We could argue the truth of the statement, but he's been up front about that many times post-SP. With Mendes, however, I don't get a sense of fulfillment. He had the distinct problem of being forced by the world to go beyond SF too, which had already garnered praise that often got too lofty. Add that to working within a studio system with the cooks over at Sony, and you've got a tense work environment. Mendes also had his slip-ups too, like his poor oversight of budget allocation that caused even more studio issues like those above.
Either that or they should have started again from scratch.
It would've been impossible for even them to avoid having some notable suggestions, but I never get the sense that they ever truly know what they get themselves into. It's like getting a bunch of bean counters to draft and paint a mural, or an accountant to fix a leaky sink. They lack the tools for the specific trade. I wouldn't want anyone advising on a Bond script other than people who actually know what they're talking about. With Sony, I never feel this is the case.
There is still no IMDB listing for that historical war film.