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 vote Roger Spottiswoode. Now there's a guy who for me made what felt like the most generic Bond installment in the franchise. For a film so formulaic, it desperately needed a director that can at least do something with style. John Woo would have made that film SING in spite of its adherence to formula. The only contribution I like from Spottiswoode is changing the briefing from M's office to M's transportation. It's at least a slight on the formula, but that's all I can give him.
However as to those nominated, I'll go with Marc Forster for QOS. His quick cuts and awful editing style leave me annoyed that the follow up to one of the best Bond films in the series is just a waste. It's always hard to follow up a great Bond with another one. But QOS doesn't even get close to the style and all round greatness of CR.
Wholeheartedly agree. Films like Die Another Day are plain bad and you expect it after The World Is Not Enough, but Quantum of Solace was the most disappointing Bond film following on from the high of Casino Royaleand I recall that emotion when I first saw it in the cinema.
Ah well as our man said while in Nassau..."You can't win them all." ;)
Were he a nominee, I'd also go with Apted. I respect his work outside of Bond but the mess that TWINE is includes it has not only the least interesting action but no suspense, soapy drama, an easily duped Bond and M, an underdeveloped villain in Renard and no other interesting supporting characters - Mr. Gold, anybody.
Somebody else above mentioned John Glen for AVTAK and I'd place him on the nominee list too. By far his worst film in that the tone is all over the place, veering from comedy one moment to people being violently killed the next. From a unique female villain to a screaming main Bond girl.
The Hamilton comments made me ponder what if he'd have stayed as the director of TSWLM. His other four efforts were mostly smaller-scale and not epic in scope the way Spy would be. It would've been interesting to see what he could've done on that level.
Well said Sir! I also found Spottiswoode's direction generic and lacking in flair. Competent but flavorless. I'm tempted to say that's what you get when you hire the director of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot but Spottiswoode was an editor for Peckinpah and could have done better. At least the action scenes are coherent. What John Woo would have done with the film is mouthwatering to imagine. A much-needed injection of style that would have stood out all the more in a profoundly formulaic film.
I know some folks have nominated Forster, but while QoS's opening car chase is indeed abominable, it's the only truly terrible part of the film, and blame for that sequence can be shared with the editor and assistant director. Otherwise Forster can take some credit for salvaging a film that could have been an outright disaster. The result is still quite flawed, but despite having the reputation of a middlebrow drama director Forster avoided the loginess of TWINE and SP--two other films by directors with similar reputations.
I had to ask a friend who's a director, what precisely is the role of the director, and they told me, at it's most rudimentary level, it is to direct the actors.
It's interesting too, because the role of the Director has evolved dramatically over time, I think, into writing and holding a lot of the creative vision (a la Nolan, etc). We're in a very Director-driven era for film compared to the past, when the film industry was much more Studio/Producer driven (in the past you'd look forward to the next Universal picture, nowadays you look forward to the next Christopher Nolan picture, to keep using the example).
Basically it seems like the role of the director has seeped over into a lot of other creative roles in making a film (writing, cinematography, etc). Directors like Nolan, if absolutely anything goes wrong with the film, you can basically blame him, lol. Similarly for Spectre, I was always upset with Newman that he basically reused the score from Skyfall, but then I was told that it was a Mendes decision. You can't even blame the composer for the score these days! That obviously differs a bit for these Bond films, which are tied to a more golden-age of film by having the Producers drive the productions (as mentioned above), and it does make it a bit harder to pinpoint blame when the final product isn't up to snuff.
All good points, and your friend is fundamentally right. It always comes down to personal preference, as most things do. But it's true nowadays that more directors are involved in almost all creative aspects and have a majority share of responsibility in their failures as well as their successes, which is why Tamahori is an easy pick for me here - and that's before you consider the basic tonal and storytelling problems that his film has.
But nonetheless, it's interesting to read everyone's thoughts on it. I can only judge based on my own experiences from working with various directors on both good and bad sets; some are clued in and very totalitarian in the sense that they want to be involved in everything; others just work with the actors and the script and leave the rest to the respective departments, only getting involved if they really don't like something.
Among the official contenders, I'm kind of undecided between Tamahori, who's responsible for the worst Bond movie ever and who allowed (or even instigated) that CGI crap, and Marc Forster, who allowed (or ordered) his editor to butcher an otherwise decent movie into a sometimes indigestible mess of snippets. It could have been good, in spite of the multiple script problems.
OK, just to solve this, I vote for (against!) Tamahori, since his movie overall turned out far worse than Forster's.
But it still turns out quite fun and punchy, I'd say. I couldn't say he did the worst job: completely capable if not outstanding.
Yeah I watched MI2 for the first time in ages a week or two ago, and although it is a load of overblown nonsense I can't deny I would be intrigued to see a Bond film handled like that. It certainly would have had style and flavour to it in a way that none of the 90s Bond films did. I suspect Pierce would have been hilarious in it :)
It did make me look forward to Zimmer's Bond score though: once you've kind of tuned your brain into it he does do a great job with that.
Yeah it's interesting because a friend of mine directs TV ads, and basically there he gets given the script and has to pitch his approach to it to the producers: he gives references from other films and TV as to what he intends to do with it. And you can imagine there's an awful lot of scope from taking the written word and then deciding what to accentuate, what to dial down, what to make funny, what to overplay, what to make arch, what to make naturalistic etc. For instance if you take a lot of the script of Moonraker, do Jaws' scenes seem funny in the written word? In a way you just have to read the novelisations of TSWLM and MR to see how a very similar script could be handled in a much more serious way. Those are the sort of choices a director makes I think.
I feel there’s a parallel to that regarding Bond famdom’s view if DAD.
I think it goes by generations, what is the worst Bond movie. Some standout more than most.
No, Generations is a movie, not a Trek TV episode ;)
Marc Forster has probably made the most aesthetical Bond film, a mixture of 007 with the subtlety of European art house. It's a magnificent gem of a Bond film. While Roger Spottiswoode provides his Bond film with a slick style, a well-paced rythm and excellent stunt work.
Compare that to the bored laziness of Sam Mendes's SP or the epileptic shenanigans of Lee Tamahori's DAD and they shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
And I know neither Forster nor Spottiswoode wrote their respective films but I can't withhold myself from praising their relevant subject matters. Big corporations that literally dry out a country for their own power and profit on one hand, and news framing and media manipulation on the other. Underrated milestones in the Babs Age.
I remember a quote by Robert Downey Jr where he referred to an earlier Spottiswoode film Air America as “Air Generica”. Funnily, that movie was shot by Roger Deakins, but you wouldn’t guess it looking at that film.
Is DAD haphazard? Yes. But it at least has some flair to it that I can grasp and thats a crucial element for a Bond film. I don’t get that out of TND.
I understand very well why people are concerned with SP's plot. However, the direction us really not that bad. There are a few issues with pacing and tone, but for the most part the film is well told and beautifuly shot.
Looking at that PTS and calling it 'lazy' I find rather baffling.
Of the nominated, it is between Tamahori and Spottiswoode. Tamahori mostly for his stupid ideas that didn t make it into the film, thankfully. As the films turned out, I guess I will hand it to Spottiswoode, even though I don t dislike TND.
He worked with Sam Peckinpah too, which is probably where the slow-mo shots came from on the finale!!