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
Any way, with Mendes I struggle to find anything in his earlier work that suggests he is right for Bond. I don't think Road to Perdition (from what I remember) was all that great.
I remain optimistic however, because I think Mendes is an intelligent guy and is going to have given this whole movie a lot of thought.
SF on the other hand doesn't have the limitations that QoS fundamentally suffered from. I don't care what Mendes' relationship is with some if the cast, if the script was lame the likes if Fiennrs and Bardem wouldn't be attached. So, comparing Mendes to Forster is a waste of time IMO because the main concern and the difference between QoS and SF needs to be looked at firstly at a fundimemtal level and that is the quality of the script.
With QoS I believe DC pushed for an 'art house' director. They ended up with Forster and yet the end result for many people was less successful than CR, which was directed by the hack-like Cambell. As I've said before, most of the best loved Bonds were actually directed by hacks.
In a sense there are less opportunities for these kinds of directors today. In the 50s, 60s and 70s TV was awash with action/adventure/spy series, like the Saint and Avengers, and they were still churning out World War 2 movies. These series (I think) gave directors the chance to develop action/adventure directing experience outside of feature films. Also, back then you probably also still just about had the 'B movie' tradition alive and well. These days I get the impression directors make fewer films and have less opportunity to learn, and make mistakes on the job. Hence there are fewer of those cheap and cheerful hacks around - experienced, technically proficient directors who are not too precious about their material but know how to construct an entertaining couple of hours of screen entertainment.
I guess Spooks might be a modern day equivalent. I've never watched it, so could not say if the directing style would suit a Bond movie.
Martin Campbell was good but it not going to come back as he has made his dosh and reputation.
They are making different kind of films with a different kind of Bond. More thriller like, more cerebral, more edgy, more meaty. We may not have ninjas absailing down a volcano ever again. You might have to come to terms with that.
My problem is that you are writing it off before you have seen it. So when you do see it and publish your views why should I give them any credence?
I didnt like the Brosnan era but I went into each one with an open mind. Hoping for something better then the last one.
Aww. There go my chances of seeing the castle of death - complete with ninjas who can't feel being kicked in the balls ;)
Yet he also did the action for the latest Mission: Impossible and that was great. So I'll blame EON, Forster and the editors for that.
It's a kitchen sink drama.
I generally agree with u but because you are making so many assumptions about what I think, on this occassion I disagee with you!
And since we're making big assumptions, aren't you the guy who really liked Madonna in DUD?
Thats the thing, its stuff like this that made it a bond film. Thats where QOS went wrong, it lost the whole bond feeling. CR was ok because it was a reboot and it still feels a bit like a bond film. LTK proved that you can be dark and gritty, but still have gadgets, a gunbarrel, Q, and hell there's even ninjas.
I agree, but I think it goes both ways, as alot of people have decided that it'll be awesome 8 months before release.
I'm just not getting my hopes up. I'm not saying anything is bad or good until I've seen the film.
As for mendes, I'd heard of him but haven't seen anything of his before.
No one is saying he is incapable, just that he was a less than obvious choice. However, here's hoping it works out.
No one is saying that. They are saying go into the film with an open mind. Don't write it off eight months before release because you don't like the choice of director.
Also, this is the way the Bonds are going to be under Craig. He is not going to do an invisible car or space station battle kind of film.
They are going to be more thriller like, they are going to be more edgy. What Bond elements they have are going to be given a new spin (ie vodka martini? Do I look like I give a damn?) because they have passed into cliche. And, to be frank, during the Moore and Brosnan era became stale. They became an expression of tick-boxing.
Both the producers and Craig ae trying to do something new. Keeping it fresh.
Forster really stuffed up his bond movie.
I know, but they can still keep some classic elements. Mendes and craig are saying the film will feel like a 60s bond film, and those had gadgets. There's a middle ground between the invisible car and not being bond at all. And if you read some posts people have said its going to be awesome, and it might be. But it might be bad, I'm not getting my hopes up or writing the fil of. I've never actually seen anything of mendes's before but he says he's a fan, so it looks promising.
I think Mendes is hungry to have this film work, though, to rescue his film career a bit.
The thing with the foot chase in CR was that it was fresh to Bond at that time, so featuring it directly after in QoS might've been a bit too much of the same thing too soon. I agree, the whole opera scene was excellent, especially where Bond takes the photos from above the stage. This was really one of the only moments in QoS where I was truly impressed. Back on topic, I can't say I've seen much of Mendes work, but with SF being his first action film, he'll be sure to treat it as something special.
....I agree with you Sir!!
Mendes is a classy director, and has assembled a terrific crew including as you say Thomas Newman, which I feel will be a very special treat to hear a totally new sound/feel to the score!! The look of the film through the eyes of Mendes and Deakins is going to very rich and luxurious.....I hope!? :-B
By the way....love the picture!!! Now thats one classy composer!!!! ^:)^
If this is true, then it's a good sign but I certainly won't be getting my hopes up. I think the only film I've seen of his is American Beauty. I've only seen it once and I saw it in the cinema with my grandmother. Actually, maybe I've seen Road To Perdition. I think I may have checked this out just before or just after Craig was announced as James Bond in 05. Man, I can't believe it's been almost 7 years!
I'd have to check out these films again to make an accurate judgement. From what I remember he is good with the drama but this means little with modern (post Dalton) Bond films as they seem to fill them with an unnecessary abundance of action and very little else except CR (2006) but that was based on a full length Fleming novel. Forster and Apted's (two drama directors) talents were far from showcased in TWINE and QOS.
Has far as Mendes goes, is he a good director?? Hell yeah ( i liked American Beauty) Will he make a good Bond film?? We don't know. It depends on a lot of other things.But I think he will try
i think ..