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
He's the Kincade guy, yes?? That's all I want/need to know. No spoilers please!
I was wondering if Albert Finney's character is living in SKYFALL lodge. Do we know if the house is occupied or not? I am guessing that James Bond doesn't use it as a weekend retreat...
Seems likely. I think he is the groundsman.
Still feel that Mendes is a random choice for director when you step back and think about it.
Then again, Guy Hamilton was a wild card when he was selected for Goldfinger and look how that turned out. Good directors should be versatile and be able to tackle any subject matter. Mendes has proven he is an excellent director with Revolutionary Road, Road to Perdition and American Beauty and he's extremely enthusiastic about Bond so my hopes have been raised. Though I take your point about too much Judi Dench from your previous posts, but that's probably down to P&W and their one rote story lines.
I am hopeful about Mendes too. I just feel that if you went back to 2008 and were asked who you think should direct the next Bond movie, I don't think any one would have had Mendes on their list. He is a leftfield choice for Bond. But that is not a bad thing, necessarily.
You know, the artsy fartsy background of the directors, for me, isn't THAT pivotal. What concerns me is, do the directors "get" Bond. Tamahori and Forster just didn't get Bond at all. From the way they spoke about the character, the direction they wanted to take the films in, the idiotic notion of James Bond being a code name and Forster's absurd comments about there not being such a thing as flamboyant villains anymore, only corrupt business men just raised some major red flags for me. They just didn't know what they were doing. Mendes on the other hand knows Bond from a fanboy and personal perspective to a professional and creative film-making perspective (so it would seem). Mendes hasn't tried to recreate the wheel. He's embraced what made the wheel special and unique in the first place and put some 50" rims on it.
In DAD we could see Bond kite surfing a tsunami and it was awful. In QOS we just couldn't tell what was happening.
Valid concerns and I suppose I had the same concerns if only for a fleeting moment. I got the impression with Mendes that, with the cast and crew he was using, as well as the producers acknowledging the error of employing Bourne-type action direction and editing that we wouldn't fall into the same sort of traps as before.
I remember Mendes commenting on that there would be plenty of action as a response to concerns over his lack of action directing at the PC but n the end, it looks as though things have turned out marvelously and I hope we can walk away from this movie after seeing it and agreeing that Mendes did a great job and would love for him to return.
http://www.timeout.com/london/feature/3184/sam-mendes-interview
http://www.metro.co.uk/film/915607-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-wasnt-interested-in-james-bond
So I think he only really cared about Connerys until Craig came along.
The films need to return to the continuity of the directors chair that the series enjoyed "back in the day".
The musical director's chair is what haunted the Brosnan pictures, IMO.
Plus, Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori just weren't up to the task of delivering a decent Bond film.
In my view, SF was a disappointment, but it failed because it was almost too ambitious and did not fulfil its promise or potential - better that than the dreary, stale films of the Brosnan era.
That's the only thing keeping me cautiously optimistic at this point.
Same, but at the same time, I want to keep the optimism low. I've made it this long without building up a high level of anticipation, as I don't want it to be three years of utter excitement to be disappointed.