Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

1141517192042

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I think this is one of the bigger things that has me worried. After that, it's mostly just the smaller crew slots to fill, alongside who will be in the film, the plot, the overall product itself, etc. I think things will ease down once the director is announced and the ball gets rolling.
  • Strelik wrote:
    Hmm...

    Previously, I was hoping that Tom Hooper would be chosen as the director for Bond 24, but this interview makes me a bit worried. I thought Skyfall was appropriately witty: Not too much, not too little. If Hooper wants less seriousness and more wit, we might slide back into Pierce Brosnan-era territory.

    Do keep in mind that this interview was done way before Skyfall was released, so he's likely making these comments with Quantum of Solace in mind.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Strelik wrote:
    Hmm...

    Previously, I was hoping that Tom Hooper would be chosen as the director for Bond 24, but this interview makes me a bit worried. I thought Skyfall was appropriately witty: Not too much, not too little. If Hooper wants less seriousness and more wit, we might slide back into Pierce Brosnan-era territory.

    Do keep in mind that this interview was done way before Skyfall was released, so he's likely making these comments with Quantum of Solace in mind.

    That is very important to know. Thanks, @battleshipgreygt.
  • Posts: 498
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Damn, that's a shame. I'm sure there's something in there.

    I can't believe you now have to subscribe to read articles. X(
    yeah it really does suck.

    Making the case for Campbell's return; he recently directed this advert:


    The actual product looks like dogshit but the ad is pretty good, far from excellent but still pretty good. The think that actually slows it down is the reliance on the actual product itself. The bit with the girl jumping and doing stunts at the start before we see the ipad rip-off is fantastic.


    Mr.Campbell has still got it !!

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Strelik wrote:
    Hmm...

    Previously, I was hoping that Tom Hooper would be chosen as the director for Bond 24, but this interview makes me a bit worried. I thought Skyfall was appropriately witty: Not too much, not too little. If Hooper wants less seriousness and more wit, we might slide back into Pierce Brosnan-era territory.

    Do keep in mind that this interview was done way before Skyfall was released, so he's likely making these comments with Quantum of Solace in mind.

    That is very important to know. Thanks, @battleshipgreygt.

    Indeed. Now I don't feel so apprehensive about him as a potential director.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondbat007 wrote:
    I'm not a fan of Hooper so no thanks. Campbell returning would be a dream but I just don't think he wants to. Which is perfectly fine as his two Bond films rank among the very best.

    I love the Sherlock Holmes films so Guy Ritchie would be fine with me. But I think we need to think outside the box (just like Mendes was outside the box). I asked this a couple of times but never got an answer. Remember when Roger Mitchell was in negotiations to direct Quantum of Solace? I've never seen any of his films, would he be a good choice if EON decided to contact him again?

    I can recall similar statements when Sam Mendes was rumoured to direct Bond. Mendes and Hooper IMO are some kind of similar directors, as they tend to focus on character and story. Hooper did so perfectly with 'The King's Speech', his great breakthrough. Mendes did so with 'American Beauty'.

    I think it's wunderful to see that Hooper is actually open for a Bond film. A bit more humour in Bond 24? Why not?? Mendes tried to do so with 'Skyfall' in a very nuanced way, making 'Skyfall' by far Craig's 'funniest' Bond film.

    No, I am completely 'in' for Tom Hooper, perhaps even more than Kathryn Bigelow.

    Martin Campbell should be a last resort if you ask me. His last film 'Green Lantern' IMO was quite a disappointment. And the first two 'Sherlock Holmes' films from Guy Ritchie? No, thank you......I think Bond 24 should not get a 'Sherlock Holmes' kind of treatment.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2013 Posts: 11,139
    Chances are Campbell doesn't want to come back but I don't understand why some people are bringing up Green Lantern as evidence for him not to return. Campbell imo has generally been an average director but when it comes to Bond (which is where it counts the most), he delivers with aplomb and he also imo has made the best Bond film since 1969 in CR.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    bondbat007 wrote:
    I'm not a fan of Hooper so no thanks. Campbell returning would be a dream but I just don't think he wants to. Which is perfectly fine as his two Bond films rank among the very best.

    I love the Sherlock Holmes films so Guy Ritchie would be fine with me. But I think we need to think outside the box (just like Mendes was outside the box). I asked this a couple of times but never got an answer. Remember when Roger Mitchell was in negotiations to direct Quantum of Solace? I've never seen any of his films, would he be a good choice if EON decided to contact him again?

    I can recall similar statements when Sam Mendes was rumoured to direct Bond. Mendes and Hooper IMO are some kind of similar directors, as they tend to focus on character and story. Hooper did so perfectly with 'The King's Speech', his great breakthrough. Mendes did so with 'American Beauty'.

    I think it's wunderful to see that Hooper is actually open for a Bond film. A bit more humour in Bond 24? Why not?? Mendes tried to do so with 'Skyfall' in a very nuanced way, making 'Skyfall' by far Craig's 'funniest' Bond film.

    No, I am completely 'in' for Tom Hooper, perhaps even more than Kathryn Bigelow.

    Martin Campbell should be a last resort if you ask me. His last film 'Green Lantern' IMO was quite a disappointment. And the first two 'Sherlock Holmes' films from Guy Ritchie? No, thank you......I think Bond 24 should not get a 'Sherlock Holmes' kind of treatment.

    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2013 Posts: 4,399
    doubleoego wrote:
    Chances are Campbell doesn't want to come back but I don't understand why some people are bringing up Green Lantern as evidence for him not to return. Campbell imo has generally been an average director but when it comes to Bond (which is where it counts the most), he delivers with aplomb..

    agreed.. Campbell is the definition of mediocrity when it comes to directing anything outside of Bond.. but let him helm a Bond movie, and he because Orson Wells all of sudden lol..... and his feature length directorial efforts, matched with their respective box office earnings also gives more credence to that as well..

    Criminal Law (1988) - $9,974,446
    Defenseless (1991) - $6,413,375
    No Escape (1994) - $15,339,030
    Goldeneye (1995) - $352,194,034
    The Mask Of Zorro (1998) - $250,288,523
    Vertical Limit (2000) - $215,663,859
    Beyond Borders (2003) - $11,705,002
    The Legend Of Zorro (2005) - $142,400,065
    Casino Royale (2006) - $599,045,960
    Edge Of Darkness (2010) - $81,124,129
    Green Lantern (2011) - $219,851,172

    i do notice a trend though, bear with me....... after the success of CR, Campbell was asked about returning to do the next one. He more or less said no, but joked about that maybe if the character needs another rebooting in 10 years he'd consider it - or something along those lines - having directed 2 successful Bond films with new comers to the role (Brosnan, Craig).... but maybe his coming back wasn't so much about Bond, more than it was his own directorial relevance... notice how after the mega-successful GE, the box office starts to decline? - now granted, he makes a bit of mark with the second Zorro film, but $142 million in 2005 is peanuts compared to the $250 million the first reeled in back in 1998...

    so, he does CR, another mega-hit... then comes Edge of Darkness - which pretty much falls off the face of the earth.. then Green Lantern, which despite it's hype and promotional onslaught, the film bombed... Maybe the time is right for Campbell to return?

    and for a director, who's attitude suggests that he is above and beyond Bond... maybe, just maybe, he needs Bond more than he knows... because at the end of the day, i think he'll be more known as "the guy who directed GE and CR." more than anything else in his career... and when it's all said and done, it's better to hang your hat on something than nothing at all.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sandy wrote:
    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.

    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.

    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    Excuse me??? I find that a bit....well.......black and white to put it very very mildly.

    Allthough I'm not a fan of musicals, I think 'Les Miserables' was one of the better ones that came out via Hollywood in recent years. Even better than 'Chicago'.

    But my personal Tom Hooper favourite must be 'The Damned United', a near-perfect biopic about the former coach from football club Leeds United, Brian Clough. I think Michael Sheen was lovely in that film. Sheen and screenplay writer Peter Morgan also worked on Ron Howard's 'Frost/Nixon'.

    No, to say that 'The King's Speech' is a TV movie is way too black and white. Yes, Hooper did a lot of TV series, but he went much more smoothly from TV to the big screen. A good example of that is the Golden Globe winning TV Mini series 'John Adams' with Paul Giamatti.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    RC7 wrote:
    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    Excuse me??? I find that a bit....well.......black and white to put it very very mildly.

    what is there to elaborate on?... his point is pretty clear and concise. lol.
  • Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    Excuse me??? I find that a bit....well.......black and white to put it very very mildly.

    what is there to elaborate on?... his point is pretty clear and concise. lol.

    I wasn't finished. Read above :-).
  • Posts: 498
    HASEROT wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Chances are Campbell doesn't want to come back but I don't understand why some people are bringing up Green Lantern as evidence for him not to return. Campbell imo has generally been an average director but when it comes to Bond (which is where it counts the most), he delivers with aplomb..

    agreed.. Campbell is the definition of mediocrity when it comes to directing anything outside of Bond.. but let him helm a Bond movie, and he because Orson Wells all of sudden lol..... and his feature length directorial efforts, matched with their respective box office earnings also gives more credence to that as well..

    Criminal Law (1988) - $9,974,446
    Defenseless (1991) - $6,413,375
    No Escape (1994) - $15,339,030
    Goldeneye (1995) - $352,194,034
    The Mask Of Zorro (1998) - $250,288,523
    Vertical Limit (2000) - $215,663,859
    Beyond Borders (2003) - $11,705,002
    The Legend Of Zorro (2005) - $142,400,065
    Casino Royale (2006) - $599,045,960
    Edge Of Darkness (2010) - $81,124,129
    Green Lantern (2011) - $219,851,172

    i do notice a trend though, bear with me....... after the success of CR, Campbell was asked about returning to do the next one. He more or less said no, but joked about that maybe if the character needs another rebooting in 10 years he'd consider it - or something along those lines - having directed 2 successful Bond films with new comers to the role (Brosnan, Craig).... but maybe his coming back wasn't so much about Bond, more than it was his own directorial relevance... notice how after the mega-successful GE, the box office starts to decline? - now granted, he makes a bit of mark with the second Zorro film, but $142 million in 2005 is peanuts compared to the $250 million the first reeled in back in 1998...

    so, he does CR, another mega-hit... then comes Edge of Darkness - which pretty much falls off the face of the earth.. then Green Lantern, which despite it's hype and promotional onslaught, the film bombed... Maybe the time is right for Campbell to return?

    and for a director, who's attitude suggests that he is above and beyond Bond... maybe, just maybe, he needs Bond more than he knows... because at the end of the day, i think he'll be more known as "the guy who directed GE and CR." more than anything else in his career... and when it's all said and done, it's better to hang your hat on something than nothing at all.

    You have to consider the budget also , all of them are not blockbusters like Bond and all of them don't have such a high budget its natural that Bond would have precedence. That said, he should know himself that he is at his best with Bond. Why would he give such bad remarks against the series really puzzles me , He is in a point in his Career where he needs a Bond movie to make it go forward, looking at the lacklustre response of Green Lantern
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Excuse me??? I find that a bit....well.......black and white to put it very very mildly.

    How's that Black and White? It's a TV Movie released on the big screen. As is the Damned United, which I happen to very much enjoy, it doesn't take away from the fact it is also, in essence, a TV movie. It wouldn't have been out of place broadcast on a Sunday evening, 9pm BBC2. This is not a man with the style and verve to shoot a Bond picture.

  • Posts: 380
    To all those who say no to an american director i say only this. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli..All North American
  • Posts: 498
    cooperman2 wrote:
    To all those who say no to an american director i say only this. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli..All North American
    Serious ?!
    Then why do they almost never take Americans ?

  • Posts: 15,124
    Skyfail wrote:
    cooperman2 wrote:
    To all those who say no to an american director i say only this. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli..All North American
    Serious ?!
    Then why do they almost never take Americans ?

    Maybe it is exactly why. Because there are already many Americans deciders and they want to keep the British feel.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    cooperman2 wrote:
    To all those who say no to an american director i say only this. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli..All North American
    Skyfail wrote:
    cooperman2 wrote:
    To all those who say no to an american director i say only this. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Michael Wilson, Barbara Broccoli..All North American
    Serious ?!
    Then why do they almost never take Americans ?

    They ARE American, but Bond Bond is British, his creator is British, MI6 is British, Bond is stationed in England, and a lot of the cast and crew for the films are British. What I mean to say is that Bond is a mixed bag of tons of nationalities.
  • Posts: 380
    My point was that some people say that an American director would simply not understand the Britishness of the character. I say that the American producer's, especially in the early days of Cubby and Harry ,understood the Britishness very well. So if some American director comes along who can get what the character is and what he stands for they should not be dismissed
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2013 Posts: 4,399
    cooperman2 wrote:
    My point was that some people say that an American director would simply not understand the Britishness of the character. I say that the American producer's, especially in the early days of Cubby and Harry ,understood the Britishness very well. So if some American director comes along who can get what the character is and what he stands for they should not be dismissed

    i agree.. if the director is talented enough, then why not?... this whole an american can't do a Bond movie simply because they are american is a bit absurd.. thats like saying as a man, i could never direct movie where the lead character is woman, because i am not a woman hence i do not understand the character..
  • Samuel001 wrote:
    Damn, that's a shame. I'm sure there's something in there.

    I can't believe you now have to subscribe to read articles. X(
    yeah it really does suck.

    Making the case for Campbell's return; he recently directed this advert:


    The actual product looks like dogshit but the ad is pretty good, far from excellent but still pretty good. The think that actually slows it down is the reliance on the actual product itself. The bit with the girl jumping and doing stunts at the start before we see the ipad rip-off is fantastic.

    Interesting to see how Campbell, at his age, has still got the ability to direct action and make it "cool". This also shows how the great action scenes in CR weren't only because of the great second unit; you can see Campbell's style there too.

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    HASEROT wrote:
    cooperman2 wrote:
    My point was that some people say that an American director would simply not understand the Britishness of the character. I say that the American producer's, especially in the early days of Cubby and Harry ,understood the Britishness very well. So if some American director comes along who can get what the character is and what he stands for they should not be dismissed

    i agree.. if the director is talented enough, then why not?... this whole an american can't do a Bond movie simply because they are american is a bit absurd.. thats like saying as a man, i could never direct movie where the lead character is woman, because i am not a woman hence i do not understand the character..

    I completely agree. This knee-jerk anti-Americanism is typical British parochialism. Cubby and Harry totally got what Fleming's books had to offer cinematically. Fleming wanted a David Niven English type in the role - the Americans made the inspired choice of a working class Scot, Connery. And they also understood what it was about Britain that had appeal and how to give it a twist that made the films a global sensation. Fast forward 40 years and if the casting had been left to Cambell or Mendes, Craig would never have been cast - it took American Babs to see his potential! Most of the best films in the series were written by an American, for god's sake. The idea that it has to be a Brit or (for some inexplicable reason) someone from the Commonwealth, is pathetic.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Well Cubby WAS American - people tend to forget that :p

    You seem to have been more critical than appreciative of Craig in the past @Getafix. I recall you pointing how he stands with his legs apart. What about his pouting and Terminator-style running? ;)
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.

    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    I was totally shocked when The King's Speech won the Oscar. It was a scandal that the Social Network did not win. TKS was fine but yes, essentially a good TV movie. TSN is a brilliant piece of film making.

    I have not seen enough of Hooper's work to dismiss him out of hand, but the prospect of him helming does not excite me in the least.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.

    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    I was totally shocked when The King's Speech won the Oscar. It was a scandal that the Social Network did not win.

    I liked The King's Speech. Firth was excellent in it - although I must admit I haven't watched it since I saw it in the cinema (despite owning the DVD).
  • Posts: 1,407
    I don't think they're reluctant to hire one of us Americans. I just think they've never seen one right for the job. As for the whole Cubby/Speilberg thing. I can understand not hiring him after Jaws as that was a very troubled production and I'm sure Cubby heard stories he didn't like. But after a young up and coming master director makes Close Encounters and HE wants to do a Bond film. I will never understand Cubby's thinking there.

    As for Hooper. The Kings Speech was a fine movie but The Social Network and Moneyball were much better. I find Hooper's style in that film distracting. Firth is incredible though and deserved Best Actor. And Les Mis is supposed to be epic but Hooper decided to make it "intamite" which didn't work for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    Please do not compare Mendes to Hooper. Mendes can pick a silly and uninteresting story (for me that is what American Beauty was) and make a beautiful film out of it. Hooper can take amazing stories and make boring and predictable films out of them. The King's Speech was one of the most overrated films of recent years and I still can't believe how it won so many important awards, especially against some amazing competition that year. Hooper himself is an extremely limited director whose jump from TV to the big screen did not translate in a jump in quality or style, he keeps directing big budget films the same way he directed The Eastenders just with better cameras and crew, and that is just not the right way to go.

    Couldn't agree more Sandy. The King's Speech is basically a TV Movie.

    I was totally shocked when The King's Speech won the Oscar. It was a scandal that the Social Network did not win.

    I liked The King's Speech. Firth was excellent in it - although I must admit I haven't watched it since I saw it in the cinema (despite owning the DVD).

    TKS was fine, but TSN is an infinitely better film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    BAIN123 wrote:
    You're the one that has been critical of Craig in the past @Getafix. I seem to recall you pointing how he stands with his legs apart. What about his pouting and Terminator-style running? ;)

    It's possible to be critical about aspects of an actors performance. I too think his pouting is ridiculous and for me his running style is like a slo-mo comedy Michael Johnson. Doesn't mean I don't like him.

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,189
    RC7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    You're the one that has been critical of Craig in the past @Getafix. I seem to recall you pointing how he stands with his legs apart. What about his pouting and Terminator-style running? ;)

    It's possible to be critical about aspects of an actors performance. I too think his pouting is ridiculous and for me his running style is like a slo-mo comedy Michael Johnson. Doesn't mean I don't like him.

    He does pout quite a lot I must admit (I first noticed that in the cinema) and my mother said...and I quote..."he looks like a prat when he runs". It doesn't really bother me though.

    That said I think the scene when he's cradling a dying M is one of the best bits of acting in the series. You feel he's like a son who has lost his mother. I also like his acting in the scene with M at her home.
Sign In or Register to comment.