Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

Skyfail

HASEROT wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

HASEROT wrote:

going back to actions set pieces in SF compared to CR and QOS.....

i dont know whether i stand with the majority or minority on this one... but I had no problem with it, only because the story didn't call for it... one thing i don't like to see is action shoehorned into a film for the sake of action...

as brilliant as i feel FRWL is, the whole helicopter bit was shoehorned in, and makes no real sense to the rest of what was going on - it's only purpose was to rip off North By Northwest, and to add just one more action piece... they could've gone from the train to the boat with no problem - maybe it was all an excuse to explain why Connery had put on that stupid captains hat lol... but i digress....

QOS i felt like had some good action moments (the ones you could see) - like Bond's fight with Slate, some of opera shoot out, and the end at Perla De Las Dunas.. even the PTS wasn't as confusing as the boat chase... but it was overkill, QOS was the perfect example of 'action for the sake of action'... and if thats what people want, god bless them.. for me, i want a little more meat with my potatoes please... so while SF might not have more than 3 or 4 action/fight pieces, it definitely felt more conducive to the story than merely just thrust into a plot for no reason whatsoever like in QOS... the whole bit in Shanghai with Bond following then dropping Patrice off a building i felt was masterfully executed, even right down to Newman's score.. the only part i didn't like was Bond doing his best to look like Rob Halford from Judas Priest in the Shanghai airport lol.

The Skyfall train scene was unnecessary long and was action just for the sake of action ,
Now if we remove that and all other 'action for the sake of action'. we're gonna be left with none!

Its a matter of fact that action is made for the sake of action , since its an action movie after all.

Now imagine if they wanted to make it out to be how any sort of gun violence happens in the real world. Just a few shots fired and people die or injure on the spot. No running on top of trains and such sort of crazy's though it will be more realistic and it won't be action for the sake of action, It will be dull for the audience and their won't be any sense of enjoyment. That's a movie I would gladly skip ;)

Action is not made for the sake of action, its made to give that joy ride kind of feeling, with thrills and excitement which ultimately boils down to how it is executed, which Skyfall fell short on compared to its predecessors .

i define 'action for the sake of action' a little different than probably you do... i understand that action sequences are often times drawn out, overblown, and very unrealistic in terms to what would happen in real life - thats where suspension of disbelief comes into play when dealing with action films... half the crap Bond does during action sequences in all his films could not possibly be achieved in real life (notice i said half, because some excellent practical stunts they have pulled off without the sake of CGI or wired assistance).. that is part of the fantasy of it.. all action films do it...

what i classify as action for the sake of action, is cramming in a scene (like i mentioned in FRWL with the helicopter) that makes absolutely no sense in forwarding the plot of the film, and it's merely there to take up space - i could argue that the train sequence in SF was led up to by the bike chase before it, which was led up to by the brief car pursuit before that - all of which though is predicated by Bond trying to get to Patrice to get the stolen hard drive back.. so the action sequence that follows makes sense.. as do all the others in SF... the only one i could possibly make the case for being shoehorned in was the bit at the casino, but that was really is it.. the rest of the action was there to perfectly forward the plot of the film..

in CR, the only bit that felt like 'action for the sake of action' was probably the sinking house at the end.. but i understand that Bond films usually end with a big action set piece at it's climax, so even though it was shoehorned in, it doesn't really offend me..

though the Miami airport sequence sort of feels like the same thing, it really isn't - because the plot of the film can't happen without it.. we knew Le Chiffre was planning something big involving a 'terrorist attack' - only the full details of what he was doing wasn't made aware to us until after the fact when M meets with Bond... therefor, the film set that scene up beforehand, and it managed to further the plot of film going forward.. because of Bond's interference, Le Chiffre needs to set up the poker game in order to get himself out of the red..

could all of that had been done without any action? of course.... but it's a Bond movie, action is expected lol.

Yep , half the stunts only ! Us Bond fans have our pride after all ;)

I don't mind if action is there in a film because in the end its a movie made for entertainment , as long as its executed properly and you get the sense of thrill and excitement. I really don't see a problem. If you want something more monotonous we have it.. its called real life -_-

Bond movie is an escapist movie and the level of escapisim is raised when you get solid action which gets you engrossed and like how you put it 'suspend disbelief'.

That's kind of the #1 reason I am happy Mendes is gone , so hopefully the bar on action can get raised.

Now only if we can get a director who can make sure Craig gets a classy haircut ! :))

Skyfail

thelivingroyale wrote:

Isn't all action "action for the sake of action?"

Yes in FRWL they could've gone from the train to the boat no problem but they wanted to add an action scene to make things more entertaining.

Every Bond film has action for the sake of action, SF included. Take CR, Bond could've just shot the bomb maker in the leg when he started running off, not killing him, but injuring him. Why didn't he do that? Because without it we wouldn't have an awesome parkour chase.

Filmmakers don't only put in action scenes when they're needed. They put them in because they're entertaining and people expect to see them in a Bond movie. Pretty much every action scene is action for the sake of action.

This ^

thelivingroyale

bondbat007 wrote:

Yes so people complaing about that in JUST SF are complaining for the sake of complaining

Nobody was complaining about SF having action for the sake of action.

bondbat007

My bad I meant CR.

Getafix

Skyfail wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

Isn't all action "action for the sake of action?"

Yes in FRWL they could've gone from the train to the boat no problem but they wanted to add an action scene to make things more entertaining.

Every Bond film has action for the sake of action, SF included. Take CR, Bond could've just shot the bomb maker in the leg when he started running off, not killing him, but injuring him. Why didn't he do that? Because without it we wouldn't have an awesome parkour chase.

Filmmakers don't only put in action scenes when they're needed. They put them in because they're entertaining and people expect to see them in a Bond movie. Pretty much every action scene is action for the sake of action.

This ^

agreed

Shardlake

I sometimes wonder if we are discussing a film that was shunned and got a underwhelming boxoffice, the point is that if some of you got your way all the Bond films would be made like the Glen films, no real identity just as long as we tick those boxes and have a travelogue with some journey man at the helm then you'd be happy.

The reason Skyfall was so successful therefore contributing to the series continuing and be reinvigorated for years to come in a way that none of the Dalton films did, is that they gave the mass public what they wanted, not what a niche group of snotty fans want.

If the series had bowed to the fans every need and whim it would have been dead decades ago, Bond survives because it changes and adapts to suit the time and Skyfall did a tremendous job of giving 007 a welcome shot in the arm that the public reacted to incredibly positively.

Bond is not mine and not yours it is the mass buying public that call the shots and when they stop coming then kiss goodbye to your beloved Bond, I know some of you didn't like it but to hear you talk it was like Sam Mendes took a dump in your front garden.

If you just want Bond to make relatively good boxoffice and not really stack up with the competition just so you can have your own personal tick off list of do's and don't's. Something that the average joe wouldn't give a flying fig about. Those Dalton films ( I personally like them) are not universally accepted as classics like a select group of you see them and making the films that way would be the quickest way to bury the series, Skyfall did embrace Nolan etc but it worked and made the film a tremendous success and those expecting TLD 2 come 2014 are likely to be disappointed, why do you want the series to go backwards instead of forwards, what possible outcome do you expect from this?

thelivingroyale

Nobody has mentioned TLD since you did on the last page. Why do you keep bringing Dalton up just so you can say how much better Craigs era is? Some people prefer the Dalton films, myself included. Get over it.

Yes the films are made for the public, that's obvious, so I fail to see your point there. Just because the movies are made for the public and because SF was popular with the public and is extremely successful, it doesn't mean this place should just be a giant SF love in. And just because the movies are made for the public and not for Bond nerds, that doesn't mean we can't discuss what we'd like in Bond 24.

Personally I like having different opinions on here. I thought Skyfall was brilliant and Craig's best movie but I enjoy reading posts from people like Getafix who I think make good arguments for not liking it. Yes SF was extremely successful but that doesn't mean we all have to love it.

You prefer Craig to Dalton and you love SF so why not just be happy with that, instead of ranting at people who don't agree with you?

Shardlake

thelivingroyale wrote:

Nobody has mentioned TLD since you did on the last page. Why do you keep bringing Dalton up just so you can say how much better Craigs era is? Some people prefer the Dalton films, myself included. Get over it.

Yes the films are made for the public, that's obvious, so I fail to see your point there. Just because the movies are made for the public and because SF was popular with the public and is extremely successful, it doesn't mean this place should just be a giant SF love in. And just because the movies are made for the public and not for Bond nerds, that doesn't mean we can't discuss what we'd like in Bond 24.

Personally I like having different opinions on here. I thought Skyfall was brilliant and Craig's best movie but I enjoy reading posts from people like Getafix who I think make good arguments for not liking it. Yes SF was extremely successful but that doesn't mean we all have to love it.

You prefer Craig to Dalton and you love SF so why not just be happy with that, instead of ranting at people who don't agree with you?

You love to show what a balanced poster you are and are open to other opinions, Getafix is a Daltonite like yourself and pops up to bash SF in mostly every thread he can and use the TD era as his example for what is wrong with the Craig era and personally I'm tired of it, you won't find me jumping in every thread doing this.

I'm just tired of hearing how great the Dalton era is and how those to films were when the series was so good, I liked them but they are as flawed as they are great and Getafix is constantly down on SF so I'm here to stand up for it.

Your goody too shoes routine is rather tiresome.

thelivingroyale

Shardlake wrote:

I'm just tired of hearing how great the Dalton era is

I'm tired of hearing how shit the Brosnan era is but that's life isn't it. Sometimes the popular opinion isn't your own. Just be happy with what you think.

HASEROT

Skyfail wrote:

That's kind of the #1 reason I am happy Mendes is gone , so hopefully the bar on action can get raised.

after QOS, which was overloaded with action, i'm glad we got a film like SF which scaled it down a bit, and reeled things back.. could there have been room for maybe an extra small action piece? probably.. but i couldn't begin to tell you where it could have been fit in to, and make sense with progressing the plot..

but believe me, in Bond 24 i am not opposed to having a little more action.. i think that we can agree on :)>-

Skyfail

HASEROT wrote:

but believe me, in Bond 24 i am not opposed to having a little more action.. i think that we can agree on :)>-

Haha, You said it ! :)

In all honestly @haserot , I don't really mind if a movie has less action , Take Cr for example that movie was for the most part based in a Casino and was rather less on action ,But to me the Quality of the action is of the utmost importance. Casino Royale had set the standards on action , it was just so damn intense! Skyfall fell below on that area ,Mendes is very weak when it comes to action in my opinion. I hope the next director will be able to do better !

Skyfail

@Shardlake
Even if the grosses are high doesn't necessarily make it a great movie
Avatar is the No.1 grossing movie of all time :)) , You be the judge !

I believe its up to the fans to decide if a movie is good or not and in what area's it falls weak on.

HASEROT

Skyfail wrote:

@Shardlake
Even if the grosses are high doesn't necessarily make it a great movie
Avatar is the No.1 grossing movie of all time :)) , You be the judge !

I believe its up to the fans to decide if a movie is good or not and in what area's it falls weak on.

agreed

Moonraker was the highest grossing Bond film for a long time - but it more or less sat at the bottom of everyone's list when ranking Bond films..

Die Another Day was another that grossed a lot of money as well - but it was pure trash..

On Her Majesty's Secret Service wasn't a box office sensation, but it usually ranks among the best Bond films when asked by the fans..

time will be the ultimate judge on Skyfall - and that is something that we cannot predict... i think there is enough there, that it will hold up extremely well for years to come - though it may drop a few pegs in the general consensus 10-15 years down the road... or, it could live on and be regarded as one of the best like GF has for almost half a century..... that is something we'll just have to wait and see..

Skyfail

HASEROT wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

@Shardlake
Even if the grosses are high doesn't necessarily make it a great movie
Avatar is the No.1 grossing movie of all time :)) , You be the judge !

I believe its up to the fans to decide if a movie is good or not and in what area's it falls weak on.

agreed

Moonraker was the highest grossing Bond film for a long time - but it more or less sat at the bottom of everyone's list when ranking Bond films..

Die Another Day was another that grossed a lot of money as well - but it was pure trash..

On Her Majesty's Secret Service wasn't a box office sensation, but it usually ranks among the best Bond films when asked by the fans..

time will be the ultimate judge on Skyfall - and that is something that we cannot predict... i think there is enough there, that it will hold up extremely well for years to come - though it may drop a few pegs in the general consensus 10-15 years down the road... or, it could live on and be regarded as one of the best like GF has for almost half a century..... that is something we'll just have to wait and see..

Moonraker is a solid example that you gave !
I agree completely

Getafix

Skyfail wrote:

HASEROT wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

@Shardlake
Even if the grosses are high doesn't necessarily make it a great movie
Avatar is the No.1 grossing movie of all time :)) , You be the judge !

I believe its up to the fans to decide if a movie is good or not and in what area's it falls weak on.

agreed

Moonraker was the highest grossing Bond film for a long time - but it more or less sat at the bottom of everyone's list when ranking Bond films..

Die Another Day was another that grossed a lot of money as well - but it was pure trash..

On Her Majesty's Secret Service wasn't a box office sensation, but it usually ranks among the best Bond films when asked by the fans..

time will be the ultimate judge on Skyfall - and that is something that we cannot predict... i think there is enough there, that it will hold up extremely well for years to come - though it may drop a few pegs in the general consensus 10-15 years down the road... or, it could live on and be regarded as one of the best like GF has for almost half a century..... that is something we'll just have to wait and see..

Moonraker is a solid example that you gave !
I agree completely

Yes, the top ten highest grossing films of all time are mostly pretty awful films IMO. Box office is obviously a great sign of what people enjoy watching at any given moment in history, but it is rarely a guide to whether a film is going to stand the test of time and come to be regarded as a classic. Many of the Hollywood films now seen as classics went practically unnoticed or were seen as flops when they came out. Casablanca. It's a Wonderful Life. OHMSS. Shawshank.

Skyfail

Getafix wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

HASEROT wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

@Shardlake
Even if the grosses are high doesn't necessarily make it a great movie
Avatar is the No.1 grossing movie of all time :)) , You be the judge !

I believe its up to the fans to decide if a movie is good or not and in what area's it falls weak on.

agreed

Moonraker was the highest grossing Bond film for a long time - but it more or less sat at the bottom of everyone's list when ranking Bond films..

Die Another Day was another that grossed a lot of money as well - but it was pure trash..

On Her Majesty's Secret Service wasn't a box office sensation, but it usually ranks among the best Bond films when asked by the fans..

time will be the ultimate judge on Skyfall - and that is something that we cannot predict... i think there is enough there, that it will hold up extremely well for years to come - though it may drop a few pegs in the general consensus 10-15 years down the road... or, it could live on and be regarded as one of the best like GF has for almost half a century..... that is something we'll just have to wait and see..

Moonraker is a solid example that you gave !
I agree completely

Yes, the top ten highest grossing films of all time are mostly pretty awful films IMO. Box office is obviously a great sign of what people enjoy watching at any given moment in history, but it is rarely a guide to whether a film is going to stand the test of time and come to be regarded as a classic. Many of the Hollywood films now seen as classics went practically unnoticed or were seen as flops when they came out. Casablanca. It's a Wonderful Life. OHMSS. Shawshank.

Exactly ,
In my honest opinion , years from now when the hype of Skyfall dies down to nil and hopefully there will be better and greater Bond movies.People will watch it with open minds. That time I expect people to see that the film is inherently flawed.

Sandy

Popularity is not synonymous with quality but neither with lack of it! I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.
I have said this multiple times and I'm getting tired of it but here I go again. SF is not at all perfect (in fact there are no perfect films) and it is not my favourite Bond film but it's top 3 for me. I have watched it multiple times by now and honestly I can find new layers and details every time, and my enjoyment only increased.
Don't like SF? Too bad, there is obviously nothing I (or others) can say to change your mind. But be ware, if you are expecting that suddenly the majority of people will "see the light" and start agreeing with you then that is is rubbish I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

Skyfail

Sandy wrote:

I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.

It does not mean you're dumb! it means we're human , there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, its natural when something is talked about to get caught in the hype .
Look at how the Dalton movies are looked upon then and now is a perfect example but again like haserot said and Getafix repeated, only time will tell.

thelordflasheart

Skyfail wrote:

Sandy wrote:

I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.

It does not mean you're dumb! it means we're human , there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, its natural when something is talked about to get caught in the hype .
Look at how the Dalton movies are looked upon then and now is a perfect example but again like haserot said and Getafix repeated, only time will tell.

Skyfail, this is exactly the type of post that causes division here. Sandy say that she wasn't caught in the hype and then you tell that she's wrong, she was caught in the hype and that it's okay.

I loved SF and thought that it was one of the best Bond films ever made. But I wasn't "caught in the hype" any more than I was for any other Bond film. There have been Bond films that were unpopular that I loved, and Bond films that were popular that I didn't like at all. For you to say that you know Sandy's mind better than she does is at best arrogant and pretentious, and at worst insulting and demeaning.

SF has caused a reaction that I've never seen in fans before at the time of a new film's release - some of those who don't like it (but not everyone) feel the need to tell people who like it that they're wrong to do so. They can't accept that people just like it, they need to show people the error of their ways. I'm the first to admit that SF could have done a couple of things better but so could every other Bond film. For those who feel the need to bash SF and the people who like it I could easily find as many flaws, plot holes, or "unrealistic" things in their favourite Bond film as well. The difference is that I won't. Someone disliking SF doesn't make my life any worse, nor does them having a different top ten list of Bond films than I do.

If anyone is "caught up in the hype" it seems to be the people who frantically need to diminish people who like SF...

Sandy

Skyfail wrote:

Sandy wrote:

I respect the opinion of people who didn't like SF but what you need to know is that people who like SF (at least most of us) were not "caught in the hype", it does not mean being delusional or dumb, or knowing nothing about Bond.

It does not mean you're dumb! it means we're human , there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, its natural when something is talked about to get caught in the hype .
Look at how the Dalton movies are looked upon then and now is a perfect example but again like haserot said and Getafix repeated, only time will tell.

Well, you certainly have some nerve trying to tell me and others what goes on in our minds. You certainly haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. That was one of the most patronizing comments I have ever read here.
@thelordflasheart you are absolutely right, I also don't like some of the most popular entries, that should say something about me and you being caught in the hype!

Skyfail

thelordflasheart wrote:

Skyfail, this is exactly the type of post that causes division here. Sandy say that she wasn't caught in the hype and then you tell that she's wrong, she was caught in the hype and that it's okay.

@thelordflashheart,


I wasn't pointing at her ! She has every right to have an opinion !
Please read my comment again
She believed that I felt people caught in the hype were dumb and delusional. As if people should look down on them . So I said there's nothing wrong with getting caught up in the hype I never said she did.

I mentioned clearly in the end 'only time will tell'.

thelordflasheart wrote:

at best arrogant and pretentious, and at worst insulting and demeaning.

But it's ok for you to say such things about me , when I haven't said a single bad thing to her nor you.

Samuel001

When Casino Royale came out and many loved it, I couldn't understand why and thought "in time, people will come to their senses and evaluate 'the new toy' properly" but it never happened and the view they held then, is still held now.

Six years on and after following Quantum Of Solace too, time has taught me the view fans initially have and is an accurate one and proves they're ironically, not deluded, yet this is the group of fans one would expect to be after seeing a new Bond film.

I can't see things changing in the future as there's no "light" to be seen, as much as those who don't agree with the consensus on a film want there to be.

Gustav_Graves

One can look to what happened to 'Goldfinger'. Was it a movie that was disliked by many? Did it eventually not become an evergreen, a true classic? Was it a boxoffice success?

BAIN123

Goldfinger is only disliked by a comparitively small minority. On the whole I'd say its still a very popular flick. Same goes for Spy. 

Gustav_Graves

BAIN123 wrote:

Goldfinger is only disliked by a comparitively small minority. On the whole I'd say its still a very popular flick. Same goes for Spy. 

I expect something similar with 'Skyfall'.

RC7

Gustav_Graves wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Goldfinger is only disliked by a comparitively small minority. On the whole I'd say its still a very popular flick. Same goes for Spy. 

I expect something similar with 'Skyfall'.

SF is such a strange beast. Of my group of friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues the following is relatively consistent.

Those people I would consider non-Bond fans, those that have seen a movie or two and really don't care for them (usually patronising at my expense) love SF.

Those who have a general appreciation for the films are ambivalent, none have suggested it's their favourite, with the majority preferring it to QoS but not CR. There are obviously those who like it and others who don't, but the majority fall squarely in the middle.

The quote I've heard most often - 'Not as good as the hype suggests'.

I'm sure we've all had different experiences over the last few months, the above is pretty much my gauge of that happening around me.

Time will tell where SF lies.

bondbat007

Samuel001 wrote:

When Casino Royale came out and many loved it, I couldn't understand why and thought "in time, people will come to their senses and evaluate 'the new toy' properly" but it never happened and the view they held then, is still held now.

Six years on and after following Quantum Of Solace too, time has taught me the view fans initially have and is an accurate one and proves they're ironically, not deluded, yet this is the group of fans one would expect to be after seeing a new Bond film.

I can't see things changing in the future as there's no "light" to be seen, as much as those who don't agree with the consensus on a film want there to be.

Very interesting @Samuel001. You didn't like CR when it came out? I'm actually surprised by that.

But I agree with everything that's been said. The hype for SF is gone but I still love it and I probably always will. It's a very special film to me and while it has a few flaws (all Bond films do) I don't let them get in the way of a wonderful 2.5 hours of enjoyment

BAIN123

There are flaws in SF and I don't think its "the best Bond film ever" as some of the press have claimed but for me it contains far more good than bad.

Samuel001

bondbat007 wrote:

Very interesting @Samuel001. You didn't like CR when it came out? I'm actually surprised by that.

I liked Casino Royale then and now, I just don't hold it in such high regard as many.

Skyfail

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Goldfinger is only disliked by a comparitively small minority. On the whole I'd say its still a very popular flick. Same goes for Spy. 

I expect something similar with 'Skyfall'.

SF is such a strange beast. Of my group of friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues the following is relatively consistent.

Those people I would consider non-Bond fans, those that have seen a movie or two and really don't care for them (usually patronising at my expense) love SF.

Those who have a general appreciation for the films are ambivalent, none have suggested it's their favourite, with the majority preferring it to QoS but not CR. There are obviously those who like it and others who don't, but the majority fall squarely in the middle.

The quote I've heard most often - 'Not as good as the hype suggests'.

I'm sure we've all had different experiences over the last few months, the above is pretty much my gauge of that happening around me.

Time will tell where SF lies.

yep, I felt pretty much the same with whom so ever I spoke with

As always agree with that last line ;)

I also kind of feel that Cr was the movie that practically everyone liked , I came across only one person who disliked Cr and the general consensus is that's the best ! I hope B24 continues in Cr's footseps