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
https://www.telegraphindia.com/entertainment/sam-mendes-says-he-will-not-be-returning-as-the-director-for-the-next-james-bond-movie/cid/1952197
And therefore their confidence in Mr. Mendes.
"Directing ‘Skyfall’ was one of the best experiences of my professional life,"
No mention of SP? I can understand directing SP might not have been as great an experience, but it seems strange to refer to one and not the other.
"...but I have theatre and other commitments, including productions of ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ and ‘King Lear,’ that need my complete focus over the next year and beyond,"
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Lear were in 2013 and 2014 respectively and I doubt he's planning on doing both again. Definitely an old quote.
It also says Mendes' two Bond films were SkyFall (2012) and SkyFall (2015). Clearly, little effort was put into this article.
Jack Ryan is an excellent series. Citadel was indeed a disappointment. I won't be tuning in next season. I don't do Marvel or DC. It's all so repetitive, which was my problem with Dial of Destiny. A well done and cinematically impressive film that left me curiously uninvolved.
Bravo pal! 100% agree. =D>
Thanks old pal ;) I appreciate your appreciation very much, as you know. Cheers
Nothing suggested Sam Mendes was viable candidate for directing Bond.
True. I remember being doubtful of Mendes' Bond credentials...even if I knew he was a good director. I only started believing when the teaser trailer came and further believed when the full trailer came out. Also, there were talks then that Mendes was favouring drama over action. Although, looking at Skyfall today, it isn't exactly action-heavy, even if Mendes' directed it superbly. But great Bond film all the same.
There are “prolonged” full frontal nudity and multiple sex scenes.
An interesting take on DOD from an Ebert.com review is the film "is somehow both never boring and never really entertaining." For me it felt bloated, perhaps because it's a long film, and so dependent on CGI that it often seemed like a video game. There's something to be said for lean.
Much has been written in these threads about what a Bond film is. I wonder if we're really speaking of what a Bond film was. There was a lot in DOD that would have been lost on viewers who may not have seen the earlier films. Killing Bond in NTTD effectively erases the need to make reference to anything during the Craig era.
Is there a lesson to be learned from DOD? Will Bond 26 ignore the nostalgia of its past?
Will today's viewers get their own Bond instead of rehash of the Bonds of their parents and grandparents?
Really? I’m shocked. Positively shocked! :)
But...will it be sexy? ;)
On another note, just watched another interview with him, posted 4 hours ago, and he briefly mentions the early Bond films...again. I still think he wants to do it.
(
Great interview.
Not a bad idea, provided that he doesn't demand a lot of screen time.
Indeed. Just the briefing, thank you very much ;)
Yep. No excuse for Eon to be slacking unless they are just not interested in Bond anymore
If there’s no script, there can be no auditions.
And now the actors are striking….
In the past, it's not that much complicated, really.
The biggest gap that we've had was from 1989 to 1995 and that's because of the legal issues.
But back then, finding a new Bond actor wasn't that hard: From Connery to Lazenby, Connery to Moore, Moore to Dalton, and Brosnan to Craig (I mean it's now a bit long there, from 2002 - 2006, but it happened since Babs and MGW now took the position).
I mean why it needs to take so much long?
Same for the film production, back then, it only took one or two years for a Bond film to make, the production was so very easy, and considering it's manually made (no CGIs and all), but they've managed to finish the film very quickly.
But why it takes so long now?
Many reasons. To be entirely fair to MGW and BB, the Craig era had some pretty hefty behind the scenes problems that were beyond their control. They've managed in the past to get films out relatively quickly (the Brosnan era only had one three year gap, but otherwise maintained a pretty solid 2 year cycle throughout. This was even the case with CR and QOS).
I'm not 100% sure of the circumstances behind the gap between Brosnan and Craig, but it's worth noting that Brosnan actually stepped down in early 2004 and Craig was officially announced in late 2005. It sounds like a longish wait, but accounting for the process of vetting actors, accommodating for schedule, preparation for tests etc. it's really not that long to find a new actor (it even seems like Craig had been offered the role in May 2005, but again I'm not 100%). Before Brosnan's departure it seems like any initial scripts were written with him in mind, which of course would have had to have been completely changed.
Pre-production and post-productions on these films are longer than they used to be too. CGI (or indeed anything in the visual post production process that is referred to as online editing, and certainly in its modern form) actually means longer post-production periods as there's more to do finalising the film. Think about it - not only do Bond films nowadays need to have big sets built and stunts coordinated during pre-production, but they also have to have an extra amount of time after initial offline edits (which is simply put the process of putting the raw footage together) to do all the things like rotoscoping, special effects, digital colour grading etc that gives us the final product. This is stuff the Bond films didn't have to the same extent before a certain period. Most of the work that is done in this process isn't even just CGI but stuff that most viewers wouldn't notice in a typical film and just comes with making films of this sort nowadays. But it's time consuming.
Thank you for the info! 🙂
So, despite of the manual productions (like editing and set pieces) before, it is a lot more quicker to do than digital productions?
But why, I mean those bombastic films like YOLT, TSWLM and MR do have bigger set pieces and they're manually made without any computer then, yet they're made so quickly?
This is getting my mind blowing now.....