EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

12122232527

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,097
    Plenty of directors are still cracking out one film after another in their 80s. To suggest Campbell couldn't do it because of that is ridiculous.

    "If he says he's up for it, he's up for it."
  • Posts: 12,597
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Plenty of directors are still cracking out one film after another in their 80s. To suggest Campbell couldn't do it because of that is ridiculous.

    "If he says he's up for it, he's up for it."

    Exactly, thank you. It’s not like he’s an actor playing 30-50 year old Bond on the screen. He’s remained active and has said before he might come back if it’s with a clean slate if I’m not mistaken.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,694
    If Campbell didn't come back to direct, I'd love him to have some producing role, even if it was only short term. Just to steady the ship

    Campbell maybe directing screentests?
  • Posts: 2,058
    Don't we think Amazon might even pick one of the directors from Craig's era, just to be safer? If it isn't going to Campbell, I prefer Forster or Mendes.

    Foster would be terrible. Mendes maybe but going from the amazing Skyfall to mediocre Spectre I have my doubts about him.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,328
    Óh look a bunch of guys together in an echo chamber^, sans @Mendes4Lyfe . All of you can use your mental gymnastics all you want. To me there are still two camps and it's glaringly obvious who's in which camp. There's the 'liberals' and the 'conservatives'. The former want to stray from the written word, the latter want to stay as close as possible to Fleming, for good reason that is. Bond exists because of Fleming, Cubby has always been the gatekeeper.

    Again, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

    To me the most annoying element of this false 'progression' is that Bond should follow the trend, like a notch in a bed post, that has been going on for years in line with the woke agenda. Stop the gaslighting, it exists, the big boys aren't denying it either. It's called DEI and it sucks. When ideologies are forced upon people they become unattractive instantly, to most. Thankfully the trend is mostly on its return and common sense seeps in again, more and more.

    Let Bond be Bond, in tact with his lore and background. Stop trying to make Bond a vehicle for false emancipation, as if he owes something to minorities or white liberals who to me aren't true fans of the character. Sorry not sorry, that's my opinion. Create your own, it's not that hard.

    I’m not “pushing an ideology”. Chill out.
  • Posts: 2,058
    TripAces wrote: »
    Some are actually thinking Amazon should call an 81-year-old has-been movie director for the next Bond? Nothing would say "we're not serious about this" than doing just that.

    Clint Eastwood is still directing movies into his mid 90s. Age is only a number.
  • edited February 24 Posts: 2,195
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Don't we think Amazon might even pick one of the directors from Craig's era, just to be safer? If it isn't going to Campbell, I prefer Forster or Mendes.

    Foster would be terrible. Mendes maybe but going from the amazing Skyfall to mediocre Spectre I have my doubts about him.

    Mendes is busy with four Beatles movies to shoot.

    The bigger question at the minute is who is going to be the “showrunner” for all of this?
  • Posts: 2,058
    What about giving Fukunaga another chance to direct?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,161
    Isn't he a bit risky at the moment?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 24 Posts: 2,294
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Don't we think Amazon might even pick one of the directors from Craig's era, just to be safer? If it isn't going to Campbell, I prefer Forster or Mendes.

    Foster would be terrible. Mendes maybe but going from the amazing Skyfall to mediocre Spectre I have my doubts about him.

    I thought Mendes said Barbara & Michael rushed him when he was directing SP.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,503
    I love the Craig era but I think Mendes planted the seeds for what was ultimately Bond's onscreen demise, which was divisive to say the least (I liked it but didn't love it).

    I blame Mendes and don't want him involved further.

    It made dramatic sense, as a one-off, to kill off and replace one M. Shades of The Prisoner there.

    But then Mendes had to keep raising the stakes, theatrically. Once we got to Blofeld's origin story in SP, I was like, "Meh."

    And that led us to everything in NTTD. I thought it was brave that they killed off Blofeld, Leiter, and Bond but where do you go from there?

    Back to basics, I hope.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 278
    Yes to Campbell. No to Fukunaga, Mendes, Forster. Age indeed, most of the times, is just a number. Campbell is still very capable, I'm certain.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 24 Posts: 2,294
    Yeah, from the previous Bond directors, Campbell is definitely my number one pick. I don't know who it might end up being. But one would like to think Amazon might want a director who has worked on a Bond film before.
  • Posts: 2,058
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Don't we think Amazon might even pick one of the directors from Craig's era, just to be safer? If it isn't going to Campbell, I prefer Forster or Mendes.

    Foster would be terrible. Mendes maybe but going from the amazing Skyfall to mediocre Spectre I have my doubts about him.

    I thought Mendes said Barbara & Michael rushed him when he was directing SP.

    That could be a reason why Spectre wasn’t that good. Maybe give Mendes more time to write a proper script.
  • Posts: 2,058
    Yeah I agree out of all the previous Bond directors who are still alive Campbell is my number 1 choice as well. If I have to pick from a previousBond director.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,097
    Mendes did say previously he used up all his ideas in SF, so having him back for SP probably wasn't the best idea, though I get (from a financial perspective) why they did.

    Thankfully he'll be busy the next few years with the Beatles nonsense, so hopefully that further guarantees he won't be back again.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,827
    Marc Forster wasn't a Bond fan and it shows. Even as he directed through the writer's strike, I don't think he would have made a great Bond movie. The first time that DC had too much creative control in Bond. Mendes was mostly a DC choice. Plus it sounds like he wasn't the most pleased with SP. I'm also curious about his Beatles Cinematic Universe. As for CR, not only did Campbell bring Haggis, he also said that Purvis and Wade weren't giving him strong enough material. So I could say I honestly don't know who could direct the next Bond.
  • Posts: 406
    They should get Will Smith to play James Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,680
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Marc Forster wasn't a Bond fan and it shows. Even as he directed through the writer's strike, I don't think he would have made a great Bond movie.

    I have absolutely no idea why they even thought to hire him. Idiot decision IMO.
    Yes to Campbell. No to Fukunaga, Mendes, Forster. Age indeed, most of the times, is just a number. Campbell is still very capable, I'm certain.

    Campbell is the greatest living Bond director, perhaps the greatest of all. If anyone can lend the new Amazon regime legitimacy it's him.

    And even at 81, he hasn't ruled himself out.
  • Posts: 466
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    Do you even grasp what a director does? *mind = blown*. A script is a script is a script. Text on paper. To go from there to Casino Royale means blood, sweat and tears and then some. A little more respect for Campbell who also has given us the classic GoldenEye as well, I'd say.

    Do you even grasp how bad Campbell's made-for-TV direction was in much of the film?

    Go back and watch the embassy sequence and the airport chase sequence. Horrible. In particular...
    • The bizarre facial close-ups in the embassy
    • The moronic focus on the siren on the wall
    • The set design for the courtyard explosion
    • Bond's ridiculous somersault and pop up into frame
    • The lame attempt to pass Prague off as Miami
    • Again: more close-ups in the truck fight
    • The reveal of the plane in the hangar (one of the worst shots with soundtrack I have ever seen)
    • The woman's slip and fall as people escape the airport (unintentionally hilarious)

    And there's also the "Ford commercial" in the Bahamas. This is another unintentionally hilarious moment. "Bad" doesn't begin to describe it.

    It is a ho-hum-directed film from a ho-hum director. I stand by that. And I stand by the statement: ANY DIRECTOR could have made CR a good film...because the script was that good and DC was that good. I thought Campbell's work in GE was better.

    And yet, CR is still solidly in my Top 4.
    No pleasing some folk. 🤭

    You know you're a serious Bond geek when you've analysed every frame, every camera angle, everything! 😉

  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 278
    bondywondy wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    Do you even grasp what a director does? *mind = blown*. A script is a script is a script. Text on paper. To go from there to Casino Royale means blood, sweat and tears and then some. A little more respect for Campbell who also has given us the classic GoldenEye as well, I'd say.

    Do you even grasp how bad Campbell's made-for-TV direction was in much of the film?

    Go back and watch the embassy sequence and the airport chase sequence. Horrible. In particular...
    • The bizarre facial close-ups in the embassy
    • The moronic focus on the siren on the wall
    • The set design for the courtyard explosion
    • Bond's ridiculous somersault and pop up into frame
    • The lame attempt to pass Prague off as Miami
    • Again: more close-ups in the truck fight
    • The reveal of the plane in the hangar (one of the worst shots with soundtrack I have ever seen)
    • The woman's slip and fall as people escape the airport (unintentionally hilarious)

    And there's also the "Ford commercial" in the Bahamas. This is another unintentionally hilarious moment. "Bad" doesn't begin to describe it.

    It is a ho-hum-directed film from a ho-hum director. I stand by that. And I stand by the statement: ANY DIRECTOR could have made CR a good film...because the script was that good and DC was that good. I thought Campbell's work in GE was better.

    And yet, CR is still solidly in my Top 4.
    No pleasing some folk. 🤭

    You know you're a serious Bond geek when you've analysed every frame, every camera angle, everything! 😉

    However, there IS a fine line...
  • Posts: 2,195
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Don't we think Amazon might even pick one of the directors from Craig's era, just to be safer? If it isn't going to Campbell, I prefer Forster or Mendes.

    Foster would be terrible. Mendes maybe but going from the amazing Skyfall to mediocre Spectre I have my doubts about him.

    I thought Mendes said Barbara & Michael rushed him when he was directing SP.

    That could be a reason why Spectre wasn’t that good. Maybe give Mendes more time to write a proper script.

    I dont buy this idea that they didn't have enough time to write it. They did.

    They just wasted in. Much like running a marathon, they did all the running in the last two miles. And the time turned out poor, to use the tortured metaphor.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 156
    007HallY wrote: »
    They actually put a lot of thought into it. For anyone interested in cinematography here's an article I found interesting about their approach - https://theasc.com/articles/goldeneye-reintroducing-bond-james-bond
    Great read - thanks for sharing!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,161
    Mendes is the best Bond director around, he really reinvented the whole thing for Skyfall in a new, lush, stylish form, and yet paying tribute to what it had been before. But his style may be too much of the previous way of doing things and too attached to Craig and they probably need to move on, much as I'd love to see another from him.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 278
    mtm wrote: »
    Mendes is the best Bond director around, he really reinvented the whole thing for Skyfall in a new, lush, stylish form, and yet paying tribute to what it had been before. But his style may be too much of the previous way of doing things and too attached to Craig and they probably need to move on, much as I'd love to see another from him.

    Mendes had great DOP's more like.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 24 Posts: 17,161
    mtm wrote: »
    Mendes is the best Bond director around, he really reinvented the whole thing for Skyfall in a new, lush, stylish form, and yet paying tribute to what it had been before. But his style may be too much of the previous way of doing things and too attached to Craig and they probably need to move on, much as I'd love to see another from him.

    Mendes had great DOP's more like.

    He certainly did, but as I already explained, a director doesn't just do the visuals.

    Maybe just express your own opinions instead of trying to belittle everyone else's for a change. Folks might even like you, you never know.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 605
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Mendes is the best Bond director around, he really reinvented the whole thing for Skyfall in a new, lush, stylish form, and yet paying tribute to what it had been before. But his style may be too much of the previous way of doing things and too attached to Craig and they probably need to move on, much as I'd love to see another from him.

    Mendes had great DOP's more like.

    He certainly did, but as I already explained, a director doesn't just do the visuals.

    Maybe just express your own opinions instead of trying to belittle everyone else's for a change. Folks might even like you, you never know.

    May I suggest the two of you get a room to hash things out ;) Me and @MakeshiftPython will sub in respectively.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,715
    I lost a lot of respect for Mendes and his directing after I learned Corbould pre-vis'd and then directed the entire lodge attack sequence of Skyfall and only handed it back over in the chapel. I say give Corbould a directing shot.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,328
    Funnily, SP’s production got delayed by a month so that they could salvage the script during that time. If you guys ever read the script they almost shot with, it could have been a lot worse. The end result really was the best version out of all the drafts. I think the ultimate problem with SP was that they simply couldn’t crack that script and that nobody was really at their A game.

    For example, the whole foster brother angle was Michael G. Wilson’s idea. This is where Barbara should have told him “maybe not”.
  • Posts: 413
    Funnily, SP’s production got delayed by a month so that they could salvage the script during that time. If you guys ever read the script they almost shot with, it could have been a lot worse. The end result really was the best version out of all the drafts. I think the ultimate problem with SP was that they simply couldn’t crack that script and that nobody was really at their A game.

    For example, the whole foster brother angle was Michael G. Wilson’s idea. This is where Barbara should have told him “maybe not”.

    I think “Spectre” feels like an instance in which they should have fully committed to the bit. What I mean to say is that the “brothers” angle could have worked if there was more resonance for that relationship in the film’s plot. Why is Madeline Mr. White’s daughter and not Blofeld’s? What if the film was told from Blofeld’s or Madeline’s perspective (like the novel “The Spy Who Loved Me”)? The “brothers” angle is treated as plot A but “Spectre” spends so much time getting us to understand the Nine Eyes subplot that it wastes precious time not fully exploiting or justifying the relationship between the protagonist and antagonist.

    I know that most fans think giving Bond and Blofeld a shared backstory/history is the film’s problem, but I really think it could have worked had everyone involved thought a little differently about how Bond film’s are structured. The greatest familial twist in cinema history could have easily been a dud had not “The Empire Strikes Back” been so damned compelling and different from “A New Hope.” Most ideas in fiction can absolutely work if writers/creators are given the freedom to stretch and explore, and if the author is good enough to pull it off.



Sign In or Register to comment.