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
Sorry you feel that way GG and I respect your opinion. As I do everyone in here, we're all Bond fans.
Just so you know, I'm not planning on prefacing everything I say with "IMO". It is implicit in my observations and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree.
"What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality."
or
"but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages."
You know, I think that in itself to me sounds rather harsh. And we are all entitled to harshness on a forum. But I do think Sam Mendes is still a human being. And I always try to envision how he would react if someone was saying that straight in his face.
Perhaps I am a bit sensitive, but I think any normal human being would find that rather harsh. I know Mendes is a pro and he obviously can deal with such criticism. But if I were talking with Mendes...or with Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton or Sam Mendes, I always try to envision that I have a respectful and insightful discussion in which we can agree or disagree on opinions.....without using too many of the words I quoted in bold.
Currently, I am writing a 'letter' to Neal Purvis & Robert Wade. I will post it later on this forum. In that letter you can actually read how respectful one can be without using too many of such harsh words.
I don't get that part. With Skyfall blowing up and Q's non-gadgets, the film seems to be saying the past should be shed, but at the end we get Moneypenny and the office.
Exactly, tonal imbalance. They signaled a return to classic form, only to royally screw up an attempt at the classic formula in SP.
I'm sure Sam has better things to do with his time than come here and read our musings and ramblings, and I'm quite certain that if any of us ever wanted to write something directly to him, we would word it in a fashion that wouldn't cause offense.
Indeed, Bondjames.
If I ever met Mendes (unlikely) I'd compliment his taste in women and profess my love of American Beauty, but politely steer the conversation away from Bond :)
Let's just say the acting, and it was great from the entire cast, couldn't save what felt like a first draft script with a great soundtrack.
(and DC (with Adam Driver) was brilliant)
Based on your criticism, this is only a problem if Bond 25 is a bad script. But I disagree: LL isn't a poorly-written film.
Just uploaded. They went overboard with the colorgrading. Example from my own version and personal preference (comments appreciated):
Precisely! SF is probably the only Bond film I don't feel like ever watching again though (except the PCS). So sad!
Same thing can be said about Lewis Gilbert. Silly, but visually stunning and one hell of a ride. All three of them. And don't get me started on Barry's cues in two of them ;-)
In any case it seems as if no matter what color grading the lighting is a bit off.
Yes. Wouldn't say I hate SF. Just found it massively overhyped and not a film I ever choose to rewatch. But the ending was great. I'd wanted the old office back for years.
You know, actually you're about the last person on this forum to criticize anyone about speaking in absolutes, but most of all " I see" and "I maintain " are obviously ways to say "in my opinion".
I think it's pretty safe to assume we'll see a completely new face in the directors chair when it's announced, I think they know they are done with the Sam Mendes show.
Look Campbell got 2 why should Mendes get anymore? This not the Cubby days where you can have a John Glenn directing more than 3 and LG was only asked back for a 3rd because SWLM completely reinvigorated the series and Rog obviously had great chemistry with Lewis Gilbert.
I think all that great working relationship that Dan and Sam clearly had on Skyfall got burnt on the set of SPECTRE.
In years to come it will be quite fascinating when it's actually revealed what went down on that production as these things do after a time come out in a future Bond publication.
Thanks for that! I think it does make a huge difference, allthough it's difficult to say on a small screen. But it comes more alive somehow. Especially the elevator. I think it would really work wonders with the helicopter scene, as many here seem to think it's cgi whilst it was all done in reality. Maybe it'd look more 'real' and exiting.
"Real" for certain. Meaning that the sky for example is blue, and not lightbrown/yellow due to colorgrading.
SF and SP have been heavily colorgraded. Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I always prefer a more natural color palette. I do understand the creative choices however, Mexico being brown-yellow, Rome orange, Austria grey-white and so forth. CR and QoS were also colorgraded. But, unlike SF and SP, they generally only boosted certain colors that were already there, they didn't change the whole color palette.
I'm a Bond fan yes but I don't subscribe liking all the eras, with the exception GE (and my change was only recent on that) I really don't like Pierces films and DC's film bought me back into the fold big time.
One of the reason I'm so vocal over my dislike of SPECTRE is because I'm a big advocate of Daniel Craig and that film just didn't deliver like I expected.
That being said I'm all behind them picking up where they left off, dealing with it and giving DC a great swansong and not keep harping on about Mendes returning.
We've had a shortlist and I think Yann is the likely candidate unless DC does have the clout to suggest Soderbergh after working with him on Logan Lucky and BB & MGW be on the same page. I know some think that DC gets his own way but I think those 2 do still get the last say and DC wanted RH for the theme on SPECTRE and BB and MGW overruled that.
I think the director will always come down to those 2 and DC can suggest who he likes but Barbara and Michael will always get the final say.
I can't see Denis wanting to do a film that is closing an era and more likely to doing a one with the next guy like Nolan.
While I'm trying to temper my expectation, look we've got more than 2 years before the finished product is in front of us, we've got some big announcements to expect between now and then and even if they all seems to fit into place the proof will be on the screen late 2019.
If they go for Soderbergh, they're stepping right back into Sam Mendes territory again.
I have a feeling though, they want a director they can collaborate with, and stamp more of their suggestions into him, when they hit a cross-roads. I don't think they're looking at directors who want to put their "unique" spin for DC's last one. I think the producers have a vision and a goal in mind, and that is to give DC what no Bond has done before: end on a high note, both critically and financially.
I think this is what is driving them this time out.
In the end, all empty speculation, I suppose-- but the powers that be at EoN are far sharper than any of us give them credit for. They always respond "big" when they hit a "low". SP was a low for the Craig era. My empty prediction is: we are going to see a great Bond film in "25"; not a re-hash or an attempt to do CR, but, instead, the effort, the all-hands-on-deck approach, to swing for the fences, that we saw in CR, will be evident in this upcoming film.
Nope not QoS. Im sorry but that is the worst Bond film of all time. Every time I re watch it I end up hating it even more. When you watch CR, SF, & SP they feel like Bond films, QOS does not feel like one at all. I can never get behind it.
That's not a "fact" though. I'll give SF the benefit of the doubt and say while I don't personally like it, it is a very well made film, but SP is just bad. 'Factually good' is the last term I'd use to describe it. It has its moments, but nothing that comes close to saving the movie.
Yet, even SP is a Bond film. Not a random action flick. We are all Bond films. And in the end we all learn to appeciate at least parts of th mediocre Bond films. True no? TMWTGG, AVTAK.......we tend to rewatch them because they have some oldtimer/classic status. Not because they are good, but because they are Bond films. And eventually this will also count for QOS and SP. Perhaps not now, since they are a bit too...new. But to me they are as worthy as TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAF and even DAD.
Thats still 3 out of 4 Creasy!! Like myself, love all bar SF so, a success imho