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
Thank god for small mercies.
Seems they fixed it. The latest trailer looks very good.
Hm - lets see. His last film "Machine Gun Preacher" has a Rating of 4,9/10
World War ZPlan B Entertainment secured the film rights in 2007 and Forster was approached to direct. In 2009, Carnahan was hired to rewrite the script to the film. Filming began in July 2011 in Malta on an estimated $125 million budget, before moving to Glasgow in August 2011 and Budapest in October 2011. Originally set for a December 2012 release, the production suffered some setbacks. In June 2012, the film's release date was pushed back and the crew returned to Budapest for seven weeks of additional shooting. Damon Lindelof was hired to rewrite the third act, but did not have the time to finish the script and Drew Goddard was hired to rewrite it. The reshoots were due to take place between September and October 2012.
Sounds familiar with the rewrites and even if this film would be the second coming. I don't want this guy anywhere near Bond. He is just not right IMO and has had his chance. All he did was blow up the money and NOT show any of the costly locations in a worthy way on screen. He was too busy making the shortest film ever. ;)
So your saying you would be more interested in Morrell Gilroy or Fincher over Forester.... I'll take that lol
Was figuring based on how badly you don't want 1 director i was wondering if you would be ok with other directors perhaps I didnt make myself clear sorry
:\">
OK, no that was not clear. I am sure, there are others not suited for Bond, but we did experience Forster, so I have a strong opinion about him. ;)
Whatever the lady means, allow me to interject that I would prefer Fincher over Forster everyday.
David Fincher has become a big name over the years. This spooks some people when one mentions Bond. There never was a Spielberg, Hitchcock or Cameron involved, so naturally people think that A-list filmmakers, especially the type that does big blockbusters, are inappropriate for the Bonds. But the way I see it, and Mendes somewhat confirms this, some of them deserve at least as big a chance as the lesser known directors. Or course I understand one of the possible risks: will they be cool with working for EON instead of the other way around? Look, my thinking is that if they really want to be part of the Bond universe, this is one way to show their loyalty. Bring an attitude and you're gone. Fincher doesn't strike me as the type who would suck all authority to him - same with Nolan. But I wouldn't invite Michael Bay to the party (naturally ;-) ).
Totally agree with you.
He was inspired to be a filmaker by Bond. He also asked Cubby a few times, as did Spielberg.
Welcome to the forums, @tomjcull!
I agree about Scott. He was in his prime in the early 80s IMO and it's a missed opportunity he wasn't asked. But then, they still kept their directors within the Bond family. Scott has aged over the years and today, at age 75, he might be a bit long in the tooth for the job. But I wouldn't mind being proven mistaken. ;-)
I don't agree with you even the slightest, But then again its all a matter of opinion .
A Bond movie in my point of view is a movie which has an excellent classy modern feel with well directed set piece action . Something which Skyfall was lacking and something which Forster and Campbell delivered on.
I am hoping whoever the next guy is brings back the modern feel that Craig's previous two entries championed at.
Ditto yup on Arnold, he understands Bondian music.
The next release will be in 2014, that's what MGM wants and EON has said they will get that. Why am I repeating myself? I fail to understand why people think they can't produce a quality film in 2 years if nothing short of a strike or half assed director interferes with that, they did it for years and they will make it work.
It is called World War Z.
But trouble on the movie set doesn't mean you are a bad director or that your film is going to be bad. Look no further than Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now to prove those claims.
While I feel QOS had it's moments, the PTS, the London sequence and the whole Bregenz sequence, the dessert climax and Bond's sign off, the film had some terrible action sequences, Mitchell's pursuit, the Boat chase, the plane and sink hole sequence and the pace was too fast and barely had any time to breath, as well as taking inspiration from a younger Spy franchise and using the same 2nd unit.
If this is your idea of a modern Bond film then you can keep it and for the record Casino Royale was nothing like this at least the film I saw that is.
You must have a watched a different film then , Or you just don't get what I mean by 'modern'
When I say 'modern', I mean the whole look and feel of the movie. I can't blame Skyfall since they removed that on purpose. If you watch an older Bond movie even though it feels dated it was the best of its time. I don't see the reason for them to break that mould with Skyfall.
To quote what I read on another Bond board "If you are making a movie in the present ,celebrate it with all its glory".
Exactly ! You get precisely what I am speaking off :)
Personally, I feel like QoS has the air of a Chanel advert at times. Don't get me wrong some of the shots are beautiful, I'm a huge fan of wide expansive framing, but there's so little happening at times that it just feels like a series of shots from a perfume ad or a music video.
EDIT :
CR trailer blows it out the water
i watched this far too many times back in 2006 ahhh they were the days.
Well , I guess that all comes down to personal taste :)
Personally for me when I watch a Bond movie , I feel that's part of the deal since it has always been like that , we have always been in the fore front of technology and all the movies had a modern classy vibe for its time. I understand Skyfall's story called for a more old fashioned approach because they wanted to get the point of "old is still relevant"
That reduces the quality on screen , The feel I am talking about can be felt BOTH in 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum Of Solace'.
I am talking about the beauty in these shots . Take the last one for example, look at the luxury of Bonds Cashmere sweater contrasted by his white shirt ,the elegance of his hairstyle, the sharpness of his Shades ,also the way Mathis hair flows so gracefully and gently ,the whole terra cotta beige wall background and the way the wine glass just lays there. Its all just so picturesque and its eyecandy on screen . Its hard to put into words but this kind of beauty is exactly what I like.
Skyfall ,had an olden more antique feel with the old wood of Skyfall lodge and a disgruntled Craig. The story called for it , I just hope the next time the story just doesen't call for it.
I don't understand what you mean, you mean it's part of the deal that a Bond movie should look like a Chanel advert?
A strange description you give, most of this is art direction and costume design rather than cinematography, the framing is in part Forster's job. There are plenty of similar shots in SF, most of which are better in my opinion. I need something to be happening within the frame, for the scene to come alive. The Macau Casino scene is rich and vibrant, you can almost smell the scent of the casino, it's better than anything in QoS. Like I said, QoS has some beautiful shots, that would look good hung on your wall, but without any content that's all they are, photography and cinematography are quite different. QoS leans towards the former, SF to the latter IMO.
Nope, I meant that about technology, As in When you watch Casino Royale The beauty in small details like the interface of the cell phones, the modern classiness of the Aston Martin DBS ,It has been like that from old Bond's too , In a Connery movie(can't quite recall which one) he uses a Photocopying machine, During that time people were awe struck to see such a device . Years later its accepted as a common household device. In Quantum Of Solace we had those futuristic multi function touch screen which were used to scan tagged bills.
That kind of modern touch is lacking in Skyfall. Its there in the Brosnan movies too. There was a good discussion at another Bond site about this topic. They explained it quite well , They used the term 'gloss' to describe it.
Hmm... I guess your right!
I am sorry , I find it very hard to bring it in words , hopefully @Risico007, can do a better job than I did. I hope B24's art direction will be similar to Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace
Don't you remember all you read about the "troubles" with Craig during the shooting of CR ? They said he couldn't drive a car or put up a convincing fight, that they had to keep on reshooting scenes because of his injuries and lacks of skills, etc, would you believe it ? :)
Reports of running into trouble are easier to believe, if they are accompanied by weeks of reshoots.
Kubrick's sets good be volatile, films would run over and budgets would spiral, but Kubrick was a genius. Forster is not. Therefore Forster's return is in no way something I'm in the least bit fussed about. To paraphrase Christopher Wood 'To screw one film up may be regarded as a misfortune. To screw two seems like carelessness' (although to be fair to the guy I'll reserve judgement on the second screwing until I've seen WWZ - not looking good though).