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
Me, too. I'd take Roger Spottiswoode over Mendes actually.
I'd take Tamahori over Mendes at this point.
I just want something different. (Or at least I think I do...we'll see how I feel once I actually get it.)
Don't forget Hunt For Red October, Medicine Man and The Thomas Crown Affair (the Brosnan one).. I think mid/late 90s McTiernan would've been prime for a Bond movie.. he hasn't done much since then i'm afraid...
... always loved him as a director though, and most of his films are among my favorites.
To a certain extend I agree with you @BondJames. Hence I actually wrote the letter and created the subsequent petition here. I remember vividly the negative, slightly depressed sentiment that got the better of me after the SonyLeaks went public. You could describe that sentiment as: "It would have been better if the SonyLeaks would never have happened. Because it turns the Bond fan community into a rather rogue, over-critical fan base and it makes EON Productions even more of a 'closed shop'". So I think in the long end the leaks didn't change a lot. On the contrary, it might have facilitated EON Productions in becoming a bit more fearful, less transparent and less open-minded to some initial good ideas that are floating around because of these SonyLeaks.
Obviously the above should never be a reason to write a rather daft, incoherent, illogical screenplay. And I agree that a good Bond film falls or stands on the actions of the cinematic gatekeepers that screenplay writers are in my opinion. I sincerely hope Neal Purvis & Robert Wade do their uttermost best for Bond 25 and throw away their creative ineptness and numbness that got the better of them (as mentioned so clearly by them in March, please read my letter).
But, everything's a matter of perspective in the end. And I sincerely believe that this......new 'production approach', in which cast and crew are getting more creative influence over the franchise, also created a lot of good. And I mean a lot of good. From my perspective good stories not always result in good movies, and some timeless classic films were actually not that dependent on tightly knitted storylines and screenplays. The quality of a film like Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", one of my all-time favourites, is much more dependent on production design, cinematography and special effects, than it is on plot and character development. It's an Arthur C. Clarke-ian, almost Biblical piece of 'cinematic literature' that leaves a lot of themes open for your own interpretation. The same with a more recent film, like Alejandro G. Iñárritu's "The Revenant", which in essence was a feast of incredible cinematography, letting audiences indulge in the frigid, cold North-West of early USA.
By that example, I still find "Skyfall" an impressive feature. Sam Mendes did something wonderful to the Bond franchise, by focusing more on characters and cinematography instead of easy-to-understand, 'pre-chewed', coherent stories. Does it make "Skyfall" less good than "Casino Royale"? Well, we know that answer within the confinements of this forum. But luckily outside this forum there is an overwhelming majority who can not choose easily between either "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" (this: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/11/09/skyfall-fifth-anniversary , and this: http://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/film-and-tv-casino-royale-has-been-voted-the-best-james-bond-film-20171111 ).
So while I am now pretty critical towards the direction of the Bond franchise, I honestly don't think that the Craig-era went mostly downhill after "Casino Royale". The choices made by Barbara and Michael (and Craig) for the 23rd Bond film "Skyfall" worked wonderfully in my honest opinion. Mendes' choice to focus on characters, drama and cinematography created a film that's among the best of the bunch. I even want to admit that, with some self-conscious narrative repairs and screenplay improvements -if Barbara and Michael weren't so adament to keep certain expensive stage recreations, like the London bridge- "SPECTRE" could have been a shoe-in for TOP 10 of best Bond films as well.
So while I agree with you @BondJames that EON needs to refocus heavily for Bond 25, I disagree with you that EON "lets the auteurs run wild" in the past 7 years. Their creative decisions for the most part paid off. And in all honestly, we haven't seen a straight downfall of quality that we experienced more clearly after "GoldenEye". Being critical is good. I have my sincere worries as well. Hence I tried to address them with constructive and positive-spirited criticism in my petition. But it's not really helpful, nor is it constructive to say EON is letting things run wild. I probably am a 'lonely voice' on this forum with this opinion.
But look on the bright side: I don't mind another Sam Mendes-like Bond film in which character development and cinematography are still very important pillars of the good film. Just add a bit more pro-active and logical thinking when it comes to writing a good story treatment and screenplay, and in the process improve a bit on elements like humour and action a la Steven Soderbergh. And et voila.....Bond 25 might as well become another timeless classic. Just have a little faith, don't think to black-and-white (because there are more roads leading to Rome), and dare to channel constructive criticism in alternative ways instead of following just one 'grand dark force' that got the better of most people in this particular topic.
Wouldn't you say @DarthDimi :-).
Ridley Scott would have been great in the 90s/early 2000s.
Would have loved to see him direct Dalton's 3rd.
He might have been the director Brosnan needed as well - experienced and with a strong vision.
However - Mendes is probably aware of some of the issues that plague SP and would like to return to make the greatest Bond film ever made. Considering all the behind the scenes mayhem we discovered through the Sony leaks what Mendes and his team delivered in SP was a thrilling and entertaining Bond adventure. In my opinion.
I think if the "brother" story had been dropped and Blofeld was...well just Blofeld with no family connections I think the film and Mendes would be treated a bit better around here. How do all you Campbell fans think SP (with the same screenplay) would have turned out ? A better film. Probably not.
Of everyone on the list to potentially direct Bond 25 I think the best choice would be to try and get Mendes back. With a solid story and a great screenplay Mendes would deliver.
exept that all the problems I have with Spectre aparently are Mendes' ideas...
Without question, Fleming saw moral courage as one of the ultimate necessities in a gentleman-adventurer. Because of this, Bond, as the epitome of patriotic moral courage, is consistently pitted against moral cowards – criminals, egotistical maniacs, double agents, etc.
And although Bond is allowed to grumble every once in a while, his personal commitment to his job and to is country is rarely in jeopardy. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons why certain commentators continue to bash Bond and Fleming as sexist and nationalist throwbacks.
Yes, Fleming wrote of the masculine virtues as being exclusively masculine, and yes the independently-minded Bond’s moral courage at times was rash and even dangerous to others, but in today’s overly codified, managerial state, the type of moral courage exemplified by Bond seems antediluvian rather than mainstream.
walter1985
[/quote]
exept that all the problems I have with Spectre aparently are Mendes' ideas...[/quote]
What are your main problems with SP ?
Apart from reading here in the Bond Community I have never read anywhere that it was Mendes who came up with the Brofeld story. is there any proof of that ? is it mentioned in the sony leaks ?
Regarding your points about whether the creative decisions have for the most part paid off. Yes, with SF. It was an audience hit of massive proportions which justified their investment in Mendes. He deserves a lot of credit for crafting a beautiful visual extravaganza with meaningful and poignant characterizations. As stylish a Bond film as you will find and quite unique in the EON oeuvre. This approach wasn't so successful for QoS or SP however. Were the problems at the directorial level, or more at the script level? I think more at the script level. After all, the 'Vesper child' and 'Blofeld Warlord' ideas were all from the initial scripts. So at the end of the day, as you said, the writers are going to be critical to the quality of the films, and unfortunately it hasn't been the same (imho) since Wilson and Maibum stepped out of the frame. Moreover, this 'auteur' approach has been running for over a decade now. I believe it's time for a return to a more producer driven, tighter product. This is why I'm looking forward most excitedly to B26, where they will be forced to go in this more traditional direction on account of a need to successfully establish a new actor.
Having said that, I'm all for Sam Mendes's return to complete his trilogy as you'll note in my posts from above, so your comments on my 'faith' are misplaced. Additionally, and with due respect, I'd prefer to channel my constructive criticism in a manner that I see fit, if you don't mind. You are quite welcome to do the same, as you seem to be doing.
Not where I am standing. Actually here we are throwing stones at Mendes.
The reason I'm ok with it (if it's him) is because I can then more readily accept the (by then) 51 year old Craig returning (along with Scooby and the rest of the clowns). I've always believed that Craig should mean Mendes, because the two of them have shaped the franchise over the past 7-9 years. I wasn't keen on one being allowed back to indulge himself without the co-collaborator back as well. If it's Mendes, the stakes will be very high for both of them to deliver after SP. When the going gets tough...
The thought of Newman returning is really depressing
I am logging off before NoSolaceLeft logs in.
http://collider.com/sam-mendes-not-directing-pinocchio-disney/
That is a serious worry for me,with or without Mendes.
There's some cynicism in your comment. As I read your comments, I feel this indifferent sentiment from your side. Like "Ooowh Craig is it, so I prefer to focus on Bond 26". Correct me if I'm wrong.
But to be honest, I find your approach a bit....cynical. Like.....you don't mind Mendes' return if they turn that into a full-scale sequel to "SPECTRE". I think Mendes deserves a bit more credit than that. And although you don't really believe in Bond 25 becoming a masterpiece, equalling "Casino Royale", I think at this stage it's too early to feel negative about the current Bond 25 production.....or in your case...too early to feel.....indifferent.
Like I said:
Just because of SP I sincerely hope Mendes won't return. (I like SF alot though and don't mind any plot holes or whatsoever ... but Mendes was DONE after it).
Please, please bring in any other director. Please. Pretty Please. Ah - and don't bring back Newman, too! His SP soundtrack is nothing but insulting no matter who told him to recycle his SF soundtrack. The only thing he delivered was the PTS music.
That is worrying me as well....the score in SP was awful,and bloody lazy.,,,bordering on arrogance and over-confidence,which is a feeling I get about the whole SP production.
You may find my approach cynical and that is your right. However, I'm not going to change the manner in which I comment in order to appease your perceptions of my perspective.