Cool News
And The Director Of The Next 007 Film Is...
Merrick again...
Hollywood Reporter says Marc Forster, director of FINDING NEVERLAND and MONSTER'S BALL, will helm Daniel Craig's next outing as James Bond, 007. This after several different names had been spinning about the rumor pool, including (at one point) the possible return of CASINO ROYALE director Martin Campbell.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE!!!
Maybe Bond will use something like this:
-
+ Expand All
-
1st for once
-
in Monster's Ball ...
-
Monsters Ball. Bond 22 will be great. 2nd too touche
-
is what made it cool... however.. that is pretty friggin amazing.
-
The Anybody But Bush slogan? (Boy, were we right too) Well, as a fanatic Bond follower my slogan for #22 was Anybody But Campbell. The script for Casino Royale was excellent (and Haggis is back on 22), but I can't stand Campbell's direction and he botched it for me. I didn't like GoldenEye either. His pacing and editing and lack of direction in the intimate character scenes, none of it works for me. Forster is completely unproven in the action genre, but he's extremely talented without a doubt and seemingly determined to mix it up as far as styles of film. We'll see. But he's not a hack like Campbell.
-
How did he get picked? Is he a fan? Does he have action movie cred hidden somewhere? I'm open minded but I'm also curious. Seems to me that if someone hasn't done action movies before, a Bond film would not be the way to cut your teeth... What execs said "No action movies before, huh? Perfect. You're hired" WTF? We'll see...
-
I can't really say if this is good or bad. I only hope that it turns out good.
-
you know it.
-
As long as it's as good as Casino Royale was, I'm all for it
-
Seriously, I am actually worried about the action scenes now. The grit of Casin could be a thing of the past.
Hmmm? Maybe this will be a soft PG-13 as well? -
you guys just dont know the meaning of the word Hack. A hack is someone whose creative output is only seen by friends and family because he or she is not good enough to gather a real following. Stop throwing that word around so you can feel like you have an opinion...by the way I respect all of you.
-
....oh right Pearl Harbor. Haha jk. I have seen neither films so I don't know what he's capable of. But I do know that it's a radical shift in genres.
-
I wouldn't mind Halle returning for that.
-
You saw the sex scene in Monster's Ball, right? Id be more concerned with the DP and Editor when it comes to the action...they are the guys that will really make it pop...
-
i can't say i can think of a better director to continue the emotional themes of casino royale. and i wouldn't be too worried about the action scenes, the producers have been around long enough to know when those are going sour. besides, just because we haven't seen him do an action film doesn't mean he can't. like someone else pointed out, forster's all over the map in terms of films - who else has as varied a resume like Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stay, Stranger than Fiction, and The Kite Runner in as many films? Stay makes me feel confident in his editing abilities, even if it wasn't a perfect film. bond 22 just got a lot cooler!
-
He seems to like to push himself. Now he's adding an action film to his resume...
-
Seems like they're committed to focusing on drama first and action second, which isn't a bad thing at all. The action sequences are planned so heavily that as long as there's a skilled choreographer and DP everything should go swimmingly, assuming that the director doesn't think shooting close-ups is a good way forward - hi, Mr. Nolan and Mr. Abrams! Now, here's a radical thought: Kate Winslet as a Bond girl. Ignoring the morons who would scream that she's not a size 0 ex-Euro model, she'd be a damn fine foil for Bond. Plus, she looks friggin' great to me.
-
He did not RECREATE Bond by any means. And I just don't like his fucking movies, period. GE was the return of Bond after 6 years with a new Bond, that's why it did so well. It has a few good moments, but overall it's a pretty lethargic Bond movie. Same with CR, it just never felt very Bondian to me. Part of that is Craig (a thug, not Bond to me) and part of that is Campbell's boring style. That's my opinion. I much prefer Michael Apted's style on TWINE or even Roger Spottiswoode's TND, which at least moved at a nice crisp clip. Pacing is very very important in a Bond film. I also read the script for CR beforehand and I'm telling you he did not do that great script justice.
-
...she's nice to look at but she seems to have come down with "Sally Field Syndrome."
"You like me! You *really* like me!"
..."Don't you? I'll show you my tits... oh c'mon *now* you *have* to like me... please?!?!!??" -
They won't let the original directors of the 1st film come back... It seems like they don't want anyone to take leverage from them... I'm not a big fan of Martin Campbell, but he did a great job with Casino Royale! He shold have been brought back to keep it consistent in tone etc etc...
-
Do you guys have some kind of deal with Youtube now to show their videos as much as possible?
-
It was ok, and Craig was great as Bond, but the script needed some work. The movie started out balls to the wall great, but the last half hour was coma inducing - not what you want in a Bond movie. I have faith the next one will be good, but I haven't even seen Casino again and have no real desire too.
-
You bought those awkward, corny-ass "love scenes" between Bond and Vesper??? I got a lot more involved emotionally with Tracy and Bond in OHMSS - Hell, even with Teri Hatcher's character in TND who only has a couple scenes. The guy can't direct traffic.
-
Forster as director is a very unusual choice. Hopefully he'll tap into this new emotional pulse the 007 films have going, while also proving himself capable of good action sequences.
-
the first time a real director has made a Bond film. Good choice.
-
More gay lines for Bond, he has alot of ass-whoppin to do to make up for it.
-
in a sub-Gondry/Charlie Kaufman kinda way. Can't say i cared too much for any of his other films, but it should be interesting to see how he takes on Bond.
-
I've heard that complaint about TWINE, but like I said, I liked the action and the overall pacing of the film - but MOST of all, I liked the way he handled the Sophie Marceau relationship which really made it an interesting twist in the third act. I think we should have cared a lot more when Vesper killed herself. It was dramatic, but not nearly as resonant as it was on paper and it could have been. I felt the same way about the "love" scenes in GE. Campbell just doesn't get it.
-
I thought you were gonna say Paul W.S. Anderson!Now can we get Billy Bob to play Bond and Halle back as "Jinx"?
-
Disagree with you more.
-
I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot, but haven't really thought back on it much, and Bond isn't something I get too excited for. With a good director though, and a similar tone to the last film, this could be really good.
-
I will miss Campbell though. CASINO was the tits.
-
And I second Yack's opinion on the breastaticness of Casino Royale.
-
A montage of shallow, ridiculous cliches and stereotypes, shoved around dramatic plot points so contrived they amounted to unintentional black comedy. A ham-fisted attempt at parable using the most cliched, dimensionless excuses for character since... I dunno, whenever. The movie's message was "Performing cunningulus on Halle Berry is the cure for racism and hatred." I don't doubt it, but it's not very workable.
Please don't screw this up, guy that directed Monster's Ball. -
...here's hoping he can pull off the action. And here's hoping the script is better than the GOD-AWFUL CR script. I enjoyed the movie and all, but Fuck you, Paul Haggis. Fuck you.
-
(well, except maybe stranger than fiction) that I feel relieved by this announcement. Royale was so fucking great (clue: when you see a movie in a world premiere and the audience goes nuts, the film IS good.) that I was really worried they couldn't live up to Campbell's work. Not to mention that the Alex Proyas rumor was scary, considering his lack of success with blockbusters. Now my expectations are lowered SO MUCH that it could turn out really surprising. Thanks Barbara, thanks Michael. You made my day.
-
Will Halle Berry return as Jinx?! Maybe this time, she'll just have sex and cry alot on Bond's shoulder.
Hoping it would have been Campbell. We'll see... -
After GoldenEye, they asked him back numerous times and he turned them down. He took Royale because it was reboot and an adaptation of the first Fleming novel. During production of Royale he said he probably wouldn't come back. Reiterated this a number of times, though he once said "never say never". But you can't blame the producers here.
Forster seems like a solid choice. I've never seen any of his movies though. Would have preferred Campbell or Matthew Vaughn though. Certainly better than Roger Michell if you ask me. -
well Crash was dumb but Casino Royale kicked all sorts of ass...the I remember that he brought us that opus Walker - Texas Ranger...then I think of Haley Joel Osmant saying during said show.."It's OK Walker... I have AIDS" Then I remember that there HAS TO BE two Paul Haggis'. THERE HAS TO BE.
-
I agree with you that the director is the one who controls the vision for the film, but I think a Bond movie is one of the few exceptions to that rule. There are so many people invested in that franchise that they cannot and would not allow a director with no eye for action to screw up the film. Just wouldn't happen. That was my point when I agreed with the original poster.
-
He couldn't even shoot the fat kid getting hit by the car. We had to use our imaginations, damnit!
-
>And The Director Of The Next 007 >Film Is...Merrick again
Awesome dude, how'd you get the job?!
(psst psst grbl grble psst)
Uh...Oh. Ok.
Never mind.
Move along, nothing to see here. -
Good one Codename V. It's seems that's how Hollywood picks their action directors nowadays.
-
Seriously! Craig has no charisma and acted through the whole movie with two facial expressions! Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre) would have been a much better choice. Ever Brosnan would be a better choice! (Brosnan was a good Bond. He just had the problem that at least two of his four movies were the worst Bond's ever! But it wasn't his fault!)
Oh, and change the writer(s) too. And please, no unintentional funny torturing anymore!
-
well, it can't hurt.
-
Craig is the best Bond since Connery (Yeah, even after that tie-adjusting Roger Moore wannabe Brosnan) and actually looks like he can fucking kill you any time he wants. And CASINO ROYALE was not overrated. It was easily the best film of 2006.
-
Can Will Ferrell please be in it.
PRETTY PLEASE!!! -
was all style and no substance. When I read a post that says dont change the direcor, change the star. means that the anti-craig brigade are back in town. Casino Royale had the best opening 1 hr 45 mins of any modern bond. Then it all fell apart. With that boring card game. I was like enough of this lets get back to fecking movie. The rest of the movie was boring. The end was good though. Bond looked like he came from Layer Cake. With the suit and that mean looking machine gun.
-
Throw it in the trash where it belongs. Craig is a one-note scowling charmless and classless Bond who doesn't have an ounce of the unflappable style the role requires. Oh yeah, and he's FUGLY. I mean, serious fugly. He looks a lot more KGB Putin than 007. "But he was just BECOMING Bond..." Yeah, we'll see if he can actually BE Bond in the next one. It takes more than scowling and mumbling and lifting weights.
-
cancer and so that scene at the end of Finding Neverland was very moving. Where Kate winslet goes into the garden.
-
It is a shame that Spielberg didn't get to do a Bond back when he was interested -- even lamer that the producers didn't want to negotiate or give in to his terms. Then again if you're gonna day dream, my choice for the ultimate Bond director would still be James Cameron. Could you imagine Cameron going balls out? Given what was introduced and hinted at in CASINO ROYALE, after this next film and building things a little more, then having the Cameron Bond where its him versus Blofeld and Spectre all out...say a large scale finale in the secret huge volanco base or whatever?All I can say is 3 words: BEST BOND EVER.
-
Billy Bob Thornton must be involved.
-
He directed the best of the Brosnan films and Casino Royale was great as well.
-
... but I'd like to see the same director of photography Phil Méheux brought back to lens the movie and keep some of gritty feel he brought to both GoldenEye and CR. It'll be interesting to see how Foster deals with such detailed storyboards and if he can bring something exciting into the action shots as Campbell did with CR. I do think someone like Foster will be stronger on the acting than Campbell though. It does seem that EON are still going in a more subdued move towards grounding their Bond with an arthouse director. Hey, it worked for Greengrass with Bourne 2 as I'm sure it will with Bourne 3 so maybe it can work with Bond 22. Like tiredpm said, there's too many people with invested interest in this movie to let a dirctor who can't shoot action screw it up. We'll only really know when we see the first trailer and start to hear the early buzz from crew members whether this one's going to be a From Russia With Love better-than-the-original sequel or just another miss-fired TND or MWAGG. I hope it's the former as I want to see a worthy kick-ass sequel that'll make Craig's third outing even more antcipated than his second. Here's hoping.
-
That is all. This is at least an intriguing choice though.
-
The whole backwards ass reasoning behind Apted's hiring on TWINE was to make sure the drama would be great, since even at that point Brosnan was becoming rather vocal that he wasn't getting enough opportunity to "act" and emote as Bond. On the flip side, the general thinking on the part of the Producers was that the second unit would OBVIOUSLY -- being the professionals that they are -- be more than capable of bringing in the action scenes. Unfortunately what you ended up with was a mish-mash that just never came together -- though to be fair, TWINE's script wasn't very good and the SECOND you decide to hire Denise Richards to play a nuclear scientist you've already gone waaaaaaaay astray.Bottom line: say what you will about second units and whatnot, but you still need a strong director at the helm who can instill a consistent vision over the whole film, start to finish, regardless of who's shooting secondary footage or whatever. So I hope he's bringing that type of vision and control to the table here.All in all, as a lifelong Bond fan, I wish this guy well. My only worry (given his past films) is that he really does have a feel for action that he's just never had a chance to put on film yet versus being a drama guy who is mistakenly thinking "Ahh, how hard can shooting action be? Drama, dealing with emotions, getting down into personal psyches...THAT'S hard! But action? Pffft! It's just guys running around getting sweaty. I'm sure we can make it work in the editing room..."
-
...that Casino Royale should have been Brosnan's swan song to the franchise. He lobbied for years to do that film, and to do it hardcore, and Eon refused. Then Eon gets something shoved up their collective posterior and decide that the failing of *Tomorrow Never Dies* was the fault of Brosnan and then they shitcan him while swiping his idea to do *Casino Royale* and hand it to Craig. I mean, thematically, it didn't make sense for Craig's Bond to be tired of the spy lifestyle to want to give it up just after earning his 00 status. But had it been an elder Brosnan, thematically it would have rocked. He was weary after being Bond, wanted to cash out and retire away with Vesper. And thus it would have bookended Brosnan's tenure on the franchise with *GoldenEye* and *Casino Royale* being his finest. Then Eon/Sony could have rebooted the franchise with Craig or Julian McMahon and a lot of fans wouldn't have been so cheesed off. Now if some studio could do a cinematic remake of *The Prisoner* (forget the planned tv show reboot) and cast Brosnan as Number 6, karma would be restored.
-
[1.] Perhaps he just didn't want to do it. Directing two franchise films in a row can end up pigeonholing you. I think he made the exact right choice by impressing everyone with GoldenEye, then staying away for a while and coming back for CR. Both of them were good films (although I like CR much, much better) and he got credit for reinvigorating the franchise twice. But he likes to do other types of movies (usually not great ones... Beyond Borders?... but they're his choice) and he doesn't want to just be That One Dude Who Shoots The Bond Flicks. [2.] It can't hurt to get another director's take... as long as that director is not a manic prostitute (figurative or literal -- we've had both). The second Craig film will likely be a bit different in structure and tone, so it makes sense to have someone else shoot it. Even the best of the Bond films can start to look like each other unless there are a few changes behind the scenes. Dr. No and From Russia With Love were both outstanding but we'll never know if Terence Young had it in him to shoot something as gauche as Goldfinger and get away with it. All we know is that Guy Hamilton did a great job on that one. And when Terence Young came back for Thunderball, let's face it, it was kinda boring. [3.] Last but not least, MONEY, people, MONEY. The Bond films are big-budget, but that budget should be up on the screen, not above-the-line. Campbell and his agents probably asked for a hefty sum (if he wanted to do it at all), and the producers probably decided to move on to someone cheaper.
-
I'm just saying...
-
suck cock by choice.
-
Didn't he do his spy thing with True Lies? Some great action set pieces there, the restroom fight scene always seemed like it was lifted from a Bond movie. Intense rough fight scene in a constricted area. Luc Besson has a good visual eye, but too fuckin' French for Bond!
-
Except for the stupid bouncing around scenes in the opening done by those French acrobats. Stupid Eon talked the talk about making the Bond films "realistic" like the boring Jason Bourne films (sorry, but they suck) and then they go about to do a bunch of stunts that only 2 people in the whole frikkin' world can do. They just should have had Bond follow the terrorist to the embassy and then blow up the canisters like he did. That would have been more hardcore and without the lameass cartoonish drivel.
-
I should have typed *Die Another Day* but I accidentally typed *Tomorrow Never Dies* which still was an equally sucking Bond film that Brosnan got saddled with.
-
Talented British directors gotta eat...
-
So I wish him luck.
-
Sorry, I've been dying to say that since the original casting was announced and this is the best chance I've gotten in a while.
-
Eon did not steal Brosnan's idea to make 'Casino Royale'. The rights were tied up and didn't become available until the deal with Sony. By which time Brosnan was asking for too much money.
And I'll take Craig as Bond over that smug mannequin any day. I loved Moore, but that Bond is dead and buried. -
anyway what can i do? please don't suck!!!!!!
-
I never saw the original Casino Royale so I had nothing to compare it to. I thought Daniel Craig rocked as Bond.
-
..Julian f*cking McMahon. Jesus, there is no comparison to Craig. Have you seen his plucked eyebrows and incredibly smarmy manner?
-
Too bad he's not returning to do the next Bond. I thought his Casino Royale was amazing. And Goldeneye was the best of the Pierce Bronson movies, as well.
-
It's going to be great.
-
Actually I think Marc Forester could be a good choice. He's an eclectic one, I'll give 'em that. Let's just hope he doesn't forgo all his talent to become a b-level Tony Scott the way Lee Tamahori did.
But one thing to keep in mind---Bond has not had two films in a row that were hits with BOTH critics and audiences since the Connery days. -
Technically there was a 1967 movie entitled "Casino Royale" but it had nothing to do with the Ian Fleming novel; it was a Bond spoof made without the involvement of the 007 producers. But to answer your question, the next film will be an original story not directly taken from any Ian Fleming books.
-
2009 please: Ghost Rider the begining!!!!!!!!
-
come on!!!!
-
Seriously.
-
Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland are pretty much perfect films in my opinion. Stranger Than Fiction was excellent.How is this in anyway bad news?
-
Somewhere there's an alternate earth that gets movies the way they are supposed to be. In that world die hard movies are rated R, wachowskis and Cameron direct bond movies with actual NAKED chicks in the opening title sequences, and speilburg directed all 3 sw prequels. Whoever directs this-bond movies have NAKED chicks in the opening title sequence! Casino Royale's opening title is just guys doing violence and no tits.
-
Have some more crack.
-
Don't scoff. Besides, that theory is most likely what got Bryan Singer onto X-MEN.
This is a weird fuckin' choice, no doubt, but it could turn out well. -
Seriously, cool the fanboi h8 for Victor von McMahon. If the FF producers would simply voice modulate his voice deeper and meaner, like Doom's voice was done in the toons, then nobody would have a beef with his "portrayal". McMahon would be a more believable Bond than Keaton ever was as Batman in comparison.
-
Uhm, there's a higher probability on that alt.earth of seeing one of the Wachowski Bros. in drag naked than ever seeing an actual nude woman in a Bond production of theirs. I'm of the right mind of going back and rewatching *Bound* so I will find something in it that they stole from *Doctor Who* as what happened wholesale in their "original" work known as *The Matrix*. The look and sound of perfection my bollocks.
-
He wouldn't work for Bond ever and he isn't a good Doom but he would be a good Bond bad guy. I think they are setting up for Spectre in these movies or at least something similiar to it. I really wanted Campbell to do the next one because I felt like a story was being built. But I have total faith in the new guy.
-
I fucking love that movie. Watched it over HBO this weekend for the 5th time.
-
And I pity you. He's cool, hard, and the ladys find him sexy. And as for all this bullshit about one note. The guy held his own against Newman and Hanks, and Speilberg personally cast him. But you guys know better...
-
Is this a good choice or a bad one?
http://tinyurl.com/23fzv5 -
It was good, and I liked it, but it wasn't Bond to me. I missed Q, the gadgets, and an an evil fargin sneaky bastage who lives in a volcano.
-
Awesome the first hour, then dragged, then picked up at the very end. LOVED the use of the "Bond, James Bond."
-
he has directed the best bond movies in the last 15 years.
-
Every modern scifi movie ever made- stole from doctor who,the twilight zone and the early sci-fi writers like asimov. And one o them 'brothers' is a full woman now so maby she likes tits in bond films having been of both persuations. And yes hd-dvd is perfect except for the low bass issue which is inexcusable. Wish Denon would make an all-in-one box with real D/A converters and proper bass manangement- All the hd formats will fail and microsoft will own your movie collection- downloadable for a price in inferior 720rez with standard dvd bitrate audio. Now if free on-demand comcast had every friggin movie ever made in 1080i that wouldn't be so bad. That shit starts instantly the moment you push the button. But for extreme audio/videophiles there's only UltraVivid polished hd-dvd and blue ray with the Talisman destatic treatment. it'll make regular dvd look and sound like hd and hd look and sound like film. You'll instantly see it in the way shadows play across surfaces.
-
After his work on Queens Blvd. and Medellin proves that he has the chops for this series. Now if we can only find the right part for Johnny Drama...
-
I saw Finding Neverland and thought it was rather decent. I never did see Monster's Ball.
So, this one's going to be an original script not based on any type of script that Ian Fleming came up with?
I wonder if the last film did so well because it had some kind of contact with a Fleming story. If this is going to be an original, I think this one will be the one to gauge how well this new reset of the series will really be.
Plus, I'm sure they'll be weaning in the gadgets- slowly but surely. -
-something different? He's done two of the damn things already. The franchise doesn't own him.
-
I think the producers would have brought him back if they could. Campbell said he was bored with Bond films.
-
where Bond sits on his ass in the shower.
-
Not a fan of directors that do that...
-
MGM being absorbed by Sony was the best ting that could have happened to the Bond franchise.
-
Good choice of director. Marc Forster is stylish, varied, creative, and pulls great performances out of actors. "Casino Royale" was the best Bond film ever, in my opinion, because Daniel Craig was the first Bond who can actually act. I find most of the Bond franchise to be brutally simplistic, lowbrow, and stupid, so it was nice to see a Bond film that didn't insult everyone's intelligence. And based on the giant box office return "Casino Royale" pulled in, it's obvious the rest of the world feels this way too.
I'll be interested to see what Forster does with the next film. -
What's obvious is that you're not much of a Bond fan. You're a tourist. Like I am in the superhero genre. CR was a Bond film for people who don't like Bond films. What I want is a Bond film that feels fucking Bondian and has all the fun and excitement I associate with the series. "Lowbrow". Did you actually fucking say that?? How big of a snobbish dick are you? And Pierce Brosnan did a great job ACTING Bond and I think Connery - do you know him? - yeah, I think he could act too...you POMPOUS ASSHOLE. Craig's glowering face is not the end-all and be-all of acting. Not in my book. I don't get what everyone's talking about, I really don't. He's the same morose prick through the whole movie. Is he a good actor just because he's so damn fugly?? I think this is just the overpraise you expect with whoever's new - but if he doesn't broaden his interpretation and let a little more style and sauveness and humor into it next time around (that's Bond, buddy, that's what Bond is, whether you like it or not - not a muscle-bound thug), I think that audience you think all agrees with you is going to tire of him very quickly.
-
...franchise (and the Broccoli family), but this news actually puts a smile on my mug. Forster really brought a kinetic energy to Stranger Than Fiction, and I think he showed he has a strong grasp when it comes to the visuals of filmaking. Bond will look good, and possibly this time his Aston Martin won't flip over (36x) when Bond puts to much oversteer into her.
-
The only fugly guy in the bond franchise is YOU. You are wrong but that's ok, you live in front of you computer whereas Craig shags all the mannequin looking chicks and get drunk on cocktails in high class venues. Go back to your fridge and drink that can of coke, how so classy...
-
Jun 20, 2007 2:46:50 AM CDT
martin campell rebooted the bond series twice
by supercowbell 4 cant stop the cowbell
both with great movies (i love goldeneye, best brosnan movie). i think we owe this man our lives.
-
it was the guys after campell who messed up the brosnan movies. havent seen tommorow never dies in a while, but i remember liking that one but die another day is fucking awful. one of the worst movies this decade.
-
Any ideas? He could be a maniacal, disgruntled MI6 Section Head? Balkan war criminal released after tribunal collapses? An irascible CIA boss with Vicodin addiction and a limp?
-
This Bond is going to be sweeeeeet.
-
It's a good thing he remembered to turn off his ramjets before he released his parachute.
-
This seems a really odd choice to me. Monster's Ball was good, Finding Neverland okay (it was better the second time) and Stranger Than Fiction was great (but that was Zach Helm's script as much as anything), the closest thing Forster's done to a Bond film was the suck-tastic thriller Stay. Not sure about this.
-
Peter Jackson for JLA! I mean, does anyone know what Bond 22 is? Dr No? From Russia with love? Something new (please God no)? Anyone? No? Then I stay on target. Peter Jackson for JLA!
-
and I like that some of the studios now are thinking somewhat outside the box, going for the more drama-oriented directors (as opposed to, say, a Michael Bay) to get a fresh spin on their franchises.
-
It seems to me that the Bond producers book good directors (Apted, Lee Tamahori both had very decent films on their CV) but then give them so many restrictions that they don't get to properly author their movies. The producers of Harry Potter, contrastingly, seem to have made 2 duds, learnt from that, and are now getting interesting directors and giving them fairly free reign - they bring on board their editors, their composers etc. Cuaron's Potter world is very different from Newell's etc. Problem with Bond is they are too nervous.
-
In response to me disliking most things Bond except the newest film, which I felt was the best Bond movie ever, you called me (in capitals, no less) a "POMPOUS ASSHOLE."
That's fine. You can say I'm a tourist, not a long time fan (I've actually watched every Bond film except "The Living Daylights" and "Die Another Day"), and you can vehemently disagree with my opinion.
But don't call me a pompous asshole. That's just you pushing onto other people how you feel about yourself.
You like James Bond and are partial to classic Bond-isms. I respect that. But I personally think "Casino Royale" was by far the best James Bond film ever made. Thus I'm actually looking forward to Craig and Forster working together on the next installment. -
$161 million domestic; $240 million foreign-- before DVD revenue.
Just saying... I keep seeing people post under the impression that that movie's poor performance was the reason for the reboot, and it's just not true, as the film was a cash cow. -
Well, I apologize for getting carried away, but I called you a pompous asshole because you were standing on high and saying that Daniel Craig was the only REAL actor to ever play Bond. Please. That's just a ridiculous statement in my eyes. Craig's performance had a few nice moments, but overall was too leaden and one-note for me. But you insulted every other actor that played the role and I just could not disagree more. Craig has a loooooong way to go before I put him in the same category as Connery, and Brosnan is much more adept at covering the full range of Bond. I'm looking forward to the new film as well - cuz I'm a fan of the CHARACTER and the whole series. I think Forster is an interesting, maybe even inspired choice and I'm hoping against hope that Craig polishes up his Bond and surprises me. CR was a little too joyless and drab for me. You're right, it's fine to disagree...but in retrospect, maybe dismissing the most successful film series in history as "lowbrow", is not the best way to open your argument.
-
will we hear those words in a bond movie?
-
...as Nicholas Meyer was to Star Trek.
-
Fair enough, Rebeck. I'll pull my categorization of the Bond franchise as "lowbrow" off the table. I know the films have been around for over 30 years, and there've been a lot of great moments. I guess my enjoyment of "Casino Royale" came from the fact it was informed by a post-"Alias" spy-thriller mentality. Injecting some personality and inner conflict into a man who's always been nothing more than a suave, womanizing male fantasy breathed life into 007, in my opinion.
Also, Daniel Craig's resume is far more varied, consistently surprising, and award-filled than Connery's or Roger Moore's. Connery couldn't have pulled off what Craig did in "Casino Royale." Neither could've any other Bond actor, except possibly Pierce Brosnan. After seeing "The Matador," possibly.
Connery et al had their classic moments, I give you that. The chase scenes were always insanely over the top and the villians were always sociopathic, power-hungry nutcases, which movie audiences love.
I just enjoyed the fact "Casino Royale" allowed some inner conflict(such as it was) to happen for Bond. He gets double crossed in the worst way imaginable for a spy, has to figure out what's going on, and eventually watches the woman who loved him but double crossed him anyway die. That's emotional. That gets under your skin. That's what I enjoyed about "Casino Royale."
Maybe Forster's new film will return to the earlier Bond standard. We'll find out next year. -
A couple corrections: the franchise is 45 years old this year, and Connery has at least one award Craig doesn't, the only one that matters in my eyes, the Oscar. But otherwise I take your points, and the irony is that I LOVED the script when I read it for just those very reasons - it was the execution that I can't warm to, both Craig and Campbell. I don't mind GLIMPSES into Bond's inner life and emotions, but I don't want it to take over the series. It's an action/suspense series first and foremost and that entertainment should always be the focus. Of course a great story makes a difference. It's a balancing act. I'm just afraid they're going to take this ball and run with it and we have another grim fucking revenge story that will be a drag ala "Licence To Kill". I hope they keep that balance. Also, I'm just not a fan of sullen. Sullen is what American actors do when they want to come off tough on screen (I'm a Yank), what makes Bond special is that British charm and enjoyment of the finer things in life, the ability to live it up right before he dies. If they continue to whittle that away, I'm not sure who this guy is anymore. In any case, I'm glad there's a new director and we'll see...
-
Has folding plastic wings and 4 jet turbines. He flew thru the alps in it. Need those to buzz bomb towel heads in Iraq.
-
loose cannon. There are three things that point to this. one. black and white clip of his first kill. two. his second kill. he is just sitting in the corner of the guy's office. minimal banter, they talk about his first kill and without batting an eye lid. bond kills his second person. three. scene in M's. And fourth one would be the scene where he brings down an entire terrorist cell by himself.
-
Dalton did what Craig did nearly TWENTY years ago. He made Bond more of a real person. The difference being; Dalton was tall, dark and handsome while Craig looks like a plumber. My problem with Casino Royale was the proposition that 57 year-old Daniel Craig was supposed to be a wild young agent new to his job. Wouldn't that have worked better with a younger looking actor who actually looked like James Bond?
-
The much-ballyhooed action sequences are IRRELEVANT. Yes, even the construction site chase and certainly the airport chase. They got the fanboys in the seats and made for a nice trailer, but they were still irrelevant. (Who wants to bet that it was Wilson who was pushing for them, and NOT Broccoli, who really seems to have her pulse on what makes Bond Bond?) That's a major shift for the series. The opening scene and the defibrillator scene were just as exciting, emotional, and economical. Forster is a good choice for the new direction of the series.
-
I'm not scoffing so much as wondering about thought processes. I'll keep an open mind. I always do. But I do wonder sometimes how execs arrive at decisions. As I said before, we'll see. He's made some good movies to be sure, and I hope he "gets" Bond enough to do him justice. Scofflessly yours, Codename V. :)
-
I was a long time Bond fan who stopped watching after the second Brosnan film (I don't blame him, just the producers). Casino Royale was more what I was looking for, so I'm one of those who was praising it when it came out. But that's only because it was going in the right direction (less jokes and techno-garbage). The movie itself wasn't that great. At the very least, it needed a good 45 minutes cut from it. Having Bond quit the secret service over some dizzy broad he just met isn't very Bond-like, but it wouldn't have been so bad if I didn't have to sit through watching his "retirement" for what seemed like forever. They should have spread out the action a little better rather than simply overloading us with it in the first few minutes. Also, the terrorist plot to blow up some plane on the ground to affect the stock price of the company making it was just retarded. Still, I'm glad it did well and I hope it steers them in the right direction. I'll always pay for substance over flash.
On other notes, Dalton was the best Bond and For You Eyes Only was the best movie (serious cold war story, with skiing, diving, climbing, etc). IMO anyway.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts