Daniel Craig Promises 'Skyfall' Won't Be An Emo Bond Flick

The 'Bond as blank canvas' that the audience 'projects' whatever onto is truer of cinematic 007, I'd say.

Agreed, BI.

This article that Solo linked is terribly revealing

http://nymag.com/movies/features/51819/

“It’s like I worked under this political regime with extreme censorship,” Forster plainly admits, describing his arrangement with Bond’s producers, the infamously controlling Broccoli family. “I had to subversively inject my ideas to make the movie my own.”

"Here’s a flashback of how James Bond’s new director, Marc Forster, became one of Hollywood’s most committed liberals. At age “5 or 6,” he took a walk with his father, a conservative Swiss businessman who, he says, “used money as a replacement for love.” "

Forster had daddy issues. Vomit.

Babs is letting pithy leftist filmmakers like Forster and Haggis attempt to "fix" the character. We could get more of the same in SF from Mendes.

QoS was polluted by a leftist political agenda, and schock :shock: , Forster readily admits it. Haggis' complicity goes without saying.

===btw, I will be paying to watch SF at least 5x in cinema. I do intend to appreciate and enjoy the movie, as a potentially well-crafted Bond-inspired film. A derivative Bond if you like.

Someone else, will thus have to lead the boycott, but I will participate in "We Want Our Bond Back" pickets, outside the Eon offices.

I can have my Tiffany Case inspired, "Blow Up Your Pants, Babs!" sign ready to go at a moment's notice.

Forster's direction was nowhere near the worst in the series, but given that article, I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. Regardless of his positives and the money that QOS made, I'm sure EON has some regrets not only because of Forster's anti-Bond views, but also the way he spend the $230 million budget.

GeneralGogol wrote:

Forster's direction was nowhere near the worst in the series, but given that article, I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. Regardless of his positives and the money that QOS made, I'm sure EON has some regrets not only because of Forster's anti-Bond views, but also the way he spend the $230 million budget.

He fucked up that money, I can't look at that film and see where the money went....certainly not into the freefall....I've seen better special effects in free online games. Thanks to his financial buffoonery, the subsequent budget got slashed....where are my ladies steel tipped doc martens? I so want to kick his fucking ass. :drunken:

David Schofield wrote:

Hmm.

Of course, Ian Fleming himself started this emo-Bond stuff, didn't he?

OHMSS is a bit of a lark, but JB alls in love, chucks his lifestyle and job - and his wife gets shot!
YOLT sees Bond having a nervous breakdown, goes to Japan on a similar lark, and then goes crazy with revenge after Blowers.
TMTWGG begins with Bond shooting M, is restorted to sanity via mental treatment. Christ, had Fleming been able to do a second draft we might have had more emo - Bond reflecting on his treatment in Russia, his remorse at shooting M.

So the soppy stuff isn't just down to Craig and Barbs.

Those things are hardly "emo" - that's more the grand heart-to-hearts between Bond and M in the past couple films.

Nothing in this thread is "emo."

I'm betting on Bond being the one who pulls the trigger on M in this one. Anyone in?

Also Hale Berry got nominated after being cast in DAD. You can't compare how films were made 45 years ago with today. The world have changed. All A list movies are now B movies with huge budgets and A list stars. Marvel films dominate the BO, when that material was not film worthy 45 years back.

You guys hate so much Babs, it looks like you only love Bond because he slaps women and treat them like sh@t.

I love Babs she is the best thing that happened to Bond.

Stamper wrote:

I'm betting on Bond being the one who pulls the trigger on M in this one. Anyone in?

No, I'm not in. But I definitely believe that his parents were working for Her Majesty on a mission that cost them their lives, and now that revelation puts M and Bond at a crossroads. If this movie were based on a comic book it would be called THE AMAZING JAMES-BOND.

Quote :

You guys hate so much Babs, it looks like you only love Bond because he slaps women and treat them like sh@t.

I don't deny that. However, to Babs credit, I gave her high marks from GE - DAD. It's only been with the hiring of Daniel Craig onward that I think we're starting to see the real Barbara Broccoli or, at least, a newer, more matured, older, different version, and I don't care for it one bit. Bond is not a whore. He should not be in a dress, wig, pumps and lipstick shilling for some National Association of Gals.

Quote :

I love Babs she is the best thing that happened to Bond.

To paraphrase Magda from OCTOPUSSY: 'She'll destroy the entire operation.'

You wouldn't say that if her nipples were in your mouth.

Stamper wrote:

You wouldn't say that if her nipples were in your mouth.

Don't give me mightmares please. Anyway she's taken.

Stamper wrote:

You wouldn't say that if her nipples were in your mouth.

I love this guy.

Stamper wrote:

I'm betting on Bond being the one who pulls the trigger on M in this one. Anyone in?

Already speculated that....either that or M does herself in....like Sonny Steelgrave in Wiseguy...

Chief of SIS wrote:

Stamper wrote:

You wouldn't say that if her nipples were in your mouth.

I love this guy.

Me too. He's got a certain je nais c'est quoi or whatever the 'ell you call it.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

GeneralGogol wrote:

Forster's direction was nowhere near the worst in the series, but given that article, I agree that he shouldn't have been hired. Regardless of his positives and the money that QOS made, I'm sure EON has some regrets not only because of Forster's anti-Bond views, but also the way he spend the $230 million budget.

He fucked up that money, I can't look at that film and see where the money went....certainly not into the freefall....I've seen better special effects in free online games. Thanks to his financial buffoonery, the subsequent budget got slashed....where are my ladies steel tipped doc martens? I so want to kick his fucking ass. :drunken:

The money wasn't spent on the floor, or properly, it was spent on doubletime and tripletime in postproduction because of the producers and their eternal commitment to getting the flick into theaters within a dozen or 15 weeks of shooting having wrapped - which is serious insanity when you have 900+ VFX shots as QoS did. In fact, pretty much all of the overages can be linked to the producers.

Forster certainly didn't overshoot the schedule like, say, Peter Hunt did (not saying there weren't reasons for Hunt to have gone over, but even so), and if the producers didn't expect a creative type to be creative, then they shouldn't have hired Forster. Even when Coppola does work-for-hire, he brings all the artistry and POV you expect from the guy. It's rare (and usually not good) when an artist sublimates and delivers generic fodder, even when the box office is okay (Welles' THE STRANGER comes to mind and sticks in craw.)

The skydiving VFX were laughable, but no more than DAD's idiotic worst visual moments, and it least they didn't seem to last as long.
Also, conceptually, it is damned near impossible to pull that off. They'd've been better off shooting stuff live outside and then fooling with it (sort of like the freefall in that crappy Abrams TREK film, which at least works to some degree.) Technically the freefall stuff was considered a success by the VFX folk, so that shows how the operation can succeed while the patient is definitely past breathing.

Jump Forster for stuff he actually was responsible for if you must, but don't be a 'print the legend' type who parrots popular untruths. That's what the REST of the internet is for.

trevanian wrote:

Jump Forster for stuff he actually was responsible for if you must, but don't be a 'print the legend' type who parrots popular untruths. That's what the REST of the internet is for.

I don't blame the rest of the internet for having less respect for Forster than I do. Like this site below.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

Harsh? Perhaps. But I was terribly disappointed in Solace too....

If QoS took $230 MILLION to produce, and all we got was that horrid flash-cut mess that Forster helmed....as Director, he also deserves a lion's share of the blame for the mess it was. I wouldn't have bothered with Skyfall if Forster was back on board.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Jump Forster for stuff he actually was responsible for if you must, but don't be a 'print the legend' type who parrots popular untruths. That's what the REST of the internet is for.

I don't blame the rest of the internet for having less respect for Forster than I do. Like this site below.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

Harsh? Perhaps. But I was terribly disappointed in Solace too....

If QoS took $230 MILLION to produce, and all we got was that horrid flash-cut mess that Forster helmed....as Director, he also deserves a lion's share of the blame for the mess it was. I wouldn't have bothered with Skyfall if Forster was back on board.

Yeah, the quick-cutting and shake-cam are huge faults in QOS, and those rest solely on Forster's shoulders. As director, he sets the tone for the editing and shooting of the film, and clearly he wanted to ape the Bourne films as much as possible (along with their childish political sensibilities). For me, that was the biggest waste of money right there - you set up a big action sequence involving cars, boats, planes, whatever - and then you film, cut, process and rearrange the hell out of it until it's impossible to tell what the devil's going on, let alone how much money was spent on the scene. People (especially the film's fans) often bemoan the "cost controls" on LTK. I'm not sure if such controls were there or were a factor in that film, but I do know that its budget was $32,000,000, which inflation adjusted for 2008 would be $52,000,000. That's not much, but I can see what they spent their money on. Every penny they spent on the tanker truck chase is there on the screen.

Granted, the film industry seems to suffer from the same cost inflations as the defense industry (e.g. every next-generation fighter costs much more per unit than the last generation fighter), but why the hell would you need $230 million for a "Back to Basics" Bond movie? DAD made due with much less, and that was hardly back to basics.

Funny review posted above by Dog re Quantum of Sludge.
I concur. This movie really is garbage on every level one can think of. It blows and sucks at the same time. I agree with the writer. Marc Forster is an idiot
"Only James Bond—the secret agent who foiled a plot to destroy London with nuclear missiles—can make water more affordable for Bolivians! This is easily the stupidest James Bond movie since the last one. I don't know what Hollywood's obsession is with making jerk-off movies where the bad guys are "realistic." You know what's another word for realistic? Boring. If I wanted realism, I'd walk down the street to get Mexican food, and maybe stop by a Borders and pick up some magazines. You know why they don't make movies about me shopping for magazines? That's because nobody gives a shit. And that's what Quantum of Solace is: me shopping for magazines, with no Mexican food. I don't see movies for realism, and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't watch one made by some asshole who thinks "reality" can best be represented with the aid of 219 special effects artists. Which leads me to this movie's biggest problem: Marc Forster is an idiot.
If Marc Forster was an X-man, his super power would be ruining brands. Question: what's the difference between Oscar winning director Marc Forster, and a first-year film-school student? Nothing apparently,...... "



Mind you it's still watchable but damn it is a bad Bond-film.

tiffanywint wrote:

: Question: what's the difference between Oscar winning director Marc Forster, and a first-year film-school student? Nothing apparently,...... "



Mind you it's still watchable but damn it is a bad Bond-film.

One difference: first-year film-school students aren't given $230 million to spend.

Quote :

Here's what each word of the subtitle means:

Quantum: Noun

1. A discrete amount of something that is analogous to the quantities in quantum theory.

Solace: Noun

1. The comfort you feel when consoled in times of sadness or misery.

So the title literally translates to "James Bond: A discrete amount of comfort felt when consoled during a time of sadness."James Bond finally catches some dude he was chasing for revenge, and then Bond (Daniel Craig) shows off his acting chops by showing the tiniest glimmer of a smirk, an almost infinitesimally small, but measurable amount of consolation. It's hard to describe how incomprehensibly stupid this scene was with mere words, so here's what it looked like:


A literal quantum of solace.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Jump Forster for stuff he actually was responsible for if you must, but don't be a 'print the legend' type who parrots popular untruths. That's what the REST of the internet is for.

I don't blame the rest of the internet for having less respect for Forster than I do. Like this site below.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

Harsh? Perhaps. But I was terribly disappointed in Solace too....

If QoS took $230 MILLION to produce, and all we got was that horrid flash-cut mess that Forster helmed....as Director, he also deserves a lion's share of the blame for the mess it was. I wouldn't have bothered with Skyfall if Forster was back on board.

Yeah, the quick-cutting and shake-cam are huge faults in QOS, and those rest solely on Forster's shoulders. As director, he sets the tone for the editing and shooting of the film, and clearly he wanted to ape the Bourne films as much as possible (along with their childish political sensibilities). For me, that was the biggest waste of money right there - you set up a big action sequence involving cars, boats, planes, whatever - and then you film, cut, process and rearrange the hell out of it until it's impossible to tell what the devil's going on, let alone how much money was spent on the scene. People (especially the film's fans) often bemoan the "cost controls" on LTK. I'm not sure if such controls were there or were a factor in that film, but I do know that its budget was $32,000,000, which inflation adjusted for 2008 would be $52,000,000. That's not much, but I can see what they spent their money on. Every penny they spent on the tanker truck chase is there on the screen.

Granted, the film industry seems to suffer from the same cost inflations as the defense industry (e.g. every next-generation fighter costs much more per unit than the last generation fighter), but why the hell would you need $230 million for a "Back to Basics" Bond movie? DAD made due with much less, and that was hardly back to basics.

Look, I talked to Forster and he was adamant about NOT wanting to do anything remotely like Bourne in terms of overcutting and jittercam -- you can probably still find the Forster interview on ICG magazine's site, but the DP's stuff never went online -- and he and the DP both instructed Dan Bradley to come up with a whole different approach for the 2nd unit stuff.

That doesn't jive at all with what we got on screen, and therein lies the rub, cuz I don't know why Forster would be lying about this stuff a couple months before the movie came out, when it was still being finalized in a helluva hurry. You still frame from the film and you see a well-shot flick, too much work on the DI maybe but still sharp-looking. But the cutting undoes all that in a huge way. Difference is that I think the action scenes in QoS MIGHT have been okay without the overcutting, whereas the first BOURNE (the only one I ever got all the way through, thank god for Clive Owen) HAD to overcut because the action was so horribly staged --- they had to try to make something out of nothing.

again, most of the QoS money (like T2 and many others) went to double- or triple-time in post to get the vfx done in a tiny amount of time. No previous Bond had anywhere near this number of VFX cuts, so yeah it is going to cost a helluva lot more.

trevanian wrote:

again, most of the QoS money (like T2 and many others) went to double- or triple-time in post to get the vfx done in a tiny amount of time. No previous Bond had anywhere near this number of VFX cuts, so yeah it is going to cost a helluva lot more.

So are you saying this double and triple time was in the tune of $80m? Bear in mind that QoS also has the shortest running time of any Bond movie, with sites reporting that Forster himself was adamant Solace wouldn't be more than 2 hours long. At 106 minutes, each minute cost over $2.16m...quite the price tag for that disappointing sequel...

After all...where the fuck are the stunts?!? Bond has always been known for bigger than life stunts where real stunt men do real things that make you go "DAMN!" Where's the guy skiing off the cliff? Where's the guy bungee jumping off the dam? Where's the car doing the 360 corkscrew jump? Where's the record breaking 70 foot speedboat jump over a cop car? Where's the guy leaping from back to back, using alligators as stepping stones?

Nope - you won't find that any of that here. The opening car chase, for example, with Bond under constant machine gun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we're essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other, inter-cut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching vehicles. Or take the foot chase and fight across the rooftops (pointlessly inter-cut with pretentious art house scenes of a horse race, mind you) - I quite literally couldn’t tell which person was Bond and who the enemy was. They were both dressed in black, and with the camera whipping around so badly, I simply couldn’t tell who was who!

What we do get, however, are a bunch of scenes that reminds almost everyone of the recent Bourne movies rather than James Bond.

Let's not blame Forster for any of this. Let's do like Milli Vanilli and blame it on the rain. Double and triple time shoe-horned into that $230m damp squib.

Skyfall has gone into 6-7 months of production so far and they're still trying to keep costs down to $145m. Heineken has subsidised that by around 1/3...I'm sure tv rights will bring in another $20m-25m or so....

Quantum is the only movie since Dalton left that made me feel like I was watching something that originated with Fleming, and that's saying a lot considering how utterly miscast I find Craig. Unlike CR, which I don't think I've ever gotten all the way through in a single viewing w/o nodding off or having to skip a couple of the casino chapters, this does move along, though I acknowledge the ADD editing is nearly always unwelcome.

As for the huge stunts ... they ain't in FRWL either, but that still absolutely dusts every Bond film by miles. FRWL does have Connery moving in a very impressive way through the gypsy camp battle. The OTT stunts you cite are sometimes breathtaking, granted, but there are just as many that are wince-inducing or things you'd only want to see (if at all) in a Moore movie. There's a difference between exaggerated reality and looneytune fantasy (for the latter, see Moore's biggest pics.)

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

After all...where the fuck are the stunts?!? Bond has always been known for bigger than life stunts where real stunt men do real things that make you go "DAMN!" Where's the guy skiing off the cliff? Where's the guy bungee jumping off the dam? Where's the car doing the 360 corkscrew jump? Where's the record breaking 70 foot speedboat jump over a cop car? Where's the guy leaping from back to back, using alligators as stepping stones?

Huh! Best stunt in the movie was Elvis getting his pants blown off. Wasn't that real?

Actually I do like the opening car chase, even if I can hardly make any sense of it. The roar of the engines is impressive, and you do sort of feel like you are in it.