OFFICIAL: Sam Mendes NOT directing Bond 24

Largo's Shark wrote:

I thought the PTS, Komodo dragon fight and underground chase were pretty fun, too.

SF was a blast. It had all the elements--character development, benign bizarre, action, suspense, humor, beauty, glamor--all in perfect proportion. You just can't do Bond films much better than SF.

tiffanywint wrote:

Python wrote:

Basically you want the Bond that was portrayed as nearly unflappable by Connery and Moore, and away from the conflicted hero interpretation that Dalton, Brosnan, and now Craig is portraying. More black and white, less grey. I doubt that will happen as long as Mike and Babs run the show.

Yes, except that Dalts and Broz were nowhere near as grevious as Craig. Craig IMO, when he is on, is a better Bond than either of his immediate predecessors, but it's his films that are the problem.
Neither the Dalts nor Broz Bond were beset with the personal and trust issues that Craig's Bond deals with, thus I much prefer their Bond movies, even if Craig can be a formidable Conneryesque Bond when the material allows.

There are certainly internal trust issues in LTK.

Babski devastated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9925451/Barbara-Broccoli-devastated-by-Sam-Mendes-decision-not-to-direct-second-Bond-film.html

What she needs is a man to love her, to dominate her.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

There are certainly internal trust issues in LTK.

The difference is that the Craig films wallow in this stuff. The Broz and Dalts films at least kept things moving and didn't overplay these angles. The Dalts and Broz films were quite recognizable as conventional Bond films. The Craig films not so much.
But I get it, Craig is going to focus on character drama.This won't stop. What's frustrating though is that because the filmmakers, after 40 plus years, are stuck with the Bond tropes, one gets the sense that they feel almost obligated, but not necessarily happy to have to incorporate traditional Bond elements into their films. As someone else mentioned in another thread, QoS seemed almost embarassed about being a Bond film.

Hilly wrote:

What she needs is a man to love her, to dominate her.

She's like a kid who inherited the candy store. If you listen to her SF commentary with MGW and Gassner, both she and MGW sound like a couple of rich kids who have care and control of this iconic franchise, who get to sub it out to the filmmakers of their choice, to see what they might do with it. Their M.O. strikes me as much different than the way Cubby and Saltz operated. Those two seemed very hands-on and less inclined to defer to their subordinate filmmakers. Babs and MGW seem more like custodians of the brand. Their thoroughly tedious commentary is all about how wonderful everyone associated with the production was, and how luckey and blessed they were to have everyone. What's glaringly absent is much discussion of what they were trying to do.
I can see why Mendes doesn't want to come back. His excuse is pretty lame.
Mendes ruled out directing the next Bond film last week, saying he was offered
the opportunity by the franchise but was unable to commit. He told Empire
magazine the decision not to accept their offer had been "very difficult", but
cited theatre and other professional commitments that "need my complete focus
over the next year and beyond".
Mendes I think shot his bolt with SF. Mission accomplished. He did a grand character-drama in the Bond vein and now its time to move on. He's not interested in simply doing good quality Bond adventures within the context of the broader Bond template, like directors of yore. He wanted to do a big Sam Mendes Bond picture, which he did. That's why his commentary is so good and the Producer bosses' one is so lame, because SF is Mendes' baby, not Bab's and MGW's.
I don't think its a coinicidence that Babs and MGW seem to have a new director for every film, whereas Cubby and Saltz tried to wring a few pictures out of their core directors. Hunt and Glen were even both veterans of the Bond crew before they were promoted. Cubby stuck with Glen for his final 5 pictures, because Glen suited his needs and Glen was happy to churn out one "conventional" Bond film after another.
I am making more in the way of observations here, rather than bitching. The bitching is tempered by reality. The reality being that Babs and MGW are not sailing this ship, the same way their "dad" did. They are more hands off and experimental. Craig I think has more control over the direction of the franchise about now than they do. They do remain in charge of course and may be very hands on with the business side of things, but creatively, I think they are happy to see what others come up with, under their benevolent oversight.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

There are certainly internal trust issues in LTK.

The difference is that the Craig films wallow in this stuff. The Broz and Dalts films at least kept things moving and didn't overplay these angles. The Dalts and Broz films were quite recognizable as conventional Bond films. The Craig films not so much.
But I get it, Craig is going to focus on character drama.This won't stop. What's frustrating though is that because the filmmakers, after 40 plus years, are stuck with the Bond tropes, one gets the sense that they feel almost obligated, but not necessarily happy to have to incorporate traditional Bond elements into their films. As someone else mentioned in another thread, QoS seemed almost embarassed about being a Bond film.

QOS, yes. But SF, no. SF was proudly Bondian. I believe it's a mistake to blithely paint the entire DC era with the Haggfish/Forster brush.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

There are certainly internal trust issues in LTK.

The difference is that the Craig films wallow in this stuff. The Broz and Dalts films at least kept things moving and didn't overplay these angles. The Dalts and Broz films were quite recognizable as conventional Bond films. The Craig films not so much.
But I get it, Craig is going to focus on character drama.This won't stop. What's frustrating though is that because the filmmakers, after 40 plus years, are stuck with the Bond tropes, one gets the sense that they feel almost obligated, but not necessarily happy to have to incorporate traditional Bond elements into their films. As someone else mentioned in another thread, QoS seemed almost embarassed about being a Bond film.

QOS, yes. But SF, no. SF was proudly Bondian. I believe it's a mistake to blithely paint the entire DC era with the Haggfish/Forster brush.

I think SF is as close to a classic/traditional Bond film as modern audiences/film makers will produce, we have to accept that certain things can never be the quite same again time and audiences have changed demonstrably. For myself I am heartened that unlike CR and QoS, I think SF was actually a refreshing sign that all is not lost, it is proudly Bondian, proudly different and as such a much more encouraging foundation than we previously stood on. I do sympathise with Tiffy's concerns - Modern pretension and self absorption are always a threat when imo the franchise has for much of its life flourished directly as a result of rising above such restrictions.

I understand the concerns, lachesis. Bond could not have survived if Micolli continued down the dismal path QOS hacked out. Fortunately, they seem to have recognized a pudding sack when they saw it.

I do think Craig more than anyone is driving the Bond bus, right about now. I don't think Babs and MGW really have a vision for the franchise. They are merely custodians who have inherited the property. Remember they presided over the 4 Brozzer films, after their father died. The Brozzer films were all quite recognizable as "conventional" Bond films, but we did see elements of the melodrama creeping in. I put this down to the stylistic touches of the various directors though(most notably Apted) who nevertheless still felt bound by the conventional Bond template, whereas Brozzer himself seemed inclined to roll with what the role brung him.
The signal change with the franchise has been with the re-boot. And what distinguishes the re- boot more than anything is the presence of thespian Daniel Craig, who handpicked Sam Mendes. He will continue to evolve his Bond, and with the roaring financial success that was SF, it seems he will have carte blanche. We can expect more character-driven dramas. This is what the thespian Craig demands.
What irks me somewhat about the Craig era is the way the filmmakers, including Craig, like to use Fleming as cover for their pretentions. I would prefer they take ownership themselves. They overstate YOLT as a precedent for Bond's down-in-the-dumps routine in SF. The circumstances of Bond's depression in SF do not parallel anything that went down in Fleming's YOLT. Rather Mendes and Craig seem to wave Fleming in our face as a pre-emptive strike against critical commentary. As if to say, "you dare challenge Fleming? You challenge us, you challenge Fleming."
Forster was channeling Fleming in QoS too. Actually, my bad, Forster, if I remember correctly, was channeling the classic early films, not so much Fleming. (Notice the girl on the bed slathered in oil). It's hard to keep up with their homages and inspirations. It's really never just about what they want to do.
Its one big new-Bond classic-era films and/or Fleming palooza, with everyone dutifully citing their favourite early film or Fleming tome, although I wonder how many have actually read the entire 14 book oeuvre.
And then we have this pap from John Logan:

“Fleming’s courage in showing Bond’s fear and vulnerability and depression was really interesting and something that a modern audience can accept,” said Logan. “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character. And those are the layers that Fleming wrote.”

.
It translates to, this is simply what I Logan want to do, but I am happy to use Fleming as cover.
"Fleming's courage" Puleese. I think even the great man himself is barfing in his grave.
Personally I think Terence Young and Sean Connery got Fleming about right

Quote :

I think even the great man himself is barfing in his grave.

If Ian Fleming survived a massive heart attack and DIE ANOTHER DAY, he'll survive anything.

tiffanywint wrote:

I do think Craig more than anyone is driving the Bond bus, right about now. I don't think Babs and MGW really have a vision for the franchise. They are merely custodians who have inherited the property. Remember they presided over the 4 Brozzer films, after their father died. The Brozzer films were all quite recognizable as "conventional" Bond films, but we did see elements of the melodrama creeping in. I put this down to the stylistic touches of the various directors though(most notably Apted) who nevertheless still felt bound by the conventional Bond template, whereas Brozzer himself seemed inclined to roll with what the role brung him.
The signal change with the franchise has been with the re-boot. And what distinguishes the re- boot more than anything is the presence of thespian Daniel Craig, who handpicked Sam Mendes. He will continue to evolve his Bond, and with the roaring financial success that was SF, it seems he will have carte blanche. We can expect more character-driven dramas. This is what the thespian Craig demands.
What irks me somewhat about the Craig era is the way the filmmakers, including Craig, like to use Fleming as cover for their pretentions. I would prefer they take ownership themselves. They overstate YOLT as a precedent for Bond's down-in-the-dumps routine in SF. The circumstances of Bond's depression in SF do not parallel anything that went down in Fleming's YOLT. Rather Mendes and Craig seem to wave Fleming in our face as a pre-emptive strike against critical commentary. As if to say, "you dare challenge Fleming? You challenge us, you challenge Fleming."
Forster was channeling Fleming in QoS too. Actually, my bad, Forster, if I remember correctly, was channeling the classic early films, not so much Fleming. (Notice the girl on the bed slathered in oil). It's hard to keep up with their homages and inspirations. It's really never just about what they want to do.
Its one big new-Bond classic-era films and/or Fleming palooza, with everyone dutifully citing their favourite early film or Fleming tome, although I wonder how many have actually read the entire 14 book oeuvre.
And then we have this pap from John Logan:

“Fleming’s courage in showing Bond’s fear and vulnerability and depression was really interesting and something that a modern audience can accept,” said Logan. “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character. And those are the layers that Fleming wrote.”

.
It translates to, this is simply what I Logan want to do, but I am happy to use Fleming as cover.
"Fleming's courage" Puleese. I think even the great man himself is barfing in his grave.
Personally I think Terence Young and Sean Connery got Fleming about right

I agree with the comments that Young and Connery got Fleming right and that today there is too much selective use of Fleming's name to try and bludgeon an approach that is only a small part of what the writer really delivered - ironically pretensions justified by the use of a name of someone who himself was happy to deny the need for such pretensions. However I am not convinced Daniel Craig is driving anything, he seems like an invested but typically jobbing actor to me. Certainly Casino Royale was unlikely to be affected much by any ''demands' he might make - he wasn't exactly a hot property when he arrived, QoS is not a film he actually champions today and if he did bring Sam Mendes on board then it is notable that there is, at the very least, some effort made to try and lessen or counter the dour introversion of the preceding films. I think you give SF too little credit, maybe not for what it achieves but certainly for what it attempts.

I am happy to give SF credit where credit is due but that's it, otherwise I am not buying this bs that the Craig era is some great tribute to Fleming. It isn't. The Craig era is an opportunity for a hodge podge of name-fllmmakers to put THEIR stamp on the long established Bond brand. Forster, Haggis, Mendes, Logan etc. They have all had their crack at "improving" the Bond brand in their own pretentious vision.
None of the Craig films are very much alike. The whole concept of CR was madness. It's not the worst film in the world, but it's concept and execution was bizarre. It is the most incomprehensible of all Bond films. QoS involves the hi-jacking of Bond by the leftist tag team of Forster and Haggis. An insipid film, barely recongizable as a Bond film. While SF, was Mendes turn for a kick at the Bond can, and he put his drama stamp all over it, and naturally contrived an excuse to boot the iconic gunbarrel to the backend of the film again. btw putting the gunbarrel at the end of the film, or not including it at all, is simply a contrarian symbolic gesture to serve notice that these re-boot films are not like the old films. These new Craig films are of course "better."
Craig for his part revels in all this, because each new director/writer etc gives him a chance to do something new and "edgy" with the character. Craig's Bond will always need to have personal and or major trust issues with someone close to him. The proof is in the last three Bond puddings. If Craig isn't actually driving the bus, then he is instrumental in determining who gets to drive next. If you're pitching a Bond concept to Craig btw, just start with, "Dan, I've got this great idea where Bond is all f***d up over something, and you get to go through a whole range of emotions, before you finally emerge trimphant, slay the dragon, and then announce to the fanboys at the end of the movie, how Bond is now back again, that he never really left (until next film that is) and we cue the gunbarrel at the end again, blast that tiresome old Monty Norman Bond theme, that we take pains to avoid trumpeting during the actual film, unless of course we engage some cheesy homage to an old film. Then you lumber out like a gorilla looking all mean and edgy, confusing the the hell out of the poor befuddled fanboys, who don't know what the hell is going on with their beloved Bond. Just Leave them with the gunbarrel, and that wretched theme at fulllblast, and they won't know what the heck they've been hit with.
"Meanwhile this plot is so edgy and rife with Bond personal demons, it will scare Beelzebub himself. That two dimensional poseur Connery will wet himself"
Craig, "OK I'm sold. What Fleming novel are we drawing on, so I can scan it, and get up to speed with the relevant chapter or paragraph?"
Wannabee Hollywood-name Bond director,"I don't know, let me get Googling. I'm sure I can find something. We will cite Fleming as courageous, just like Logan did, which of course is how we weasal-label ourselves as courageous. Genius!"
Craig "One more thing. I don't have to finish the film making out with a girl or anything do I?"
"No of course not, nothing so tacky as that. We can just have her walk away again or kill her off"
Craig, "OK good. Those Connery films were so cornball. OK I love it!!!! Lets get crackin. This old dog's not getting any younger."

Yes, I know, I amuse myself. Excuse me, I have to go polish my Sean Connery and Ian Fleming busts.

Man, I needed double strength barf-bag to get through that gush-fest. Maybe Babs should be the Bond-girl in the next film. Then she can make-out with "her most gorgeous man in the world" Bond-boy. Craig I'm sure, would even dig out his frock and wig. Sean, on the other-hand would ask if they could homage the DN tarantula-in-the-bed scene, but minus him in the bed this time. Rog, whose not as nasty, would simply buy her an ice-cream, if she went all Bibi on him.
God help this franchise.

tiffanywint wrote:

Rog, whose not as nasty, would simply buy her an ice-cream, if she went all Bibi on him.

Been there. Done that.

Barbara Broccoli wined and dined with Martin Shaw when she was in her late teens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8013792/Martin-Shaw-turned-down-James-Bond-role.html

Hall & Oates wrote a song about her.

tiffanywint wrote:

God help this franchise.

He doesn't need to. Man just gave it $1.1 billion at the box office. It's fine.

Largo's Shark wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Rog, whose not as nasty, would simply buy her an ice-cream, if she went all Bibi on him.

Been there. Done that.

Barbara Broccoli wined and dined with Martin Shaw when she was in her late teens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8013792/Martin-Shaw-turned-down-James-Bond-role.html

Hall & Oates wrote a song about her.

"The actor said the offer came in 1978, the year Moonraker was released
starring Roger Moore. "They asked me way back to do a screen test for James Bond. I said "no","
Shaw said in a interview in this week's Radio Times."I just didn't want to play him because it dominates everything you've done
or go on to do. "I was having dinner with the daughter of Cubby Broccoli. This was about
1978. She'd seen me in The Professionals and begged me to do a screen test. She
was astonished when I said "no thanks". She was still a teenager in 1978.. but.apparently plying her wannabee beaus with promises of Bond.

tiffanywint wrote:

"The actor said the offer came in 1978, the year Moonraker was released
starring Roger Moore. "They asked me way back to do a screen test for James Bond. I said "no","
Shaw said in a interview in this week's Radio Times."I just didn't want to play him because it dominates everything you've done
or go on to do. "I was having dinner with the daughter of Cubby Broccoli. This was about
1978. She'd seen me in The Professionals and begged me to do a screen test. She
was astonished when I said "no thanks". She was still a teenager in 1978.. but.apparently plying her wannabee beaus with promises of Bond.

Surprised at that, can't imagine Martin Shaw in the role I always thought it was Lewis Collins that was being groomed as a future candidate at the time (not that I think he'd have been any better).

Shaw probably think what happened to Collins happened to him. You get th,at with old age.

lachesis wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

"The actor said the offer came in 1978, the year Moonraker was released
starring Roger Moore. "They asked me way back to do a screen test for James Bond. I said "no","
Shaw said in a interview in this week's Radio Times."I just didn't want to play him because it dominates everything you've done
or go on to do. "I was having dinner with the daughter of Cubby Broccoli. This was about
1978. She'd seen me in The Professionals and begged me to do a screen test. She
was astonished when I said "no thanks". She was still a teenager in 1978.. but.apparently plying her wannabee beaus with promises of Bond.

Surprised at that, can't imagine Martin Shaw in the role I always thought it was Lewis Collins that was being groomed as a future candidate at the time (not that I think he'd have been any better).

Bond with a bubble perm would have been a sight to behold.

tiffanywint wrote:

both she and MGW sound like a couple of rich kids who have care and control of this iconic franchise

tiffanywint wrote:

I am not buying this bs that the Craig era is some great tribute to Fleming. It isn't. [...]
Craig for his part revels in all this, because each new director/writer etc gives him a chance to do something new and "edgy" with the character. Craig's Bond will always need to have personal and or major trust issues with someone close to him. The proof is in the last three Bond puddings. If Craig isn't actually driving the bus, then he is instrumental in determining who gets to drive next. If you're pitching a Bond concept to Craig btw, just start with, "Dan, I've got this great idea where Bond is all f***d up over something, and you get to go through a whole range of emotions, before you finally emerge trimphant, slay the dragon, and then announce to the fanboys at the end of the movie, how Bond is now back again, that he never really left (until next film that is) and we cue the gunbarrel at the end again, blast that tiresome old Monty Norman Bond theme, that we take pains to avoid trumpeting during the actual film, unless of course we engage some cheesy homage to an old film. Then you lumber out like a gorilla looking all mean and edgy, confusing the the hell out of the poor befuddled fanboys, who don't know what the hell is going on with their beloved Bond. Just Leave them with the gunbarrel, and that wretched theme at fulllblast, and they won't know what the heck they've been hit with.
[...]

Yes, I know, I amuse myself. Excuse me, I have to go polish my Sean Connery and Ian Fleming busts.

Brilliant!

tiffanywint wrote:

Man, I needed double strength barf-bag to get through that gush-fest.

Indeed. Their taste in film and re-interpretation of the series, as well as unashamed self-praise, are sickening.

Loomis wrote:

lachesis wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

"The actor said the offer came in 1978, the year Moonraker was released
starring Roger Moore. "They asked me way back to do a screen test for James Bond. I said "no","
Shaw said in a interview in this week's Radio Times."I just didn't want to play him because it dominates everything you've done
or go on to do. "I was having dinner with the daughter of Cubby Broccoli. This was about
1978. She'd seen me in The Professionals and begged me to do a screen test. She
was astonished when I said "no thanks". She was still a teenager in 1978.. but.apparently plying her wannabee beaus with promises of Bond.

Surprised at that, can't imagine Martin Shaw in the role I always thought it was Lewis Collins that was being groomed as a future candidate at the time (not that I think he'd have been any better).

Bond with a bubble perm would have been a sight to behold.

Have the feeling if Shaw had been cast, the perm would've been the first thing to go :afro: .