Mendes quote about Skyfall

It's from the official Facebook page for the movie.

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

It is, but what exactly?

Sharky wrote:

It is, but what exactly?

Don't know. Part of the advertising for his videoblog that goes on the official Web site tomorrow.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

It's from the official Facebook page for the movie.

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

When I read comments like Mendes' I want to do this:




I wish we could go back to a time when the Bond movies weren't really saying much about the world we were living in, but the world we wanted to live in: a world full of hollowed out volcanoes and big-breasted women with names like Pussy and Goodhead....a time when Bond was saving the world and never stopping to wonder whether or not he was one of the good guys.... a time when villains had big schemes like creating an earthquake or poisoning the world to death so that a master race of beautiful, sexy young people could take over. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Someday I hope Babs will join me and Bond fandom will be as one.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

It's from the official Facebook page for the movie.

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

**PC antennae twitching furiously** And incidentally, the PC antennae and the bullshit detector are the same thing.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wish we could go back to a time when the Bond movies weren't really saying much about the world we were living in, but the world we wanted to live in: a world full of hollowed out volcanoes and big-breasted women with names like Pussy and Goodhead....a time when Bond was saving the world and never stopping to wonder whether or not he was one of the good guys.... a time when villains had big schemes like creating an earthquake or poisoning the world to death so that a master race of beautiful, sexy young people could take over. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Someday I hope Babs will join me and Bond fandom will be as one.

I half agree with you. While i do enjoy the GF/YOLT-style plots and such, the only ones that really did it well were Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. The rest of them did it with a self-aware smugness/stupidity which ruined it. While you could say DAF did that as well, it wasn't too profound, and the humor in the film wasn't that bad for the most part. Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice at least tried to be somewhat serious for the most part. The Moore Bond films had very few moments of seriousness, which annoyed me. For example, I didn't mind the plot for MR, but what I minded was the double-taking pigeon, Jaws falling in love, ect. That was just stupid. The only good thing to come out of the goofiness was Roger Moore yelling "RUUUPEEEE" in Octopussy.

As long as the concieted and, imo, unnescessary pretentions in no way diminish or intrude on what is actually 'a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie' I wont mind....much.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

When I read comments like Mendes' I want to do this:



I wish we could go back to a time when the Bond movies weren't really saying much about the world we were living in, but the world we wanted to live in: a world full of hollowed out volcanoes and big-breasted women with names like Pussy and Goodhead....a time when Bond was saving the world and never stopping to wonder whether or not he was one of the good guys.... a time when villains had big schemes like creating an earthquake or poisoning the world to death so that a master race of beautiful, sexy young people could take over. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Someday I hope Babs will join me and Bond fandom will be as one.

Well said.

Quote :

and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

This statement is terrifying :affraid: The likes of Mendes cannot be trusted with such commentary, especially not in a Bond film. Pass the vomit bags.

Silver lining: At least this time, the Haggfish hasn't been allowed anywhere near the script.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

It's from the official Facebook page for the movie.

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

**PC antennae twitching furiously** And incidentally, the PC antennae and the bullshit detector are the same thing.

I hear you. It could go either way, though having watched JARHEAD I'm more on the pessimistic side. That said, "saying something about the modern world" doesn't have to mean the usual Damon-Clooney-Penn bromides. As blueblood argued, GOLDENEYE achieved that, without sacrificing what makes a good Bond film. I'm hoping it's that rather than the former.

Quote :

That said, "saying something about the modern world" doesn't have to mean the usual Damon-Clooney-Penn bromides.

Very true, but we are talking Sam Mendes here. He drinks the same koolaid as Damon,Clooney,Penn,Pitt,Haggis et al. ( Jarhead, Revolutionary Road...) Be afraid. Be very afraid. :shock:

If we are offering up commentary on the modern world I'm sure Mendes will find some way to make America and the CIA the villain. Yawn.

Another quote from Mendes:

Quote :

"I’ve made six movies and this is the first time I’ve shot in this country – which is an extraordinary thing. I feel like the American years were my apprenticeship for doing a Bond movie!"

That's just great.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

say something about the world that we’re living in."

Please, please keep that shit away from the franchise. That's not what Bond movies are for.

The only thing Bond movies should say about the world we live in is that it's full of fine food, good drinks, and shagging. Keep your "social justice" commentary, Luddite environmentalism, and other ideological dreck to yourself.

I'm not a fan of Jarhead and Revolutionary Road, but I wouldn't lump them with the stereotypical liberal Hollywood world view. Jarhead has surprisingly very little political commentary to offer - and whatever mention of politics it has is brief and inconsequential. That film is more about the psychology of a soldier, which I think is portrayed more accurately than many other films. Revolutionary Road is also a psychological film, as well as about false hopes. I don't equate that depiction of 1950s suburbia with the Hollywood Koolaid. Heck, Mad Men has the same kind of social commentary, only it's done more stylishly.

We also have no clue so far as to who the villainy (and its sponsors) will be in Skyfall. Mendes strikes me as someone who may have some intellectual pretensions, but I doubt he has some left/right agenda he wants to infuse Skyfall with.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

Hurm.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

I'm definitely hoping for the bolded.

Me too, I don't see a reason to tear Sam a new asshole yet, let's see the film first. Right now there's just way too much speculation.

Marc Forster had his chance too but deserves his torn asshole for QoS. :(

I was hoping Skyfall would say something about a world we're not living in.

GeneralGogol wrote:

I'm not a fan of Jarhead and Revolutionary Road, but I wouldn't lump them with the stereotypical liberal Hollywood world view. Jarhead has surprisingly very little political commentary to offer - and whatever mention of politics it has is brief and inconsequential.

I will simply pleasantly agree to disagree with you. JH and RR are both subversive films, especially JH. I could expand, but I don't want to. Suffice to say, both films have me petrified as to what worldly commentary Mendes might wish to pollute a Bond film with. Shudder.

CJB wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

say something about the world that we’re living in."

Please, please keep that shit away from the franchise. That's not what Bond movies are for.

The only thing Bond movies should say about the world we live in is that it's full of fine food, good drinks, and shagging. Keep your "social justice" commentary, Luddite environmentalism, and other ideological dreck to yourself.

"Luddite environmentalism." That's a good one. The climate-change wackos do want to send us back to the stone age.

I like Mendes' comments about how he has a personal Bond story. I know this stuff always comes up every time a Bond film is announced, with the cast and crew giving personal accoutns of their first experience with the franchise, and they usually all go along the same lines, but this is the first time I can recall someone stating that it is his or her personal story, acknolwedging that other people have their own experiences with Bond. I get the feeling that Mendes knows that someone, somewhere will look back on SKYFALL and remember it as being their first encounter with James Bond. And I think that keeping that in mind is a very smart thing to do.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wish we could go back to a time when the Bond movies weren't really saying much about the world we were living in, but the world we wanted to live in: a world full of hollowed out volcanoes and big-breasted women with names like Pussy and Goodhead....a time when Bond was saving the world and never stopping to wonder whether or not he was one of the good guys.... a time when villains had big schemes like creating an earthquake or poisoning the world to death so that a master race of beautiful, sexy young people could take over.

Do you honeslty think those films were made without being a commentary on the world at the time? THUNDERBALL, for instance, is clearly built on fears of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE plays with the idea of China becoming a key part of the Cold War. LIVE AND LET DIE coincides with the time when illicit drug use started to become a social problem. MOONRAKER draws from Hugo van der Drache's Nazi sympathies (both Hitler and Drax wanted to establsh master races of "perfect people"). A VIEW TO A KILL works on the idea of technology gaining traction in every day life. Bond films have always been based in their then-current time, and almost all of the plots are spawned out of issues at the time.

I think you're just looking for reasons to hate SKYFALL. Because that's what you do.

Sharky wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

It's from the official Facebook page for the movie.

"I think it is still possible to make a big, entertaining, fabulous, glamorous movie and yet at the same time to say something about the world that we’re living in."

**PC antennae twitching furiously** And incidentally, the PC antennae and the bullshit detector are the same thing.

I hear you. It could go either way, though having watched JARHEAD I'm more on the pessimistic side. That said, "saying something about the modern world" doesn't have to mean the usual Damon-Clooney-Penn bromides. As blueblood argued, GOLDENEYE achieved that, without sacrificing what makes a good Bond film. I'm hoping it's that rather than the former.

But Dench's feminista claptrap was offset by the triumphalist title credits. And while, on balance, GE is a PC film by Bond standards, I thought they got that garbage out of the way early in the film, and from then on it was very enjoyable. Indeed, I currently rate it No.2.

nm

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I like Mendes' comments about how he has a personal Bond story. I know this stuff always comes up every time a Bond film is announced, with the cast and crew giving personal accoutns of their first experience with the franchise, and they usually all go along the same lines, but this is the first time I can recall someone stating that it is his or her personal story, acknolwedging that other people have their own experiences with Bond. I get the feeling that Mendes knows that someone, somewhere will look back on SKYFALL and remember it as being their first encounter with James Bond. And I think that keeping that in mind is a very smart thing to do.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wish we could go back to a time when the Bond movies weren't really saying much about the world we were living in, but the world we wanted to live in: a world full of hollowed out volcanoes and big-breasted women with names like Pussy and Goodhead....a time when Bond was saving the world and never stopping to wonder whether or not he was one of the good guys.... a time when villains had big schemes like creating an earthquake or poisoning the world to death so that a master race of beautiful, sexy young people could take over.

Do you honeslty think those films were made without being a commentary on the world at the time? THUNDERBALL, for instance, is clearly built on fears of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE plays with the idea of China becoming a key part of the Cold War. LIVE AND LET DIE coincides with the time when illicit drug use started to become a social problem. MOONRAKER draws from Hugo van der Drache's Nazi sympathies (both Hitler and Drax wanted to establsh master races of "perfect people"). A VIEW TO A KILL works on the idea of technology gaining traction in every day life. Bond films have always been based in their then-current time, and almost all of the plots are spawned out of issues at the time.

I think you're just looking for reasons to hate SKYFALL. Because that's what you do.

This is a fair point. And if SF merely grounds its plots in real problems and crises the world faces, fine. But there is a difference between an acknowledgement of geopolitical problems and pushing an ideological agenda with one's commentary. The Bond films you reference did the former, QOS came dangerously close to doing the latter. I hope SF is not QOS on steroids.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

This is a fair point. And if SF merely grounds its plots in real problems and crises the world faces, fine. But there is a difference between an acknowledgement of geopolitical problems and pushing an ideological agenda with one's commentary. The Bond films you reference did the former, QOS came dangerously close to doing the latter. I hope SF is not QOS on steroids.

It's one thing to make a film that is contemporary and entertaining; it's another to push a political point of view. Most of the Bond films pre-Brosnan are the former; the Craig films are certainly the latter. Craig's films have been drained of any intrigue, any mystery, any exotic villains, any willing women. You won't find a Xenia Onatopp or an Odd Job in any of Craig's films. No Pussy Galores.

The Connery and Moore films certainly had their SUBTEXT, but Babs has decided that it's not enough to be sub-textual; she wants her films to hammer home certain political points. We never had Connery's Bond debating the difference between justice and revenge; there was never any doubt that the British were the good guys, and Bond's world in film was in black and white; no shades of grey. Now it's all different. Now it's all "complex". Now the films feel the need to make a statement. It's just tiresome to see and hear. Babs wants Jason Bourne, not James Bond.

I thought CR was apolotical enough. Sure, there was a dollop of psychobabble, but I can overlook that far more easily than disquisitions on capitalism and colonialism.