SKYFALL Thread - Newman's Score, What a Drag

[Paul MacLean]

I like CASINO a great deal, though I do think it's a little bit overrated. Certainly as MJ mentioned the mixture there is a lot more satisfying than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I finally got around to watching Quantum of Solace last night. While I found it entertaining, it was overly frenetic and difficult to follow some of the time. The action sequences are well-staged but so frenetically edited that I lost sight of what was happening.

I saw Casino Royal but it was two years ago. Its not exactly fresh in my mind, and QOS could have used a few flashbacks to jog our memories about the details of Vesper and Bond's relationship.

I also found it hard to understand what some of the actors (including Craig) were saying much of the time, as they mumbled a lot of their dialog. Plotwise things were generally unclear, not only in terms of dialog, but visually. I thought Bond was tossing a can of Gatorade to Green; it wasn't until Judy Dench made mention of him drinking oil (at the end) that I realized what it was. Why was that hotel (or whatever it was) exploding? That was never made clear. We never found out exactly what the "secret organization" was or why its members were able to infiltrate MI6 for so long. What was point of Bond mistakenly killing another British agent at the opera?

I was also a little put off by the recycling of images/sequences from previous Bond films -- the dead girl lying on the bed drenched in oil was right out of Goldfinger, Bond's freefall without a parachute was right out of Moonraker, the car chase along the cliffside highway reminded me of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Overall, was style of the film was kind of "generic". In the 60s, everyone was imitating the Bond films. Today, the Bond films are coming to imitate other action films, and seem to lack a stylistic identity of their own. I do think Craig is one of the best Bonds, but I agree with Andy that injecting a little more humor into the mix will help get things back on track.

And lets get the "gunbarrel" logo back at the beginning of the films where it belongs.

[Monterey Jack]

I was also a little put off by the recycling of images/sequences from previous Bond films -- the dead girl lying on the bed drenched in oil was right out of Goldfinger, Bond's freefall without a parachute was right out of Moonraker, the car chase along the cliffside highway reminded me of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Overall, was style of the film was kind of "generic". In the 60s, everyone was imitating the Bond films. Today, the Bond films are coming to imitate other action films, and seem to lack a stylistic identity of their own.

To be fair, the Bond films have always chased current pop culture trends. See the late 60's Space Race in You Only Live Twice, Blaxploitation in Live And Let Die, 70's kung fu flicks in The Man With The Golden Gun, Star Wars with Moonraker, Miami Vice/80's Joel Silver action flicks in Licence To Kill, obnoxious xXx/Michael Bay editing tricks with Die Another Day, ect. Right now "gritty" and "realistic" are the buzz words of the day, ergo the Craig Bonds echoing the Jason Bourne movies. I don't think we'll ever see a complete reversion to the 60's template again, and the best we can hope for is a slight lightening up of the mood in future Craig movies.

[DavidBanner]

I believe we'll see a general return to something like the format of the earlier Connery Bonds, although not using the 60s stylings.

They've clearly chosen to put a greater emphasis on action set pieces, although these have always been a big part of the mix. In the last two films, the idea was clearly to have Bond more viscerally involved in the fray, which I think is a good step. The Roger Moore thing of walking through a brawl, beating everyone up and then straigtening his tie and walking away gets a bit tedious.

I also think you'll see something along the lines of a return of Moneypenny and Q. I wouldn't mind seeing John Cleese return as Q - I thought that was a good choice. And I think they're going to use the Quantum organisation as a new version of SPECTRE, only tooled for the modern day.

That said, the fundamental Bond things should apply here - the rifle site, the teaser, the song, a few gadgets (but I doubt they'll go overboard), some exotic locations, some big stunt sequences and a big finish.

As for the director, we'll have to see. I'm thinking it will be an up-and-coming British director, versed in action films. I don't have anyone specific in mind, but that feels like the direction they will go.

[John Johnson]

Following Daniel Craig’s recent comments regarding the start-up date for his third James Bond film, Dame Judi Dench has now chimed in with some brief details as well.

In an interview with MTV News, Dame Judi mentioned that she would likely be filming her scenes for Bond 23 towards the beginning of 2011.

She said: ‘I think I’m going to be needed in Spring of 2011. That’s a message I got. It would mean I could do something at the end of next year, something else, maybe be in the theater.’

These comments, like Craig’s earlier statement that production is planned to kick off in late 2010, point to a late 2011 release for the 23rd Bond film.

http://commanderbond.net/8790/dame-judi ... -2011.html

[Monterey Jack]

I just hope they'll (re)introduce Q and Moneypenny in the next installment. It's time. Get a geeky/hot Sandra Bullock type for Moneypenny and a Simon Pegg nerd for Q.

[Monterey Jack]

Funny how they all have the same initials, JB. Of course, there can only one JB.

[AndyDursin]

Damn I miss JACK.....Bauer that is

[Monterey Jack]

DAMMIT...!

[John Johnson]

Well I guess Kate Winslet as the Bond girl and Thomas Newman doing the score can't be too far behind. LOL



It's Mendes. Sam Mendes.

The British helmer is in negotiations to direct the 23rd installment of the venerable James Bond franchise.

Production is being fast-tracked and could begin as early as June with an eye toward a 2011 release. Plans for the film are moving forward despite a possible sale of MGM. Sony co-produced and distributed the most recent installment of the 007 series with MGM.

Bond regulars Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are writing, along with "Frost/Nixon" scribe Peter Morgan. Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli are producing. Daniel Craig will reprise his role as 007.

The film will be Mendes' first action-heavy project, though his 2005 effort "Jarhead" was set amid U.S. war in Kuwait. Mendes' most recent directorial effort, the road-trip dramedy "Away We Go," grossed $10 million domestically last summer.

Marc Forster directed the previous Bond film, 2008's "Quantum of Solace," which grossed $586 million worldwide.

Mendes is repped by CAA.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 2af1ebe6fe

[AndyDursin]

The film will be Mendes' first action-heavy project,

Just another head-scratcher.

They hired a guy with no action experience on the last movie, and the result was the worst Bond of all (yes, I would rather sit through A VIEW TO A KILL again -- at least that FELT like a Bond movie). So now they're doing the same thing?

What's more, Mendes' AWAY WE GO was downright obnoxious...the more I think about it, this is another baffling decision by Eon.

[Eric W.]

Not feeling a lot of confidence here.

[Monterey Jack]

While Mendes obviously has little experience helming action, at least he's a much more talented visual stylist than Marc Forster (all of his films are impeccably-shot). If the ratio of action in the new film is closer to Casino Royale than QOS (surplus of action scenes + totally inexperienced art house director behind the camera = bad idea), color me cautiously optimistic.

That said, I still say get John McTiernan on the next 007 movie.

[AndyDursin]

That may be true, but it's interesting how Eon used to put a premium on hiring action directors years ago -- now they want to bring in the guy who directed AMERICAN BEAUTY. Is that really progress? I want a BOND movie, not a pretentious profile of a brooding, tough-guy spy with a stick up his arse who doesn't bother to smile once.

That kind of fits, I suppose, with the cold, humorless tone of the Craig movies. Anyone, like me, hoping they'd lighten the tone and go back a little bit more towards traditional Bond is going to be disappointed -- this new film is going to be more of the recent same, I'd expect.

That said, I still say get John McTiernan on the next 007 movie.

He's the kind of guy they WOULD have hired years ago. But isn't he in prison??

Personally I would go after Pierre Morel who worked with Luc Besson on TAKEN -- or any of the other people who Besson has worked with in his "Euro thrillers" (guys like Louis Leterrier, etc.). Or Besson himself. THAT would be less risky than hiring Mendes, as they have experience working with solid action and stunts that would be perfectly suited for a Bond movie.

[AndyDursin]

Nikki Finke notes that Mendes is only a "consultant' right now, with one source saying they don't necessarily need that "fancy" a director -- just someone who can helm action. It also may have to do with MGM possibly being sold and not wanting to sign Mendes to a deal knowing the contractual aspects may have to change if MGM ends up in another studio's possession.

Along the same lines, Daniel Craig is the one "insisting" that Mendes comes onboard, eh? Craig doesn't take himself too seriously, does he? Jeez Daniel...this is James Bond, it's not "Rashomon." Seems to me Craig and this series -- especially after the lame QUANTUM OF SOLACE -- need to lighten up. But Mendes is the LAST filmmaker I would think of to help out in that capacity!

As you know, the James Bond filmmaker EON Productions operates with great autonomy and secrecy. I've just learned that producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are in final negotiations with CAA for director Sam Mendes to come on as a consultant to the 23rd James Bond film (as yet untitled).

That's right -- not as the director, yet.

This is for the film now in pre-production for release in 2011 that is set after Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace and again stars Daniel Craig (who has been telling folks that filming begins in late 2010).

I hear Daniel Craig is "insisting" on Mendes' hiring because the actor was stung by criticism of the last Bond film. Oscar-winner Peter Morgan with Quantum Of Solace and Casino Royale alumni Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, is writing the script for the latest film. Here's what sources are telling me: once EON hires a director on their Bond films, it triggers a first payment from MGM.

Well, given that MGM is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and EON may have the right to take Bond elsewhere, it stands to reason that the producers wouldn't want to do anything right away that further complicates ownership of Bond #23.

"The producers are working on a deal to bring Sam on as consultant with an eye to direct," one of my insiders says. "Once they put him on as the director, something happens to the contract in terms of ownership. But let me emphasize there's not any deal done."

Said one insider about the choice of Mendes: "Barbara thinks he's smart, which he is. But you don't need such a fancy director. You need someone who can do an action movie."

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/exclu ... n-bond-23/

[Monterey Jack]

I wish they were talking about this Mendes instead...