SKYFALL Thread - Newman's Score, What a Drag

Message

John Johnson · #31 Post by **John Johnson** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:40 am

AndyDursin wrote:

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.

He would be a good choice. I'm looking forward to seeing From Paris With Love. The trailer looks fun.

AndyDursin · #32 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:07 am

John Johnson wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:

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.
He would be a good choice. I'm looking forward to seeing From Paris With Love. The trailer looks fun.

It does. I've become quite fond of Besson's produced French-lensed thrillers with "international stars", i.e. TAKEN and the TRANSPORTER pictures. Kind of reminds you of decades past!

Monterey Jack · #33 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:45 pm

Hey, maybe Mendes will cast wifey Kate Winslet as a geeky/hot Moneypenny.

Paul MacLean · #34 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:32 pm

AndyDursin wrote:Or Besson himself.

But that would mean another Bond score by Eric Serra!

John Johnson · #35 Post by **John Johnson** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:25 pm

Paul MacLean wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:Or Besson himself.
But that would mean another Bond score by Eric Serra!

Or David Buckley.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1384267/

John Johnson · #36 Post by **John Johnson** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:07 pm

Eastwood has no regrets over Bond snub

Clint Eastwood has no regrets about turning down the role of James Bond, because he was convinced 007 should be played by a British actor. The California-born star was approached by Bond bosses to play the superspy when Sean Connery quit the franchise, but he turned the role down.

And Eastwood insists he made the right decision - because he didn't want to see the iconic character portrayed by an American.

He says, "I thought James Bond should be British. I am of British descent but by that same token, I thought that it should be more of the culture there and also, it was not my thing."

Bond has been played by British stars including Connery and Roger Moore, as well as Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig - with the only exceptions being Australian George Lazenby and Irish actor Pierce Brosnan.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/1/20100210/ten ... 0bd6d.html

mkaroly · #37 Post by **mkaroly** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:57 pm

^^^ Interesting. I can't see Eastwood as Bond...even back then he was too iconic a character to see him pulling something like Bond off. He had Dirty Harry, which seemed to play more to his image.

John Johnson · #38 Post by **John Johnson** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:49 pm

And of British descent.
Reminds me of that story about him and Stan Laurel

AndyDursin · #39 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:44 pm

Just remember Eastwood's decision when Christopher Nolan casts a Brit to play Superman, which is almost completely assured.

John Johnson · #40 Post by **John Johnson** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:25 pm

Rachel Weisz has declared that she wants to star in the next James Bond movie.

The Oscar-winning actress - currently filming new film Dream House alongside 007 actor Daniel Craig - admitted that she would love to be a Bond girl.

"I've been filming with Daniel in Toronto," she said. "We've been getting on really well and yet I still haven't had an offer to be a Bond girl - but if he asks me, I'd definitely do it."

Weisz has just finished political drama The Whistleblower, due out later this year, and will soon begin filming for historical romance Agora.

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a ... -girl.html

mkaroly · #41 Post by **mkaroly** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:42 am

Never cared for Weisz....if she was in a Bond film, make her a villainess and kill her off.

AndyDursin · #42 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:12 am

mkaroly wrote:Never cared for Weisz....if she was in a Bond film, make her a villainess and kill her off.

Apparently you're right on target Michael, that's the plan...and it's kind of lame, frankly. Sounds like "stunt casting" -- does anyone care about Rachel Weisz these days?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rachel-W ... 17780.html

Personally, I'll be excited about the day when we get a real, honest to goodness BOND MOVIE again and not the glum, violent, humorless, BOURNE-inspired substitute of the Daniel Craig era. (And yeah I know CASINO ROYALE was good -- QUANTUM OF SOLACE, on the other hand, wasn't).

Looks like they're going to continue the stiff, joyless tone by carrying on this story line (again) and bringing Sam Mendes into the mix as some kind of consultant.

I sound like a broken record but this Bond for the Playstation Generation just doesn't work for me. This is a series that has totally turned its back on what made it "Bond," you can still incorporate those elements without making it totally cartoonish -- but they're choosing not to do that. There is no balance, they've just totally stripped the current series of classic Bond trademarks.

Craig might be good at being "tough," but I'll be brutally honest and say he brings little else to the role -- certainly the scripts so far haven't let him emote or do anything of that nature to any substantive degree. I wouldn't expect this movie to do anything different than the prior two films either.

Like a pendulum, it'll swing back some day, but it's like all the super hero movies out there -- all aimed at aging "Geeks" for lack of a better term. That whole "don't put any humor in these films, we revere comic book heroes more than religious figures so don't you DARE not take our guys seriously!" mantra .If you don't believe me read the AICN boards. It's scary.

Paul MacLean · #43 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:38 am

mkaroly wrote:Never cared for Weisz....if she was in a Bond film, make her a villainess and kill her off.

For me she's is one of the few actresses these days who actually deserves to be called beautiful. She's also a fine actress (as the British almost-invariably are), and I'm hard-pressed to think of any other current actresses who possesses those two qualities.

Andy Dursin wrote:This is a series that has totally turned its back on what made it "Bond," you can still incorporate those elements without making it totally cartoonish -- but they're choosing not to do that.

I agree Craig's Bond is glum and overly serious. They desperately need to inject some humor into these movies. Nevertheless I otherwise think highly of Craig's take on the role.

I like nearly all the Bond films, but always thought the Moore films too silly (FYEO excepted). I found the Brosnan films incredibly awkward in their attempt to combine "serious" spy story elements (ala Len Deighton and John Le Carre) with far-fetched sequences more typical of the Moore films. Brosnan's take on the role seemed to be half-Moore, half Harry Palmer -- teo irreconcilable elements which never worked.

My favorite Bond film remains one of the more serious outings, OHMSS. This is probably why I found Craig so refreshing. I simply don't like when movies become too silly and preposterous. It is the same reason I prefer Raiders to the Indiana Jones sequels.

But I agree, Craig's Bond needs to "lighten up" a bit, and incorporate more of those one-liners and puns. An occassional smile would be nice as well!

John Johnson · #44 Post by **John Johnson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:19 pm

http://commanderbond.net/9975/rumour-co ... nd-23.html

AndyDursin · #45 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:16 pm

My favorite Bond film remains one of the more serious outings, OHMSS. This is probably why I found Craig so refreshing. I simply don't like when movies become too silly and preposterous. It is the same reason I prefer Raiders to the Indiana Jones sequels.

Some of the Bond movies are silly. But I still love them. I love the music, the settings, the girls, the humor -- I don't like the Moore movies either on balance as much as the Connery films, but it's like different kinds of ice cream. No reason you only have to get the same flavor every time. (That said I stay away from the Brosnan flavors!).

It's like anything else in life -- I might be "better off" watching a serious PBS treatment of substance abuse in a Victorian era household, but I'd rather watch LIFEFORCE over that any day.

That said, I watch Bond movies for certain elements -- which Eon has opted to turn their back on over the last couple of movies. As a long time fan I feel alienated, but I realize they're no longer making these films for someone like me.

I'm right with you that OHMSS is right at the top of the Bond series -- but while it's serious, it's also not joyless. I sense no spark in Craig's Bond persona, he's so stiff and mannered and "tough" that it's like he's trying so hard NOT to inject any life, humor, or even sexual charisma into the part.

MGM and the Broccolis obviously looked at THE BOURNE IDENTITY, decided "what's in", and opted to go that route for the Craig films. Tough, violent, an accent on action as opposed to romance, a decided cold, humorless tone. Strip the series of its hallmarks, aim it at the youth market who are into the humorless genre remakes we see nowadays. Visually and otherwise the Craig movies more than were "inspired" by BOURNE.

CASINO was fine for what it was, a serious "restart" to the Bond movies, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE may have easily been the worst film in the entire series -- yes there are other poor Bonds but at least they had some redeeming other qualities to them, like the music or the cast, etc. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had very few redeeming elements. Watching it through a second time it was even worse than I thought the first time around.