Phil Jackson Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 So IMDB has Sam Mendes listed as the director of the next Bond film. Wonder if this means he'll be bringing Roger Deakins on board? Definitely a change of pace from Meheux and Schafer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan. I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan. I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt. I read the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I'm sorry, am I missing something here? I agree that Mendes (or any top director) will be good for the franchise. The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Porto Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is. I think a lot of that has to do with Daniel Craig as he has taken the character in a more 'bad-ass' direction for the past two. Do I think this is bad? No, I loved Goldeneye (which was a lot of fun) the same as which I loved Casino Royale. I think that Bond's character will obviously change depending on the actor that plays it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Well, badass is fine, but there also needs to be some humor, fun and gadgets. Also, how many decades are we going to have to wait until we get a badguy with an awesome headquarters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Not that I am agreeing with this, I'm interested by the new films as they are just different, but these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no? I'm not surprised you are interested in more gagets, Tom :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trevor Swaim Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no? Yes, very much so. The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Joofa Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books. With the possible exception of Timothy Dalton as is considered by many to be the closest of all on-screen Bonds to the character in the novels. His movie "The living daylights" is one of my favorites among Bond movies, and I severely dislike Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 I have liked all of the actors who've played Bond. The issue for me is not the actors, but the scripts. To me, For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me were kind of the sweet spot. Amazing locales, tons of gadgets, amazing babes, bad guys with amazing lairs.... but above all that, Bond actually had to do some "spy" work back then, instead of just muscling his way through everything with machine guns. Imagine that: a spy movie that involves actual spying and doing some detective work. The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh White Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Don't know if anyone has seen this yet but Deakins is confirmed. Deakins to Shoot Bond 23 ...Digitally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Yes with Alexa and he says hopeful of Optical Viewfinder . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Possibly anamorphic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I would doubt that Roger Deakins isnt a great fan of anamorphic lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 John, I had to read that double-negative about five times before I was completely clear on what you were saying! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Mitch yes terrible , must slow down and think and read before pressing "send". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Joel W Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 He's not a big fan of anamorphic lenses, preferring cropped super35 for the ease of use, speed, and lack of artifacts. I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another. That was hardly Brosnan's fault, it's not like he wrote the scripts. AS Bond, he was passable, not the greatest which is reserved for Connery and not the worst which is reserved for Rodger Moore. As I said, to me Connery WAS the one and only James Bond but oddly enough, the most interesting Bond was George Lazenby. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character. With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 2, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2011 After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character. With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that? The current Alexa has a 16x9 sensor. The older ARRI D21 has a 4x3 sensor so is well-suited to using 2X anamorphic lenses. ARRI is releasing a 4x3 sensor version of the Alexa with an optical viewdfinder, and I'm sure Roger Deakins is first in line to get one, but I don't know if enough would be available to shoot the next Bond film in anamorphic. Not to mention, Deakins is not a fan of anamorphic lenses anyway so I suspect the next Bond film will be shot with spherical lenses like the last two were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted August 3, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 3, 2011 After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character. With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that? The alexa can unsqueeze anamorphic images in viewfinder and monitor out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 David and Keith, Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to get straight information from people who use the equipment as opposed to the company's sales info. It doesn't really make too much difference, I'm excited to see where they go with the next installment. ~D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Yes, very much so. The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books. Are you kidding? FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S are VERY close adaptations, and the case can be made for THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER as well ... only dif on RUSSIA was the film actually ADDED complexity by introducing SPECTRE. The Craig films take some stuff from Fleming, but it is so out of context (not to mention bone-stick stupid in plotting and execution) that it seems only like lip service to me (having said that, I still enjoy QUANTUM "OF SOLACE quite alot, in spite of the ADD editing and the huge miscasting error of hiring a guy who looks like he lost an acid fight to play James Bond.) CASINO was just so moronic and audience insulting, as though pro spies would keep secret info on their cellphones! What, nobody MEMORIZES stuff anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Are you kidding? FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S are VERY close adaptations, and the case can be made for THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER as well ... only dif on RUSSIA was the film actually ADDED complexity by introducing SPECTRE. The Craig films take some stuff from Fleming, but it is so out of context (not to mention bone-stick stupid in plotting and execution) that it seems only like lip service to me (having said that, I still enjoy QUANTUM "OF SOLACE quite alot, in spite of the ADD editing and the huge miscasting error of hiring a guy who looks like he lost an acid fight to play James Bond.) CASINO was just so moronic and audience insulting, as though pro spies would keep secret info on their cellphones! What, nobody MEMORIZES stuff anymore? KH I'm going to let you know about the "actual names" rule of the forum. I will also suggest you go back and actually read the origional books. Daniel Craig (ouside of being blonde) is damn near perfctly fitting to Flemming's description of the character. He's a lethal, almost thuggish, killer. He's not a pretty boy clown with one-liners. (And that is the end of my fanboy rant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 KH I'm going to let you know about the "actual names" rule of the forum. I will also suggest you go back and actually read the origional books. Daniel Craig (ouside of being blonde) is damn near perfctly fitting to Flemming's description of the character. He's a lethal, almost thuggish, killer. He's not a pretty boy clown with one-liners. (And that is the end of my fanboy rant) I'm waiting with baited breath to hear about the actual names rule (I go as TREVANIAN on most boards, but use my real name here), but in the meantime, I'd suggest YOU reread the books -- I've owned them all in hardcover for well over a quarter-century and reread them (except SPY WHO LOVED ME) with increasing regularity ... even wrote some damned good analysis of Fleming way back in my distant youth, and professionally I covered QoS for ICG magazine. Dalton is probably closest to bookBond, and Connery is a thing unto himself ... but Craig would probably be best cast as LeChiffre's tall henchman in the CR novel, or maybe Felix Leiter AFTER the sharks had at him (biting up his face instead of his limbs, since Craig's grotesque features mark him as more Gollum-like than 007ish.) I hate quoting from James Cameron, but with Craig's visage, you just 'have to look with better eyes' to see how wholly inappropriate he appears as Bond. And that's not even getting into the infantile film CR notion that is trying to pass this oldster who looks even older off as a rookie double-0. Would work with Henry Cavil as Bond in 2006, but not this guy, no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now