SPECTRE Review Thread

[BladeRunner2007]

I know Tarantino wanted to make Casino Royale back then and they didn't go for it. But it would be great if he wrote the screenplay for the next one. Just the screenplay nothing else. He should not direct it. Tarantino would write an amazing villain and incredible set pieces, I think. Maybe they could even cast Christoph Waltz as the villain.

[Barbossa]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

I know Tarantino wanted to make Casino Royale back then and they didn't go for it. But it would be great if he wrote the screenplay for the next one. Just the screenplay nothing else. He should not direct it. Tarantino would write an amazing villain and incredible set pieces, I think. Maybe they could even cast Christoph Waltz as the villain.

Tarantino? Christ, no thanks!

[Barbossa]

Originally Posted by tigertron

Since Mendes is out of the game they should get Martin Campbell back.

Damn right, and get the writers back into top gear instead of vomiting out more dirge like QoS and Skyfall.

[dobyblue]

I would be fine with anyone that wants to shoot a movie that looks normal, like Martin Campbell did with Casino Royale.

I didn't like Tamahori's style at all with all the stop go zoom movements, it just doesn't feel like a Bond, and Marc Forster? Seriously, worst directing job ever on a Bond. If you want to direct a Bourne movie, or a Blair Witch Project sequel, please go do it. QoS wasn't 1/10th of the movie it could have been with someone without ADHD behind the lens. Brutal.

The shaky came was so bad in QoS that I'd rather watch Die Another Day again.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

I know Tarantino wanted to make Casino Royale back then and they didn't go for it. But it would be great if he wrote the screenplay for the next one. Just the screenplay nothing else. He should not direct it. Tarantino would write an amazing villain and incredible set pieces, I think. Maybe they could even cast Christoph Waltz as the villain.

Good, maybe great idea, but he loves to have a lot of dialogue in his films, & that doesn't quite fit the mold for 007, does it?

As for Waltz, I agree he can pretty much play anything & greatly at that. Just not sure if he needs to do a THIRD STRAIGHT film with QT (<--- even if he just writes the scr-play).

Originally Posted by Barbossa

Tarantino? Christ, no thanks!

Did you Read his post, or you just don't want him to write a draft?

As a Writer, why not have a look at what he might offer?

[blu-mike]

Get Campbell back, than do a classic Bond movie with Q's epic gadgets,the smart ass Bond and a crazy villain.

[Visco.]

Originally Posted by blu-mike

Get Campbell back, than do a classic Bond movie with Q's epic gadgets,the smart ass Bond and a crazy villain.

I don't think that'd be a good idea. Campbell directed the Green Lantern most recently. We all know how crappy that film was made.

[Sith]

I say hire the guy that directed Lopper. I think his name is Rian Johnson. That would put a fresh take on it.

[fgomike]

Paging Christopher Nolan. Barbara Broccoli on line 1.

[cornbread_1788]

How about someone like Jan de Bont, he did one classic, two really good movies and the rest unremarkable but still watchable. Or Michael Haneke? Affleck, Benh Zeitlan, or go way outside and hire Brad Bird!!!!!!!

[Visco.]

Originally Posted by Sith

I say hire the guy that directed Lopper. I think his name is Rian Johnson. That would put a fresh take on it.

I could see that.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Visco.

I don't think that'd be a good idea. Campbell directed the Green Lantern most recently. We all know how crappy that film was made.

His direction in that film was fine, it was the script that was the problem. You can only shoot a film that is as good as your script, and that movie didn't have a good script at all. His direction is part of the only things that made the movie mostly watchable, not good, but watchable. He and Reynolds both did a pretty good job considering what they were provided with.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

His direction in that film was fine, it was the script that was the problem. You can only shoot a film that is as good as your script, and that movie didn't have a good script at all. His direction is part of the only things that made the movie mostly watchable, not good, but watchable. He and Reynolds both did a pretty good job considering what they were provided with.

Reynolds is the only reason I even consider wanting to see Hal Jordan in the JLA film instead of John Stewart. Still haven't seen a Craig Bond, yes I am that much of a purist and was that disappointed with Die Another Day.

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by duggie walker

It's no disaster. Mendes is not a particularly interesting director. He's a "safe pair of hands", producing consistently competent but unremarkable work, which is why producers (and critics) love him so. SKYFALL benefited hugely from following the wretched QOS, but it doesn't look so great when set beside CR.

Bond has traditionally hired competent but anonymous directors. Partly, this was because they were amenable to the very hands-on, highly controlling role of the producers. They were also directors who were happy to focus on the actors rather than the stunt-work, which was essentially left to the second-unit.

The nadir of this approach was John Glen's run, as Glen was pretty much a "yes-man", with very little visual flair. He was also saddled with an aging Roger Moore and some of the worst screenplays in the series' history. The producing team, frankly, has shown no signs of being particularly good at script development over the years.

Martin Campbell is a very good Bond director because he's rigorous on script and has just enough of a visual style to distinguish himself. The success of CR (and Daniel Craig's influence) seemed to embolden the producers to hand over a little more creative control to a more individualistic director but they chose wrong, and the result was horrible.

In Mendes they found a director who is naturally conservative, had a genuine love of the movies and who is very collegiate in nature (look how skilfully he plays the PR game). He is attentive to script (although not THAT attentive, imo) and even better, he's one of those guys that just gets a "free pass" from critics ie they never review him very badly. So he was a decent choice but far from the only choice.

I daresay it's true that Mendes is under some pressure from his other employers to pay them some attention. It may also be true that things were not quite as rosy in the garden as they appeared to be (not that he'd ever say such a thing). Mendes was probably uncomfortable with just how much control was exerted. And anyway, he's achieved his goal - he needed a hit of some sort and he's certainly got that. His slightly fading cinema career has been revived.

The important thing is the screenplay. SKYFALL did at least continue some character development for Bond, and that's the key to its success. Otherwise, there are plenty of directors out there who could do a good job. The only problem is that one can never be quite sure if Broccoli and Wilson will choose wisely. Their track record is erratic.

This is a good post.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

His direction in that film was fine, it was the script that was the problem. You can only shoot a film that is as good as your script, and that movie didn't have a good script at all. His direction is part of the only things that made the movie mostly watchable, not good, but watchable. He and Reynolds both did a pretty good job considering what they were provided with.

The way Campbell filmed GL felt very Claustrophobic. There was no sense of scale. It also looked grungy when it should have looked clear and bright.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

The way Campbell filmed GL felt very Claustrophobic. There was no sense of scale. It also looked grungy when it should have looked clear and bright.

I think that has a lot to do with WB. They were trying to emulate that more realistic and serious look that most comic films have. Campbell's direction still remained consistent throughout the film. As for feeling claustrophobic, I never felt that. I felt it looked grand when it needed to in space, and more contained on Earth. He did well with the script he was given.

[retablo]

Thank goodness Mendes isn't coming back. And no to Tarantino and Nolan, also.

You guys realize there's never been an "American" director for any Bond film, right? Mostly they hire British filmmakers, although they have gone outside GB for a couple of installments.

Michael Wilson: I think the British directors do keep the British-ness there, they understand it – they don’t parody it. I think Americans … you have to be a little careful they don’t parody the British. But so far we’ve found great British directors.

[alphadec]

I hope they find someone that has the European style of directing spy movies something like the style of the movie "The American". I like to see a stylish bond movie with a david leen style directing with lots of long shoots.

I think we should all be very happy that Sam mendes did say no. Along with him I would replace the writer duo that in my opinion have been a complete disaster. Please get back to what is a bond movie.

[Snicket]

I think Bigelow would be a very nice fit for director here.

[Pounder]

Justin Lin.