SAG-AFTRA Sued For Witholding Foreign Residuals And … 
Zach Braff Ends $3+M Kickstarter Campaign 
Fox Unscripted TV Czar Mike Darnell To Exit 
FIRST BOX OFFICE: ‘Fast & Furious 6′ Easy … 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
UPDATES EXCLUSIVE: Sam Mendes “Consultant” On Bond #23
So today’s announcement comes via the PR newswire, untypical for EON Productions which always operates with the maximum amount of secrecy. Some showbiz news outlets are mistakenly claiming the next Bond movie, #23, is cancelled. Nope. You can see it’s only been postponed. This is the same pic on which Sam Mendes has been consulting and ultimately was expected to direct.
So what’s really going on? Well, given that MGM is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and at the mercy of its creditors, EON may have the right to take Bond elsewhere. So it stands to reason that the producers wouldn’t want to do anything now that further complicates ownership of Bond #23 or binds them to MGM during this precarious period during which the once storied studio may now be in its standalone swan song.
As you know, the James Bond filmmakers operate with great autonomy. And producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were in pre-production on Bond #23 for release in 2011. (The story begins after Quantum Of Solace‘s and again stars Daniel Craig.) But those two have been watching the current MGM auction proceed with a mixture of dismay and curiosity. Dismay because Bond’s longtime home is a mess. And curiosity because Broccoli and Wilson would love to move Bond to a fully functioning studio. Like Sony, where Amy Pascal is dying to keep the famous franchise. Or Fox, which handles Bond’s DVD distribution. “It feels like EON is sending a message to MGM,” one source tells us. “If they try to continue as a stand-alone studio, don’t expect to be making any Bond films.”
Broccoli and Wilson very deliberately have made certain they don’t do anything on Bond #23 which ties the movie further to MGM. (That’s why Mendes was hired as a consulting, not the director. Because once EON hires a director on their Bond films, it triggers a first payment from MGM.) We believe today’s announcement is about that as well. With the MGM auction apparently busted, even though no official announcement has been made yet, EON Productions wants to keep all its options open. Here’s the news release:
LONDON, April 19, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — 007 producers, Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of EON Productions, today announced they have suspended development on the next James Bond film previously scheduled for release 2011/2012.
“Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development on BOND 23 indefinitely. We do not know when development will resume and do not have a date for the release of BOND 23,” stated Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli jointly.
EON Productions have produced twenty two James Bond films since 1962. In 1995, Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli took over the 007 franchise from Albert R ‘Cubby’ Broccoli and are responsible for producing some of the most successful James Bond films ever, including CASINO ROYALE and more recently QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The James Bond franchise is the longest running in film history. EON Productions and Danjaq LLC are affiliate companies and control all worldwide merchandising for James Bond.
Loading ...
Clearly an attempt to force a resolution from their end… if they can’t just take Bond to another studio, they’ll have to convince MGM to LET them go. It’s pretty high stakes, but the Broccolis know from experience they can wait out the studio brass; worse case scenario for them is losing Craig- and it’s not like they’ve never had to recast…
Recast and this franchise is dead. Craig is the ONLY compelling reason to watch Bond in the last 20 years
I would even go as far to say that he is at least equal to Sean Connery himself and perhaps better (debatable). His personality and acting skill is the understated force that IS James Bond.
They said that when George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery. Craig is easily replaceable with (pick a name), and the producers know it. Brosnan’s Bonds were the most finanically profitable of the entire series since THUNDERBALL, and they didn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on dumping him, even though the studio wasn’t wild over that idea. Look at the advertising for both CR and QOS, especially CS, as those ad campaigns promoted Bond, not Craig, unlike earlier Bond campaigns that screamed who was playing Bond.
Both CR and QOS would have done as well with any other actor as Bond, and an argument can be made that CR could have done even better with Brosnan combined with that story. CR, as well as it did, didn’t financially perform as hoped because the producers essentially traded an established audience for a new one.
Examine the ticket sales in depth and you’ll see more people saw several of the earlier Bonds in the theaters, including the Brosnans, than did CR or QOS.
Of course the CR ads focused on Bond, not Craig. Craig hadn’t broken through yet. Dumb comparison.
Go check out the posters for DR. NO and LIVE AND LET DIE. Sean Connery’s name is almost as big as the title of the movie, while Roger Moore has the 007 logo tied to his name big and bold at the top. Even Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton received better treatment with their first film launches as 007.
Craig, on the other hand, isn’t anywhere near acknowledged as 007 as his predecessors were, not even with QOS.
From here on in, any actor cast in the role will always be secondary to the role. You’re going to see a James Bond film, period, no matter who plays him. Almost 50 years of making the films have taught the producers and the studios there will be an audience for the series.
Two Words. Ewan McGregor
Agreed – 50 years from now, people may look back at this franchise and think he’s the best.
Actually, as Casino shows, Flemming’s stories are the only reason to watch Bond. Graig definitely fit Flemming’s flawed Bond character better than anyone, right down to the blond hair. Flemming’s Bond is a really clever guy (think Sherlock) dealing with his character and personal issues in a nasty, dangerous, but necessary, profession. The irreversible error in Solace and the score of other Bond films is making Bond flawless and as such, boring.
Uhhh…blonde?
I’ve read every Fleming novel. Tall thin man with dark hair and a bang (“lock of hair anging over his eye”).
I’m not saying Brosnan was the best at all. I’m saying Brosnan most resembles the book Bond to the exclusion of all others.
Disagree with you 500% over Craig’s non-resemblance to Fleming’s Bond.
But I agree with you 100% with Fleming’s Bond character being a Holmes in his deductions and assumptions and flaws—and Craig captures this magnificently.
Sure Brosnan was a moron, but Craig isn’t the only reason to keep the franchise. Judy Dench and a pretty long run with successful “Bond-girl” casting have definitely been a little redeeming. The real problem is that the screenplays have been sins! It’s the story department that needs serious attention!
Now that I’m an adult, I see that there was very little to the entire Bond franchise. The sex meme is now to me a tired joke; I mean, just how many conquests does it take for someone to call you a real man? And some of the gadgets were cool, but that’s about it.
These days if I’m channel-flipping and come across a Bond film I usually keep on going. With the exception of a (very) few memorable scenes, I can take ‘em or leave ‘em–mostly the latter.
Let it go, already.
Oh, Brian, you adorable little drama queen. The franchise is “dead” if they recast? I’d remind you that even Die Another Day made almost 450m, putting it in the top 75 grossing movies of all time. That was, by all accounts, a horrible, horrible movie (but I still love it).
Then again, your comment doesn’t exactly strike me as coming from a genuine Bond enthusiast. So what if Brosnan was kitsch? Any fan of the franchise can find beauty in even the ugliest installments.
They won’t lose Craig. And if they do, they’ll find someone else, the series will be reinvented, and they’ll make $600,000,000 on the next one.
Wrong! Daniel Craig is a fine actor and good looking guy, however there’s another British actor with far more charisma than all the other Bonds combined. His name is Richard Armitage. Look at the website above to see what I mean with your own eyes. Armitage is not just another handsome face – he’s also a powerful actor. The 6-part Chris Ryan(bestseller) action TV series ‘Strike Back’ is Richard’s next vehicle – it starts in the UK, May 5 on Sky1.
Brian, I couldn’t have said it better. I wasn’t even a fan of James Bond movies until Daniel Craig made Bond a fascinating character with depth.
Pierce Brosnan wasn’t AT ALL shabby, though Daniel Craig is working out nicely.
Murdoch or Sony ought to step in; this franchise has generational legs. We ALL know that!
I really don’t see what difference it makes. The last two movies have been terrible and do NOT follow all of the other movies.No gadgets etc. and I believe that until they go back to the old way of making Bond movies people simply won’t go. The last Bond movie I went to people were mad and complaining
This sucks. MGM is dead, long live Leo the lion!
We’ll still get a Bond 23. However, it won’t surprise me if it ends up taking a different creative turn- much like what happened with Goldeneye.
This may mark the end of Judi Dench’s tenure as M. We may also see Craig decide to bow out gracefully, allowing Bond a fresh start in the new decade.
For Madame Judith Dench to step aside, would be a MAJOR blow. As for Daniel Craig, unless He wants to be designated as an asterisk (think George Lazenby), he hasn’t been around long-enough to have ammassed the size audience that most previous Bonds have.
If they’re smart they’ll wait until Mendes is in pre-production on something else then replace him and go forward without him he’s a terrible choice and I’m sure they regret signing him if they really did sign him. He’s totally wrong to do Bond. Proving they don’t know what they want to do here and they don’t know who should direct. They’re using MGM’s financial turmoil as an excuse to buy time they could easily continue development and if they really needed money which they don’t Sony would be happy to fund it. The script they have must need a lot of work for them to make this announcement.
I don’t think the producers are trying to buy time. In fact, I think it’s the opposite: they’re trying to establish the legal framework so that Eon can leave MGM once and for all.
I’d wager dollars to donuts you said the same thing about Casino prior to release. It’s art house relative to other Bond movies, yet it’s arguably one of the best. EON will protect the integrity of the franchise. At worst, we’ll get a film which focuses more on substantive plot elements.
I wonder in DC fanboys sh*t themselves like this when Christopher Nolan was slated to direct The Dark Knight. We all know how that turned out.
quantum of solace is the worst bond movie ever. the idiot producers let the writers remove everything that loyal bond fans loved. the film had over a 60% drop off its first weekend in the u.s. and made less than the bounty hunter in the UK.
using sam mendes for the next one is a very bad idea. i thought the producers were more intersted in doing bourne kind of action films with interesting set pieces. not road to perdition 2.
I couldn’t agree more. Solace was BAAAAAAD and Mendes is not a good choice: too elite.
I fear for the Bond franchise. As a seasoned citizen who has seen them all many times, Mr. Craig is NOT James Bond nor will he ever be. Casino Royale was OK, but Quantum was a huge disappointment. I realize it’s 2010, but Bond needs to get back to being Bond; suave, sophisticated, debonair, and dangerous!
Stephen, I appreciate your tenured perspective but I wholly disagree with it. I’ve heard your argument many times from many sources – each from their own perspective. “The only REAL Bond is _____.” Fill in the blank with either Connery or Moore (I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say it since). As the franchise approaches 40 years old, you simply can’t have the same Bond as its beginning. The original bonds were fantastic but they soon became too campy, too cartoonish, too innocent; and they got worse as the franchise aged, obviously trying to out-do the previous movie with more and more outrageous situations and plots as lampooned by Mike Myers. (Start the unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism.) Further, Bond became almost boorish as contemporary values changed. The sexist, semi-misogynistic swagger of the 60′s became offensive to many. (Bring on the Stews!) The Craig-Bond reset performed the same function as the Batman franchise reset: keep the classic hallmarks of the franchise but let the character grow up and evolve.
I think the writers of Casino met your Bond criteria very well. He was ALMOST “suave, sophisticated, debonair, and dangerous.” But he was one other thing too that somewhat muted those qualities: fallible. I think that trait lends credibility to the character and gives him room to grow and I like it. Remember, in Casino, Bond is a new agent. Give him time to become all those things that endear you to the character.
For me, Daniel Craig and the story reset are the ONLY reasons I came back to the franchise after a long streak of disappointments. The classic bond was wonderful and you can still appreciate the role and style for what it WAS in the setting that WAS. But you can’t bring back either Connery or Moore – it would be like watching the original cast of Star Trek in latter franchise movies; a train wreck. Characters may not age, but actors unfortunately do. Embrace the new actor and the many good things he brings to the role.
Today, I don’t just want to see a good “Bond movie”, I want a good movie. I want a plot that’s relevant, a character that’s contemporary, and situations that are believable. With Casino, I thought they had done all of that; I was excited about new Bond movies again. Then came “Solace” with its anti-CIA, anti-US, green-themed snore-athon. Understandable considering world events perhaps, but movie patrons have repeatedly proven they don’t want to see “anti-____”, message movies; and for good reason. They they aren’t fun. I hope the next one is.
Craig’s Bond is more like the Bond of the books. I like both CR and QOS.
“Quantum of Solace” was far and away the best Bond ever. It took Bond from its laughable comic book superhero origins into the real world of intelligence and current geopolitics. They ‘spilt the beans’ knowing it would be way over the heads of some folks like yourself. There was a reason Bond “went Rogue.” It was to reveal the truth. But only for those who can handle the truth.
The whole Bond franchise going to Sony.. trust me..
What kind of circumstances could lead from ‘postponed indefinitely’ to ‘reboot’? If Broccoli & co. leave MGM for good could story and star be up for redevelopment?
Personally, I’d like to see how the environmental corporate terrorism storyline plays out and would like Craig to do at least one more Bond.
“I’d like to see how the environmental corporate terrorism storyline plays out…”
Go rent Sahara (what a smash!) – currently being used as door stops and drink coasters around the world…
I read that Tony and Ridley Scott want to save Bond! – we die hard 007 fans deserve nothing less !
- lets hope the Scott brothers set the lion free – after all it is a british lion!! Sorry USA we love you still
No offense taken! As a Yank, and a die hard Bond fan, I can speak for most Americans when I say, “We agree.”
Totally agree chaps! 007 should return to it’s roots and stay away from the influence of American writers/directors who want to destroy this great franchise….Ridley Scott would be good though.
Leo the Lion, the MGM mascot, isn’t British. MGM was founded in 1924 in Hollywood California. The mascot was based on the Columbia University mascot, whose chief publicist was a graduate of.
With that said I’ll wait and see how Ridley handles Robin Hood before I give the thumbs up on Bond. His films are hit or miss with me. Gladiator is a classic, but Kingdom of Heaven and American Gangsters were such massive disappointment.
MGM began 1924 in Culver City, California. Sony Pictures Entertainment now occuppies the historic MGM Studios site.
Culver City…Yes thats correct. Which is in the greater L.A. area in close proximity to Hollywood.
All I know is that Leo the Lion was the mascot for Metro pictures and Lowe’s used it when they merge that and Goldwyn pictures together. They added the Mayor when they hired Louie B. Mayor to run it. Such a shame that this great studio is going through this again.
As another American fan of 007, I must agree that with Steve. Bond is pure Scottish Brit. To make him otherwise would make him…something less than Bond. “For King and Country, James?” “No. For Me.”
I would LOVE to see a Ridley or Tony Scott James Bond. Other than Quentin Tarantino doing a Bond movie the Scott Brothers would be an awesome choice (either one – or heck why not both do one each!).
Not excited that Tarantino would do well with Bond. I get great disagreement with that statement from my ever-loving spouse…and she is often more on target than off.
Love Bond, and the Classic Brit period is where this character needs to dwell, not in Moderne Brit-Land.
Scott Bros perfect choice. So much better than Forster or Mendes. Soooo much better.
thats a GREAT idea & why hasnt Tony Scott directed Bod after all he is the “TOP GUN” in the USA?
Welcome to the DEPRESSION!!! Get your guns, your ammo, your gold, your silver, your 10 gallon hat, water filter, and food supplies for you or family and storm that malibu beach like its fucking Normandy. This is only the begininng.
Please quote another line from Entourage..
The irony about the whole Bond issue and whether Time Warner (or some other party) will or will not swallow MGM whole is that Sony is the perfect studio home for the Bond franchise.
There’s no doubting that Bond would become Sony’s main (studio owned) franchise. And considering how desperate Sony is for ‘big ticket’ film franchises it (and EON) would be welcomed onto the studio lot like Kings.
While I’m not suggesting that Warners wouldn’t appreciate such a massive franchise they aren’t exactly short on established, studio owned ‘big ticket’ franchises at the moment. Especially with them ramping up the Hobbit films and their slate of DC Comic films.
Great.
Some more Obama supporters will be out of work. I think all people opposed to Obama should boycott movies.
You do that, son.
Where the heck did you come from??? perhaps the planet random !!!
_Quantum Of Solace_ proved such a disappointing sequel to _Casino Royale_ that it’s little wonder MGM has pulled back. I hope future projects will employ the thrills and suspense and romance _Casino_ employed, not the mumble-jumble cacaphony of _Quantum_. I hope Daniel Craig refuses to star in anything except stellar plots from now on.
Isn’t the solution obvious? MGM Studios need to be vigorously shaken, not just stirred.
The only ONE,,,,,,after a remarkable display of virility in the movie “The Rock”.
Sean Connery, he has never really been replaced. As my late Mother said in 1963 after seeing Connery in “From Russia with Love”,,,,,”what a lovely lad” ’nuff said.
I don’t even like bond anymore, who cares.
This is the price of failure, Mr. Bond. MGM should sell itself quickly, while it still has the ability to do so. The next movie should re-introduce Ernst Blofeld and SPECTRE. Bond needs a nemesis who can endure through several movies.
Well said!!! I agree. He needs a nemesis. I would think SPECTRE comes back as global warming activist bent on destroying capitalism and freedom of speech as a way to make people of the world subservient to a large Marxist like totalitarian government. It always starts with ‘good’ intentions. Bond discovers the lie and has proof. He takes it to “M”. He realizes that “M” is powerless to do anything. In the final scene, jumping via building tops and alleys he makes a daring dangerous dash to FOX News in New York as SPECTRE agents try to violently stop him. He finally makes it to FOX Studios with the proof to be aired to the people of the world.
Lord Obama and his obama-bots would deploy a all-out attack on FOX.Sedition or some such charge….hmmm, guess they already are.
Resist the Collective!
It’s all too obvious; Bond needs a nemesis and Kaos hasn’t had a good guy to harrass for 40 years. A match made in heaven!
Awesome reply!
I think Al Gore should run SPECTRE
that’s f-ing hilarious. That “O” guy makes a nasty villian, doesn’t he?
Or, they could do one about a govt. that starts a war based on lies and intelligence manipulations about WMDs, with the help of “journalist” who helps spreads the propaganda and ends up going to jail to protect said govt. Oh, and lets not forget the CIA agent outed by said govt. because her spouse was critical of the “intelligence. Or the illegal wiretapping of citizens wihtout a warrant. Oh wait…..
Lol! I love when liberals go 180 on their own beliefs and stick up for the CIA! Please, more! Hey, you forgot ‘stole the election!’
That’s it, it’s official. the new Bond has been postponed because it’s….Bush’s fault! It always comes back to that, doesn’t it?
Oh, precious, thanks so much for the laugh.
Keep ‘em comin’!
If you think the rights issues for BOND are confusing, you should check out the legal tussles over SPECTRE! I doubt we’ll be seeing our friend Blofeld again…
Obama’s failure to properly address the economy again is destroying another American landmark.
Replace Sam Mendes with Sam Raimi. Cast Hugh Jackman as 007. I don’t like Craig and two movies with him as me is more than enough. Go back to the Goldfinger Thunderball You Only Live Twice formula those were the three best films by far. Stop trying to imitate Bourne. Give audiences larger than life plots and villains.
…and Bruce Campbell as ‘Q’…
hugh jackman as bond. interesting thought. but he might be a bit too burley though. but he would bring back the humour.
When Daniel Craig became the latest Bond, the franchise went to hell in a hand basket.
Er, hardly. Craig is a great modern Bond and numbers prove it.
All the numbers prove is that the general populace is willing to lap up schlock with a spoon. I don’t think that is news to anyone. “Titanic,” anybody? Besides, box office take should never be taken as an indication of the mainstream public’s review of a movie; people vote with their dollars before they even see the movie. The box office figures only indicate the effectiveness of the marketing.
Daniel Craig is an uncouth lout; he’s no more Bond than Tom Arnold is. I think “Bond 007″ may have something with the Hugh Jackman suggestion…
Had this movie been trading on Cantor Exchange
the insiders at MGM could have made a killing ‘short’ the stock
In fact, why make the movie at all? With Cantor Exchange just manipulate perceptions and you can profit.
The executives at Lionsgate Films do this all the time with HSX/Cantor Exchange.
EON Productions should pull out of MGM would be my advice and take the bond franchise with them.
Are any other studios in trouble?
I myself hope Hollywood has a crash like the dot-coms (and their connection to major media is killing the proverbial two bird with one stone!). It costs $40 for two to go to the movies if you add in the drinks (pay $4 ea/actual $0.07 ea), popcorn (pay $4/actual $0.10) and a chocolate whatevershewants (pay $4/actual $1.00). Let hollywood pop and then deflate the superstar ego!! Pay them 2-4 million a movie and reduce the gouging at theaters… ESPECIALLY on the drinks and popcorn!
The studios don’t make money off of the overpriced food and drink. The theaters get that money. To afford the nice seating and so on, they charge very high prices.
Ever seen a gas station/convenience store? Same system – very little money is made for the store off the tickets/gasoline, the money comes from people buying all manner of snack food and drinks. Gas station prices are reasonable because they don’t have to build seating arrangements, have multiple AC units, projectors, fancy sound systems, etc.
Think prices at the movies are in the upper-atmosphere now? Popcorn, $4. 2 Litres of Coke, $4. Candy? Starts @ $3.
Wait until 3-D hits the mainstream. You’ll be paying $15-$18/person just to friggin get-in!!!
I’ll stay home and download, or watch porn. lol…
Hey, do you think we’ll final get to see 007 go up against islamic radicals?!! Naw, too real world; get ready for another PC villain a’la caucasian guy with some type of Middle european accent.
Yes! Bond needs Bourne personal reality and real world (Islamic terrorist and “Global Warming” wannbe marxist) villains. And enough already with the hedonism and Baluga caviar nonsense. Bond needs to toughen up, get spartan. As for MGM, hey, we’ll miss it if it goes under.
As I recall, the LAST time Bond dealt with Islamic radicals, it was when he helped them fight the Soviets back in LIVING DAYLIGHTS. The producers MAY have learned a lesson from that little incident…
Only WB has the money & the talent to welcome Bond and to respect EON’s independance.
Plus, it is the only fast-track to have a Bond in production in the coming year.
Mendes in a great choice. At least, unlike Foster, we may understand what he trying to show on screen.
“Comment by eespree — Tuesday April 20, 2010 @ 9:27am EDT
At least, unlike Foster, we may understand what he trying to show on screen.”
You couldn’t understand what Forster was trying to show you on screen? Seriously? For crap’s sake, he practically beat you over the head with it in absolutely insulting specific detail. Were you asleep?
That said…
Marc Forster is an idiot.
If Marc Forster was an X-man, his super power would be ruining brands. Question: what’s the difference between Oscar winning director Marc Forster, and a first-year film-school student? Nothing apparently, because his movie is wrought with compromise and stupid film-school gimmicks. There was a scene in the movie shot in Siena where Forster agreed to conditions which forbade him from using helicopter shots or showing any violence “involving people or animals.” That’s why when a gunshot was fired into a crowd of thousands of people, you don’t see a single limb explode. Emphasis on you and not me because I imagined a scene where the bullet not only kills people, but is sentient and kills every single person in the stadium, starting with grandmas and horses, then when the last person is killed, the bullet turns into a hot alien babe who then proceeds to make love to my junk, orally. Except my tool is really a shotgun, and I blow her head off. Too bad, hottie!
As for the film-school gimmicks, Forster cram-packed this movie with symbolism. There’s a scene where some chick gets inexplicably drowned in oil, and it’s supposed to parallel an iconic scene from Goldfinger. There’s another scene in an opera house that “pays homage” to the Hitchcock movie The Man Who Knew Too Much, and a planefight that pays homage to yet another Hitchcock movie, North by Northwest. Then Forster made all the action sequences in the movie revolve around earth, water, air and fire. HOLY 5H1T WE GET IT, YOU LIKE TO USE SYMBOLISM IN YOUR MOVIES:
OMG, I love this post. Forster is a *SHIT* director, always has been. And who constructs action sequences around earth, air, fire, and water?
Um, Forster, how about throwing your pretensions out the window and shooting the sequence so that the viewers can understand what the hell is going on?
Wow, what an awesome post.
Forster was a terrible choice to direct Quantum of Solace. I suppose he tried to make Bond artful with his symbolic action sequences inspired by the elements. Okay, but what he forgot was where to place the camera and how to edit shots together to make the scenes comprehensible and exciting. Forster’s pre-title sequence is among the very worst in the series leading into perhaps the worst song. You can feel all the promise of Casino Royale draining out of Quantum of Solace in the first five minutes.
I hope that the only consequence of the delay of Bond 23 is that Sam Mendes drops out because of scheduling problems. The selection of Mendes feels a lot like when they hired Michael Apted for The World Is Not Enough, and we know how well that one went…
If they can’t get Martin Campbell back (and they really should give him WHATEVER he demands to do it–he’s proven his value to this franchise better than any director since Terence Young, and by one measure Campbell is better because he masterfully introduced TWO Bonds), they should get another director like a Sam Raimi who is not disdainful of genre films. Bond is pure popcorn, and that’s why audiences love it. To try to change that is a huge misstep.