I just watched a clip from 'Stranger Than Fiction' and loved it. The characters have so much depth and it will be interesting to see how the characters in Bond 22 refelct this if they do at all.
What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero , or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does.
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
Exactly. I don't know if this is really a good idea. He's a talented director but his best films are small intimate dramas/comedies.
Daniel Craig had never done action either but look how good he was!
He did a bit of action in Tomb Raider, a film that is high on my guilty pleasures list despite the fact that everyone hated it.
This had previously been my only exposure to DC and when I first saw him meet Angelina Jolie something about him intrigued me. Since his character wasn't the point of the film he tended to fly under the radar, but for what little screen time he had, I was under the impression that he would be an acceptable Bond.
Just been looking up Forsters work. Nothing of any note really and nothing I find appealing.
I will just have to wait and see what he turns out.
On a different note, I noticed he is younger than me. That means that not only is the actor playing Bond younger than me but now, so is the director!!! This is a sad, sad day .....
I'm in the same age-denial boat, so not fair!
But, I really recommend "Stranger Than Fiction," I had zero expectations for it walking in (Ferrell has a knack for getting on my nerves...) and was very pleasantly surprised at not only Ferrell's understated performance ( ) but just everything: great script, very creatively shot, excellent performances from all in the cast. One of my favorite films of this past year, not for any one thing but for the whole package. Which has really sold me on Forster. I think he'll bring in at least a fine Bond film, with the potential to create the best film in the series (I'm high on Haggis and Craig also, duh ralph ).
I had pretty high expectations with CR, Campbell was a concern for me but he turned in a great Bond film IMO. Forster's a much better director, so IMHO the sky's the limit with Bond 22. Of course, it may all crash and burn to little toasty bits, but not like that's anything new for a Bond fan. Just excited that EON has finally--FINALLY--hired a director of Forster's ilk, they've never had somebody with the imagination Forster's got in the director's chair. Very thrilling Bond times! :):)
I Enjoyed Stranger Than Fiction, However I was watching it with the rest of my family, and my mum's boyfriend is a Mental Health Nurse. So He had a course of treatment for Harold Crick within the first 5 minutes. aswell he picked up that the psyciatrist got it wrong. Its only Scizophrenia if you have it for more than a month. before that its a psycotic episode. Now there is a piece of useless infomation for you.
In regards to Forster & Action scenes, I think he'll do Ok. Bond has one of the best stunt teams in the buisness. and as long as he talks to his second unit director, to make sure the action is in the same sytle as the rest of the film. then we should be ok.
I think Forster will keep the dramatic edge that CR had going. A lot of people who weren't Bond fans before loved CR because it was accessible to a wide audience and also had a universal dramatic appeal. Great choice for the next director, should be interesting, I know I can't wait for 08!
I watched Stranger Than Fiction the other night. I quite liked it. In the same vein as Eternal Sunshine and I :x Huckabees, but I liked this one best. Forster certainly brings out good performances from his cast.
That said, I didn't like it that much. At only 1hr 40mins, it seemed a lot longer than it was. The direction was pretty unobtrusive, which I quite liked. I don't like Bond directors getting in between us and Bond if you know what I mean. (Campbell and Tamorhi were prime offenders in that regard.) Ultimately the film never really picked up speed for me. One scene after another. And not a bundle of laughs.
I sense Forster will go either the way of Spottiswoode or Apted. (TND or TWINE).
You can guess the way a director is going to turn out usually. I saw No Escape before Campbell did GE and could see
a) He wasn't that different from Glen, just some flashy camera angles.
b) He hadn't assimilated the lessons of Die Hard etc. Action scenes weren't from the hero's pov, but with the camera outside the action, like from 20 feet away.
c) A slightly cold, uninvolving but efficient style.
Spottiswoode was more solid, more grounded, a bit opaque judging from Air American and And The Band Played On. Not very flash or fun.
Tamorhi, from watching Along Came A Spider?
a) No directorial flair, just one scene after another, not involving, no mean feat considering the serial killer type thriller is a formula that's hard to mess up.
b) Ludicrous CGI stunt
c) Utterly implausible plot twist
d) One very good, breathtaking action scene.
Which is about how DAD panned out.
So I'm not crazy about Bond 22 though I can see that Forster is competent enough and certainly the most A-list director they've probably ever had in terms of recent hits.
Not seeing the Spottiswoode/Apted connections with Forster myself. Agree that he gets great performances from his cast, stays pretty unobtrusive. Also see a lot of fimlic imagination (for lack of a better term) in Forster, how he sets up and shoots scenes, which I've never gotten from any of the Brosnan Bond directors (although Campbell surprised me some with CR). High expectations for me.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...I've now seen Stranger Than Fiction...and I thought it was excellent.
I'm going to have a look at Monster's Ball next, I think...but Forster seems quite able. I've a good feeling about him.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Well...I've now seen Stranger Than Fiction...and I thought it was excellent.
I'm going to have a look at Monster's Ball next, I think...but Forster seems quite able. I've a good feeling about him.
I hope you enjoy Monster's Ball. Personally I greatly preferred Monster's Ball to Stranger Than Fiction, so, hopefully, you will have a good time. {[] The performances are superb (especially from Miss Berry who IMO fully deserved her Oscar) however the subject matter is quite disturbing. I don't think you should watch it with your kids.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Yes, don't worry, fellows. This one will be after the boys' bedtime :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Watched Stranger Than Fiction again tonight, another thought about Forster: he has a great touch for finding humor in the drama, drama in the humor. Since Connery uttered the iconic "Shocking" line that's been a hallmark of the best Bonds IMO, that layering and juxtaposition of perspectives at key moments (when it's been handled poorly we've gotten daft Bonds). Very keen on seeing Forster's take on the new/old school Bond, his visual flair was also quite nice and should translate to Bond genre just fine IMO. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see him one-up Campbell's work in CR on multiple fronts.
I dunno; I thought 'Stranger Than Fiction' wanted to be 'Eternal Sunshine..' but wasn't clever/quirky enough to match it. It was fine but pretty unmemorable.
That's no real comment on Forster's Bond qualifications, but I just didn't think 'Stranger' was a very strong film.
Really? I thought Sunshine was overhyped, a good but not great film. Never thought of Stranger as trying to be Sunshine, both are good little films each in their own way IMO.
Sunshine is full of ideas and really evokes a sweet nature in a very stylish way. Stranger is just a bit dull next to it for me; and it's clearly trying to do the same quirkly, surreal but heart-warming thing, but just doesn't have the same heart or level of originality.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2007
Some interesting stuff from Mr. Forster here, gleaned from an interview with The New York Times, as linked via CBn:
I'm not sure I could have found a way into Bond before Daniel Craig reinvented him.
Surely, just the sort of quote for which our own Napoleon Plural lives )
Obvious entendres aside...a very informative piece---certain to further disenfranchise devotees of the double-taking pigeon and 'Tarzan yell' {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
edited December 2007
You'll surely be jealous Loeffs, should Forster be the latest target of our hate and vitriol instead of yourself. Or should I say that life-empowering nectar, that heavenly mana? )
I must say I'm surprised. The first Bond film Forster saw was a Roger Moore picture and you didn't once suggest that that may be the cause of his revelation. Going soft on me now eh? )
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
The Kite Runner isn't getting great reviews. Many cite Forster's direction as a key problem, that his style is too stuffy and reverent (to the book). I can see this, actually, going by Stranger Than... though I haven't seen Monster's Ball or Finding Neverland. I'm not sure Forster has real momentum in his movies.
With a lot of the casting now announced, I believe the wild card for this film is Foster. Known more for his emotional scenes the action scenes one wonders can he deliver a Bond film. I know many times second units handle the action scenes, but it is his hand at the helm, we will have to see.
I know this is a really old thread, but I'm re-activating it coz I watched Stranger Than Fiction last night and thought it was fantastic piece of work. I was very surprised to see it was a Marc Forster movie. Reading the posts on this threasd, i can see I am not alone however in wondering exactly why he was chosen to direct QOS.
I'm not going to knock his craf, he's good at what he does; and if QOS had been about the development of 007s psyche and a relationship with Camille and/or Mathis / Felix, well, he would have had his uses.
But if the producers hired him to this effect (esp given the great critical response to all the "emotion" in CR) then it really begs the question: why did they saddle him with a script that panders to chases and fights and leaves precious little room to develop the stuff the director's good at.
Learning this now, I think Forster was a very, very bad move by MGW and BB, not because he's a bad director (he isn't) but because he wasn't able (or allowed?) to stamp his own mark on the franchise.
I think he either 1. let the 2nd unit take all the glory and forgot he had a job to do as well!
or 2. realised he had an impossible job to do with the script and said "balls to it"
Learning this now, I think Forster was a very, very bad move by MGW and BB, not because he's a bad director (he isn't) but because he wasn't able (or allowed?) to stamp his own mark on the franchise.
I think he either 1. let the 2nd unit take all the glory and forgot he had a job to do as well!
or 2. realised he had an impossible job to do with the script and said "balls to it"
The problem is that I don't think he's a versatile director. In fact, I don't know if he is even all that talented. I loved Monster's Ball, and on that basis, I think he does have some talent. However while I did enjoy Stranger Than Fiction, I never saw the spark of brilliance in it that others have. Finding Neverland is a film (along with QOS) which makes me question his talent, as IMO it's a superficial and badly executed film which presents it as a 'family drama', but which instead of delighting me, offended me instead. I never saw any evidence that he was appropiate for a Bond film, and I would be shocked if he's rehired.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I'd give you your point re: Finding Neverland, which I thought was awful; but perhaps the problem is still with the screenplays. Neverland is a pretty mawkish subject; both Monster's Ball and Stranger Than Fiction I thought have very strong storylines, allowing us to see the effect people's lives have on others. The characters grow and develop in mature ways. Didn't happen in Neverland.... wasn't ever likely too in QOS
I can only agree. What I found about both S Than Fiction and The Kite Runner is that while not bad exactly, I simply stopped caring about an hour in. It was just one damn scene after another. It didn't bring me along.
Then again, we don't talk about Forster, everyone talks about that Bourne second unit guy whose name escapes me, and not in a good way. Cos the film is so action packed, it's all about him and other than that it's only the distinctive cinematography that catches attention.
On top of all that, Forster complained he didn't have enough time (half as much as necessary) to edit the film to his satisfaction.
I think Mickey and Babs were overwhelmed by the critical response to Casino Royale and wanted a big name quality director who could carry on that success, when Martin Campbell turned down the chance to return.
I should of known QOS was going to be Badly shot from the opening scene, the lake is at an angle. Breaking one of the basic photographic rules,after all all the water would run to one side of the lake. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
I think you guys have hit the nail very close to the head.
I liked Quantum of Solace. All in all, I thought it was a solid entry, despite one serious flaw: it was top heavy on action. The film has way too much action at the beginning (to the point where I start to feel a bit bored). And then, from the scene right after the boat chase, it starts being a memorable film with some truly excellent moments. The impression I get is that the producers wanted to have their cake and eat it (high octane action as well as depth of character) so they saddled Forster with a big-name second-unit director.
The result is a wealth of action footage for which the director has no real use, and which he wants to get out of the way so he can start telling his story.
I think the film would have been vastly improved with two slight changes, intended to lighten the action load:
1. A different type of PTS (i.e. remove the car-chase, and have Bond drive down the Italian peninsula, enjoying the gorgeous views, maybe exchanging seductive glances with some girl in a sports car in the manner of the OHMSS opening, and then deciding to be the mature professional and not chase the girl...). In other words, focus more on sexiness, luxurious views and ironic character development and less on mind-numbing speed and car damage. This would have the advantage of increasing the impact of the next two actions sequences (Siena and Haiti).
2. Deleting the boat chase in which Bond compromises himself to save Camille. I thought that was pretty dumb and unnecessary. The whole sequence could have been removed (from right after Greene's "But we own whatever we find" to the "sea-sick" quip) with little or no damage to the storyline. Bond might have been shown spying on Greene's and Medrano's meeting from a safe distance. By then, we would have seen Camille leaving the premises waiting for a better chance to kill Medrano (and why would Greene risk Medrano's life and the whole deal by keeping her around?)
Then we would have had the cut to Bond walking away from the site and contacting Tanner.
Comments
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
He did a bit of action in Tomb Raider, a film that is high on my guilty pleasures list despite the fact that everyone hated it.
This had previously been my only exposure to DC and when I first saw him meet Angelina Jolie something about him intrigued me. Since his character wasn't the point of the film he tended to fly under the radar, but for what little screen time he had, I was under the impression that he would be an acceptable Bond.
I'm in the same age-denial boat, so not fair!
But, I really recommend "Stranger Than Fiction," I had zero expectations for it walking in (Ferrell has a knack for getting on my nerves...) and was very pleasantly surprised at not only Ferrell's understated performance (
I had pretty high expectations with CR, Campbell was a concern for me but he turned in a great Bond film IMO. Forster's a much better director, so IMHO the sky's the limit with Bond 22. Of course, it may all crash and burn to little toasty bits, but not like that's anything new for a Bond fan.
In regards to Forster & Action scenes, I think he'll do Ok. Bond has one of the best stunt teams in the buisness. and as long as he talks to his second unit director, to make sure the action is in the same sytle as the rest of the film. then we should be ok.
Don't worry! You're not alone in that boat!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
That said, I didn't like it that much. At only 1hr 40mins, it seemed a lot longer than it was. The direction was pretty unobtrusive, which I quite liked. I don't like Bond directors getting in between us and Bond if you know what I mean. (Campbell and Tamorhi were prime offenders in that regard.) Ultimately the film never really picked up speed for me. One scene after another. And not a bundle of laughs.
I sense Forster will go either the way of Spottiswoode or Apted. (TND or TWINE).
You can guess the way a director is going to turn out usually. I saw No Escape before Campbell did GE and could see
a) He wasn't that different from Glen, just some flashy camera angles.
b) He hadn't assimilated the lessons of Die Hard etc. Action scenes weren't from the hero's pov, but with the camera outside the action, like from 20 feet away.
c) A slightly cold, uninvolving but efficient style.
Spottiswoode was more solid, more grounded, a bit opaque judging from Air American and And The Band Played On. Not very flash or fun.
Tamorhi, from watching Along Came A Spider?
a) No directorial flair, just one scene after another, not involving, no mean feat considering the serial killer type thriller is a formula that's hard to mess up.
b) Ludicrous CGI stunt
c) Utterly implausible plot twist
d) One very good, breathtaking action scene.
Which is about how DAD panned out.
So I'm not crazy about Bond 22 though I can see that Forster is competent enough and certainly the most A-list director they've probably ever had in terms of recent hits.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm going to have a look at Monster's Ball next, I think...but Forster seems quite able. I've a good feeling about him.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Glad you made a family movie night out of Stranger Than Fiction, however may I suggest that LoeffJr and LoeffIII sit this next one out?
I'm sure you know why.
-Roger Moore
Yes, don't worry, fellows. This one will be after the boys' bedtime :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Geek on. {:)
That's no real comment on Forster's Bond qualifications, but I just didn't think 'Stranger' was a very strong film.
http://commanderbond.net/article/4713
Surely, just the sort of quote for which our own Napoleon Plural lives
Obvious entendres aside...a very informative piece---certain to further disenfranchise devotees of the double-taking pigeon and 'Tarzan yell'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I must say I'm surprised. The first Bond film Forster saw was a Roger Moore picture and you didn't once suggest that that may be the cause of his revelation. Going soft on me now eh?
-Roger Moore
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm not going to knock his craf, he's good at what he does; and if QOS had been about the development of 007s psyche and a relationship with Camille and/or Mathis / Felix, well, he would have had his uses.
But if the producers hired him to this effect (esp given the great critical response to all the "emotion" in CR) then it really begs the question: why did they saddle him with a script that panders to chases and fights and leaves precious little room to develop the stuff the director's good at.
Learning this now, I think Forster was a very, very bad move by MGW and BB, not because he's a bad director (he isn't) but because he wasn't able (or allowed?) to stamp his own mark on the franchise.
I think he either 1. let the 2nd unit take all the glory and forgot he had a job to do as well!
or 2. realised he had an impossible job to do with the script and said "balls to it"
Then again, we don't talk about Forster, everyone talks about that Bourne second unit guy whose name escapes me, and not in a good way. Cos the film is so action packed, it's all about him and other than that it's only the distinctive cinematography that catches attention.
On top of all that, Forster complained he didn't have enough time (half as much as necessary) to edit the film to his satisfaction.
I think Mickey and Babs were overwhelmed by the critical response to Casino Royale and wanted a big name quality director who could carry on that success, when Martin Campbell turned down the chance to return.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I liked Quantum of Solace. All in all, I thought it was a solid entry, despite one serious flaw: it was top heavy on action. The film has way too much action at the beginning (to the point where I start to feel a bit bored). And then, from the scene right after the boat chase, it starts being a memorable film with some truly excellent moments. The impression I get is that the producers wanted to have their cake and eat it (high octane action as well as depth of character) so they saddled Forster with a big-name second-unit director.
The result is a wealth of action footage for which the director has no real use, and which he wants to get out of the way so he can start telling his story.
I think the film would have been vastly improved with two slight changes, intended to lighten the action load:
1. A different type of PTS (i.e. remove the car-chase, and have Bond drive down the Italian peninsula, enjoying the gorgeous views, maybe exchanging seductive glances with some girl in a sports car in the manner of the OHMSS opening, and then deciding to be the mature professional and not chase the girl...). In other words, focus more on sexiness, luxurious views and ironic character development and less on mind-numbing speed and car damage. This would have the advantage of increasing the impact of the next two actions sequences (Siena and Haiti).
2. Deleting the boat chase in which Bond compromises himself to save Camille. I thought that was pretty dumb and unnecessary. The whole sequence could have been removed (from right after Greene's "But we own whatever we find" to the "sea-sick" quip) with little or no damage to the storyline. Bond might have been shown spying on Greene's and Medrano's meeting from a safe distance. By then, we would have seen Camille leaving the premises waiting for a better chance to kill Medrano (and why would Greene risk Medrano's life and the whole deal by keeping her around?)
Then we would have had the cut to Bond walking away from the site and contacting Tanner.