Marc Forster to Direct Bond 22!

[Catman]

Forster is a great director, but is he a great action director?

 

[TheProfessor]

i have a feeling that forster is gonna surprise a lot of people with the action. i dont think sony n the producers would have hired him if they didnt believe the same thing. im truly looking forward to it, i loved Stranger than Fiction (watched it two hours before this was release actually lol) and Finding Neverland

 

[Catman]

i have a feeling that forster is gonna surprise a lot of people with the action.

we'll see

 

[JackBauer]

Forster is a great director, but is he a great action director?

my thoughts exactly.

I kind of see him more as a potential director for a Bourne movie rather than Bond, with that documental style action. just my opinion though. he could turn out to be a perfect fit, but I never would've really thought of him.

 

[Darkly Dexter]

I'm not sure what to think about this. Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland are quite good movies, but there is no action on them. So, this guy is a mystery in that aspect.

 

[Golgo-13]

Forster is a great director, but is he a great action director?

The more i think about it, the more i'm loving the idea of having Forster, especailly after reading he's an 'actor's director', which means he'll milk the very best performances out of the cast. Campbell was good for Casino Royale but remember Campbell also directed the Zorro sequel, which sucked.

Anyhow, as far as the action is concerned, i think if Ion is smart enough to bring back the same stunt team-(coordinator, stuntmen and planner), and Director of Photography from CR i think he should be just fine, as they know, as the writers, what caliber level of stunts that are required for a Bond movie, and how they're soppose to work. Alot of time, it's the Second Unit Directors that direct the stunts and the Director himself just o'ks it afterwards.

I think we'll like the outcome.

 

[Warhammer]

I am so happy that we are getting a quality director, not a hack, to direct this. Today, Bond films do not need to go back into the gutter. As far as action is concerned, I'm not really concerned about it. Story > Action for me, so it'll be interesting to see how Forster will do Bond 22.

 

[Sebastos]

Awesome news! I think he's a perfect choice. I can't wait to see what he can bring to the series.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Glad we'll be getting some great drama...but like others, I'm concerned the action might suffer from his lack of experience in that field.

 

[TheProfessor]

I think overall everyone is concerned a little about the action. but if the guy can milk perfomances and do great story... isn't that enough to celebrate about? I mean the thing with CR is, it had a great story. Sure the action was great... but i liked have a subtle end to the villian in Le Chiffre. Now the sequence at the end with Vespers death... that was action but i think that he can make the sequences more about the emotion and story within the sequence much like Vesper's death and have the action take the background which i personally think is ok. Anyone else think it would be okay if the action was just in the background for the story, there was necessary but out when not?

 

[Hunter Rider]

I knew when we saw the list a few weeks ago they wouldn't have the balls to go for Tony Scott but i'd hoped for Proyas as second choice,still i guess this guy deserves a shot,he is good at drama and may well have an eye for action that he just hasn't had a chance to show yet.

 

[Catman]

everyone is concerned a little about the action. but if the guy can milk perfomances and do great story... isn't that enough to celebrate about?

No, action scenes are as important as story and performance. Can you imagine Casino Royale without the pre-title restroom fight, the foot chase, the airport action scene, and the ending?

 

[xwolverine2]

im scared someone hold me

i loved stranger than fiction...
at least he has experience,and not a bad track record.

can he take on bond? maybe... im all for new talent as well. i knew id end up being scared when martin left for good.

ill wait for more on this guy before judging.

 

[Downhere]

but i'd hoped for Proyas as second choice,

Hopefully they give Proyas the third film, for some reason I'd really like to see what he could do with a Bond film.

 

[Agentsands77]

Forster is a great director, but is he a great action director?

Depends. Bond's action is mostly second unit anyway, so it's more a matter of having a great second unit director and action choreographers than having a director whose forte is action. CASINO ROYALE's awesome action wasn't as much due to Campbell as it was to Alexander Witt, Gary Powell, and editor Stuart Baird.

Furthermore, there's a question as to whether BOND 22 will be as action driven as CASINO ROYALE. It's possible that it won't be, and I actually hope it won't be. CASINO ROYALE had one giant set-piece too many, and I would welcome a Bond film that was a little more of a thriller than just an action blowout.

What Forster does bring to the table is a lot of talent. Unlike previous Bond directors, he's not a "producer's yes man." He's going to have a lot of input on the script (he'll be working with Paul Haggis as they hammer out a draft). He's phenomenal with actors. He has a great visual eye, so BOND 22 will probably look great.

 

[Catman]

Depends. Bond's action is mostly second unit anyway, so it's more a matter of having a great second unit director and action choreographers than having a director whose forte is action. CASINO ROYALE's awesome action wasn't as much due to Campbell as it was to Alexander Witt, Gary Powell, and editor Stuart Baird.

Yes and no. Great action scenes also have to do with the writing. There's so much Forster can bring to the table or simply throw out!

Furthermore, there's a question as to whether BOND 22 will be as action driven as CASINO ROYALE. It's possible that it won't be, and I actually hope it won't be. CASINO ROYALE had one giant set-piece too many, and I would welcome a Bond film that was a little more of a thriller than just an action blowout.

Thats just crazy talk!

What Forster does bring to the table is a lot of talent. Unlike previous Bond directors, he's not a "producer's yes man."

What do you mean by alot? Terence Young, Guy Hamiliton, Lewis Gilbert, Peter Hunt, and Martin Campbell weren't yes men.

He's going to have a lot of input on the script (he'll be working with Paul Haggis as they hammer out a draft). He's phenomenal with actors. He has a great visual eye, so BOND 22 will probably look great.

Forster IS a great director, but I'm just wondering if he's a great action director. And, yes, that is important. Second unit or no second unit you need a director who knows what he's doing in terms of action. Remember the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy shoots the sword man? That was all Spielberg. No screenwriter. No second unit. No producer. No actor. SPIELBERG!

 

[Agentsands77]

Yes and no. Great action scenes also have to do with the writing.

Yup. And we have the same folks who wrote the material from CASINO ROYALE.

Thats just crazy talk!

How so? CASINO ROYALE was still a far cry from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. And I don't mean that as a slight... CASINO ROYALE's my favorite Bond film of the lot, but there's definitely plenty of room to trim back the action and up the suspense and character development.

What do you mean by alot? Terence Young, Guy Hamiliton, Lewis Gilbert, Peter Hunt, and Martin Campbell weren't yes men.

Yeah they were. They were often told exactly what to do by the producers, and dutifully complied.

Forster IS a great director, but I'm just wondering if he's a great action director. And, yes, that is important.

Yes and no. I wouldn't exactly call Campbell a great action director even though CASINO ROYALE has excellent action.

Second unit or no second unit you need a director who knows what he's doing in terms of action.

Sure, at least in the planning stages (in the execution, it's mostly second unit and the editing room).

Remember the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy shoots the sword man? That was all Spielberg. No screenwriter. No second unit. No producer. No actor. SPIELBERG!

Actually, nobody agrees on who's idea that scene was. Ford says it was his, Spielberg says it was his... so forth and so on. That's why the DVD doc doesn't exactly deal with it very much - everyone has a different story.

And RAIDERS wasn't as much of a "second unit" thing as CASINO ROYALE was (or any contemporary Bond film is). Spielberg was very hands on with the action - that's very unusual for a Bond film.

 

[Crook]

How so? CASINO ROYALE was still a far cry from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. And I don't mean that as a slight... CASINO ROYALE's my favorite Bond film of the lot, but there's definitely plenty of room to trim back the action.

The 2 don't have to go hand in hand. You can improve the writing/dialog without having to sacrifice the more action-oriented moments of the film.

 

[Agentsands77]

You can improve the writing/dialog without having to sacrifice the more action-oriented moments of the film.

It's not about improving the character moments, which were great. It's simply about screentime. There could have easily been more character-building, which was fairly bare-bones. We got it in certain scenes, and the scenes were good, but they were kept very tight and brief. CASINO ROYALE could have lost a big set-piece and it wouldn't have mattered. Heck, it would have even improved the structure (which was odd, to say the least... the first third is front-loaded with tons of action, slows down for a more character-based focus with the rest of the film).

Why ist his so ridiculous? Why shouldn't BOND 22 have a structure like THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, with only one huge set-piece towards the end? It's still sufficiently full of action.

 

[Matt]

Personally I'm glad Campbell is not coming back. As much as I love Goldeneye and Casino Royale...I really prefer the Bond as stand alone movies, and a director like Forster combined makes it more and more likely that this will not be a direct continuation of Casino Royale.

 

[Agentsands77]

I really prefer the Bond as stand alone movies, and a director like Forster combined with a writer like Haggis makes it more and more likely that this will not be a direct continuation of Casino Royale.

How so? We know that BOND 22 is a direct continuation of CASINO ROYALE, and Forster's position as director doesn't make that at all uncertain.

 

[Matt]

How so? We know that BOND 22 is a direct continuation of CASINO ROYALE, and Forster's position as director doesn't make that at all uncertain.

Sure it does, and we don't know anything. There is speculation. YOu can't know anything about an uncertain script. Forster is a prestigous director. It isn't common practice in Hollywood for a director of that nature to finish up someone elses' work.

 

[Agentsands77]

Sure it does, and we don't know anything.

Every official word from members of the production team have stated that this film continues what CASINO ROYALE started, and that Bond still has things to learn in his development. Even recent comments from P&W about their BOND 22 first draft back that up.

It isn't common practice in Hollywood for a director of that nature to finish up someone elses' work.

How would he be "finishing someone else's work"? It's not like this is "Campbell's Bond franchise." He directed a Bond film, and somebody else could easily direct the next - whether story elements carry over or not. BOND 22 can still pick up from CASINO ROYALE and be its own film, ya know.

 

[Darth Elektra]

Forster is a great director, but is he a great action director?

Exactly...

 

[Furious Styles]

One would be able to argue that Casino Royale was a showpiece for Daniel Craig. Although there was perhaps an over abundance of action sequences, EON and Campbell may have felt the need to showcase Craig, and show the audience that Craig was their man.

If the audience doesn't buy into Craig as Bond, not only does the film fail, but their intended vision of future Bond films goes down in flames as well. Ironcially, the structure of the film almost bullies Craig into your psyche. You don't have time to think, there is Craig being thrown from one action sequence to another, and by the end of it, your willing to follow him the rest of the way.

Now with Bond 22, you already have the audience. Casino Roayle built you that audience. It's no longer a question of whether people believe Craig can play Bond, now, we KNOW that Daniel Craig IS James Bond 007!

It's a liberty Casino Royale did not have, but Bond 22 will be able to exploit it this time around.