Geez, I really did not know that.
That kind of behavior is so ugly and despicable - no, I donāt want to see him back now.
Interesting tidbit in that article: he used another writer when working on NTTD? And he gave himself the full writing credit?
Of course, that happens again and again. But from my experience, itĀ“s always those directors who canāt really write themselves but are creative vampires and credit-huggers who do such a thing. Would fit in with the rest.
HeĀ“s a good director. But apparently a horrible person.
He must have done some truly amazing work prior to NTTD, because you wouldnāt get even the slightest whiff of the idea that heās a good director from this latest Bond film. The extent to which Fukunaga can be praised for NTTD, in my humble opinion, is that he hired a good cinematographer.
I love NTTD, and I find it very well directed. Iād be thrilled if Fukunaga came back, however unlikely.
A question I know Iāll regret asking: looking back at the 25 entries made under EON, do you really feel NTTDās directing compares unfavorably to the vast majority of Bond movies? Because Iād put Fukunagaās work above most of his predecessors, despite the nostalgia many of us feel for the old school Bond movies.
To each their own, I suppose.
Above?
I liked the way NTTD was directed - but there are scenes which I consider weirdly staged (i.e. Bond and M talking during their meeting at the Thames, putting Craig and Fiennes in a two-shot for a lengthy dialogue scene), and the Fukanaga signature uncut action traveling shot, IMO, is also a bit flat (just Bond going up the stairs, fighting here and there) - I would have preferred another sequence doing that (for example the Spectre party).
Sam Mendes does have more experience directing actors and working with a cinematographer to frame and build scenes, Marc Foster is much more daring in setting up shots, and Campbell definitely shows his routine in pacing and getting to the point of every scene.
As for the previous eras - well, it depends on what one wants from a film in general. But I could not say that Fukunaga was in any way better than Glen or Gilbert or Hamilton, not even better than Spottiswoode or Apted or Tamahori.
Comparing those 2 always seems weird, it feels like comparing an apple to a steak - both food sure, but otherwise have nothing in common.
I happen to love Glen and Young, but other than those, I found Fukunaga to be above average. Certainly above Apted, Spottiswoode, and Tamahori (and I defend the Brosnan entries more than most).
I guess Iām just feeling like NTTD (especially in the last couple months) has been unfairly maligned, whereas so many older entries get a free pass for some reason. And why? Because people didnāt like Bond dying? For me, NTTD was the first Craig entry post-CR which actually lived up to the high expectations set by Craigās debut (although SF came pretty darn close). I am thrilled with NTTD, and the only thing Iād change is fleshing out Safinās motivations a bit more. But everything else was great, from acting, to action, sets, music, etcā¦
And I think we sometimes view earlier entries with rose tinted glasses when we have these discussions. GF is great, but I cannot accept that any of Hamiltonās subsequent three entries were better directed than NTTD.
I just donāt want us to turn into Star Wars fans.
WeĀ“re just comparing our opinions here.
Therefore I would really be interested in an example of a scene or sequence of NTTD which you consider better directed than a scene or sequence in an earlier film.
Also, SAF, I hear your points about those two āweirdly stagedā scenes in NTTD (I like the stairway scene, but I totally get where youāre coming from). I guess my overall question is: acknowledging that they couldāve been staged better, do you find that NTTD is more guilty of that type of thing than most of the previous entries in the series?
As just one example: In QoS, I still canāt tell whether Bond was using Mathis as a shield or, alternatively, the policemen shot Mathis once they realized he was still alive, nor do I understand Mathis being āa cover name.ā And this is all aside from the usual complaints about QoSās frenetic action.
The entire Spectre party scene in NTTD, from Bondās entry through his escape with Obruchev, was (in my opinion) brilliantly staged. Tense and suspenseful, top notch action, great set design, music is on point. I cannot find any fault in this scene.
Iām not sure what a proper analog would be to this specific scene (as it felt unique to me), but Iād observe that the Spectre meeting scene in the previous film (from Bondās entry through his quick escape) was a bit of a slog, was nowhere near as tense, and had a lot of eyebrow raising moments (microphone, anyone?).
For drama, action, and suspense, Iād say Fukunaga did a better job in NTTD than anything Apted did in TWINE.
I see what you mean - and again we both can see how subjective these things are. I actually like the party scene in NTTD - but I also consider the Spectre meeting as done by Mendes tense and well directed.
Do I find that NTTD has more scenes that are not well directed than previous Bond films?
No. But I donāt think any Bond film is particularly badly directed. In fact, I think they are all very effective. Whether I would have wished for a different staging (as the Thames meeting in NTTD) is not making my argument any more sound.
I do suspect, however, that the style NTTD is directed in might appeal more to contemporary viewing habits than HamiltonĀ“s direction of GF - obviously so. To compare, for example, the directing style of DAF with NTTDĀ“s, probably should always take into account how stories were told back then and now.
The interesting thing would be: what is different now, what has stayed the same? Are Bond films differently directed than other action films? Do they follow a different template?
In any event, the most important aspect of every film would be: is the story communicated properly, elegantly, inventively? How is every scene paced so the whole film has a good flow? Was it edited too much, too little? How is the lighting set to tell the story? How is the score used and to what effect?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, SAF. I too find all (or at least the vast majority of) Bond movies to be very effective, and I guess thatās why I have such a hard time understanding some of the pushback against NTTD ā it felt (at least) par for the course when compared with the others.
As for comparing broader movie-making styles from decades ago to now, my feelings are mixed. There was something nice about the travelogue style of the Young entries, and I very much enjoy their somewhat relaxed pacing; Conneryās characterization benefitted tremendously from it, whereas Brosnan (through no fault of his own) seemed to be rushing from one action scene to the next. But, we all know deep down that a large part of the seriesā continued success comes from its ability to adapt to changing times ā I donāt even mean regarding the character (although thatās probably true too); I mean in terms of filmmaking.
To these questions, I personally find NTTD to be a resounding success. If thatās how weāre judging this film, then consider me a happy camper.
Iād like to add something about NTTD which, to me, was a major reason I enjoyed it: it felt fresh and innovative. Iād say the same about CR and SF ā off the top of my head, the stairwell fight, the poison scene, the sinking house, Bond being shot by Moneypenny, the Macau casino, and the whole sequence of Silvaās escape through the inquiry shootout. These all felt like new setups for the series, while still feeling distinctly Bondian. (In a similar vein, I felt the same about The Last Jedi ā new and imaginative but still vintage Star Wars.) Where I feel QoS and SP fell flat is that both lacked new, innovative scenes with real tension and suspense; the former was a frenetic action extravaganza (hard to follow both the action and parts of the plot), whereas the latter felt tired and formulaic and derivative. If subsequent installments can feel as fresh, exciting, and suspenseful as NTTD, Iād consider the series in a very good place.
Weāve been there before, and thatās OHMSS.
And this is the crux of the issue. It does get old after a while, I must say, to have every criticism one has of NTTD written off as it being simply about being upset about Bond dying at the end of the film. I, for one, donāt care one bit about the fact that Bond died at the end of the film. I actually welcome such a gutsy move on the part of the filmmakers, but at the end of the day, if EON, Craig, and Fukunaga are intent on taking that step with a legendary character such as Bond, who has endured on the page, on the screen, and in various other forms of media for over half a century, then when it comes time to kill off that character, one has to come up with a scenario and a villain who are worthy of that moment. And NTTD utterly fails at this in almost every way.
The single biggest issue with NTTD is not even the death of Bond. Thatās actually pretty far down the list and is only a harsh reminder to the viewer at the end of the film of all of the shortcomings the film forced us to endure on the way to that endpoint. The single biggest issue with NTTD is that it takes place in the most soulless, empty version of our world that has ever been portrayed in a Bond film. This is something that I feel is the largest issue this film has going against it, yet itās never spoken about. For the first time, Craig gets his āsave the worldā moment. Even putting aside the fact that Safinās plan is completely nonexistent and nonsensical, for a film that tries to ratchet the global stakes up to an 11, it utterly fails in impressing upon the viewer that the world is, in fact, facing one of its greatest threats ever.
And why is that? Itās because real people are virtually nonexistent in NTTD. Aside from the scene in the club and then that brief, and as already stated strangely constructed, meeting between Bond and M on the river, real people do not inhabit the world in which NTTD takes place. For a film about the potential destruction of the human race, thereās awfully few of these humans running around the world in which the film takes place. We go from one set piece and location to another where Bond is battling the bad guys and encountering government operatives, but few to any real people inhabit these locations. We travel to Cuba, or, excuse me, a soundstage (which is so blatantly a soundstage that I have to bring it up as another knock against Fukunaga) where Bond, Paloma, Nomi, and SPECTRE manage to destroy an entire section of downtown Havana, yet there are no stakes there, no real people that we see in danger in any way.
Contrast this with the earlier films in Craigās tenure, as well as other films prior to that, where we knew that these films took place in some version of the world in which we currently live. In CR, we see how Bondās actions affect our world and the world around us, with him and Mollaka destroying a construction site and then an embassy, before. moving on to a lively beachfront club, a busy Miami airport, a lively casino resort in which real people are playing games above while Bond and Le Chiffre essentially duke it out in the basement, and then a realistically bustling Venice at the end of the film. We see directly how Bond and the villainsā actions affect the world in QoS, with each of the filmās locations being populated by people just like your Average John Q Public, from the chase scene in the beginning happening during a crowded public event to the opera scenes, and so on.
NTTD asks me to care about how Bond must stop the release of Heracles which but never does the film remove the focus off of Bond and his relationship issues and put it on the fact that the world will be irreparably altered if Safinās buyerās take control of the virus (which is another point, considering that the āvirusā is already flowing freely among the public prior to this, albeit in a benign form thanks to Safinās assassination of Blofeld, all it would really take is for someone to reverse engineer the āvirusā from someone already infected and then begin the DNA coding process again in order to begin using the virus as intended once more). Instead, weāre given the tangible stakes of Bond must save the world so that Madeleine and his kid can live and so that M can avoid being hauled up to the Hague on war crime charges. It all feels so soulless and pointless, because theyāve given the viewer no reason to care about the villainās plan beyond how it affects Bond himself, which is not enough.
And that brings us to the other part of why none of this works. If youāre going to kill of Bond, itās going to take a great villain to do it. Safin, Iām afraid, aināt that villain. Iāve come across more menacing things in a sock drawer than Lucifer Safin. He has no motivation, other than apparently being in love with Madeleine, and a plan that is never at all fleshed out. He also has no physical menace whatsoever. In fact, Iād give a potted plant even odds in a fist fight against him, yet this is the guy that takes down James Bond. Please.
Even all of that aside, as SAF has already pointed out, there are odd directorial decisions abound in the film. The staging of certain scenes (the one on the Thames being an example), that horrendous confrontation between Bond and Blofeld being another. If Fukunaga was giving Craig notes on how to play that scene, then he failed miserably, and if he wasnāt giving him notes, then he should have been.
The one piece of praise I will give Fukunaga is in his hiring of the cinematographer. NTTD is a beautiful film to look at, and thatās largely its saving grace. Itās gorgeously shot and everything looks very, very good, but behind that beauty is an absolutely soulless affair that gets bogged down in how mundane and lifeless its world actually is. It really is not at all about Bond dying. Had they brought back Hinx from SP and had him, a clear threat to Bond, come back for revenge and we saw him beat Bond to death with his bare hands, that would have been one thing, but itās the combination of this villain, this plot, and the failure to force the audience to feel the weight of what should be the most consequential finale to a Bond film ever that rob that moment of the brutal impact that it should have had on the audience.
And man, the romance, I didnāt buy the romance, and this film focused on that so much.
And Bond almost became a side character on this one, because the film also focuses that much on Madeleine and Nomi.
Like who cares? No one cares! And Iām one of them.
Sorry, but because of my issues with film, I doubt it will change.
My issues with the film outweighed the good ones.
Theyāre not casting anyone yet, but theyāre thinking mid 30ās
Edit: made the mistake of reading the comments. Apparently Idris Elba saying he doesnāt want the job is still not enough.
Speaking of the comments, Iām actually a little surprised at how many people donāt want Purvis and Wade writing again. Iām not too happy about them coming back. I am surprised though that next to Irdis Elba being Bond, the general public wants them gone as much as some fans do.
The responses to the actual films in the Craig run would say that going to P&W first is the wiser ideaā¦
I think Babs saw the opening of the new minions movie and it totally broke her.
She just withered away in the face of that savagery and threw in the towel.