UPDATE: Sara Keene, Sam Mendes' publicist has confirmed to the Guardian that he has had a 'meeting' about directing James Bond's 23rd adventure:

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past day or are not a James Bond fan, you've probably been scratching your head in confusion over the latest Bond 23 director news. Recent rumblings of pre-production coming to a halt may also leave you wondering what could be next in the world of 007.

Oscar winning director Sam Mendes was allegedly hired as director for Bond 23 under heavily circulated rumors, but was then re-cast in the hiring as a creative consultant for financial reasons. Apparently the finance industry is really peril - even James Bond movies are affected!

Anyways, I thought I'd write this post to acknowledge these rumors and news that have been circulating for a bit now (although I guess you can't really even call it 'news' as nothing official has been announced yet). I normally don't like to fan flames of rumors but it seems this one gained momentum online quickly with both Bond fan sites and traditional media outlets - with both positive and negative reactions from fans and critics alike.

Which brings me to my next point for detractors of the Mendes-Bond news. Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times wrote a short op-ed on how it is a wrong career move for Mendes to helm Bond 23. You can read his entire piece by clicking here.

In short, Mr. Goldstein, I disagree with you. Yes, I understand that Mr. Mendes' box office draw has waned in recent years and his movies have not lived up to the pinnacle of his success, American Beauty, but dare I say his reasoning for doing the movie may be different from your inclinations:

Is that really the ONLY reasoning you think could be the answer?? I would argue that the direction the Bond franchise has been heading is actually making it more difficult for a Bond movie to be successful, going against the traditional Bond formula with Daniel Craig's Bond. By hiring a new (blond) actor as 007 and reinvigorating the character by telling his story from the beginning, the production team and MGM gambled that this new, different Bond would catch on. Fortunately, it did. However, treating a Bond movie as a second rate "payday" is unfair.

But then again, Mr. Goldstein, I don't know if it's worth continuing the argument after reading this paragraph:

"No way to put a personal stamp"? I'm sure if you asked the late Terence Young, John Glen, Guy Hamilton or Martin Campbell they would have a different answer. Bond fans can certainly distinguish the styles of these directors from Bond movie to Bond movie! Why do you think there was so much hype for Campbell's work on Casino Royale? He made GoldenEye his own Bond movie and the best work of Pierce Brosnan's tenure as the world's favorite secret agent.

I'd also like to hear their response after you refer to their contributions to one of the most successful movie franchises in history as "hack work." Not very respectful, if you ask me.

Yes, but they also participate in productions in which they believe they can positively contribute. Are you really saying that directing Bond 23 wouldn't be a challenge?

Here's to having Sam Mendes take on the challenge that is Bond 23!