72 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

CBn Main Page: Wall Street Journal Reveals Short List of Bond 21 Directors.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article titled "Uh-Oh Seven" about the Bond situation. It goes on to say that Brosnan's plan to exit roils MGM while being in the midst of negotiations to sell the studio. Reports Time-Warner has the edge according to insiders.

Goes on to say stakes are high with negotiations going on and they also say it is possible that Pierce's announcement could be a negotiation ploy. Talks about how much MGM relies on Bond and how vital Bond 21 is for them and Eon.

Interestingly Pierce declines to comment on his plans--once again he refuses to clarify his EW interview. Suspicious to me. Goes on to talk about how Pierce has been pushing for less explosions and special effects and more character and plot according to insiders. Said he held talks with producers about a year ago but they went nowhere.

Says the clock is ticking for Bond 21 and November 2005 release. MGM still insists its ahead of schedule. The first draft has been handed in but story content held a close secret.

Some breaking news they report is they are shortlisting directors now and among those considered are Alfonso Cuaron, Gore Verbinski, Rob Bowman of the X-files movie and Sam Raimi! Though not english I would take Raimi in an instant--a great genre director! Anyone for Bruce Campbell as Felix Leiter! I like Cuaron also.

So anyway that is basically it. Very interesting. It backs up some of what we have heard elsewhere. And gives us a few new tidbits from a reputable source.

Also almost forgot to mention the article also says agents all over Hollywood have been burning up the phone lines all week trying to get their clients to be the next Bond!

Edited by zencat, 07 August 2004 - 01:27 AM.

[Jack Bauer]

Oh, if only John Glen was still directing, then we wouldn't be in this situation, would we? Glen was the *man* in my mind. Directing one Bond film is hard work, and surely 5 is no easier. At least give him a producer tag, or something. I enjoy his work.

As I digress, though, could you post the link of the article? I'd like to give it a read. Oh, and how about Luke Wilson for Felix?


EDIT: Oh, Wall Street Journal. My mistake. Perhaps they have a website where it'd be available?

Edited by Jack Bauer, 06 August 2004 - 10:32 PM.

[Athena007]

Interesting indeed, but it really doesn't give us any NEW info.
(too bad, I want new info, as I'm sure we all do)

[Qwerty]

Interesting indeed, but it really doesn't give us any NEW info.
(too bad, I want new info, as I'm sure we all do)

Ditto. :`(

Although it is interesting to see Cuaron mentioned.

[Seannery]

Basically the article reaffirms some things we thought we knew or rumors we have heard. So it solidifies our information.

The naming of specific directors they are looking at is new. Before it was total speculation and rumor. Sam Raimi--that is a bolt from the blue as is Cuaron to a lesser extent.

Edited by Seannery, 06 August 2004 - 10:58 PM.

[Qwerty]

Basically the article reaffirms somethings we thought we knew or rumors we have heard. So it solidifies our information.

Kind of, but really, none of these articles are doing a whole lot of breaking down what's true or not. Just too many rumors as it is.

[zencat]

[quote name='Seannery' date='6 August 2004 - 15:56'] Basically the article reaffirms some things we thought we knew or rumors we have heard.

[Glor (009)]

A good point is made here though. If MGM is really trying to get bought they are going to need to have someone in place to play 007. It can't help them to have "the most bankable" Bond step down during the sale unless they have a rising star like Jackman waiting in the wings to step in.

Still rumors but not good for the sale.

[Dunph]

Alfonso Cuaron, Gore Verbinski, Sam Raimi? If that really is the short list, it sounds like Eon seem to want to latch on to those directors already helming successful franchises (or in Verbinski's case soon-to-be franchises). I'd rather a more eclectic mix was revealed.

I'm still fantasising about a Tarantino Bond.

[Agent 76]

Alfonso Cuaron, Gore Verbinski, Sam Raimi? If that really is the short list, it sounds like Eon seem to want to latch on to those directors already helming successful franchises (or in Verbinski's case soon-to-be franchises). I'd rather a more eclectic mix was revealed.

I'm still fantasising about a Tarantino Bond.

me too......

[zencat]

Alfonso Cuaron, Gore Verbinski, Sam Raimi? If that really is the short list, it sounds like Eon seem to want to latch on to those directors already helming successful franchises (or in Verbinski's case soon-to-be franchises). I'd rather a more eclectic mix was revealed.

I'm still fantasising about a Tarantino Bond.

This feels more to me more like MGM's short list than Eon's. Eon likes to hire directors who need a break, someone they can control. All these guys would demand a measure of creative control that I don't see Eon giving up. They are also all very expensive.

[Genrewriter]

They're also not English, though I would like to see Gore Verbinski's take on Bond as well as Sam Raimi's. Rob Bowman might be a good choice, emphasis on might.

[JimmyBond]

If that list of directors is realy. Then hot damn, Bond 21 is already looking up, seriously, all of those guys can do no wrong in my opinion. If it's accurate of course, though I don't think EON would go after any of those guys, except maybe Cauron, aftar all PoA was his first "big" movie.

[Qwerty]

I wonder if Cuaron would seriously change things around, as he did for HP3.

[JimmyBond]

I wonder if Cuaron would seriously change things around, as he did for HP3.

Not sure. But that brings up an interesting point I overlooked initially. Having directed a Harry Potter film Cauron has experience with film adaptions, that might make him look good to EON if Casino Royale is the next film (assuming the film is staying close enough to the source material to be called an adaption).

[Qwerty]

I wonder if Cuaron would seriously change things around, as he did for HP3.

Not sure. But that brings up an interesting point I overlooked initially. Having directed a Harry Potter film Cauron has experience with film adaptions, that might make him look good to EON if Casino Royale is the next film (assuming the film is staying close enough to the source material to be called an adaption).

Yeah, I wondered that as well. Just thing is it makes you wonder if he'll have the styles they're looking for on CR.

[JimmyBond]

I certainly enjoyed the darker look he gave to the Harry Potter universe. Filming everything in stark tones, perfect style for a hard edged Spy Film I think (damn, talking about CR like this is making me hope that EON does it justice ).

[Qwerty]

I certainly enjoyed the darker look he gave to the Harry Potter universe. Filming everything in stark tones, perfect style for a hard edged Spy Film I think (damn, talking about CR like this is making me hope that EON does it justice ).

He did very well for HP3 indeed. He just might be an interesting choice for the job.

[Alex Zamudio]

Alfonso Cuaron had total creative control over HP3, I don't think EON would let him have all those liberties, and he did a cool job, took it very seriously, he even made the 3 principal stars write essays about their characters!

Very Interesting...

[[dark]]

There are some very interesting choices, here. Curiously, several of them aren't from the Commonwealth.

And Paul has a point about them all being latched onto major franchises.

Alfonso Cuaron - haven't seen anything by him, but all my Harry Potter-obsessed friends praised the choice of him as director for the third film, and, in turn, the final product. Could inject a darker touch. He has a film in development for 2006, but it isn't into pre-production yet.

Gore Verbinski - enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean thoroughly. It was just, plain, fun. Could be a very successful choice. He has the Pirates sequel in development for 2006.

Rob Bowman - produced some of the very best episodes of The X-Files, as well as giving the X-Files theatrical film an epic feel. He also directed the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which is, in retrospect, difficult to watch [it concerned a terrorist plot to crash a passenger jet into the World Trade Centre], but was technically flawless, especially for a TV show. Big yes from me, but he is American. He's currently working on the Daredevil spin-off, Elektra. He has also expressed interest in directing the next X-Files feature film, which is presently in negotiations with Fox.

Christopher Nolan - Memento was great. Very unique. Again, could provide a darker touch. He's working on an origin story with Batman Begins at the moment, if, as rumoured, we will head down that path. He also has another film in development for 2006.

Sam Raimi - here's the odd name out for me. The Spider-man films were terrific popcorn flicks, but I'd say if he gets selected, then expect Die Another Day Mach II. Only going off the Spider-man films, of course. No films in development as a director, but Spider-man 3 is set for 2007, if he ends up helming that.

I must say, I'm not disappointed by this list, but I'm certainly surprised by the glut of non-Commonwealth directors to appear on it.

[Prav_007]

This morning before I read this article, I was thinking of Sam Raimi, former Pulitzer prize-winner for directing Bond. I watched a Spider-man 2 behind the scenes recently and Sam Raimi said most important in films like these is that the plot should be more character development based. Well for the Bond films, 007 is fully developed but I would prefer him more. He counter-balanced plot and action very well in Spider-man 2. Also, didn't Sam Raimi pen the script for Spiderman 2?

[Qwerty]

I thought that was Michael Chabon.

[Prav_007]

I was wrong, you're right Qwerty. Also add Alfred Gough & Miles Millar to the writing list.

[Qwerty]

Interesting idea, although that may mean even further focus on Bond's personality, which may mean yet another "personal mission or scene."

[Harmsway]

I would kill to get a Christopher Nolan Bond flick. Or an Alfonso Cuaron Bond flick for that matter. The other three choices I wouldn't be thrilled with.

Raimi's good and all, but I've seen nothing that has proven to me he could direct a solid Bond film (to be fair, though, nothing's proved otherwise, either).

Verbinski isn't a great director, and to be honest, the only thing that made Pirates successful was Johnny Depp. Take Depp out of the movie and suddenly it's nowhere near as enjoyable or interesting.

And Bowman - well I don't know. He doesn't have much to his name that's an indicator either way. I'd prefer someone with a larger body of work and more experience.

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='[dark'],7 August 2004 - 10:00]Gore Verbinski - enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean thoroughly.

[daman3755]

Let's be feasible about this. We may have been expecting old news, and I find it surprising to see any kind of news about the new flick turns up in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. That said...

Well I for one can't see Rob Bowman directing. He has quite the eye actually, and can work with the script he's given, but he's more of an action director. Did I not read from David Arnold this movie is in another direction? I mean, DAD was pretty much a generic action flick, it truly wasn't anything spectacular. Oop, lemme rephrase that - it was going good up till Iceland. After that, I gave up.

Verbinski too has a slick eye, could see him helming the next Bond movie. Though, curious - once Johnny Depp is done with Burton's "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" (which is going to make that early 70's adaption look like roadkill), isn't POTC2 next on his plate? That would be at the end of this year, even right when Bond 21 begins filming, so I doubt it.

But Raimi, I'd give him a go immediately. Whoever said Spider-Man 2 was a popcorn flick, I must disagree. SP2 was concocted by an award-winning author (Michael Chabon), penned by a screenwriter with Oscar history and a knack for character/drama (Alvin Sargaent), and directed by a man who isn't happy till he knows he has a great product. SP2 only had two or three real fight scenes that last a total of 15 minutes - the movie runs a healthy 122 minutes. Popcorn flick, maybe at times, but overall SP2 was a great flick.

Then again, this summer has been full of movies that just entertain. Spider-Man 2, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle (hi-larious and quite original in parts), Collateral, I Robot, The Day After Tomorrow (a true popcorn flick to me), Man On Fire, and of course Fahrenheit 9/11. There's other ones to pick, but to each his own.

I could see Raimi doing it - but with his kind of creative control, it would be a GOOD thing. (Isn't it time EON gives a director SOME leeway here? At least listen to feedback about ideas that could happen in real life, aka NO MORE ICESURFING!) Dump Purvis and Wade, find someone who'll bring back the original Bond. Last time I really had a fun time with 007 with with Brosnan's first entry. Every movie Brozzers did had a different tune to it - the thriller, the actioneer, the drama, the Swiss cheese, all the flicks in that specific order. Hopefully Bond 21 comes out right, otherwise I'll toss this fish back in the sea.

(Then again, if what David Arnold said in that interview is right, then we have nothin' to worry about - right?)

[[dark]]

As for Bowman, don't forget that he also directed the truly fun romp that is Reign of Fire, but I'm not sure he's suited to Bond. Being a producer as well I think he'd want too much control.

Haven't seen it, but I've been meaning to. Seems like a fun romp.

Well I for one can't see Rob Bowman directing. He has quite the eye actually, and can work with the script he's given, but he's more of an action director. Did I not read from David Arnold this movie is in another direction?

I'm not expect that big a change of direction. The Bonds are action films. Even the smaller scale affairs, like From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only or even The Living Daylights, which was a change of pace, have action sequences.

But Raimi, I'd give him a go immediately. Whoever said Spider-Man 2 was a popcorn flick, I must disagree. SP2 was concocted by an award-winning author (Michael Chabon), penned by a screenwriter with Oscar history and a knack for character/drama (Alvin Sargaent), and directed by a man who isn't happy till he knows he has a great product. SP2 only had two or three real fight scenes that last a total of 15 minutes - the movie runs a healthy 122 minutes. Popcorn flick, maybe at times, but overall SP2 was a great flick.

Yes, I was the one who said Spider-man 2 was a popcorn flick. But I still feel it was a fantastic film. As was the original for that matter. And whilst the second film had plenty of decent character development [unlike Bond, the Spider-man universe is changing with each film], the action sequences weren't particularly Bond. I enjoyed them immensely, though, particularly the train sequence. In short, a Sam Raimi Bond film would be incredibly interesting to watch turn out, but I can't say he's high on my list of possible directors.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I like Alfonso Cuaron. That's a good hire!

[Qwerty]

Raimi's good and all, but I've seen nothing that has proven to me he could direct a solid Bond film (to be fair, though, nothing's proved otherwise, either).

Just not sure about him. He can definitely do fantastic comic book super hero movies.

I don't know for Bond.