49 replies to this topic

[Spurrier]

Why not? Can you imagine the general public anticipation of a Spielberg Bond movie? It would be huge.

I wish Campbell would do another. It seems to me that Brosnan's best Bond movie was his first, Goldeneye, directed by Campbell. The other 3 fell short of Campbell's. I would hate to see a mediocre Bond movie follow CR. If he won't come back, then Spielberg would be great. I think Spielberg would make a classic Bond movie.

[Harmsway]

He's often suggested as one of those "fanboy" choices, like Tarantino. I'm not a fan. There are plenty of reasonably-respected directors they can go to without going to some auteur, and I personally believe auteurs would be the death of the Bond franchise.

[tdalton]

I think I'd have to pass on a Steven Spielberg Bond film. Aside from Munich, I haven't been very impressed with his recent work and don't think that his style really translates well into a Bond film anyway. While yes, it would draw a massive audience, I don't think that the result would be worthy of the hype it would receive.

[DaveBond21]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

[K1Bond007]

I don't think Spielberg's direction is in tune with the new Bond direction. He comes off more of a great choice for Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. Not someone who can really pull out a serious spy thriller. He can do it. Spielberg is very versatile, but to really maximize Spielberg's potential, this just wouldn't be a good film for him.

Doesn't matter because he'll be busy with Indiana Jones regardless. There's no way he'll have the time to prep and shoot a big budget Bond film.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

When I go to see Bond 22, I'm going to see a Bond movie not a Steven Spielberg movie.

There's no need to have a director that will overshadow the film.

[Solex Agitator]

I cannot see this actually happening. Not a chance in hell. But if it did...I think it could be marvelous. I have never been a huge fan of Spielberg's work. A few here and there have really done it for me - JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, RADIERS OF THE LOST ARK, and even (oddly) the overtly sentimental A.I. I would have never tapped him to direct a Bond film until I saw MUNICH. And that point was driven home when I saw CASINO ROYALE. Craig and Spielberg get on well. I think it could be a match made in heaven. The taut direction of Munich could fit nicely into the new direction the Bond series. My 2 cents.

[DaveBond21]

When Craig was offered the part of 007, he asked Spielberg for his advice, and also whether or not he'd ever cast him in another role afterwards.

Spielberg's response was ", it's Bond - go for it!"

[Spurrier]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

It's because Spielberg is a big fan of the franchise, that I believe he would pour his heart into the project. Heck, he would probably do it for minimum pay just to be able to do one. And I believe the result would be something we could all enjoy. Maybe scheduling conflicts would prevent this from happening. Regardless, I hope someone VERY GOOD is lined up to direct the next one. Hiring a director is nearly as important as hiring an actor, maybe even more so.

[ambrosia]

Doubt if it would ever happen due to the factors others have mentioned. It would be a splendid idea though, especially since he's a fan and the series has been an inspiration for him.

[Dell Deaton]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

It's because Spielberg is a big fan of the franchise, that I believe he would pour his heart into the project. Heck, he would probably do it for minimum pay just to be able to do one. And I believe the result would be something we could all enjoy. Maybe scheduling conflicts would prevent this from happening. Regardless, I hope someone VERY GOOD is lined up to direct the next one. Hiring a director is nearly as important as hiring an actor, maybe even more so.

When I saw in one of the books about James Bond that Spielberg owns an Aston Martin, himself, because of his interest in the character, that impressed me. I think "being a fan" isn't enough. But, given Spielberg's history, I like the idea. Feels like we too often hear names of directors who seem to be "above" the film, or imply apologies for their associations with the franchise (when discussing the terms under which they might become involved).

[Bond_Bishop]

Will never happen so no idea in speculating I think. However it would be magnificent if he did.

[DamnCoffee]

I think he's to well known but it would be brilliant if he did.

[michael005]

After Munich, he'd do all right with a Bond film; but personally, I'd rather not see him do it.

[Zorin Industries]

But GOLDENEYE - when it comes to its direction - was really plodding, transparent and not at all cinematic. GOLDENEYE felt like a TV movie in parts. It has the drive and momentum of a TV special. Sorry. But it was what I felt at the time and still do now. Sean Bean was woefully miscast, the locations all felt like a back lot and Brosnan posturized about like it was a screen test for the fans.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 01 February 2007 - 08:17 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

felt like a TV movie in parts.

Hmm i see what you mean.

[Zorin Industries]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

It's because Spielberg is a big fan of the franchise, that I believe he would pour his heart into the project. Heck, he would probably do it for minimum pay just to be able to do one. And I believe the result would be something we could all enjoy. Maybe scheduling conflicts would prevent this from happening. Regardless, I hope someone VERY GOOD is lined up to direct the next one. Hiring a director is nearly as important as hiring an actor, maybe even more so.

It is important, but not for the creative success of a Bond film. A director name above the marquee is NOT the way forward. James Cameron? George Lucas? Luc Besson? Eon have got it right because they do not hire 'names'. That is not their mantra. It never has been.

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

I'm not sure I want a 'Bond fan' directing a Bond film. The director is not the only person involved with a Bond film who has the opportunity.

This is not directed at DaveBond21 at all, but the series would be greatly helped by a few fans changing their attitudes to the films. Kicking off every time we don't get THE SPY WHO LOVED ME XIII does not help matters. Nostalgia is a dangerous tool in the hands of fans.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 01 February 2007 - 08:26 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Come on folks! After 21 Bond movies - many of which aren't worthy - how bad can it be to give one of the best filmmakers a shot. Granted his recent films have been below par, but he's still the man that gave us Jaws, ET and Dr Jones! In fact, as i'm sure you're all aware, he made 'Raiders' after Cubby refused to let him make a Bond movie. Even if he did over-sentimentalize or screw it up some other way, it'd still probably be a superior Bond movie than many others. For those doubting his ability, i'm sure the 'fouth'-coming instalment of India Jones will have them eating their words.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 01 February 2007 - 08:26 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Come on folks! After 21 Bond movies - many of which aren't worthy - how bad can it be to give one of the best filmmakers a shot. Granted his recent films have been below par, but he's still the man that gave us Jaws, ET and Dr Jones! In fact, as i'm sure you're all aware, he made 'Raiders' after Cubby refused to let him make a Bond movie. Even if he did over-sentimentalize or screw it up some other way, it'd still probably be a superior Bond movie than many others. For those doubting his ability, i'm sure the 'fourth'-coming instalment of India Jones will have them eating their words.

And it is exactly that fourth instalment of INDIANA JONES that will see Steven Spielberg out of the 007 frame until about July 2008.

[Andy A 007]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

I've always been a big fan of Steven Spielberg and thought he would make a great Bond film.

From the comments I've read and heard from Spielberg about Bond, I think he would be loyal to what Bond should be. He seems to know what Bond should be, and I think he would work hard with Babs and Mike to make a good Bond film.

Edited by Andy A 007, 03 February 2007 - 09:47 PM.

[tambourineman]

I'd hate to see a Spielberg Bond movie. Bond should be a Bond movie. Movies from directors like Spielberg, Tarantino, Stone, Scorcese, Coppola etc. are all pigeonholed as a "Scorcese movie" and so forth... Bond doesnt need any of those sorts of trappings. Its the same with the actors, having Spielberg do Bond would be like having someone like Mel Gibson in the role.
People should go to see Bond because its a Bond movie, not because of the director or the star or anything like that.

[Auric64]

I'm not sure I want a 'Bond fan' directing a Bond film. The director is not the only person involved with a Bond film who has the opportunity.

Christopher Nolan is a Batman fan, and I didn`t see his direction hurting BATMAN BEGINS.

I think, with Spielberg, it depends on the script he`s given. Compare the scripts/direction between Raiders of the Lost Ark and War of the Worlds. Chalk and cheese.

Given a great script, I think Spielberg could step up to the plate. Having said that, I`m not sure Wilson and Broccoli would want Spielberg`s name about the Bond 22 title, or even above their names, come to think of it.

Nolan would be a good choice for me personally, (and he is a big Bond fan) but he would be shooting the next Batman film at the time Bond 22 would go into production, so that won`t work.

If Bond 22 is going to be similar in tone to Casino Royale, I wouldn`t mind Apted returning. Apart from Campbell, I feel he was the best suited of the other directors in the Brosnan era, and one I could see handling the emotional/dramatic moments of the film better than, say, a Tamahori or Spottiswoode.

Best

Andy

[Harmsway]

Christopher Nolan is a Batman fan, and I didn`t see his direction hurting BATMAN BEGINS.

He's actually not THAT big of a Batman fan. He's something of a Batman fan, but he's not really familiar with the comics. His familiarity and appreciation for Batman really came only shortly before he decided to tackle BATMAN BEGINS.

If Bond 22 is going to be similar in tone to Casino Royale, I wouldn`t mind Apted returning. Apart from Campbell, I feel he was the best suited of the other directors in the Brosnan era, and one I could see handling the emotional/dramatic moments of the film better than, say, a Tamahori or Spottiswoode.

Oh please no. Apted couldn't handle action at all, encouraged his actors to overact, and ultimately produced the dreariest and most plodding entry in the Bond franchise. After Campbell's "best Bond direction" work on CASINO ROYALE, lightyears beyond anything we've seen in the franchise, going back to such an unreliable and lackluster director would be a mistake.

BOND 22 needs something more than the "standard" Bond direction of the Brosnan years. CASINO ROYALE upped the game, and that means that the direction of BOND 22 will have to continue with the innovation that CASINO ROYALE established. BOND 22 needs someone like a Matthew Vaughn or a Stephen Frears, someone who isn't a big name, but whose directorial talents are a little more established than in a mediocre director like an Apted or a Spottiswoode. Essentially, EON needs to try and hedge their bets a little bit.

[Zorin Industries]

Christopher Nolan is a Batman fan, and I didn`t see his direction hurting BATMAN BEGINS.

He's actually not THAT big of a Batman fan. He's something of a Batman fan, but he's not really familiar with the comics. His familiarity and appreciation for Batman really came only shortly before he decided to tackle BATMAN BEGINS.

If Bond 22 is going to be similar in tone to Casino Royale, I wouldn`t mind Apted returning. Apart from Campbell, I feel he was the best suited of the other directors in the Brosnan era, and one I could see handling the emotional/dramatic moments of the film better than, say, a Tamahori or Spottiswoode.

Oh please no. Apted couldn't handle action at all, encouraged his actors to overact, and ultimately produced the dreariest and most plodding entry in the Bond franchise. After Campbell's "best Bond direction" work on CASINO ROYALE, lightyears beyond anything we've seen in the franchise, going back to such an unreliable and lackluster director would be a mistake.

BOND 22 needs something more than the "standard" Bond direction of the Brosnan years. CASINO ROYALE upped the game, and that means that the direction of BOND 22 will have to continue with the innovation that CASINO ROYALE established. BOND 22 needs someone like a Matthew Vaughn or a Stephen Frears, someone who isn't a big name, but whose directorial talents are a little more established than in a mediocre director like an Apted or a Spottiswoode. Essentially, EON needs to try and hedge their bets a little bit.

I completely agree. Whilst Michael Apted brought the world the superb and beautiful series 7 UP and has a seriously important track record as a documentary maker with a few good films inbetween, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was a terrible Bond film. Actually, it wasn't THAT bad, but it was getting there. The acting was over-the-top, the usually good Sophie Marceau hammed it up more than a butcher in an abbatoir and the worst thing is it wasted all its opportunities to be Brosnan's OHMSS. More like OMG SS...

Matthew Vaughn and Stephen Frears should certainly have that lunch date with Eon. Frears is a very adept, intuitive director. Vaughn came very close to directing CASINO ROYALE, but reportedly bailed to concentrate on his young family (the same reason he dropped out of X MEN 3). Vaughn's LAYER CAKE - whilst never that brilliant the second time round - is a great movie. Far too few British-bred directors can make 'movies' these days. Although early word on Vaughn's new one, STARDUST, is not good.

I must add though that who Eon do go with to helm BOND 22 is not just a decision based on track records. It will be based on working relationships, the availability and inclination to court the press for six months after the film has wrapped, a working familiarity with second units and multiple locations and a chemistry with the writers and lead actor.

Eighteen months is a long time to be working with someone you cannot get on with. Eon have that consideration too. The harmony and loyalty of the director is vital to the running of a Bond film. They are unique in that respect.

[RazorBlade]

Well, he is a Bond fan, but you have to remember that the Bond directors do not have a licence to do whatever they want. If Wilson & Broccoli want to change something, then the director has to do it.

I can't see Spielberg or a really well-known director putting up with that - that's why we've never had the best directors making Bond movies.

That's absolutely correct. Spielberg would make a fan-freakin'-tastic bond movie. The whole Indiana Jones franchise is a thinly disguised bond. But the problem would be EON wanting it made their way, and talk about uneven or overshadowing the film or any of the other complaints against SS, the biggest and best examples are EON itself.

Rather it's too bad we won't see SS make a bond film. Drat.

[agent007jb]

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

[Zorin Industries]

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

Okay - sold! Although The Williams hasn't done a great score in years. Oddly, I thought HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was one of his better scores in recent times.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 02 February 2007 - 01:59 PM.

[Skudor]

I'm all for it, mainly because he is a pretty good director and a Bond fan. Although, I'd probably put him in charge of another re-boot rather than 'just another Bond film'.

[Harmsway]

Matthew Vaughn and Stephen Frears should certainly have that lunch date with Eon. Frears is a very adept, intuitive director.

*And* he was already signed to the JINX project, before that fell through.

Vaughn came very close to directing CASINO ROYALE, but reportedly bailed to concentrate on his young family (the same reason he dropped out of X MEN 3).

Actually, he said in an interview he would have loved to do CASINO ROYALE, but EON wasn't particularly interested in him.

Although early word on Vaughn's new one, STARDUST, is not good.

Not true - STARDUST has been getting rave reviews. The first negative review came out a few days ago (and it's debatable whether the person actually saw the film), but before that, it was all positive.

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

Okay - sold! Although The Williams hasn't done a great score in years. Oddly, I thought HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was one of his better scores in recent times.

Williams did produce the gorgeous MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA.

[Fro]

He'd do an amazing job... the Indiana Jones films and the 10-minute Bond homage in "Catch Me If You Can" attest to that.

It's not gonna happen since he's doing Indy IV, though.