396 replies to this topic

[Bucky]

brian singer would be great. the white house scene at the beginning of x2 with nightcrawler is classic. he is a good balance of drama and action and he knows how to include humor properly.

[tdalton]

I can't say that I'd been in favor of Singer directing a Bond film. The X-Men films are mediocre at best (although his two are much better than the third film) and Superman Returns was just awful. I wouldn't have been opposed to him directing a Brosnan Era Bond film, as that's the kind of movie that he would be better suited to direct, but I don't think that he would be a good fit for a Daniel Craig Bond film.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Singer i liked with the Usual Suspects and I want to see valkryie honestly if he gives us a bond 23 similar to the usual suspects i'd be more then happy



this thread has a lot of choices it would be interesting to see if any of them are right.

[Mr_Wint]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

[Zorin Industries]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

Who says "no-one cares about" the likes of ONCE WERE WARRIORS, NELL, 7 UP, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER, GORILLAS IN THE MIST, FINDING NEVERLAND, MONSTERS BALL and THE KITE RUNNER...?

Yes we need action directors because TURNER AND HOOCH, ZORRO 2 and NO ESCAPE were indeed pioneering works of cinema that Bond was crying out for a bit of.

Eon should carry on down the path they have been forging for ten years now. It has led to decisions that did only what Bond can survive with - it pushed the franchise forward.

[tdalton]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

Who says "no-one cares about" the likes of ONCE WERE WARRIORS, NELL, 7 UP, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER, GORILLAS IN THE MIST, FINDING NEVERLAND, MONSTERS BALL and THE KITE RUNNER...?

Yes we need action directors because TURNER AND HOOCH, ZORRO 2 and NO ESCAPE were indeed pioneering works of cinema that Bond was crying out for a bit of.

Eon should carry on down the path they have been forging for ten years now. It has led to decisions that did only what Bond can survive with - it pushed the franchise forward.

Agreed. I wouldn't want the franchise to go back to hiring a director who can only do big-budget action films. I like the current path that EON is on, and would like to see it continue for quite a while.

[Safari Suit]

You seem to really have it in for No Escape...

You're right about Turner & Hooch though. Everyone knows K-9 by Rod "Home Alone IV" Daniel was the best cop/dog film of 89. Does anyone have his number?

[Harmsway]

Yes we need action directors because TURNER AND HOOCH, ZORRO 2 and NO ESCAPE were indeed pioneering works of cinema that Bond was crying out for a bit of.

[tim partridge]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

Who says "no-one cares about" the likes of ONCE WERE WARRIORS, NELL, 7 UP, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER, GORILLAS IN THE MIST, FINDING NEVERLAND, MONSTERS BALL and THE KITE RUNNER...?

Add to that list AN INSPECTOR CALLS, DEVIL'S DISCIPLE, GREENGAGE SUMMER and ALFIE. I'd also be tempted to put EDGE OF DARKNESS in there too, even if it's TV.

On the other side of the fence though, Terence Young's CV prior to Bond was very much in "war movie journeyman" territory, not anywhere near the league of credentials listed above (certainly more Turner and Hooch than say Kite Runner, relatively speaking).

As we all know Peter Hunt and John Glen were both promoted from within. I wonder if new Eon will ever go that route again?

Edited by tim partridge, 17 March 2009 - 09:37 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

Who says "no-one cares about" the likes of ONCE WERE WARRIORS, NELL, 7 UP, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER, GORILLAS IN THE MIST, FINDING NEVERLAND, MONSTERS BALL and THE KITE RUNNER...?

I said it.

Yes we need action directors because TURNER AND HOOCH, ZORRO 2 and NO ESCAPE were indeed pioneering works of cinema that Bond was crying out for a bit of.

We are talking about the 23th official film about the character Bond. Who said anything about pioneering cinema? It is light-hearted, shallow, entertainment. Try to get some perspective.

Eon should carry on down the path they have been forging for ten years now. It has led to decisions that did only what Bond can survive with - it pushed the franchise forward.

I am not as impressed with the 4 films released during the last 10 years. Two of them (DAD/QOS) even belongs to the worst Bondfilms so far. It feels like travelling in a roller coaster and that is exactly what you get when hiring a new trendy director for each new film. Some stability is needed.

[Harmsway]

I said it.

Well, it's a silly thing to say.

Who said anything about pioneering cinema? It is light-hearted, shallow, entertainment. Try to get some perspective.

But it should also be stylish and atmospheric entertainment. And frankly, your run of the mill "action directors" don't tend to be too good at style and/or atmosphere.

[tdalton]

Who said anything about pioneering cinema? It is light-hearted, shallow, entertainment. Try to get some perspective.

But it should also be stylish and atmospheric entertainment. And frankly, your run of the mill "action directors" aren't too good at style and/or atmosphere.

Agreed. I don't want to see any of the "run of the mill 'action directors'" at the helm of a future Bond film, especially those starring Daniel Craig. The action in the last few films has already been a bit on the heavy side to begin with, and that problem would only be worse with an actual "action director" at the helm. I also enjoy the new dramatic elements that these directors have brought to the films that were not present in many of the other films in the franchise.

[Mr_Wint]

The action in the last few films has already been a bit on the heavy side to begin with, and that problem would only be worse with an actual "action director" at the helm.

I don't think it is even possible to inject more braindead action than we saw in Quantum of Solace. People will start walking out from the cinema. Strange, what a highly acclaimed drama director ends up with.

Anyone who decides to do a Bond is of course an action director. What I said was "old-school" action-director. Style and atmosphere can be created in far more subtle ways. Solid filmmaking has a lot to offer when it comes to that.

[tdalton]

The action in the last few films has already been a bit on the heavy side to begin with, and that problem would only be worse with an actual "action director" at the helm.

I don't think it is even possible to inject more braindead action than we saw in Quantum of Solace. People will start walking out from the cinema. Strange, what a highly acclaimed drama director ends up with.

Anyone who decides to do a Bond is of course an action director. What I said was "old-school" action-director. Style and atmosphere can be created in far more subtle ways. Solid filmmaking has a lot to offer when it comes to that.

I actually thought that the action in Quantum of Solace (with the exception of the horrible dog chase sequence) was quite good, and an improvement over most of what we saw in Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

What I said was "old-school" action-director.

Which working directors would you suggest fall into the "old-school" category (aside from Martin Campbell, that is)?

Style and atmosphere can be created in far more subtle ways.

Subtler than some of what Forster employed in QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Sure. Forster occasionally employed some very overt stylization. But most action directors don't even seem capable of producing a particularly beautiful-looking film, much less actually making some striking stylistic choices.

[Mr_Wint]

What I said was "old-school" action-director.

Which working directors would you suggest (aside from Martin Campbell, that is)?

I have no perfect candidate for Bond 23 at the moment. My choice right now is Stuart Baird. As for old-school, John McTiernan and Steven Spielberg certainly fall into that category.

Forster occasionally employed some very overt stylization.

Occasionally?

[Harmsway]

My choice right now is Stuart Baird.

Okay.

All I can say is that I'm glad you're not in charge of the franchise. I'm all for a director who's shown himself capable with action, but I don't think Baird is even a particularly good action director, much less anything else. He has none of the right sensibilities for Bond.

By all means, keep him around in the editing room, though. He did a nice job editing CASINO ROYALE.

[Mr_Wint]

All I can say is that I'm glad you're not in charge of the franchise.

No, I am a fan. Like you maybe.

[Martini]

Baird achieved to break the long year rule that Star Trek movies with an even number are best, with his awful and stagy Nemesis. So I wouldn´t want him for Bond.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I have said it before and I will say it again. EON should take a long break from these so-called drama-directors á la Apted, Tamahori and Forster.

The now typical choice - a director with one critically-acclaimed drama movie that nobody cares about anyway - and the typical response - "Oh, I never expected him to do a James Bond movie. How intriguing!" - is all wearing a little bit thin now.

Hence, I would welcome an old-school action director for Bond 23.

TOTALLY in agree.

[Matt_13]

So long as the style and the substance is there, it doesn't matter.

[Quantumofsolace007]

antoher out ther option

Wes Craven

Discuss

[JimmyBond]

But most action directors don't even seem capable of producing a particularly beautiful-looking film, much less actually making some striking stylistic choices.

I think Tony Scott would fit the bill for that. While he is very stylized when it comes to his films, they also are more traditional, so while the people who disliked QoS would get what they want, the people who enjoyed Forster's approach would also have something to look forward to.

It also helps that he was on the short list for QoS.

[Bucky]

id much rather have ridley scott direct. tony scott has done some good movies in his time but nothing exceptional.

[Joe Bond]

After seeing Duplicity, I have to say that Tony Gilroy would be a possible candidate to direct and write a Bond films since he seems to always come up with intelligent spy thrillers including The Bourne films, and now Duplicity which was a entertaining well crafted film that packed a lot of unexpected surprises and I feel that Duplicity actually looked like a Bond film through the use of various locations including one that was used in CR specifically and it just looked good like a Bond film should plus it was not a all serious film like the Bourne films and was quite witty and funny and was only serious when it needed to be which would perfectly fit the hinted direction of a lighter more humorous Bond film. Of course I still have Alfonso Curon and Joe Wright on my list of directors that would be interesting choices but Gilroy is now on my list plus the dialog would be excellent since both Michael Clayton and Duplicity have excellent dialog exchanges.

[Eddie Burns]

The action in the last few films has already been a bit on the heavy side to begin with, and that problem would only be worse with an actual "action director" at the helm.

I don't think it is even possible to inject more braindead action than we saw in Quantum of Solace. People will start walking out from the cinema. Strange, what a highly acclaimed drama director ends up with.

Anyone who decides to do a Bond is of course an action director. What I said was "old-school" action-director. Style and atmosphere can be created in far more subtle ways. Solid filmmaking has a lot to offer when it comes to that.

I actually thought that the action in Quantum of Solace (with the exception of the horrible dog chase sequence) was quite good, and an improvement over most of what we saw in Casino Royale.

Nothing comes close to the Madagascar chase. In fact that whole chase is better than the Qos as a whole. The action in QoS was amateur and just quickly edited to make people like you drool over what you couldn't really see. It's a flashy trick that youtubers around the world have learned and for Forster to actually have thought it was a good idea tells me that any director other than him would suffice. The movie was full of flashy direction but on the whole empty and pointless. Bond's emotional arc should have been the star of the film, not the director's style of filmmaking. QoS is a movie a graduate straight out of film school would make.

P.S. - I don't think the Kite Runner was memorable or innovative at all. Monster's Ball is only remembered for one thing...Halle Berry. Finding Neverland I haven't seen or would want to see, and Stranger than Fiction was a good story but once again not memorable. Apart from Monster's Ball (for obvious reasons) I have yet to meet anyone that owns these films or even talks about them.

Forster is overrated. Period. I doubt he's capable of making a great movie any time soon. He might make a good one in 10 years or so and he might have made an excellent Bond film in ten years or so, but hiring a director younger than your lead actor, whose never done action before (but don't worry we had Bourne's Bradley, which reeks of desperation) and only a few movies under his belt, his most memorable one being because of a graphic sex scene, is a recipe for disaster. How anyone can not see this amuses me. Bond directors need to be experienced, not fads that come and go.

[tdalton]

The action in the last few films has already been a bit on the heavy side to begin with, and that problem would only be worse with an actual "action director" at the helm.

I don't think it is even possible to inject more braindead action than we saw in Quantum of Solace. People will start walking out from the cinema. Strange, what a highly acclaimed drama director ends up with.

Anyone who decides to do a Bond is of course an action director. What I said was "old-school" action-director. Style and atmosphere can be created in far more subtle ways. Solid filmmaking has a lot to offer when it comes to that.

I actually thought that the action in Quantum of Solace (with the exception of the horrible dog chase sequence) was quite good, and an improvement over most of what we saw in Casino Royale.

Nothing comes close to the Madagascar chase. In fact that whole chase is better than the Qos as a whole. The action in QoS was amateur and just quickly edited to make people like you drool over what you couldn't really see. It's a flashy trick that youtubers around the world have learned and for Forster to actually have thought it was a good idea tells me that any director other than him would suffice. The movie was full of flashy direction but on the whole empty and pointless. Bond's emotional arc should have been the star of the film, not the director's style of filmmaking. QoS is a movie a graduate straight out of film school would make.

P.S. - I don't think the Kite Runner was memorable or innovative at all. Monster's Ball is only remembered for one thing...Halle Berry. Finding Neverland I haven't seen or would want to see, and Stranger than Fiction was a good story but once again not memorable. Apart from Monster's Ball (for obvious reasons) I have yet to meet anyone that owns these films or even talks about them.

Forster is overrated. Period. I doubt he's capable of making a great movie any time soon. He might make a good one in 10 years or so and he might have made an excellent Bond film in ten years or so, but hiring a director younger than your lead actor, whose never done action before (but don't worry we had Bourne's Bradley, which reeks of desperation) and only a few movies under his belt, his most memorable one being because of a graphic sex scene, is a recipe for disaster. How anyone can not see this amuses me. Bond directors need to be experienced, not fads that come and go.

I didn't particularly like the way that Forster shot the action in QoS, but at least the action is, IMO, better than much of the action in CR. You mention the Madagascar sequence in CR as an example, but that's a sequence that I found to be rather uninspired and dull. It was just a remake of virtually every other action sequence that we saw during the Brosnan Era. There wasn't anything that remarkable about it, and it served very little purpose other than to say to the audience "Daniel Craig can do everything that Pierce Brosnan could".

The action in QoS, however, at least drives the plot forward. The plot is dependent upon things like the boat chase (where we meet Camille and get to understand at least some of her motives), the car chase (which carries the plot forward from where CR left off), and the Sienna shootout. All of these sequences are essential to the plot of the film, whereas in CR, the action in the first half of the film just felt like the filmmakers showing off and trying to win over those who were disappointed in the change of direction to a more serious approach after the over-the-top action of the Brosnan Era.

As for Forster, I'll grant you that he might not be the best director out there today, and that I don't really find myself interested in his other films (except for Stranger than Fiction, which I did find to be quite good), but, at least for me, delivered one of the best Bond films of the entire series.

[Judo chop]

Nothing comes close to the Madagascar chase. In fact that whole chase is better than the Qos as a whole. The action in QoS was amateur and just quickly edited to make people like you drool over what you couldn't really see. It's a flashy trick that youtubers around the world have learned and for Forster to actually have thought it was a good idea tells me that any director other than him would suffice. The movie was full of flashy direction but on the whole empty and pointless. Bond's emotional arc should have been the star of the film, not the director's style of filmmaking. QoS is a movie a graduate straight out of film school would make.

P.S. - I don't think the Kite Runner was memorable or innovative at all. Monster's Ball is only remembered for one thing...Halle Berry. Finding Neverland I haven't seen or would want to see, and Stranger than Fiction was a good story but once again not memorable. Apart from Monster's Ball (for obvious reasons) I have yet to meet anyone that owns these films or even talks about them.

Forster is overrated. Period. I doubt he's capable of making a great movie any time soon. He might make a good one in 10 years or so and he might have made an excellent Bond film in ten years or so, but hiring a director younger than your lead actor, whose never done action before (but don't worry we had Bourne's Bradley, which reeks of desperation) and only a few movies under his belt, his most memorable one being because of a graphic sex scene, is a recipe for disaster. How anyone can not see this amuses me. Bond directors need to be experienced, not fads that come and go.

I love it when a message’s postscript is longer than its body.

They just don't write like that anymore.

[Mr_Wint]

The action in QoS, however, at least drives the plot forward. The plot is dependent upon things like the boat chase (where we meet Camille and get to understand at least some of her motives), the car chase (which carries the plot forward from where CR left off), and the Sienna shootout. All of these sequences are essential to the plot of the film

What plot are you talking about? Have I missed something?

[Zorin Industries]

Nothing comes close to the Madagascar chase. In fact that whole chase is better than the Qos as a whole. The action in QoS was amateur

So how many filmmaking professionals have you worked with?

and just quickly edited to make people like you drool over what you couldn't really see. It's a flashy trick that youtubers around the world have learned

No. It is actually a part of how cinema works and traces back to the dawn of film when someone somewhere wanted to tell their stories differently. And I'm not sure quite where YouTube has become some online film school....

and for Forster to actually have thought it was a good idea tells me that any director other than him would suffice. The movie was full of flashy direction but on the whole empty and pointless.

To those that have maybe been raised on empty and pointless films yes. But some of the rest of us can see what an accomplished Bond film SOLACE actually is.

Bond's emotional arc should have been the star of the film,

It is.

not the director's style of filmmaking. QoS is a movie a graduate straight out of film school would make.

How many film school graduates do you know and how many film schools have you graduated from?

P.S. - I don't think the Kite Runner was memorable or innovative at all.

So what pray tell is "innovative" on your DVD shelves?

Monster's Ball is only remembered for one thing...Halle Berry. Finding Neverland I haven't seen or would want to see, and Stranger than Fiction was a good story but once again not memorable. Apart from Monster's Ball (for obvious reasons) I have yet to meet anyone that owns these films or even talks about them.

Then you need to get out a bit more and meet a few more people.

Forster is overrated. Period.

And who is not then - in your book?

I doubt he's capable of making a great movie any time soon.

And how many films have you written, shot, cast, edited and premiered in the last ten years?

He might make a good one in 10 years or so and he might have made an excellent Bond film in ten years or so,

He doesn't need to. He directed one of the best directed Bond films in over 40 years. That says enough for me.

but hiring a director younger than your lead actor,

What the hell has that got to do with anything?!

whose never done action before (but don't worry we had Bourne's Bradley, which reeks of desperation)

No - it reeks of someone whose experience of cinema begins and ends on what magazines and the internet feed him rather than realising exactly why a stunt director is hired in the first place.

and only a few movies under his belt, his most memorable one being because of a graphic sex scene,

Is it? Or is that what marks a film as "memorable" these days?

is a recipe for disaster. How anyone can not see this amuses me.

Then laugh away, laughing boy.

Bond directors need to be experienced,

Yes. And so should a few more Bond fans when it comes to trying to lambast a film they clearly didn't get.

not fads that come and go.

Like your comments of 12th November 2008 that claim...

"QoS is a fantastic Bond movie, the 21st Century Bond movie, and without a doubt will age better than most of it's predecessor's. Is this Fleming's Bond? Yes. While it might be a stretch to say that Fleming would have written a similar story, his spirit flows all over this movie, through it's characters, locations, and all round mood. Let's just say that if Fleming wrote a full on revenge novel, it would be loosely based on this movie".