Bond directors in a post-Forster franchise
#61
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:22 PM
#62
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:26 PM
#63
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:28 PM
#64
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:30 PM
#65
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:30 PM
You're right: I do like Stephen Gaghan as a choice.Here's one you'll like, Harmsway: Stephen Gaghan. Best known as a screenwriter (RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and TRAFFIC, among others), he recently turned director with SYRIANA, which he also scripted. He's young (early forties) and has even had a brush with Bond - I believe he directed that Eva Green Heineken ad. He strikes me as a bit like Marc Forster meeting Paul Haggis, while being (as I perceive it, at least) slightly less famous and expensive. I'm surprised I didn't think of his name before now.
The same thing would seemingly be true of Zaillian or Gilroy.For one thing, I'm sure he'd want to write any Bond flick he were hired to direct, which might cause friction with Haggis, who appears to be the new Dick Maibaum. And I'm sure he has plenty of projects of his own to get on with.
Perhaps so (though it definitely seems to me like they're trying to posh up the franchise and make it critically respectible, which the choice of Paul Haggis as screenwriter seemed to do). But can we really imagine them going back to a Roger Spottiswoode?Also, I suspect that Forster's appointment does not necessarily mean that Eon is about to pick just auteurs or near-auteurs from here on in. I get the feeling that they chose Forster simply because they really liked him and the films he's done, and not chiefly because he's the sort of director who'd posh up their franchise and bring bags of critical acclaim in his wake (although those factors most definitely can't have hurt Forster during the decision process).
It's possible, and very, very likely, that they won't go after a Sam Mendes after this, but I could easily see them going for a Philip Noyce/Lasse Hallstrom/Fernando Meirelles/Paul Haggis for BOND 23. I would expect, on the whole, to see directors of a bit higher caliber than we've seen in the past.
#66
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:39 PM
#67
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:45 PM
#68
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:46 PM
is Ian Fleming's
James Bond 007
in
THE KILL OF DEATH
Directed by Simon Pegg
On a more serious note, is anyone familiar with Kevin Reynolds? He has not done anything in quite a while. He did a couple so-so Kevin Costner films (Robin Hood/Waterworld), but he made a fantastic version of The COunt of Monte Cristo, but certainly not in the league of Marc Forester. Would have possibly been a better choice a couple films ago.
#69
Posted 30 January 2008 - 09:31 PM
How about Steven Zaillian, writer/director of SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISHER, A CIVIL ACTION, and ALL THE KING'S MEN (also known for writing SCHINDLER'S LIST, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, HANNIBAL, and AMERICAN GANGSTER)? Probably not, but again, you never know. He strikes me as being in the Tony Gilroy category.
I'd love it if EON could bring Steven Zaillian on board. I'd mentioned him as someone to potentially polish/rewrite the script for Bond 22 (as it was known then) when it wasn't 100% certain that Haggis was going to be available. I'd definitely like to see him get involved with a Bond film at some point, as he is a very strong screenwriter, and judging from All The King's Men, he is also a strong director as well.
#70
Posted 30 January 2008 - 11:49 PM
Why not Edward Zwick? From what I've seen of Defiance, he's directed Daniel Craig in a most remarkable performance.
Could be an interesting choice. He's certainly done a wide variety of interesting and generally solid film-making...
#71
Posted 28 April 2008 - 10:25 PM
How about J.J. Abrams? Went from "Alias" to "Mission: Impossible 3" and now to the "Star Trek" reboot. Guy is obviously a hot director, and I felt M:I3 was the best of the lot. I enjoyed "Alias" as well (what's the chance of getting Jennifer Garner as a Bond Girl? Maybe with Abrams at the helm...).
Perhaps he isn't the auteur director everyone is looking for, yet I believe his enthusiasm for projects and eye for detail makes him a viable choice. He can also direct action scenes very well.
#72
Posted 07 May 2008 - 03:08 PM
#73
Posted 07 May 2008 - 03:44 PM
#74
Posted 07 May 2008 - 03:54 PM
#75
Posted 09 May 2008 - 01:54 AM
#76
Posted 09 May 2008 - 01:03 PM
Forget it; he sold out with Stardust.Matthew Vaughn
#77
Posted 09 May 2008 - 02:24 PM
#78
Posted 09 May 2008 - 02:40 PM
STARDUST wasn't bad. I'd still be very much interested in seeing what he'd do with a Bond flick.Forget it; he sold out with Stardust.Matthew Vaughn
#79
Posted 09 May 2008 - 02:58 PM
#80
Posted 09 May 2008 - 03:32 PM
I'm hesitant to say Nolan. There are a few too many rookie mistakes in Batman Begins to get me terribly excited about a Nolan-helmed Bond film. Not that I think it wouldnNolan would be good. I remember reading that OHMSS is one of his favourite movies of all time.
#81
Posted 09 May 2008 - 03:54 PM
I'm hesitant to say Nolan. There are a few too many rookie mistakes in Batman Begins to get me terribly excited about a Nolan-helmed Bond film. Not that I think it wouldn
#82
Posted 09 May 2008 - 04:17 PM
Of course. A thread topic as subjective as this necessitates a 'maybe' before nearly every step in every argument. I don't know that Forster is making good on his word, and for that matter, I don't know that Nolan isn't capable of rocking out a perfect Hitchcockian thriller on his first try either.Maybe but, with all respect, it seems way, way, way too soon to even think of honoring Forster's wishes or intentions...until we've seen what he has wrought. Your "Assuming Forster knows..." sentence indicates awareness of this, and I can only hope you're not too busy 'pumping fish' to main a cool critical eye.
BTW, what type of fish? Are you pumping mackerel? cod? codpieces?
But I do know that Forster has SAID his intent is to create a film in the "50's, 60's spy thriller" vein, and he didn't say "80's John Glen style cartoon". I'm certainly not saying the film looks good, I'm just saying that the clues look good. It's all we got.
And it's puffer fish, of course. I'm going through them like gangbusters. Funny thing too... when they splat, their innards look just like under-mixed chocolate pudding.
#83
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:12 AM
Sophia Coppola(I LOVED Lost In Translation,but no )
Paul Greengrass
Quentin Tarantino
File under "Might well work":
Danny Boyle
Coen Bros.
Stephen Frears
Ridley Scott
Matthew Vaughn
And may I suggest Kevin Macdonald?(though he might not be well known enough, and he's more known for his documentaries than for his feature films,and the feature films(as well as his documentaries)have had a political bent.
Edited by honour, 12 May 2008 - 02:14 AM.
#84
Posted 12 May 2008 - 03:20 AM
#85
Posted 12 May 2008 - 05:23 PM
File under "Might well work":
Danny Boyle
Coen Bros.
Stephen Frears
Ridley Scott
I really don't think the Coen Bros. would work with James Bond too well. Ridley Scott would be a great choice.
#86
Posted 12 May 2008 - 05:30 PM
#87
Posted 12 May 2008 - 05:57 PM
#88
Posted 12 May 2008 - 06:54 PM
ive said it once and ill say it again. Christopher Nolan
I'll second that and raise you one: more than you and I, I predict, will be clamoring for Nolan after TDK.
#89
Posted 12 May 2008 - 08:20 PM
And can you imagine how VIOLENT a Coen Bros. Bond film would be?(not that the Bond films aren't violent already )
Edited by honour, 12 May 2008 - 08:20 PM.
#90
Posted 12 May 2008 - 08:24 PM
And may I suggest Kevin Macdonald?(though he might not be well known enough, and he's more known for his documentaries than for his feature films,and the feature films(as well as his documentaries)have had a political bent.
Good call. I do believe he was actually considered for QUANTUM OF SOLACE.