538 replies to this topic

[Joey Bond]

Why do people assume that because Spielberg wanted to direct a Bond film in the early 80's he's still interested 25 years later? He's been offered numerous big franchises recently but turned them down because they would be 'a business deal not a challenge'.

My sentiment exactly. Having different directors for differnet films hurt the franchise because they don't have the time to 'click' with the rest of the crew. We should go back to the days of having recurring directors.

[Harmsway]

This seems far fetched but what about Clint Eastwood? He's worked with Paul Haggis before.

On second thought he's too old and probably doesn't have any interest in living out of a suitcase for an entire year.

He's also a bit too severe, or at least has been in recent years. Bond directors, even the artier, acclaimed ones, need to have at least some sense of fun.

We should go back to the days of having recurring directors.

I don't necessarily want that, unless they really find a director who's practically definitive. I'd rather see Craig with a different interesting director for every film, so that each film has its own unique stylistic identity.

[JackWade]

Oh how I wish Chris Nolan was a realistic choice.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: John McTiernan, Wolfgang Petersen, Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, Philip Noyce. Those are my top five preferred candidates to take the reins of the next Bond film.

[Harmsway]

A group of director's that I wouldn't mind seeing take on BOND 23, limited strictly to plausible suggestions:

Alfonso Cuarón (Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, CHILDREN OF MEN)
Stephen Frears (THE GRIFTER, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, THE QUEEN)
Lasse Hallström (WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, CHOCOLAT)
Kevin Macdonald (THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND)
Fernando Meirelles (CITY OF GOD, THE CONSTANT GARDNER)
Mike Newell (FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, DONNIE BRASCO)
Joe Wright (PRIDE & PREJUDICE, ATONEMENT, THE SOLOIST)
Edward Zwick (THE LAST SAMURAI, BLOOD DIAMOND, DEFIANCE)

[mister-white]

A group of director's that I wouldn't mind seeing take on BOND 23, limited strictly to plausible suggestions:

Alfonso Cuarón (Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, CHILDREN OF MEN)
Stephen Frears (THE GRIFTER, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, THE QUEEN)
Lasse Hallström (WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, CHOCOLAT)
Kevin Macdonald (THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND)
Fernando Meirelles (CITY OF GOD, THE CONSTANT GARDNER)
Mike Newell (FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, DONNIE BRASCO)
Joe Wright (PRIDE & PREJUDICE, ATONEMENT, THE SOLOIST)
Edward Zwick (THE LAST SAMURAI, BLOOD DIAMOND, DEFIANCE)

The only one on that list that I agree with (simply cause I haven't seen most of these guys stuff) is Mike Newell. I've been thinking for a while that Newell is on a very short list of possible directors who would really work. Just look at what he did with Goblet of Fire, which I say is the only Harry Potter film to get it all right. He just brought a lot of humour and warmth to that film and that series, and he's one of the best choices. Now, other than Newell, my list would have to be (and I personally think that there's a good chance any of them will do it) Brad Bird, Martin Campbell, Chris Nolan or Roger Spottiswoode.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I agree about Fernando Mierelles.

I think Speilberg is a huge talent, but I don't believe the Bond films need it really. A new director with fresh talent/energy/perspective, who has a solid production crew behind him would be a better choice IMO.

[Harmsway]

Now, other than Newell, my list would have to be (and I personally think that there's a good chance any of them will do it) Brad Bird, Martin Campbell, Chris Nolan or Roger Spottiswoode.

I think other than Newell, all of those are extremely unlikely. Bird doesn't really have enough experience, Martin Campbell is getting on in years and doesn't seem to have an interest in returning to Bond (and from all indications, he didn't have the best experience on CASINO ROYALE, either), Christopher Nolan is too big for Bond, and Roger Spottiswoode is precisely the kind of for-hire hack that EON will be looking to avoid in this new, "prestigious" era.

[codenamel]

The Bond films desperately need a genre director and there are precious few of them left. The Marc Forsters, Lee Tamahoris, Michael Apteds and others simply do not understand how you make a thriller movie that is not the template for a video game. Bring back John Glen, one of the last great action genre directors and a director who understands what Bond is all about. He is only 76 years old and youth in a director is a highly overrated asset as Alfred Hitchcock and John Huston among others proved. And if he is not available find out what Guy Hamilton is doing.

[Harmsway]

Bring back John Glen, one of the last great action genre directors and a director who understands what Bond is all about.

Terrible suggestion. Glen's films were sometimes capable, but they were never outstanding, and they were all marred by incredibly pedestrian direction. It's no mistake that Bond was nearly run into the ground during his tenure as Bond director.

[Judo chop]

A group of director's that I wouldn't mind seeing take on BOND 23, limited strictly to plausible suggestions:

Alfonso Cuarón (Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, CHILDREN OF MEN)
Stephen Frears (THE GRIFTER, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, THE QUEEN)
Lasse Hallström (WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, CHOCOLAT)
Kevin Macdonald (THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND)
Fernando Meirelles (CITY OF GOD, THE CONSTANT GARDNER)
Mike Newell (FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, DONNIE BRASCO)
Joe Wright (PRIDE & PREJUDICE, ATONEMENT, THE SOLOIST)
Edward Zwick (THE LAST SAMURAI, BLOOD DIAMOND, DEFIANCE)

The only one on that list that I agree with (simply cause I haven't seen most of these guys stuff) is Mike Newell.

Amazing really. I loved Harm's list, and Newell is the only one that had me shaking my head 'no'. I thought DONNIE BRASCO looked like a medium-to-bad Martin Campbell film. Tremendous performances (as Campbell also tends to accomplish with his actors) but dull presentation. I think it really has that "close quarters" feel that keeps GOLDENEYE from being more than an average Bond film.

If Macdonald had just one more success story on the level of LAST KING... I might vote him into a top-3 list.

[Harmsway]

A group of director's that I wouldn't mind seeing take on BOND 23, limited strictly to plausible suggestions:

Alfonso Cuarón (Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, CHILDREN OF MEN)
Stephen Frears (THE GRIFTER, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, THE QUEEN)
Lasse Hallström (WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, CHOCOLAT)
Kevin Macdonald (THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND)
Fernando Meirelles (CITY OF GOD, THE CONSTANT GARDNER)
Mike Newell (FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, DONNIE BRASCO)
Joe Wright (PRIDE & PREJUDICE, ATONEMENT, THE SOLOIST)
Edward Zwick (THE LAST SAMURAI, BLOOD DIAMOND, DEFIANCE)

The only one on that list that I agree with (simply cause I haven't seen most of these guys stuff) is Mike Newell.

Amazing really. I loved Harm's list, and Newell is the only one that had me shaking my head 'no'. I thought DONNIE BRASCO looked like a medium-to-bad Martin Campbell film. Tremendous performances (as Campbell also tends to accomplish with his actors) but dull presentation.

I agree with what you're saying about DONNIE BRASCO, but I'm giving Newell the nod just on the strength of HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE, which is the best of the Potter flicks and a pretty good piece of entertainment. In that film, he managed to deliver epic adventure with flair and some lovely visuals. So, given that he's showed himself apt with franchise fare, I'm more than willing to see what he'd do with Bond.

[Agent J.Bond]

Spielberg? No, no, no. He's the film king of mediocrity, hasn't made a good film since 1989.

[Bucky]

if i had three votes they would go to cuaron, cuaron, and cuaron.

[Loomis]

Martin Campbell is getting on in years and doesn't seem to have an interest in returning to Bond (and from all indications, he didn't have the best experience on CASINO ROYALE, either)

Didn't he? Any more info on this, Harms? I do recall reading some chatter on the web very early into the shooting of CASINO ROYALE to the effect that Campbell and Craig got on badly with each other and were at loggerheads over the direction of the film, but I put it down to the embittered rumour-mongering of CraignotBonders.

Obviously, all film shoots have their ups and downs, but I've never come across any other information pointing to a troubled time for Campbell on CR.

Regardless, I agree that Campbell is getting on in years and would probably (and shrewdly) like to leave his Bond career on the incredible artistic and commercial high that was CR. I still hope he'll return, though, although I realise that it's unlikely.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Bring back John Glen, one of the last great action genre directors and a director who understands what Bond is all about.

Terrible suggestion. Glen's films were sometimes capable, but they were never outstanding, and they were all marred by incredibly pedestrian direction. It's no mistake that Bond was nearly run into the ground during his tenure as Bond director.

Mmm. John Glen's films were a hell of a lot better than some others who later graced the series. I think he is a bit underrated, but should have ended his tenure on Bond with TLD. If, by the very unlikely chance he came back, with a good script, Glen would deliver a very competent movie.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Campbell should really return, he really understands Bond unlike alot of the directors Babs and Mikey have hired.
But I think Todd Haynes should do Bond 23, he will really make a Bond film that is a throwback to the 60's films.

[Harmsway]

Didn't he? Any more info on this, Harms? I do recall reading some chatter on the web very early into the shooting of CASINO ROYALE to the effect that Campbell and Craig got on badly with each other and were at loggerheads over the direction of the film, but I put it down to the embittered rumour-mongering of CraignotBonders.

Obviously, all film shoots have their ups and downs, but I've never come across any other information pointing to a troubled time for Campbell on CR.

I'm thinking of some interview comments he gave about the roughness of the shoot, and Craig has similarly commented on how they clashed on set (though Craig framed it in a positive fashion). I think it's clear that Craig got along a lot better with Marc Forster, and appreciated the level to which Forster allowed him to be a true collaborator.

Now, that's not to say that Campbell isn't happy with the finished project, but it's been made clear in his comments that CASINO ROYALE wasn't the film he envisioned, and after such an experience I think he'd want to do projects where he really can do what he wants.

[AngryPolarBear]

What kind of film did Campell envision?

[tim partridge]

Bring back John Glen, one of the last great action genre directors and a director who understands what Bond is all about.

Terrible suggestion. Glen's films were sometimes capable, but they were never outstanding, and they were all marred by incredibly pedestrian direction. It's no mistake that Bond was nearly run into the ground during his tenure as Bond director.

TLD and LTK nearly ran Bond into the ground?

[crheath]

Bring back John Glen, one of the last great action genre directors and a director who understands what Bond is all about.

Terrible suggestion. Glen's films were sometimes capable, but they were never outstanding, and they were all marred by incredibly pedestrian direction. It's no mistake that Bond was nearly run into the ground during his tenure as Bond director.

TLD and LTK nearly ran Bond into the ground?

Yes they did. Why do you think LTK was such a low grossing Bond movie? I myself thought is was underrated though.

[Harmsway]

TLD and LTK nearly ran Bond into the ground?

Naturally. LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news. It was a definite low point in Bond history. Heck, after LICENCE TO KILL's release and lack of blockbuster success, Dalton was commenting that he thought the Bond franchise had really come to an end.

LICENCE TO KILL, in some sense, was the culmination of a slow decline in interest in Bond since MOONRAKER, which more or less covers the entirety of the Glen's run as director. And when the franchise did try to reinvent itself with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, Glen lacked the panache and skill as a director to make them real successes.

What kind of film did Campell envision?

From what I've gathered, much more of a "Bond Begins" tale than eventually came to be. Craig wasn't his choice for Bond. He wanted someone much younger. He's even admitted as much, and while it's clear he's come to terms with Craig and respects his Bond a lot (and he should... Craig's performance as Bond significantly elevated CASINO ROYALE's quality, on the whole, and reflected very well on Campbell), it was clear that he wasn't in control and there was some struggle behind the scenes.

[tim partridge]

TLD and LTK nearly ran Bond into the ground?

Naturally. LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news. It was a definite low point in Bond history. Heck, after LICENCE TO KILL's release and lack of blockbuster success, Dalton was commenting that he thought the Bond franchise had really come to an end.

LICENCE TO KILL, in some sense, was the culmination of a slow decline in interest in Bond since MOONRAKER, which more or less covers the entirety of the Glen's run as director. And when the franchise did try to reinvent itself with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, Glen lacked the panache and skill as a director to make them real successes.

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

Of the two Dalton efforts, only LTK was the misunderstood one, and I say that because Craig is now having huge success with that gritty approach).

Last I looked as well, FYEO was the back to basics antidote to MOONRAKER, and received much critical and commercial success. That only leaves OCTOPUSSY and AVTAK as the "panache lacking" run of the mill-ers, doesn't it?

[Satorious]

Don't get me wrong - I don't want Glen back, but I actually enjoyed his tenure a heck of a lot more than what we've been fed recently. I don't like all of his films, but you can certainly blame LTK on a poor script with poor shooting conditions also. Glen did quite a varied bunch of movies in my opinion, moreso than any of the other directors (save perhaps Campbell).

I wouldn't mind seeing a decent new director return again - providing they develop and bring something new to the table each time (whilst conforming to the rules) - ala Nolan with the recent Batman movies. Modern Bond movies have (for me) suffered a lack of identity due to the constant director changes. But then I am more old-school perhaps.

[Royal Dalton]

LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news.

It's also not true.

It was a definite low point in Bond history.

So the revisionists say.

Heck, after LICENCE TO KILL's release and lack of blockbuster success, Dalton was commenting that he thought the Bond franchise had really come to an end.

He actually said that during the film's production. And it's pretty obvious why he said it.

LICENCE TO KILL, in some sense, was the culmination of a slow decline in interest in Bond since MOONRAKER, which more or less covers the entirety of the Glen's run as director. And when the franchise did try to reinvent itself with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, Glen lacked the panache and skill as a director to make them real successes.

The law of diminishing returns. Still, Daylights made a lot more than it's immediate predecessor and Licence To Kill made only slightly less. In box office terms, James Bond was hardly on his death bed, anyway.

[Harmsway]

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

It did well enough (more than A VIEW TO A KILL, at any rate), but it wasn't really a "huge" international hit by any stretch. It was definitely a low-end success in terms of franchise history, and performed noticeably poorer than the earlier 80s Bond films.

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

To an extent. I don't think they did it anywhere near as well as Craig's films have done it.

LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news.

It's also not true.

It wasn't a failure in terms of not making a profit, but viewed through the lens of earlier franchise success, it was most definitely a flop and a low point for the franchise.

It was a definite low point in Bond history.

So the revisionists say.

The revisionists are the ones trying to paint LICENCE TO KILL as a success.

In box office terms, James Bond was hardly on his death bed, anyway.

Internationally, no. But in the United States, he sure was.

[tim partridge]

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

It did well enough (more than A VIEW TO A KILL, at any rate), but it wasn't really a "huge" international hit by any stretch. It was definitely a low-end success in terms of franchise history, and performed noticeably poorer than the earlier 80s Bond films.

That were also directed by John Glen?

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

To an extent. I don't think they did it anywhere near as well as Craig's films have done it.

What about TLD?


I just cannot see how TLD did any damage to the franchise, because it made lots of money and is often cited as a franchise classic. Same for LTK, outside of the box office area of course, but we all know that's more down to marketing than Glen's direction.

I'd be curious to know what the marketing campaigns of the Glen era were worth against Bond 1995+.

It seems odd to me that Glen is criticised as ruining 80s Bond and killing the franchise with his "lack of panache" and supposed generic mediocrity, when his last Bond film was a deathly serious, back to basics, mean Bond movie (with a 15 certificate). DIE ANOTHER DAY made stacks of money (mainly IMO because of the marketing overkill) so therefore is Lee Tamahori a better director then Glen, because his last 007 film didn't make less than the one before it?

[Royal Dalton]

LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news.

It's also not true.

It wasn't a failure in terms of not making a profit

In which case, it wasn't a flop.

It was a definite low point in Bond history.

So the revisionists say.

The revisionists are the ones trying to paint LICENCE TO KILL as a success.

Which revisionists would that be? The film wasn't an uber-success and it wasn't a failure, either. It was just another Bond film that turned in a healthy profit.

However, it's entirely revisionist to paint Licence To Kill as some super-flop that brought the series to its knees. That's simply not true.

In box office terms, James Bond was hardly on his death bed, anyway.

Internationally, no. But in the United States, he sure was.

Bond films nearly always underperform in America. Even Casino Royale did comparatively poor business there.

[Harmsway]

In which case, it wasn't a flop.

A film can turn a profit and still be deemed something of a flop if it fails to meet expectations.

Which revisionists would that be?

There's plenty 'round these parts.

Bond films nearly always underperform in America. Even Casino Royale did comparatively poor business there.

To an extent, but the business LICENCE TO KILL did in America was particularly pitiful (especially when one looks at its rather dismal debut).

[dutch_pepper]

I hope it will be Martin Campbell, he knows how to make a good Bondfilm.