71 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

Thanks to Lady Rose on ajb007.co.uk from today's Daily Mail:

Licence to be a cleverclogs


' Playwright Tom Stoppard is in talks to write the 2007 007 follow - up to Daniel Craig's first outing as James Bond.

So will 007 be spouting theories on favourite Stoppard topics such as quantum physics and discussing Chekhov with Judi Dench's M ?

Don't bet on it. Stoppard is no stranger to the world of espionage.

He's been writing The Bourne Ultimatum ( with script writer Tony Gilroy ) for director Paul Greengrass and many of his other projects - plays such as Hapgood, the TV movie drama Professional Foul and movie adaptations of John Le Carre's The Russia House and Graham Greene's the Human factor - are all set in that murky millieu.

Bond producer Barbara Broccoli is said to have felt that Craig's acting sensibility suited Stoppard's verbal dexterity and so she wanted to work with a different writer on the next Bond film, which is a continuation of the Casino Royale film thats shooting now.

The 22nd Bond film will shoot quickly, possibly beginning as early as January, for release next year. ' They don't want to miss the opportunity of releasing a 007 film in 2007. Thats a date made for them,' an executive connected with one of the studios behind the Bond franchise told me in Cannes.

Notting Hill director Roger Mitchell is in negotiations to direct the new 007 picture. He worked with Daniel on Enduring Love and the actor, I'm reliably informed, has been pushing to get Michell on board Bond.

'Daniels having a great time playing James Bond and he could do three, four or more Bond movies in the future,' my studio man told me.

'But he doesn't want 007 to be stuck in the same groove, so he wants to work with a director who'll bring a different feel and Roger's his man. They work well together and Roger knows how to have fun - plus he can develop Bond's psyche.

'Barbara's got a team who know the action side of it back to front and Roger can come in and pull it all together.' "

This does come from Baz 'Avatar/Bond girls cameo' Bamigboye in Cannes, but doesn't sound too far-fetched just yet. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

[Righty007]

If true, these two guys could bring something fresh to the series. I thought Purvis and Wade had already started writing the script for Bond 22, though?

[Simon]

2007?

Undoubtedly cute - but this would mean location scouting from next month and crew potentially doubling up on jobs during the final stages of shooting this one.

When does shooting stop for CR - is it possible to get a Bond film out two years running?

[marktmurphy]

Undoubtedly cute - but this would mean location scouting from next month and crew potentially doubling up on jobs during the final stages of shooting this one.

Would it though? Only senior members of the production team would really be neccessary on both jobs, one would imagine- and I'm not sure how much of the pre-production crew carries over to production and post.

[Mr Malcolm]

2007?

Undoubtedly cute - but this would mean location scouting from next month and crew potentially doubling up on jobs during the final stages of shooting this one.

When does shooting stop for CR - is it possible to get a Bond film out two years running?

Well, they did it from Dr No to Thunderball.

Interesting news. Maybe Tom Stoppard will be polishing P n' Ws' script in the same way Paul Haggis is doing just now. And it would be good to see less of a gap between films.

[Loomis]

And now the Bourne guy's writing Bond! Seriously, Bond news just keeps getting better and better!

(I know Stoppard's known as rather more than just "the Bourne guy", but hey....)

As for Michell, I'm feeling very smug about my skills as a prophet, since I've long had him pegged as an extremely likely candidate to direct a Bond film. As I posted on 14 February 2004 (in the thread "why a younger Bond COULD work,why Bond must change"):

"But I have my own hunch as to who'll end up in the director's chair for BOND 21 (assuming the film will be made for release in 2005 and not, as you tell us, Moomoo, in 2006): Roger Michell (NOTTING HILL, CHANGING LANES) - he fits the Eon profile to a T and seems to have a free schedule (well, according to the ever-reliable *ahem* IMDb). If not Michell, then I guess Stephen Frears (the rumoured director of the cancelled JINX film) has a pretty good chance."

BTW, Michell has worked with David Arnold (CHANGING LANES) as well as Craig.

Okay, so it's BOND 22, but, heck, I was only off by one film.

[Lady Rose]

Undoubtedly cute - but this would mean location scouting from next month and crew potentially doubling up on jobs during the final stages of shooting this one.

Would it though? Only senior members of the production team would really be neccessary on both jobs, one would imagine- and I'm not sure how much of the pre-production crew carries over to production and post.

Don't forget there have been whispers for a long time now that CR and Craig were going to have a pretty fast follow up, possible sequels, films for 2007 etc ... so this does make sense.

If this is true, then I would guess that they would have been working on these films at the same time and some of the basics for Bond 22 could well be already underway.

There has been a big gap between DAD and CR, who knows what has been going on in the meantime. This could all be part of the bigger picture. I doubt the producers suddenly realised it was soon to be 2007

My only surprise with this is that if it is all moving so quickly that Campbell hasn't been signed up for 22, just for speed and continuity if nothing else.

[Mr Malcolm]

My only surprise with this is that if it is all moving so quickly that Campbell hasn't been signed up for 22, just for speed and continuity if nothing else.

How do you know he hasn't?

[Loomis]

If releasing a Bond film in 2007 is so important, I wonder why they didn't postpone CASINO ROYALE by one more year (which would have created even more public demand for 007's return). Seems easier than what they're apparently doing instead. Also, the idea of Fleming's first novel as the film restarting the franchise in 2007 (and with the coming-of-age number of 21) appears such a commercial/PR no-brainer you wonder why they passed it up. BOND 22, or TOMORROW NEVER KILLS ANOTHER DAY, in 2007 just doesn't have the same auspicious ring to it.

As for Michell, I always expected him to do a Bond flick, but never actually wanted him to do one. While I enjoyed NOTTING HILL and absolutely loved "The Buddha of Suburbia" (1993 BBC miniseries), I detested CHANGING LANES and ETERNAL LOVE. Pompous, boring films. Disappointing that we won't be getting a director like Paul Greengrass (although I get the impression that he deeply dislikes Bond) or Phillip Noyce, or even another go from Campbell to tie continuity together.

I fear that Michell will (would? I know this news ain't exactly confirmed yet) be the next Michael Apted for the Bond franchise - a "prestigious" choice who'll end up sapping the fun out of things in a desire to make So Much More Than Just Another Bond Movie™. So he can "develop Bond's psyche", eh? Great. When will they leave Bond's "psyche" (does he actually have - or need - one?) alone? They've been ostentatiously poking around in it ever since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Will we ever see a fun, unpretentious Bond flick again, the makers of which aren't always banging on about "Bond women, not Bond girls", "peeling back the layers to show the man within", "Bond's dark side", and so on?

"'Barbara's got a team who know the action side of it back to front and Roger can come in and pull it all together.'" Or not, as Apted didn't.

[Loomis]

If true, these two guys could bring something fresh to the series. I thought Purvis and Wade had already started writing the script for Bond 22, though?

True, but perhaps Stoppard is intended as the Paul Haggis of BOND 22, in other words a hugely-respected, "important" and "serious" writer brought in to rewrite P&W's original script, polish up dialogue, add "depth" *yawn*, and so on. Someone basically hired to bring a touch of class and prestige to the film.

[Lady Rose]

My only surprise with this is that if it is all moving so quickly that Campbell hasn't been signed up for 22, just for speed and continuity if nothing else.

How do you know he hasn't?

Well, we dont, do we He may well be, this article is all gosiip and whispers anyway. Personally I think it makes more sense to keep Campbell than bringing in a new director for what sounds like a 'sequel' to CR.

But then, I'm not the producer ...

If releasing a Bond film in 2007 is so important, I wonder why they didn't postpone CASINO ROYALE by one more year (which would have created even more public demand for 007's return). Seems easier than what they're apparently doing instead. Also, the idea of Fleming's first novel as the film restarting the franchise in 2007 (and with the coming-of-age number of 21) appears such a commercial/PR no-brainer you wonder why they passed it up. BOND 22, or TOMORROW NEVER KILLS ANOTHER DAY, in 2007 just doesn't have the same auspicious ring to it.

That would seem like the easier option. Perhaps CR was supposed to have been released in 2005 but other factors such as the MGM sale, Dana's illness, finding a new Bond etc delayed things somewhat, hence the rush now.

( as for the title, perhaps we are due something with the word Gold.... in it again by now )

[Simon]

Undoubtedly cute - but this would mean location scouting from next month and crew potentially doubling up on jobs during the final stages of shooting this one.

Would it though? Only senior members of the production team would really be neccessary on both jobs, one would imagine- and I'm not sure how much of the pre-production crew carries over to production and post.

Nor me. The areas where they may overlap will probably include the Producers, Set production/design, location scouting, Effects. But if all these guys stand down at end of shooting then maybe it is possible.

Perhaps then, just the Producers and a Director if Campbell's services are retained. Who knows?

[Tarl_Cabot]

"He's been writing The Bourne Ultimatum ( with script writer Tony Gilroy ) for director Paul Greengrass and many of his other projects "


*gulp* this just keeps getting better and better! If it's true This would be like, as Roger Ebert describes Connery's return to NSNA, "a show business miracle"!

But aren't they writing it now??? WE need B22 in 2007!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Disappointing that we won't be getting a director like Paul Greengrass (although I get the impression that he deeply dislikes Bond) or Phillip Noyce, or even another go from Campbell to tie continuity together.

Yep. I think Bond is too establishment for him. But Philip Noyce never really nailed the Jack Ryan series...came close to making cool thrillers...a pretty dull filmaker outside of Dead Calm(Sam Neil's best ever audition for Bond).


"'Barbara's got a team who know the action side of it back to front and Roger can come in and pull it all together.'" .

Roger Moore?

It would be nice to see an unpretentious fun action and sex packed angst free Bond movie again...Let Craig walk around with an attitude that killing bad guys is FUN If and they fire me I'll be devastated!

[Harmsway]

And now the Bourne guy's writing Bond! Seriously, Bond news just keeps getting better and better!

Tom Stoppard doing Bond is one of the coolest bits of news (if true) that we could have for BOND 22. That's just plain awesome.

As for Michell, I always expected him to do a Bond flick, but never actually wanted him to do one. While I enjoyed NOTTING HILL and absolutely loved "The Buddha of Suburbia" (1993 BBC miniseries), I detested CHANGING LANES and ETERNAL LOVE. Pompous, boring films. Disappointing that we won't be getting a director like Paul Greengrass (although I get the impression that he deeply dislikes Bond) or Phillip Noyce, or even another go from Campbell to tie continuity together.

Agreed.

I fear that Michell will (would? I know this news ain't exactly confirmed yet) be the next Michael Apted for the Bond franchise - a "prestigious" choice who'll end up sapping the fun out of things in a desire to make So Much More Than Just Another Bond Movie™. So he can "develop Bond's psyche", eh? Great. When will they leave Bond's "psyche" (does he actually have - or need - one?) alone? They've been ostentatiously poking around in it ever since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Will we ever see a fun, unpretentious Bond flick again, the makers of which aren't always banging on about "Bond women, not Bond girls", "peeling back the layers to show the man within", "Bond's dark side", and so on?

Quite. CASINO ROYALE is fine to do the whole "darker" Bond, but let's just continue in that vein without making the movie really intent on exploring the character. Let's have it simply be Bond on a mission to stop a bad guy, and leave it at that.

If they want to make BOND 22 stand out, do other things besides "explore the character." Put Bond as a member on a team, ala ICEBREAKER. Or something of that sort. But don't resort to the tired, "peel back the layers of Bond" idea.

If true, these two guys could bring something fresh to the series. I thought Purvis and Wade had already started writing the script for Bond 22, though?

True, but perhaps Stoppard is intended as the Paul Haggis of BOND 22, in other words a hugely-respected, "important" and "serious" writer brought in to rewrite P&W's original script, polish up dialogue, add "depth" *yawn*, and so on. Someone basically hired to bring a touch of class and prestige to the film.

Nothing wrong with that, though I would much prefer an original Stoppard Bond script. Could be very, very interesting.

[The Dove]

Great news!! I certainly hope that this news turns out to be true. It really adds more credit to the rumors of Bond 22 happening in 2-007. Back to back films would be a nice treat, something that hasn't been done since Live and Led Die and The Man With The Golden Gun (1973-1974).

[EyesOnly]

Here is my question. How often do the producers already start work on the next bond movie while the other had barely started?

[tdalton]

something that hasn't been done since Live and Led Die and The Man With The Golden Gun (1973-1974).

If they do decide to go ahead with Bond 2.2 in 2007, I sure hope that they do a better job than they did the last time they did films in consecutive years. Hopefully they don't rush it just to get it out in time for a marketing ploy.

[Loomis]

And now the Bourne guy's writing Bond! Seriously, Bond news just keeps getting better and better!

Tom Stoppard doing Bond is one of the coolest bits of news (if true) that we could have for BOND 22. That's just plain awesome.

Is it? I'm not familiar with his work, to be honest, but I gather he's something of a giant in his field (which is probably putting it mildly). Bluntly, the coolest thing about this news for me is that Bond would have a Bourne connection (hmmm.... "The Bourne Connection" - must copyright that so that Universal'll have to pay me when they want to use it as the title of the fifth or sixth movie ). Sorry, I know that calling Stoppard "the Bourne guy" is a bit like referring to George Lucas as "the producer of HOWARD THE DUCK", but I know only of Stoppard's reputation, not his work.

But in a way I'm against this hiring of "prestigious" names like Haggis, Stoppard, Robert Towne (on the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise), Apted and so on, because.... well, bluntly, because they never seem to be given full freedom and in any case are probably totally wrong for the genre. The results onscreen usually speak for themselves. It's as though they're hired as much for their snob value, famous names and artistic/intellectual kudos as for their writing ability, which no one would dispute is exceptional, but which probably isn't really the sort of thing that's required.

It seems surprising that Stoppard would do Bond after Bourne (what next for him? MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV?), but then again he doesn't seem averse to returning to espionage and taking the Hollywood dollar. I gather he also did some writing on INDIANA JONES 4, or was it THE LAST CRUSADE?

But it's the name "Roger Michell" that makes me feel that this story isn't made up. If it were tabloid garbage, I think they'd be discussing a more famous director. "Paul Greengrass/Christopher Nolan to direct Bond 22?" would be a much sexier headline, while also relatively believable. Michell isn't even especially well-known among film geeks, and he's discussed even less. And no one ever talked about him as a potential Bond director. Well, no one other than....

ME! (I posted on 27 October 2003 in the "Pick Your Bond 21 Director" thread: "All I'm saying is, keep a particularly close eye on Michell. He's one to watch.")

Okay, will stop obnoxiously tooting my own horn about this, as though anyone does or should give a flying one.

[tdalton]

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes? If he's the same one mentioned in this article, then this is not good news, because none of those three films was especially good. In fact, Enduring Love was only made watchable by Daniel Craig, as the film itself was not very good at all.

[Loomis]

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes?

I'm afraid so. I'm no fan of his, either. But it's possible that he won't end up as the director of BOND 22, although I'm sure he is indeed in negotiations. Remember when Michael Caton-Jones (who subsequently directed ROB ROY, THE JACKAL, SHOOTING DOGS and BASIC INSTINCT 2, but was then probably best known for SCANDAL, MEMPHIS BELLE and DOC HOLLYWOOD) was all but officially announced as the director of GOLDENEYE (or BOND 17, as they were calling it back then)? And Stephen Frears was all set to direct JINX (a surprising choice if ever there was one), and look what didn't happen.

[tdalton]

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes?

I'm afraid so. I'm no fan of his, either. But it's possible that he won't end up as the director of BOND 22, although I'm sure he is indeed in negotiations. Remember when Michael Caton-Jones (who subsequently directed ROB ROY, THE JACKAL, SHOOTING DOGS and BASIC INSTINCT 2, but was then probably best known for SCANDAL, MEMPHIS BELLE and DOC HOLLYWOOD) was all but officially announced as the director of GOLDENEYE (or BOND 17, as they were calling it back then)? And Stephen Frears was all set to direct JINX (a surprising choice if ever there was one), and look what didn't happen.

Hopefully you're right. With the exception of Notting Hill (which I haven't seen, so I can't comment on its quality, but it was a successful film), his films have the look of made-for-TV films. If people thought that LTK looked like it was made for TV, this director will make that look like the most cinematic film ever made.

Well, if he's indeed going to direct Bond 2.2, then this is going to be like the OHMSS (a good quality film) being followed by the truly awful DAF.

[Publius]

Great news if true. Less time between films increases the likelihood Craig does four or even five. Imagine, after all this complaining, he of all people could very well surpass Brosnan's four and maybe even tie Connery's six. The fact that he's supposedly eager to do more and try still newer things is wonderful, especially since I believe Craig's presence assures us we won't drift off into more Star Wars nonsense.

If releasing a Bond film in 2007 is so important, I wonder why they didn't postpone CASINO ROYALE by one more year (which would have created even more public demand for 007's return). Seems easier than what they're apparently doing instead. Also, the idea of Fleming's first novel as the film restarting the franchise in 2007 (and with the coming-of-age number of 21) appears such a commercial/PR no-brainer you wonder why they passed it up. BOND 22, or TOMORROW NEVER KILLS ANOTHER DAY, in 2007 just doesn't have the same auspicious ring to it.

Agreed, but I'd still be happy with, say, RISICO (which I still contend is the likeliest and best of the unused Fleming titles) in winter 2007 (doubt it could be earlier than that, desperate for an '07 release or not).

Of course, if we hadn't gotten off the odd-numbered year track, this wouldn't even have been a problem...

I fear that Michell will (would? I know this news ain't exactly confirmed yet) be the next Michael Apted for the Bond franchise - a "prestigious" choice who'll end up sapping the fun out of things in a desire to make So Much More Than Just Another Bond Movie™. So he can "develop Bond's psyche", eh? Great. When will they leave Bond's "psyche" (does he actually have - or need - one?) alone? They've been ostentatiously poking around in it ever since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Will we ever see a fun, unpretentious Bond flick again, the makers of which aren't always banging on about "Bond women, not Bond girls", "peeling back the layers to show the man within", "Bond's dark side", and so on?

"'Barbara's got a team who know the action side of it back to front and Roger can come in and pull it all together.'" Or not, as Apted didn't.

I'm all for focusing on Bond's "dark side" for the forseeable future, since that can still be unpretentious fun (violence, chauvinism, morbid humor, etc.), but I agree that the other stuff needs to stop. It's okay once every couple of years, and for CR since it's so pivotal and a reboot (and coming out of a dry spell), but otherwise enough is enough.

I'd say the "peeling back of layers" process really started with FYEO, stayed constant until Dalton, gradually picked up steam through TND, skyrocketed with TWINE, and went back down to normal modern levels with DAD. (I'm overlooking OHMSS, of course.) So only TWINE is that flagrantly "serious" and introspective, and then only painfully so with the "Stockholm Syndrome" baloney.

As long as we avoid Bond touching tears and whatnot, I think we'll be okay, but it would be nice to get back to making semi-fantastic spy movies like they did in the 60s.

[Loomis]

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes?

I'm afraid so. I'm no fan of his, either. But it's possible that he won't end up as the director of BOND 22, although I'm sure he is indeed in negotiations. Remember when Michael Caton-Jones (who subsequently directed ROB ROY, THE JACKAL, SHOOTING DOGS and BASIC INSTINCT 2, but was then probably best known for SCANDAL, MEMPHIS BELLE and DOC HOLLYWOOD) was all but officially announced as the director of GOLDENEYE (or BOND 17, as they were calling it back then)? And Stephen Frears was all set to direct JINX (a surprising choice if ever there was one), and look what didn't happen.

Hopefully you're right. With the exception of Notting Hill (which I haven't seen, so I can't comment on its quality, but it was a successful film), his films have the look of made-for-TV films. If people thought that LTK looked like it was made for TV, this director will make that look like the most cinematic film ever made.

Agreed 100%. I don't think Michell has any visual flair whatsoever, although at times he tries to make out as though he does (see ENDURING LOVE), which is even worse. I enjoyed NOTTING HILL, but I suspect it was because of Richard Curtis' script and the performances, and that Michell's direction - which could probably be described as "workmanlike" - had little or nothing to do with my enjoyment. Again, with "The Buddha of Suburbia", it was mostly the script (by Hanif Kureishi, based on his novel) and performances that got me going.

Now, you could say that the Bond franchise hardly needs brilliant or "visionary" directors who are giants of their profession (someone like Tarantino would in fact be a terrible choice for a Bond director, IMO), and you'd be absolutely right. It needs seasoned pros, jobbing hacks who'll get things done without upsetting Eon or rocking the formula's boat too much - directors who are easy to control. And Michell certainly fits that bill. As did all the Bond directors from Young to Campbell, but the unfortunate thing is that, like Apted, Michell appears to have the sort of artistic and literary pretensions that are absolutely deadly to Bond flicks (see TWINE). I'd prefer more of a John Glen type.

Of course, it's quite possible that I'm just being a whingeing fanboy, and that Michell could deliver an absolutely first-rate Bond outing that wouldn't be like TWINE in the least, so feel free to ignore my ravings. I mean, I'm looking forward to Campbell's work on CASINO ROYALE, but I doubt that I'd enjoy LEGEND OF ZORRO at all, and none of his non-Bond films has really impressed me. Almost-BOND 17 director Michael Caton-Jones has just made, back-to-back, the supposedly wretched (I haven't seen it) BASIC INSTINCT 2 and the supposedly amazing (again, I haven't seen it) SHOOTING DOGS, so perhaps it's just the case that directors are really all over the place - sometimes they make good films, sometimes they don't, and it's really just the luck of the draw (or, more likely, the script). And all directors, and I don't care who they are, make dross from time to time.

So I guess I shouldn't pre-judge Michell, but I can't say I'm excited by this news.

[Harmsway]

And now the Bourne guy's writing Bond! Seriously, Bond news just keeps getting better and better!

Tom Stoppard doing Bond is one of the coolest bits of news (if true) that we could have for BOND 22. That's just plain awesome.

Is it? I'm not familiar with his work, to be honest, but I gather he's something of a giant in his field (which is probably putting it mildly).

*Very* mildly. Stoppard is one of the most brilliant writers around - his plays are absolutely astounding. You really should get familiar with his work.

But in a way I'm against this hiring of "prestigious" names like Haggis, Stoppard, Robert Towne (on the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise), Apted and so on, because.... well, bluntly, because they never seem to be given full freedom and in any case are probably totally wrong for the genre. The results onscreen usually speak for themselves. It's as though they're hired as much for their snob value, famous names and artistic/intellectual kudos as for their writing ability, which no one would dispute is exceptional, but which probably isn't really the sort of thing that's required.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you must admit that it would be interesting to see the end result.

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes?

I'm afraid so. I'm no fan of his, either. But it's possible that he won't end up as the director of BOND 22, although I'm sure he is indeed in negotiations. Remember when Michael Caton-Jones (who subsequently directed ROB ROY, THE JACKAL, SHOOTING DOGS and BASIC INSTINCT 2, but was then probably best known for SCANDAL, MEMPHIS BELLE and DOC HOLLYWOOD) was all but officially announced as the director of GOLDENEYE (or BOND 17, as they were calling it back then)? And Stephen Frears was all set to direct JINX (a surprising choice if ever there was one), and look what didn't happen.

I hope it falls through. I don't particularly want to see Michell.

Now, you could say that the Bond franchise hardly needs brilliant or "visionary" directors who are giants of their profession (someone like Tarantino would in fact be a terrible choice for a Bond director, IMO), and you'd be absolutely right. It needs seasoned pros, jobbing hacks who'll get things done without upsetting Eon or rocking the formula's boat too much - directors who are easy to control. And Michell certainly fits that bill. As did all the Bond directors from Young to Campbell, but the unfortunate thing is that, like Apted, Michell appears to have the sort of artistic and literary pretensions that are absolutely deadly to Bond flicks (see TWINE). I'd prefer more of a John Glen type.

I hear ya. But there is a danger, as Glen established, of being *too* workman-like. We need somebody who's no auteur, but someone who's also got some flair for using a camera. Somebody more like a Lewis Gilbert, I'd say.

[Loomis]

And now the Bourne guy's writing Bond! Seriously, Bond news just keeps getting better and better!

Tom Stoppard doing Bond is one of the coolest bits of news (if true) that we could have for BOND 22. That's just plain awesome.

Is it? I'm not familiar with his work, to be honest, but I gather he's something of a giant in his field (which is probably putting it mildly).

*Very* mildly. Stoppard is one of the most brilliant writers around - his plays are absolutely astounding. You really should get familiar with his work.

But in a way I'm against this hiring of "prestigious" names like Haggis, Stoppard, Robert Towne (on the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise), Apted and so on, because.... well, bluntly, because they never seem to be given full freedom and in any case are probably totally wrong for the genre. The results onscreen usually speak for themselves. It's as though they're hired as much for their snob value, famous names and artistic/intellectual kudos as for their writing ability, which no one would dispute is exceptional, but which probably isn't really the sort of thing that's required.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you must admit that it would be interesting to see the end result.

Is this Roger Mitchell the same guy that did Enduring Love, The Mother (both of which star Daniel Craig) and Changing Lanes?

I'm afraid so. I'm no fan of his, either. But it's possible that he won't end up as the director of BOND 22, although I'm sure he is indeed in negotiations. Remember when Michael Caton-Jones (who subsequently directed ROB ROY, THE JACKAL, SHOOTING DOGS and BASIC INSTINCT 2, but was then probably best known for SCANDAL, MEMPHIS BELLE and DOC HOLLYWOOD) was all but officially announced as the director of GOLDENEYE (or BOND 17, as they were calling it back then)? And Stephen Frears was all set to direct JINX (a surprising choice if ever there was one), and look what didn't happen.

I hope it falls through. I don't particularly want to see Michell.

Now, you could say that the Bond franchise hardly needs brilliant or "visionary" directors who are giants of their profession (someone like Tarantino would in fact be a terrible choice for a Bond director, IMO), and you'd be absolutely right. It needs seasoned pros, jobbing hacks who'll get things done without upsetting Eon or rocking the formula's boat too much - directors who are easy to control. And Michell certainly fits that bill. As did all the Bond directors from Young to Campbell, but the unfortunate thing is that, like Apted, Michell appears to have the sort of artistic and literary pretensions that are absolutely deadly to Bond flicks (see TWINE). I'd prefer more of a John Glen type.

I hear ya. But there is a danger, as Glen established, of being *too* workman-like. We need somebody who's no auteur, but someone who's also got some flair for using a camera. Somebody more like a Lewis Gilbert, I'd say.

Well, I'd far rather have a Gilbert than a Glen, but I think I have more time for Glen and his Bond films than you do. I'd never say he was a great director, but I do think he was great for Bond - as Billy Wilder said, "the best director is the one you don't see", and anyone who can direct both A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both OCTOPUSSY and LICENCE TO KILL, is evidently so lacking in personal vision and distinctive style as to be practically invisible.

Which is great for Bond, IMO. The day it becomes an "auteur franchise" (if there is such a thing - MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE was proudly proclaimed as such by Cruise and his collaborators, but it's hardly surprising that the famous directors hired for it seem to have been kept on what was for them an unusually short creative leash) will be the day it loses its stylistic continuity (the only meaningful continuity in Bond) and the day it dies.

Maybe it's really all down to the script, and to the director's collaborators, from Broccoli and Wilson through to the editor down to the key grip (always been meaning to find out what one of those actually is) and the cast. If TWINE had had a better script (and it sure needed one), perhaps we'd be unthinkingly praising Apted's work. Actually, I think all of the Bond directors have been roughly the same in terms of ability. All competent, none a genius, some lucky, and some not so lucky.

[Harmsway]

Well, I'd far rather have a Gilbert than a Glen, but I think I have more time for Glen and his Bond films than you do. I'd never say he was a great director, but I do think he was great for Bond - as Billy Wilder said, "the best director is the one you don't see", and anyone who can direct both A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both OCTOPUSSY and LICENCE TO KILL, is evidently so lacking in personal vision and distinctive style as to be practically invisible.

You certainly have a greater love for Glen than I do.

I personally think his lack of style is the reason some of those films fall short of the mark (especially LICENCE TO KILL, which looks like it was shot for TV!).

If TWINE had had a better script (and it sure needed one), perhaps we'd be unthinkingly praising Apted's work.

Maybe... I personally think it also needed a different cast and different editor on top of that. And possibly another cinematographer.

Actually, I think all of the Bond directors have been roughly the same in terms of ability. All competent, none a genius, some lucky, and some not so lucky.

True, but some have had a better visual sense than others. Ala, Lewis Gilbert, whose three films all had a wonderful sense of visual flair. I would have loved to see Gilbert tackle a down-to-earth Bond.

[marktmurphy]

If they want to make BOND 22 stand out, do other things besides "explore the character." Put Bond as a member on a team, ala ICEBREAKER. Or something of that sort. But don't resort to the tired, "peel back the layers of Bond" idea.

It's not a tired idea- it just hasn't been done properly. They've been doing it halfheartedly with the Bond they already had, and you can't make the superspy 007 a believable subject for that process. But hopefully the new version is actually able to be effected by the events which happen around him, which, after all, is what a film is supposed to be about.

[Daddy Bond]

Loomis had briefly mentioned (not necessarily recommended) Martin Campbell coming back for the next Bond film.

You know, despite what some may think of Campbell's work, if CR turns out to be a great film (and it's looking like it probably will), that would put 2 great Bond films under Campbell's belt. My personal 2nd favorite Bond film of all time is Goldeneye (after TSWLM). Why not have him back for a 3rd?

Regardless, it daily looks like the new direction for Bond is shaping up nicely - even though I am one of the ones who was originally surprised (and disappointed) that they dumped Brosnan. And wouldn't it be cool to have a Bond film more than every 3 yrs.?

If they could get a Bond out in 2007, that would really cement Craig in the part (if he does a great job - and I think he is and will) in the eyes of the public.

And it would be nice to have someone in the role for a while. Bring back Craig for at least 4 more (I say) if he does a great job.

Regards

[K1Bond007]

If true, these two guys could bring something fresh to the series. I thought Purvis and Wade had already started writing the script for Bond 22, though?

They'd probably write the story then give it to the new guy a la CR was given to Haggis.

If this is true, anyway.