119 replies to this topic

[manfromjapan]

OK. I am thinking now it's gotta be Stephen Frears. He was gonna do the JINX flick, can do tough realism in his sleep and hasn't had a hit in years. I think he would be a great choice too. BTW Alexander Witt is doing second unit on CR - he has already directed RESIDENT EVIL APOCALYPSE....

[kneelbeforezod]

I find it so depressing hearing some of the names being suggested round here, its like a laundry list of yesterday's directors.

You're all probably right though, the fact that Michell came so close is evidence that Eon, yet again, just want safe hands. But to me, it's these safe directors that are a large part of the reason why we get consistently bland Bond films.

The series is crying out for a director thats a true artist, that can make their mark on the material, but who also understands what makes Bond work.

I'm not suggesting giving it to some young hip director with a bunch of stylistic tricks up their sleeve, thats not what Bond needs.

But someone like Matthew Waughan could work... Layer Cake is not directed like a Guy Ritchie film. The style is not gimmicky; its controlled, moody yet still fresh. Jonathan Glazer is also a very skilful, smart director. Nolan or Greengrass would both be perfect as well, but very unlikely. The guy that did the 3rd Harry Potter would also be good, his name escapes me, though whether he'd be remotely interested I don't know.

9 times out of 10, a film is only ever as good as it's director. Thats why I'm worried that with Eon's current approach of hiring Apteds, Campbells, Michells, Spottiswoodes... we're never going to see a truly great Bond film.

[Loomis]

They hire directors who've made big Hollywood movies AND risky fare. Directors who make movies for everybody, not for a small number of moviefans/ arthouse goers. Apted made commercial thrillers like 'Extreme Measures' & 'Blink'. Tamahori made movies like 'Along Came a Spider' & 'The Edge'.

True, but as kneelbeforezod points out, it's like a laundry list of yesterday's directors. I'd find it hard to believe that Eon ditched Michell purely in order to get, essentially, another Michell (like Amiel or whoever).

If Eon's first question when it comes to a potential director is "Does he fit our established profile?", and not "Would he bring good things to the table?", then Broccoli and Wilson are limiting themselves. Now, I do understand that this is (and should be) a producers' franchise, but at the same time it would be ludicrous to assume that anyone outside the 50-something UK or Commonwealth, made-documentaries-for-the-BBC-at-the-start-of-his-career-and-had-a-minor-hit-with-a-medium-budget-Hollywood-thriller-with-B-list-American-stars bracket must be an auteur or some kind of uncontrollable visionary who'd ruin the Bond series forever. There are hacks/hired guns, and there are auteurs, but then there are also plenty of directors of various different stripes in between. Passing on people like Amiel, Donaldson and Michell doesn't mean that you have to go straight to Ang Lee, Mann and Tarantino.

I know I bang on about this film, but have you seen SHIRI? Putting aside the question of whether its director would even want to do Bond, can you think, crash, of any compelling reasons why he shouldn't be considered? Where's the evidence in his work that he'd be an "eccentric" director? (People like Park and Winterbottom, fair enough, but this guy, no.)

I also think you overstate the supposed eccentricity of Glazer and Vaughn. SEXY BEAST and LAYER CAKE, for all their stylistic flourishes (IMO, the signs of a young director wanting to create his Hollywood "calling card" rather than signs of a genuine desire to be the next Godard), are not what you'd call "challenging" films. In Britain, they're completely mainstream, and watched by "regular people" after a pub crawl and a kebab.

All I'm saying is that there is plenty of talent outside the hallowed Eon profile, and it would appear that even Eon recognises this, judging by their consideration of people like Glazer, Vaughn and Alfonso Cuaron. But they haven't taken the plunge. Yet. Perhaps - perhaps - the exit of Michell is a sign of some new thinking.

[Loomis]

Michell was a pretty eccentric choice as far as safe choices go

Really? Why? What's in the filmography of the director of NOTTING HILL and CHANGING LANES that makes him eccentric? Why do you say that "it seems EON thought he still was too eccentric"?

[Cody]

Folks love to sensationalize - IMDb reports this news under the headline "Bond Director Quits". How you can quit a job you don't have yet, I don't know.

I'm kind of disappointed that Michell won't be directing. I've liked the movies of his that I've seen, and it would've been nice given his past working relationship with Craig. But given that he had advised Craig not to take the job last year, it's not really surprising that he would have creative differences with the Bond heads.

[SeanValen00V]

Does it really make much of a difference? The films have hardly been auteur-driven in the past have they. In terms of direction, its pretty hard to tell any of them apart as opposed to overall tone serious/comic- smaller scale/epic, which I guess a director might have influence over but is unlikely to determine, especially now with a re-energised EON

The producers are calling the shots, Michell left over creative differences, he knew he was a tool. Bond fanchise is becoming a bit of a joke for directors, what power do they have, it's bascially for so so directors to come in, say they've directed a bond film, then make money off a hollywood big budget film, which likely fails or does ok, XXX2 with Lee Tamorohi or Roger Spootiswood have the Sixth Day with Arnie after TND, he was good, but still a tool with a rushed script.


Michael Apted was a nervous action director,

Folks love to sensationalize - IMDb reports this news under the headline "Bond Director Quits". How you can quit a job you don't have yet, I don't know.

I'm kind of disappointed that Michell won't be directing. I've liked the movies of his that I've seen, and it would've been nice given his past working relationship with Craig. But given that he had advised Craig not to take the job last year, it's not really surprising that he would have creative differences with the Bond heads.

I didn't know he advised Craig not to take the job, sounds like he knows what some believe, that Craig isn't suited for Bond, Michell has a eye for what makes Bond tick and casting, I'm sure and he Brosnan would of made a fine Bond film. How can Michell direct a Bond film with the Bond actor not being to his approval, of cource he left, probably wanted Pierce back or someone else, or asked to let Craig smoke and drink wildly in the sequel, these producers are the problem, not brave enough to take the right risks, they've lost taste on what made the past movies Bondian.

[Stax]

Michell has worked with Craig on two other films (Enduring Love and The Mother) so the prospect of him not wanting Craig as 007 is ludicrous, especially since it's been reported that Craig is the only reason why Michell was even seriously considered. He pushed for Michell.

Maybe it will be someone new and fresh directing it but Eon seems to balance the risks of casting with the security of hiring a journeyman director. Michell makes character dramas; he might have even been better suited for Casino Royale but we'll never know.

[crashdrive]

Really? Why? What's in the filmography of the director of NOTTING HILL and CHANGING LANES that makes him eccentric? Why do you say that "it seems EON thought he still was too eccentric"?

The answer to the question why EON is hiring these 'yesterdays directors' instead of directors who fit their Commonwealth profile AND have a great trackrecord (like for example Nolan or Greengrass) is quite simple: money. Bond films become hits, even if you get a nobody to direct. So why pay so much money? On top of that, a high profile director might be tempted to leave his mark and change things. They are too risky. Michell was a hired gun on 'Notting Hill' because he was still a nobody (he made 'Titanic Town' before that). He needed a higher profile to get eccentric projects like 'The Mother' & 'Enduring Love' off the ground. He made 'Changing Lanes' not just because of the money, but because he was interested in the character study element of the script. But with Bond there probably wasn't enough to hold his interest. Maybe he would have been more interested in making 'Casino Royale', because there was more risk involved. And that's probably the reason why they won't hire an eccentric director. They probably only invited Vaughn and Glazer to see if they would see eye to eye with EON. And because they thought they wouldn't demand a lot creative power. But they did. So EON passed. My guess is (and I can be wrong) that they will look at the usual suspects (Amiel, Frears, Donaldson, Caton-Jones, Hopkins, Softley, Loncraine, Baird). And don't get me wrong; it's not that I don't think name directors like Nolan (or Kang) couldn't make a terrific 'by-the-book' Bond film. Nolan has expressed interest to direct a Bond film for years. It's just that I don't see EON hiring him, for the reasons stated above.

[Loomis]

Really? Why? What's in the filmography of the director of NOTTING HILL and CHANGING LANES that makes him eccentric? Why do you say that "it seems EON thought he still was too eccentric"?

The answer to the question why EON is hiring these 'yesterdays directors' instead of directors who fit their Commonwealth profile AND have a great trackrecord (like for example Nolan or Greengrass) is quite simple: money. Bond films become hits, even if you get a nobody to direct. So why pay so much money?

Hmmm.... but in that case, why pay someone like Haggis for a rewrite - presumably they could have hired a considerably cheaper writer? Still, perhaps they feel that it's better to spend big bucks on a top quality writer than a "top quality" director (and if they do feel that way, then they're probably not wrong).

On top of that, a high profile director might be tempted to leave his mark and change things.

Agreed.

Michell was a hired gun on 'Notting Hill' because he was still a nobody (he made 'Titanic Town' before that). He needed a higher profile to get eccentric projects like 'The Mother' & 'Enduring Love' off the ground.

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about those two films. I see what you mean about Michell being an "eccentric" director. Points taken.

My guess is (and I can be wrong) that they will look at the usual suspects (Amiel, Frears, Donaldson, Caton-Jones, Hopkins, Softley, Loncraine, Baird).

I know you'll shudder at this thought, but I wonder whether the return of Tamahori is realistic. Personally, as a huge fan of DIE ANOTHER DAY (and an admirer of his based on his "Sopranos" episode and ONCE WERE WARRIORS), I'd love to see him return, certainly far more than any other Brosnan era director. I also find him a more appealing name than Amiel, Donaldson, Hopkins, Softley, Loncraine or Baird, even after the phenomenally pisspoor xXx: STATE OF THE UNION (hey, all directors have their off days).

[Cody]

I didn't know he advised Craig not to take the job, sounds like he knows what some believe, that Craig isn't suited for Bond, Michell has a eye for what makes Bond tick and casting, I'm sure and he Brosnan would of made a fine Bond film.

I can't find the quote right now, but his advice to Craig was more along the lines of "Don't drag your career down, you're better than Bond."

[crashdrive]

perhaps they feel that it's better to spend big bucks on a top quality writer than a "top quality" director

Agreed. Plus you can rewrite or throw out his input, but you can hardly change 6 months worth of film. A writer has the first input, but producers and a director have the final say.

I know you'll shudder at this thought, but I wonder whether the return of Tamahori is realistic.

*Shudder* Well, I guess he's still on the list, but why didn't they approach him for 'Casino Royale' or 'Bond 22'? Maybe his prositution charge didn't go down well at EON. Plus, didn't Tamahori make some negative comments towards EON's way of work? I guess he's still a possibility, but I really hope not (I hated 'Die Another Day' & his input). I think a director like Donaldson has more interesting credits than Tamahori ('Sleeping Dogs', 'Marie', 'Thirteen Days', 'No Way Out, 'The Worlds Fastest Indian' & 'The Recruit' (brainless but slick). And I also like Hopkins work on 'The Ghost and the Darkness', 'Blown Away', 'The Life and Death of Peter Sellers' & '24'). Antonia Bird is also a director I think has delivered several interesting films like 'Priest', 'Face' & 'Ravenous'.

[Santa]

Personally, as a huge fan of DIE ANOTHER DAY

Now here's the problem, you seem like a stand up bloke, one of the most reasonable but still entertaining freaks here, and then you go and say something like that. Loomis, you disappoint me...

[Loomis]

perhaps they feel that it's better to spend big bucks on a top quality writer than a "top quality" director

Agreed. Plus you can rewrite or throw out his input, but you can hardly change 6 months worth of film. A writer has the first input, but producers and a director have the final say.

Yes. An excellent script + a mediocre (or even downright untalented) director can result in a great or good film
(obviously, ideally you should have both good writing and good directing, but if forced to choose the smart choice would be good writing). Rarer, though, that a director, however brilliant, can rise above poor screenplay material to make something worthwhile.

*Shudder* Well, I guess he's still on the list, but why didn't they approach him for 'Casino Royale' or 'Bond 22'?

My pet theory - and it may well be utter rubbish - is that they did approach Tamahori for CASINO ROYALE, and long before CASINO ROYALE was even thought of as anything other than BOND 21.

I remember an interview with Tamahori in Sight & Sound round about the time DIE ANOTHER DAY hit screens, and he made the interesting observation that, while he'd been allowed to get radical with Bond, no one had ever been allowed to shake things up to a greater extent than Campbell on GOLDENEYE.... but that the director of the film following DAD would be permitted to shake things up even more than Campbell. He did not explain why this was so, but looking back it's all very obvious. Broccoli and Wilson had clearly been talking to him in some detail about their plans to radically change the franchise with BOND 21, and why would they have done that unless they were considering Tamahori as director?

Indeed, I recall a post a long while ago by the ever-reliable zencat to the effect that Tamahori had indeed been offered BOND 21, and had accepted, but that it had all fallen through for whatever reason or reasons. So there ya go: they did approach Tamahori, and I see no reason to suppose that they won't do so again. I really doubt that the "scandal" would have any bearing on things if they did want to go back to Tamahori. I mean, look at how, say, Hugh Grant's career wasn't ruined, and it's safe to say that George Michael will continue to make profitable music.

[Loomis]

Personally, as a huge fan of DIE ANOTHER DAY

Now here's the problem, you seem like a stand up bloke, one of the most reasonable but still entertaining freaks here, and then you go and say something like that. Loomis, you disappoint me...

What can I say? It's a masterpiece.

(But I'm nonetheless very, very glad that they seem to be going in the opposite direction with CASINO ROYALE. That's the great thing about the Bond series - its variety. )

[crashdrive]

Tamahori had indeed been offered BOND 21, and had accepted, but that it had all fallen through for whatever reason or reasons.

Hmm, I wonder why negotiations fell through. I do think there is a difference between being spotted with a prostitute and being spotted as a prostitute (Tamahori was arrested in Hollywood a couple of months after he approached an undercover vice cop and offered to perform a sex act for money. Tamahori was dressed in drag at the time.). But like I said, it's not impossible. I personally would put my money on the usual suspects.

[Loomis]

I do think there is a difference between being spotted with a prostitute and being spotted as a prostitute

LOL! I'm pretty sure that Tamahori exited BOND 21 quite a few months before the scandal, though.

[DamnCoffee]

LOL

[Loomis]

I really hope they don't get Apted back. Michell seems a very similar director in many respects, and BOND 22 will apparently be a continuation of CR's "seriousness", so my worry is that Broccoli and Wilson have parted company with Michell because, hey, why get Apted II when we can just get Apted back? We know him better, and he delivered a huge hit for us just a few years ago (and so what if a few hardcore Bond freaks on the internet think that TWINE is a betrayal of Fleming's 007). BOND 22 will be risky enough as it is, so better to choose a director whom we know knows what he's doing when it comes to our franchise. *Shudder* How crashdrive feels about Lee T is how I feel about Apted. I'd really rather have someone like Simon West, who's now probably a more serious contender for Bond than crash or I would like to admit. And, hey, he's directed Craig before.

[Santa]

I should do it. I should direct Bond 22.

[Loomis]

Perhaps Brosnan should do it, since he seems to have been doing quite a bit of armchair-directing-of-the-series-through-the-media for quite a few years now. *Miaow*

As opposed to armchair-directing-through-a-fansite, nope, I'm not a hypocrite.

[crashdrive]

Eventhough action is not Apted's cup of tea, I did love the performance he got out of Brosnan (Pierce's best in the series imho). Maybe with a better script and smarter casting (no Denise), Apted would be good. But I guess you can say the same about Tamahori (eventhough his suggestions like the glacier scene, the 3d bullet and the new and 'improved' ending were imho awfull). I say, get Roger Donaldson or Stephen Hopkins. Good with actors and action, but without the ego.

[Loomis]

Eventhough action is not Apted's cup of tea, I did love the performance he got out of Brosnan (Pierce's best in the series imho).

Yikes! I think it's awful, easily the worst performance as Bond of all time, hammy, unconvincing, OTT, lazy and totally stripped of all charm (but I think this goes for every single one of the major performances in TWINE, which to me is like a festival of horrible acting, writing, "action scenes", cinematography, music, costume design....). OTOH, I think the Brosmeister does good-to-excellent work in his other three.

But I guess you can say the same about Tamahori (eventhough his suggestions like the glacier scene, the 3d bullet and the new and 'improved' ending were imho awfull).

I love all three. But I guess it goes to show that there's no arguing with personal taste.

[DaveBond21]

I can imagine a conversation between Roger Michell and Broccoli & Wilson.

Michell - "I want to do these things with Bond...(reels off list)...."

Broccoli - "Oh, not you're not..."

Michell - "Why not?"

Wilson - "We will tell you what you can and can't do..."

Michell - "Oh, well...."

Wilson - "We'll call you..."

[zencat]

Quote from Michell on Bond 22:

Michell tells Screendaily.com: "I was very tempted. I spent a long time working on it but I wasn't tempted enough to actually jump in. At the last minute, I looked over the edge and got back into my Prius."

http://film.guardian...1852122,00.html

[Harmsway]

Hmm. Nothing particularly revealing - I wish he would have been a little more detailed.

[zencat]

Well, we know he drives a Prius.

[K1Bond007]

Well, we know he drives a Prius.

That smug son of a ...

Spent "a lot of time," eh? Interesting. I still think he wasn't the best choice. He reminds me too much of Michael Apted for whatever reason. I just think they can do better.

[dinovelvet]

I know you'll shudder at this thought, but I wonder whether the return of Tamahori is realistic. Personally, as a huge fan of DIE ANOTHER DAY (and an admirer of his based on his "Sopranos" episode and ONCE WERE WARRIORS), I'd love to see him return, certainly far more than any other Brosnan era director. I also find him a more appealing name than Amiel, Donaldson, Hopkins, Softley, Loncraine or Baird, even after the phenomenally pisspoor xXx: STATE OF THE UNION (hey, all directors have their off days).

Y'know, I wouldn't mind seeing Tamahori return either - just as long as we're talking about a more low-key/gritty Bond flick with no CGI. I thought the swordfight with Graves was the best action sequence in any of the Brosnan flicks - its over the top, yet still cool and dangerous at the same time, a good old fashioned fight scene. Its just that when he goes near the pyrotechnics and CGI, Lee can't resist throwing in an extra explosion/effect or two.

Anyway, to throw another name onto the 'eccentric/stylish Brit' list next to Glazer and Vaughn - John Maybury, director of The Jacket and Love is the Devil (both featuring Daniel Craig).

[Loomis]

"I was very tempted. I spent a long time working on it but I wasn't tempted enough to actually jump in. At the last minute, I looked over the edge and got back into my Prius."

Good. **** you and the Prius you rode in in.

So, wait, is he saying.... is he basically saying that the BOND 22 project is, well, y'know, how to put it? A pile of wank? If he is, then I say it's rather ungracious of him (and doesn't reflect well on his abilities if he spent a long time working on it).

[Andrew]

He seems like a snotty, arrogant, pretentious director that works on subpar projects so I really don't mind.