119 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Going by his comments, it would indeed appear that he thinks he's too good for Bond.

Curious that the same doesn't seem to be true for such hugely-acclaimed talents as Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Paul Haggis and Jeffrey Wright.

[Agent 76]

maybe he was affraid to enter the bond world and screw up things.

[Loomis]

Still, it's kind of worrying. Could just be that doing a Bond film just isn't Michell's thing.... but then again, he says he worked on it for quite a while (note: not that he was simply in negotiations). Any number of reasons he could have bailed out, of course, but it does beg the question: does it stink?

[Agent 76]

maybe, just maybe, he found himself in an "opaque" situation.

[Loomis]

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).

Just to save crashdrive the trouble ( ), I reckon Maybury would be too eccentric a choice. Right age, right nationality, and those Craig flicks on his CV you mention would definitely be big pluses for Eon (not because they feature Craig, of course, but because they're "worthy" films).... but as far as I'm aware, he's mostly made pop promos and "experimental" shorts. Only two features (apparently), which is fine if you're an early 30-something like Matthew Vaughn, but not if you're pushing 50.

I don't know anything about him - hadn't heard of him till you mentioned him, in fact, but a spot of research puts me very much in mind of the late - and, in his way, great (but definitely not "commercial") - Derek Jarman. No big hits to date, with the obvious and honourable exception of THE JACKET. Which may be enough to get him Bond (if he wants it - he may well not).

An unlikely choice, then, but nonetheless good call there, dino, because he may not actually be as unlikely as all that (he writes, fence-sittingly ). I've a feeling that crash will reject him out of hand (as with Winterbottom and co.), but the question is: will Eon?

[JimmyBond]

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).

I don't think he's saying that at all, I think he's just saying he spent a lot of time planning it out, and probably figured it wasnt his cup of tea. As others have said, he'd be all wrong for the gig anyways, perhaps he felt the same way.

[Harmsway]

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).

I don't think he's saying that at all, I think he's just saying he spent a lot of time planning it out, and probably figured it wasnt his cup of tea. As others have said, he'd be all wrong for the gig anyways, perhaps he felt the same way.

Yeah. He doesn't really elaborate enough to really explain why he pulled out. Maybe he just didn't want to get involved with such a large-scale production that would demand so much of him?

Regardless, I'm glad he's out of the picture. He was a dull choice at best - I want somebody more exciting.

[SecretAgentFan]

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

Of course, here

[crashdrive]

John Maybury, director of The Jacket and Love is the Devil. I've a feeling that crash will reject him out of hand (as with Winterbottom and co.), but the question is: will Eon?

I actually think he's an intriguing choice. The Jacket seems to be a modest attempt to appeal a more mainstream audience, but I agree with Loomis that's probably too independent for Bond. But not as much say Winterbottom

[Loomis]

A surprising response, crashmeister. JACKET or no JACKET, would Eon really want someone who's (seemingly) spent the vast majority of his long career on nothing but pop videos and very experimental shorts? Not even any "mainstream" BBC documentaries or TV movies on his CV, as far as I can tell (may be wrong, though). Winterbottom, by contrast, has shown amazing versatility and strong ability in reasonably conventional storytelling across a range of genres. His CV, frankly, seems much more varied, exciting and Eon-worthy than Maybury's. If Winterbottom is Paul Greengrass, Maybury is Derek Jarman.

BTW, see (if you haven't already; see it it again if you have) Winterbottom's WONDERLAND - one of the best British films of recent years.

[Agent 76]

why not Stuart Baird, he's the editor of Casino Royale, and has done few films as director such as: U.S. Marshals (1998) , Executive Decision (1996) .

And a lot of films as editor: The Omen (1976), Superman (1978), Lethal Weapon (1987), Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) , The Last Boy Scout (1991) , Maverick (1994) , Mission: Impossible II (2000), Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), The Legend of Zorro (2005), among others of course.

He seems a great choice for it, maybe Eon will remember this.

[JimmyBond]

NO! NO NO NO. I never want Stuart Baird to get in the directors chair again...ever! He ruined The Star Trek franchise by directing possibly the worst Star Trek film ever.

[crashdrive]

Baird was a last minute option on Nemesis, so when he came onboard, he was already stuck with a bad script. I liked Executive Decision very much and I think he could make a good Bond film provided they give him a good script.

[SeanValen00V]

Maybe Mithchell asked for Pierce Brosnan to return and stop this silly reboot copying of Batman Begins. For the Bond fanchise to move forward you first must correct the damages, we have unfinished Brosnan business, he needs a decent script. Then they can hire whoever they want to kill off the fanchise, or perhaps there doing it already and that's why Mitchell left.

[jaguar007]

Maybe Mithchell asked for Pierce Brosnan to return and stop this silly reboot copying of Batman Begins. For the Bond fanchise to move forward you first must correct the damages, we have unfinished Brosnan business, he needs a decent script. Then they can hire whoever they want to kill off the fanchise, or perhaps there doing it already and that's why Mitchell left.

Very doubtful because obviously he knew Bond 22 would involve Craig (who he worked with previously) before he was even in talks with EON. Plus by the time Bond 22 is out, Brosnan will be 55, a little too old to return the the role of 007 (unless you want another AVTAK).

[JimmyBond]

For the Bond fanchise to move forward you first must correct the damages,

And they are, by getting rid of Brosnan and all the cartoony aspects of his run.

we have unfinished Brosnan business, he needs a decent script.

We don't have unfinished business, but apparently you do. Brosnan has moved on, why can't you?

[K1Bond007]

NO! NO NO NO. I never want Stuart Baird to get in the directors chair again...ever! He ruined The Star Trek franchise by directing possibly the worst Star Trek film ever.

Insurrection was by far the worst of the series and that was directed by Frakes who also directed the best of the TNG films. Go figure. Lets face it though, the TNG films are not that good in comparison to the TOS film series. I wouldn't blame Baird for Nemesis, he came on late. U.S. Marshals and Executive Decision weren't that bad. So-so action flicks. Baird wouldn't be a horrible choice, IMO, but certainly not the best either.

[OK Connery]

I'd be interested in hearing what exactly Michell would do with Bond & co. but I'm breathing a sigh of relief he's no longer involved. His filmography really doesn't indicate to me he'd be right for the job (as opposed to Apted, who seemed comfortable enough with thrillers I thought he'd do a bang-up job, until it became apparent, over the top action sequences weren't his forte.)

All the names listed so far are intriguing, but I wonder if with Haggis' involvement and rumours of Stoppard being approached to write the script for Bond 22 whether they're wanting to shift more towards having an auteur write the script and be less concerned with having a "name" director (though after Haggis and are Stoppard I'm not too sure how many who quailfy who also UK/Commonwealth in origin).

However of the suspects listed, I'd personally like to see one young turks like Vaughn or especially McGuigan take over the reins (I actually suspect they might in someways be more amenable to doing things EON's way because they're just pleased as punch to be directing a Bond film, period). However if it must one of the "safe" choices, the sentimental favourite for me would be Richard Loncraine because I love the version of Richard III he did with Ian McKellen.

[kneelbeforezod]

Are Purvis and Wade involved in the next one? I really hope not, and I hope Stoppard or Curtis can have a crack.

Just today I was reading Christopher Nolan's comments about The Dark Knight:

"Whereas the first film dealt with fear and the line between revenge and justice as themes, Nolan says the second deals with escalation and in loose terms "[how] things have to get worse before they get better". He also suggests the title plays a key part - "The title has been chose very specifically. It's quite important to the film"."

I love the fact that those films are about something... Its what I hope they are doing with Royale, and it needs to continue with Bond 22.

[DaveBond21]

A quick look at the trailer, and some scenes in CR look cartoonish.

[crashdrive]

Iain Softley has signed on to direct Inkheart starring Paul Bettany, so he's out of the running. Still enough candidates left.

[Loomis]

I'm fine with most of the realistic choices, but if I had my say I'd go with Stephen Frears ('The Grifters', 'Dangerous Liasons' & 'High Fidelity'), Jon Amiel ('Copy Cat', 'The Man Who Knew Too Little' & 'Entrapment'), Stephen Hopkins ('The Ghost and the Darkness', 'Blown Away' & '24'), Roger Donaldson ('Thirteen Days', 'No Way Out' & 'The Recruit') or Michael Caton-Jones ('Rob Roy', 'The Jackal' & 'City by the Sea').

Of the realistic choices, my first choice would be Noyce, by a country mile (whatever the heck that is). Is he still realistic, though? Frears at number two. Caton-Jones at number three (chiefly on the strength of THE JACKAL, which I find an underrated and enjoyable action thriller). The others are all much of a muchness, IMO, and not particularly exciting. If Noyce, Frears and Caton-Jones pass, my advice to Eon would be to put some names in a hat.

Having somehow managed to sit through the mindblowingly awful BASIC INSTINCT 2 (if it's a pisstake, LITTLE BRITAIN-style, then it's a work of absolute genius, but I don't think it is, unfortunately, although the first few minutes, in particular, are so intoxicatingly silly that the possibility of an elaborate windup cannot be discounted), I hope that Caton-Jones is never, ever let anywhere near a Bond film.

Yes, all directors make the odd bad movie here and there - even truly great directors like, oh, I don't know, Fellini (SATYRICON, for instance, is utter trash) - but BASIC INSTINCT 2 is.... well, it's simply in a league of its own in terms of utter wretchedness and almost exquisite ludicrousness. Not since Michael Winner's reign of terror in the British film industry of the 1980s has there been anything remotely like it.

And - while it does an absolutely excellent job of looking like it - BASIC INSTINCT 2 wasn't an underdog British production made for peanuts. It was a $70 million A-list Hollywood sequel to a megahit, and had as good a start in life as any film. If Caton-Jones can screw this up, he can also screw up Bond.

(BTW, Box Office Mojo reports a US haul of some $5 million for BASIC INSTINCT 2, making it the 119th highest grosser in the States this year. Is this one of the biggest box office bombs of all time?)

Caton-Jones (okay, Caton-Jones and company - I'm sure he wasn't singlehandedly responsible for this disaster of a flick, but, still, it's no argument for giving him Bond) takes a $70 million budget and somehow creates a film that calls to mind the expression "as cheap as chips". While Matthew Vaughn spends

[Skudor]

Please tell me it aint so. Caton-Jones anywhere near B22 is a thought worthy of a major shudder.

[dinovelvet]

Vaughn was considered for CASINO ROYALE, as was fellow young Brit Paul McGuigan, whose LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN is a story well told and a film good to look at. They're two of the most exciting British directors around right now. Yet, out of Caton-Jones, McGuigan and Vaughn, who would seem to be Eon's likeliest pick for BOND 22? Yep, Caton-Jones. Indeed, something tells me (nope, no insider knowledge here, just a very strong gut feeling) he's the leading contender for the director's chair on 007's next adventure. Let's hope the Bond people will see sense, break their addiction to boring old British "seasoned pros" and stop letting up-and-coming talent slip through their fingers.

Haven't seen BI2, and probably won't until it hits cable and I stumble upon it at 2am in a "OK let's see how bad it REALLY is" mood, but, it could be that Caton-Jones took it as a paycheck gig. His previous film was the acclaimed Shooting Dogs which dealt with genocide in Rwanda, so it seems he is interested in doing quality stuff too.
I agree he is exactly the kind of director that fits EON's profile - British, done some Hollywood work, some acclaimed smaller pics, not big name enough to have serious clout, and at this point, looking for a hit. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see him get it.

[HildebrandRarity]

Does it really matter who directs Bond 22 as long as said director has a so called British 'sensibility' about them?

I'm of the opinion that James Bond 007 pulls in his own carefully- and historically-cultivated built-in audience...not unknown (to general movie-going audiences) directors.

Around these parts only Lucas and Spielberg have the 'name' to pull in a blockbuster~ish audience and even then they need to have some sort of 'action' or 'oscar-worthy' storyline to guarantee a so called blockbuster.

The only thing a Bond movie needs is for James Bond 007 himself to be his own stylish self in his own heightened universe.

I have no clue who this Mitchell individual is and I could not care less. What is needed is a fabulous script to follow on the heels of the promising Casino Royale and then all the chips will fall into place.

Only Terence Young was able to have a 100 percent hit ratio because he had the scripts and the surrounding talent and his own style (which started it all) to attain success. Even Hamilton and Glen and Gilbert (even with three highly successful Bonds) did not get it 100 percent correct all the time and it probably was down to scripts and writing and producer-led 'tone'.

In the end, I could'nt tell this Mitchell from a hole in the wall and if he does not want to do Bond, then, frankly, his loss. (The likely fact (and it always boils down to this in the end in this world) is that he's scared that he does not truly have what it takes to take on a BIG movie like a Bond...he's scared that he'd fail and would rather take the riskless (i.e. gutless) route out.)

There is no other reason other than he does not think he has what it takes to pull it off. He's scared sh!tless. Plain and simple.

Bring on November 17! I hope Eon hit it out of the ball park this Autumn!

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 01 October 2006 - 03:26 AM.

[Cody]

I think Caton-Jones' direction of BI2 was, technically and visually, fine. The problem with that film was the script. The only area in which Caton-Jones might be to blame is that he turned a bad script into a really dull movie. The interior shots during the opening car sequence looked horrible, but the exteriors looked nice. The cinematography was good, and at times rather pretty... Though if you transfer this look to Bond, the result might look quite like TWINE.

I'd be alright with Caton-Jones directing, but I'd still rather have a director that could bring a fresh style, like Vaughn or McGuigan.

[Gri007]

Why can't Campbell direct Bond 22. Surely he's the best choice. He knows where things have left off and has got more control over the character development of Bond

[Loomis]

I agree he is exactly the kind of director that fits EON's profile - British, done some Hollywood work, some acclaimed smaller pics, not big name enough to have serious clout, and at this point, looking for a hit.

Precisely.

[Loomis]

Does it really matter who directs Bond 22 as long as said director has a so called British 'sensibility' about them?

Well, no. And yes. I mean, Michael Winner has a "British sensibility", but you wouldn't want him to direct a Bond film, would you? (If you would, then I have some disappointing news for you: he was apparently offered LIVE AND LET DIE.)

I'm of the opinion that James Bond 007 pulls in his own carefully- and historically-cultivated built-in audience...not unknown (to general movie-going audiences) directors.

True. I'm certainly not calling for "names" like Mann, or Tarantino, or whoever, to direct Bond. They'd be much more trouble than they were worth, and would change the character of the series, probably for the worse.

However, I do want a competent director for Bond, and on the strength of BASIC INSTINCT 2 I wonder whether Caton-Jones would qualify as such.

[Loomis]

How about Nick Hamm (THE HOLE, GODSEND)? Don't recall his ever being mentioned on CBn as a potential Bond director, but I imagine he's a limey and his CV seems extremely "Eon's traditional profile".

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358327/