49 replies to this topic

[Spurrier]

He'd do an amazing job... the Indiana Jones films and the 10-minute Bond homage in "Catch Me If You Can" attest to that.

It's not gonna happen since he's doing Indy IV, though.

So, sign him up to do the 3rd Craig...James Bond movie. That way, there are no scheduling conflicts.

[Odd Jobbies]

...For those doubting his ability, i'm sure the 'fourth'-coming instalment of India Jones will have them eating their words.

And it is exactly that fourth instalment of INDIANA JONES that will see Steven Spielberg out of the 007 frame until about July 2008.

Good point

[Orion]

For Bond 23 maybe, but he'd be making Indy 4 when he should be doing Bond 22. Spielbergs good, but i don't think he could direct two major films at once.

[Odd Jobbies]

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

True - the only good reason not to hire him so far!

[RazorBlade]

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

True - the only good reason not to hire him so far!

I think it's a great additional reason to hire him. I'm still all for it.

[00Twelve]

Well, we know that if Spielberg did it, there might be a good chance of learning about Bond's dad (A Spielberg signature...deadbeat or missing dad), and we'd have a continuing trend of great cinematography. Food for thought, I guess...

[DaveBond21]

Spielberg said recently that if he were to make Close Encounters now, he would change it. He wouldn't have the father of a family running off to another part of the country alone to meet the aliens.

And that is how he has changed. His movies are more family-oriented now, more sentimental.

And that is why he would be a bad choice for Bond now. And, as stated above, the Bond movie director has to do what Michael & Babs say, and not everyone is prepared to do that.

[Andrew]

His movies are more family-oriented now, more sentimental.

Have you seen Munich?

[bill007]

Nope. Can't see it. Sure, Spielberg is great. Sure, he is a Bond fan. But this new direction with Bond is much too important to me mucking it up with an American sentimentalist director.

[Odd Jobbies]

One thing about having Steven Spielberg as a director, he would bring with him John Williams to do the score. Could you imagine having a John Williams Bond Score?

True - the only good reason not to hire him so far!

That was a bit harsh of me. I'm sure williams would do a great score, so long as there's no kids or animals in the film.

[Matt_13]

Didn't Spielberg say on the Indiana Jones commentaries that he had wanted to do a Bond movie at one point?

[Death for breakfast]

Yes i believe he did say he wannted to on the Indaina Jones bounus material, because that is exactly what I thought about when I read the topic for this forum. I think it would be interesting to see speilberg make a Bond film and to see what direction he would move the Bond franchise.

[Mr. Wint]

No I don't think so. Spielberg movies are OK to me. Some are better than others. I find him too "manipulating" or "sappy" in general. I can't stand it when he over-evokes sentimental emotions in the audience. The emotions that comes out of his "tear-jerking" moments feel fake to me. They don't feel deep or natural. He's a good director but personally I don't like the way he handles emotional interactions among characters.

[Mr_Clark]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone like oh say, Sam Mendes, direct a Bond film.

[Zorin Industries]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone like oh say, Sam Mendes, direct a Bond film.

Good call there Mr Clark.

Mendes is one of the most astute and competent directors to be discussed around these parts in relation to BOND. Though JARHEAD was disappointingly poor....

[VisualStatic]

Didn't Spielberg say on the Indiana Jones commentaries that he had wanted to do a Bond movie at one point?

The actual story, heard from both Lucas and Spielberg in many interviews, was that while on vacation in hawaii, Lucas and Spielberg were talking. Spielberg mentioned he love to do a Bond movie, Lucas says he's got something better and thus Raiders is born.

After seeing Munich, I still think he has the chops to pull off a great Bond, plus he likes things to be more story driven. Would be interested in knowning what he throught of CR.

[Mr_Clark]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone like oh say, Sam Mendes, direct a Bond film.

Good call there Mr Clark.

Mendes is one of the most astute and competent directors to be discussed around these parts in relation to BOND. Though JARHEAD was disappointingly poor....

Thank you. Yeah, after watching "Road To Perdition", I think Mendes would be great. Although yeah, Jarhead was kind of lame.

[Craig is 007]

I dont think that Spielberg or any big name-directors should direct Bond 22(Or any other Bond-film at all). But I dont think that Michael and Barbara would hire a big name-director to do the next one

[Auric64]

Christopher Nolan is a Batman fan, and I didn`t see his direction hurting BATMAN BEGINS.

He's actually not THAT big of a Batman fan. He's something of a Batman fan, but he's not really familiar with the comics. His familiarity and appreciation for Batman really came only shortly before he decided to tackle BATMAN BEGINS.

I heard this in an interview with Nolan, where he was asked if he had read the Batman comics/seen the other Batman films, and he replied yes, and said he was a fan. Now, I don`t know how BIG a fan he is, but I guess it`s at a certain fan boy level where he felt HIS version of Batman would be the route to go, instead of the versions produced by Burton and Schumacher.

If Bond 22 is going to be similar in tone to Casino Royale, I wouldn`t mind Apted returning. Apart from Campbell, I feel he was the best suited of the other directors in the Brosnan era, and one I could see handling the emotional/dramatic moments of the film better than, say, a Tamahori or Spottiswoode.

Oh please no. Apted couldn't handle action at all, encouraged his actors to overact, and ultimately produced the dreariest and most plodding entry in the Bond franchise. After Campbell's "best Bond direction" work on CASINO ROYALE, lightyears beyond anything we've seen in the franchise, going back to such an unreliable and lackluster director would be a mistake.

I agree with you about Apted not being able to handle the action, and that`s why I didn`t mention that part of it. Apted is more suited to directing actors in dramatic scenes, (regardless of whether you personally like or dislike his direction) and we all know that Vic Armstrong directed most of the action stuff with DAD, so why not bring somebody like that in to deal with the action, and have the dramatic scenes handled by a director who is better suited to that side of it?

TWINE`s script/plot was nowhere near as good as that of CR, but I still feel he was the best director of the Brosnan era. Campbell did an OK job with GoldenEye, but didn`t come anywhere near the excellence he produced with CR. I could see Broccoli and Wilson going with someone more like Apted than Matthew Vaughan.

BOND 22 needs something more than the "standard" Bond direction of the Brosnan years. CASINO ROYALE upped the game, and that means that the direction of BOND 22 will have to continue with the innovation that CASINO ROYALE established. BOND 22 needs someone like a Matthew Vaughn or a Stephen Frears, someone who isn't a big name, but whose directorial talents are a little more established than in a mediocre director like an Apted or a Spottiswoode. Essentially, EON needs to try and hedge their bets a little bit.

Again, I agree with you regarding Stephen Frears, though I don`t know if he could handle the action sequences as well as perhaps the dramatic scenes. In that respect I feel he could be another Apted. Able to direct actors, but not action.

The fact that Frears doesn`t seem to make that many films these days, coupled with the fact that his name has NEVER (to my mind) been associated with Bond over the last 20 years since he came to prominance, leads me to believe that he isn`t and won`t be on Broccoli`s and Wilson`s radar at all.

Best

Andy

[Keir]

Spielberg?! That would be a dreadful choice! You look at the classic Bond films and they work because the director is committed to and focussed only on Bond. Look at AI, which had ostensibly been made as a collaboration with Kubrick and what resulted with a syruppy covering over a pure, unmitigated dark vision by the master. Speilberg makes his films secondary to his overwhelming vision.