54 replies to this topic

[draxingtonstanley]

I was given 'The Art of James Bond'for Christmas and was pleasantly suprised to see that,among many EON stalwarts, both Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were prominent contributers to the book. I enjoyed Munich hugely,and I'm sure Peter Jackson would have a lot to bring to the world of Bond(but no giant apes or dinosaurs please). With the pressure on to really deliver something special to follow the superb (IMO) CR could it be time for a Spielberg or Jackson helmed Bond? What do others out there in CBN land think of either prospect?

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 11 February 2007 - 08:28 PM.

[Spurrier]

When he is available, Spielberg would be superb for Bond. He's a huge fan of the franchise and has directed DC before. Because he's such a big fan of JB, he'd put his heart into the project and probably do it for a song and a dance.

[Loomis]

I was given 'The Art of James Bond'for Christmas and was pleasantly suprised to see that,among many EON stalwarts, both Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were prominent contributers to the book. I enjoyed Munich hugely,and I'm sure Peter Jackson would have a lot to bring to the world of Bond(but no giant apes or dinosaurs please). With the pressure on to really deliver something special to follow the superb (IMO) CR could it be time for a Spielberg or Jackson helmed Bond? What do others out there in CBN land think of either prospect?

Welcome to CBn, draxingtonstanley. With respect, I think the Bond series should steer well clear of A-list directors. They'd cost a fortune, would demand far, far more creative control than Eon would ever be willing to give, and would change the character of the series forever.

The Bonds are producers' pictures, and even if someone like Spielberg were to make a superb Bond film (as I'm sure he would if he were hired to direct one) I don't think that changing the nature of the series (and changing it significantly) would be a worthwhile price to pay. And finding a similarly big and exciting name to direct the followup would be a nightmare.

I love Spielberg, Tarantino, Mann and so on and so forth, but when I watch a James Bond film I want to watch a James Bond film, not A Steven Spielberg Film, A Film By Quentin Tarantino, or A Spike Lee Joint. Hiring such people would drive costs through the roof and would mark the beginning of the end for the franchise.

Wilson and Broccoli are doing just fine as it is. Where I do think big names should be hired, and where it seems they are indeed being hired, is in sub-directorial roles, e.g. Paul Haggis as script rewriter on CR (an investment that appears to have paid off in spades) and director/editor Stuart Baird as CR's cutting room guru.

[Harmsway]

No, no, and again, no.

Directors with big egos and specific "visions" and a demand for great creative control should be kept away from the franchise. Bond is a producer-run franchise, and that's how it should stay.

[Blonde Bond]

Peter Jackson no, Steven Spielberg yes.

I just cant see Mr.Bad Taste/Braindead/LOTR/King Kong in the director's seat. It's just personal opinion. Though Mr.Jackson could also surprise me.

But Steven Spielberg wanted to direct a bond movie in the late 70's, and he's still has his skills, plus he show'd, in Indiana Jones movies, that he might have what it takes to direct these movies.

[Santa]

I was given 'The Art of James Bond'for Christmas and was pleasantly suprised to see that,among many EON stalwarts, both Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were prominent contributers to the book. I enjoyed Munich hugely,and I'm sure Peter Jackson would have a lot to bring to the world of Bond(but no giant apes or dinosaurs please). With the pressure on to really deliver something special to follow the superb (IMO) CR could it be time for a Spielberg or Jackson helmed Bond? What do others out there in CBN land think of either prospect?

Welcome to CBn, draxingtonstanley. With respect, I think the Bond series should steer well clear of A-list directors. They'd cost a fortune, would demand far, far more creative control than Eon would ever be willing to give, and would change the character of the series forever.

The Bonds are producers' pictures, and even if someone like Spielberg were to make a superb Bond film (as I'm sure he would if he were hired to direct one) I don't think that changing the nature of the series (and changing it significantly) would be a worthwhile price to pay. And finding a similarly big and exciting name to direct the followup would be a nightmare.

I love Spielberg, Tarantino, Mann and so on and so forth, but when I watch a James Bond film I want to watch a James Bond film, not A Steven Spielberg Film, A Film By Quentin Tarantino, or A Spike Lee Joint. Hiring such people would drive costs through the roof and would mark the beginning of the end for the franchise.

Wilson and Broccoli are doing just fine as it is. Where I do think big names should be hired, and where it seems they are indeed being hired, is in sub-directorial roles, e.g. Paul Haggis as script rewriter on CR (an investment that appears to have paid off in spades) and director/editor Stuart Baird as CR's cutting room guru.

What he said.

[draxingtonstanley]

Thank you gentlemen,particularly Loomis for the welcome. Your point is well made,I would much rather EON stick to their guns and,as you say,invest the money in the writing and other departments.This safeguards Cubby's philosophy of making sure the money is up there on the screen,rather than in a star director's bank account.
I put the post up because I was intrigued by the thought of Spielberg finally let loose on a Bond film,but as you point out,a bigger problem would be created by how to follow him. Bond would be on the slippery slope to becoming a top heavy star laden vehicle,which is what EON have always managed to avoid and is the reason why Bond films are still being made and enjoying huge success.

[Blonde Bond]

I was given 'The Art of James Bond'for Christmas and was pleasantly suprised to see that,among many EON stalwarts, both Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were prominent contributers to the book. I enjoyed Munich hugely,and I'm sure Peter Jackson would have a lot to bring to the world of Bond(but no giant apes or dinosaurs please). With the pressure on to really deliver something special to follow the superb (IMO) CR could it be time for a Spielberg or Jackson helmed Bond? What do others out there in CBN land think of either prospect?

Welcome to CBn, draxingtonstanley. With respect, I think the Bond series should steer well clear of A-list directors. They'd cost a fortune, would demand far, far more creative control than Eon would ever be willing to give, and would change the character of the series forever.

The Bonds are producers' pictures, and even if someone like Spielberg were to make a superb Bond film (as I'm sure he would if he were hired to direct one) I don't think that changing the nature of the series (and changing it significantly) would be a worthwhile price to pay. And finding a similarly big and exciting name to direct the followup would be a nightmare.

I love Spielberg, Tarantino, Mann and so on and so forth, but when I watch a James Bond film I want to watch a James Bond film, not A Steven Spielberg Film, A Film By Quentin Tarantino, or A Spike Lee Joint. Hiring such people would drive costs through the roof and would mark the beginning of the end for the franchise.

Wilson and Broccoli are doing just fine as it is. Where I do think big names should be hired, and where it seems they are indeed being hired, is in sub-directorial roles, e.g. Paul Haggis as script rewriter on CR (an investment that appears to have paid off in spades) and director/editor Stuart Baird as CR's cutting room guru.

After I read your post, I see the point, and I have to agree more or less. Even if I okay'ed Spielberg in my previous post.

[Tiin007]

I was given 'The Art of James Bond'for Christmas and was pleasantly suprised to see that,among many EON stalwarts, both Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were prominent contributers to the book. I enjoyed Munich hugely,and I'm sure Peter Jackson would have a lot to bring to the world of Bond(but no giant apes or dinosaurs please). With the pressure on to really deliver something special to follow the superb (IMO) CR could it be time for a Spielberg or Jackson helmed Bond? What do others out there in CBN land think of either prospect?

Welcome to CBn, draxingtonstanley. With respect, I think the Bond series should steer well clear of A-list directors. They'd cost a fortune, would demand far, far more creative control than Eon would ever be willing to give, and would change the character of the series forever.

The Bonds are producers' pictures, and even if someone like Spielberg were to make a superb Bond film (as I'm sure he would if he were hired to direct one) I don't think that changing the nature of the series (and changing it significantly) would be a worthwhile price to pay. And finding a similarly big and exciting name to direct the followup would be a nightmare.

I love Spielberg, Tarantino, Mann and so on and so forth, but when I watch a James Bond film I want to watch a James Bond film, not A Steven Spielberg Film, A Film By Quentin Tarantino, or A Spike Lee Joint. Hiring such people would drive costs through the roof and would mark the beginning of the end for the franchise.

Wilson and Broccoli are doing just fine as it is. Where I do think big names should be hired, and where it seems they are indeed being hired, is in sub-directorial roles, e.g. Paul Haggis as script rewriter on CR (an investment that appears to have paid off in spades) and director/editor Stuart Baird as CR's cutting room guru.

Even though Spielberg would probably make a great Bond film, I'd have to agree with Loomis on this one. The series has been great so far; if it ain't broke don't fix it. As for Peter Jackson, I'm afraid he could potentially give us another Die Another Day. His movies are way too over-the-top.

[Mr. Du Pont]

Peter Jackson??? My God, no! He already butchered Tolkien. Let's not have him butcher 007, too. The man seems incapable of really understanding the works he has "adapted."

[Mike00spy]

If i wanted a 4 hour Bond movie then I'd hire Jackson-- but I dont want a 4 hour Bond movie.

[plankattack]

I echo Loomis' points and I definitely agree with the hiring more varied talent in the writing and editing departments. Eon traditionally stick to a small stable of talent but the direction taken by bringing Haggis is a commendable one. P & W have been discussed here at length so I won't go there, but the addition of fresh writing wouldn't be bad. Stuart Baird's editing was terrific in CR, as was Meheux's cinematography (it felt like 1963 all over again!), and I think these are examples of the type of talent to bring in to ensure that the series continues this new evolution (we hope).

I think the question really is "Do big-name directors want to do Bond?" Yes, they are producers' films, so what challenge is there for some of these guys? Spielberg, perhaps, because he is a big fan and he's done so much that his ego wouldn't need to be the "guy that transformed Bond" - instead I think he'd be happy to make one that everyone remembered as being one of the best, rather than trying to define the series in any way.

[RazorBlade]

I echo Loomis' points and I definitely agree with the hiring more varied talent in the writing and editing departments. Eon traditionally stick to a small stable of talent but the direction taken by bringing Haggis is a commendable one. P & W have been discussed here at length so I won't go there, but the addition of fresh writing wouldn't be bad. Stuart Baird's editing was terrific in CR, as was Meheux's cinematography (it felt like 1963 all over again!), and I think these are examples of the type of talent to bring in to ensure that the series continues this new evolution (we hope).

I think the question really is "Do big-name directors want to do Bond?" Yes, they are producers' films, so what challenge is there for some of these guys? Spielberg, perhaps, because he is a big fan and he's done so much that his ego wouldn't need to be the "guy that transformed Bond" - instead I think he'd be happy to make one that everyone remembered as being one of the best, rather than trying to define the series in any way.

I still like Speilberg. As for a 4 hour bond film- it will surely be a sign that I've died and gone to Heaven.

[Judo chop]

He already butchered Tolkien.

All I can say is -

Although, what he did with King Kong would scare me enough to say "NO" to the idea of him helming Bond.

Spielberg though... I understand the hesitation others have. It's a scary prospect. (Some people may have been just as scared knowing a certain blond, ugly DANIEL CRAIG was going to play a REBOOTED BOND in a film very closely following the action-lacking CASINO ROYALE, led by pedestrian director MARTIN CAMPBELL - and look how badly that turned out.)

I'd hate to be the person responsible for signing the dotted line bringing on Spielberg, for fear that the worst might come true.
But if it were announced...

"CONFIRMED! SPIELBERG FINALLY TO DIRECT BOND FILM!"

...I have to admit that it would encite in me an awesome mix of anxieties. I would have to hold on to the hope that Spielberg would deliver with one of his best works; it could happen!
I could not help to imagine just what a HUGE shot in the arm it could be for Bond's future. What an enormous risk with an enormous potential payoff!

Angels and demons battle.

Edited by Judo chop, 13 February 2007 - 07:40 PM.

[00Twelve]

Peter Jackson??? My God, no! He already butchered Tolkien. Let's not have him butcher 007, too. The man seems incapable of really understanding the works he has "adapted."

Dang. Now I've gotta digress and I hate being that guy.

I would have loved to see the novels adapted to the letter, with all the singing and poetry and Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and Glorfindel and the Scouring of The Shire and all that, but each film would be 6 hours long (and hey, I'd still watch them) and no one could watch them without a pair of inch-thick nerd glasses. Pete did an amazing job for being limited to 3-4 hours per film (Extended!).

I'd be intrigued to see what Pete could pull off.

[kneelbeforezod]

No, no, and again, no.

Directors with big egos and specific "visions" and a demand for great creative control should be kept away from the franchise. Bond is a producer-run franchise, and that's how it should stay.

As a matter of interest, why are you so adamant about this?

Of course it will never happen but... Spielberg would most likely make one of the best films in the series. He's a perfect fit for Bond, and I don't think he would seek to change it, he loves the series, and knows what works and what doesn't work.

Isn't the fact that it's a producer run franchise the reason we've ended up with so many god awful Bond films?

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

[Judo chop]

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

Yes... but even more so. Hence the fear.

But hey... what's the point of living if you can't feel alive?

[Zorin Industries]

No, no, and again, no.

Directors with big egos and specific "visions" and a demand for great creative control should be kept away from the franchise. Bond is a producer-run franchise, and that's how it should stay.

As a matter of interest, why are you so adamant about this?

Of course it will never happen but... Spielberg would most likely make one of the best films in the series. He's a perfect fit for Bond, and I don't think he would seek to change it, he loves the series, and knows what works and what doesn't work.

Isn't the fact that it's a producer run franchise the reason we've ended up with so many god awful Bond films?

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

In a word...no. You can make a bad film from a good script but it is impossible to make a good film from a bad script. EON is not a producer run franchise any more than any other production company working in London right now. EON spend a great deal of time on the screenplays for a Bond film. Producers are often heavily involved in sourcing writers and stories - but their work cannot be solely producer related. EON have a working pattern that is very specific when it comes to which director is on board. It is more than just onscreen finesse. For Eon, a new director has to meet all sorts of criteria - Are they a UK resident? (tax laws will be a nightmare otherwise - which is exactly Michael Wilson's forte). Do they have nearly two years to spare to dedicate to pre-production AND the six month promotional tour after? Does their agent have good ties with other department heads and even other potential cast members? Are they experienced in multi-shooting around the world? Are they not too much of an auteur so as to allow the second unit to tackle the action scenes on their own? Do they have a chemistry with their lead actors? (I imagine Daniel Craig is very creatively demanding with a director - as an actor of his calibre should be).

I could go on...

And we have never ended up with "God awful Bond films". We have ones that are less successful granted, but name me one of the 21 films that have not rewarded people's money and their time - two facets Cubby Broccoli and EON have honoured and remembered since day one.

Furthermore, heavyweight writers do not automatically need heavyweight directors - and vice versa. Spielberg often hires the least heavyweight scribes going.

And in the history of British and International cinema there are very few experts who would say that the likes of Terence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt are not heavyweight directors. Terence Young is heavily regarded by Quentin Tarantino and Lewis Gilbert is one of the few directors to have seven films in the top 100 highest grossing films of all time in Britain.

[Mr. Du Pont]

Peter Jackson??? My God, no! He already butchered Tolkien. Let's not have him butcher 007, too. The man seems incapable of really understanding the works he has "adapted."

Dang. Now I've gotta digress and I hate being that guy.

I would have loved to see the novels adapted to the letter, with all the singing and poetry and Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and Glorfindel and the Scouring of The Shire and all that, but each film would be 6 hours long (and hey, I'd still watch them) and no one could watch them without a pair of inch-thick nerd glasses. Pete did an amazing job for being limited to 3-4 hours per film (Extended!).

I'd be intrigued to see what Pete could pull off.

With all do respect, the cutting of "The Scouring of the Shire" is a prime example of just how blind Jackson was to Tolkien's point. I never said cuts shouldn't be made, but what you cut is telling. And more telling is the fact that Jackson didn't even film that part of the book because, and I quote, "[He] just never got that part."

What he essentially did was take There and Back Again and ignorantly chop off the "Back Again."

This is only one point, but it cuts right to the heart of Jackson's failures (along with his virtual desecration of Faramir).

So back to the point of the thread: Keep Peter Jackson the away from James Bond.

[kneelbeforezod]

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

In a word...no. You can make a bad film from a good script but it is impossible to make a good film from a bad script.

You appear to be saying that a Bond film would not benefit creatively from the hiring of a heavyweight director. A great script and great direction equals a great film. A great script and Uwe Boll does not.

For Eon, a new director has to meet all sorts of criteria - Are they a UK resident? (tax laws will be a nightmare otherwise - which is exactly Michael Wilson's forte). Do they have nearly two years to spare to dedicate to pre-production AND the six month promotional tour after? Does their agent have good ties with other department heads and even other potential cast members?

Right... true as all that may be, I was thinking in terms of the creative impact on a film that a high calibre director has.

And we have never ended up with "God awful Bond films". We have ones that are less successful granted, but name me one of the 21 films that have not rewarded people's money and their time

Diamonds are Forever. Moonraker. Die Another Day. I could go on. All 3 would have benefitted from better scripts and better direction. That's all I'm saying really; that however unlikely it is to come to pass, and putting tax laws to one side, I fail to see how hiring one of the most gifted directors of action in the history of cinema could have a bad effect on a Bond film, creatively speaking.

Spielberg often hires the least heavyweight scribes going.

I would replace the word "often" with "rarely".

And in the history of British and International cinema there are very few experts who would say that the likes of Terence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt are not heavyweight directors.

They are well respected, they are a safe pair of hands, certainly, but they aren't really considered masterful visual stylists. I think that's what the thread starter meant by "time for a big name director". And if you argue they are heavyweights, then presumably you would agree that Spielberg is too, and he would have a positive effect creatively?

[Zorin Industries]

Peter Jackson??? My God, no! He already butchered Tolkien. Let's not have him butcher 007, too. The man seems incapable of really understanding the works he has "adapted."

Dang. Now I've gotta digress and I hate being that guy.

I would have loved to see the novels adapted to the letter, with all the singing and poetry and Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and Glorfindel and the Scouring of The Shire and all that, but each film would be 6 hours long (and hey, I'd still watch them) and no one could watch them without a pair of inch-thick nerd glasses. Pete did an amazing job for being limited to 3-4 hours per film (Extended!).

I'd be intrigued to see what Pete could pull off.

With all do respect, the cutting of "The Scouring of the Shire" is a prime example of just how blind Jackson was to Tolkien's point. I never said cuts shouldn't be made, but what you cut is telling. And more telling is the fact that Jackson didn't even film that part of the book because, and I quote, "[He] just never got that part."

What he essentially did was take There and Back Again and ignorantly chop off the "Back Again."

This is only one point, but it cuts right to the heart of Jackson's failures (along with his virtual desecration of Faramir).

So back to the point of the thread: Keep Peter Jackson the away from James Bond.

Peter Jackson??? My God, no! He already butchered Tolkien. Let's not have him butcher 007, too. The man seems incapable of really understanding the works he has "adapted."

Dang. Now I've gotta digress and I hate being that guy.

I would have loved to see the novels adapted to the letter, with all the singing and poetry and Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and Glorfindel and the Scouring of The Shire and all that, but each film would be 6 hours long (and hey, I'd still watch them) and no one could watch them without a pair of inch-thick nerd glasses. Pete did an amazing job for being limited to 3-4 hours per film (Extended!).

I'd be intrigued to see what Pete could pull off.

With all do respect, the cutting of "The Scouring of the Shire" is a prime example of just how blind Jackson was to Tolkien's point. I never said cuts shouldn't be made, but what you cut is telling. And more telling is the fact that Jackson didn't even film that part of the book because, and I quote, "[He] just never got that part."

What he essentially did was take There and Back Again and ignorantly chop off the "Back Again."

This is only one point, but it cuts right to the heart of Jackson's failures (along with his virtual desecration of Faramir).

So back to the point of the thread: Keep Peter Jackson the away from James Bond.

Why do so many film fans have so little idea about why a book - such as Tolkien's work - is exactly that, A BOOK. The film version HAS to be a film version. That is why they call it an adapted screenplay - someone has to 'adapt' the written page into a moving piece of cinema with a narrative point, a character arc and acts of development.

Film makers have to make sacrifices. But it's how they make them that defines genuine talent. And I would say that Peter Jackson is one of the most intuitive directors who 'gets' cinema. He's completely wrong for Bond, but needs a better response than "I hate him - he cut my favourite line in a book of ten thousand lines....".

Edited by Zorin Industries, 14 February 2007 - 03:52 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

In a word...no. You can make a bad film from a good script but it is impossible to make a good film from a bad script.

You appear to be saying that a Bond film would not benefit creatively from the hiring of a heavyweight director. A great script and great direction equals a great film. A great script and Uwe Boll does not.

For Eon, a new director has to meet all sorts of criteria - Are they a UK resident? (tax laws will be a nightmare otherwise - which is exactly Michael Wilson's forte). Do they have nearly two years to spare to dedicate to pre-production AND the six month promotional tour after? Does their agent have good ties with other department heads and even other potential cast members?

Right... true as all that may be, I was thinking in terms of the creative impact on a film that a high calibre director has.

And we have never ended up with "God awful Bond films". We have ones that are less successful granted, but name me one of the 21 films that have not rewarded people's money and their time

Diamonds are Forever. Moonraker. Die Another Day. I could go on. All 3 would have benefitted from better scripts and better direction. That's all I'm saying really; that however unlikely it is to come to pass, and putting tax laws to one side, I fail to see how hiring one of the most gifted directors of action in the history of cinema could have a bad effect on a Bond film, creatively speaking.

Spielberg often hires the least heavyweight scribes going.

I would replace the word "often" with "rarely".

And in the history of British and International cinema there are very few experts who would say that the likes of Terence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt are not heavyweight directors.

They are well respected, they are a safe pair of hands, certainly, but they aren't really considered masterful visual stylists. I think that's what the thread starter meant by "time for a big name director". And if you argue they are heavyweights, then presumably you would agree that Spielberg is too, and he would have a positive effect creatively?

There is more to directing a film and being a 'heavyweight director' than being a 'visual stylist'. The "creative impact" on a Bond film achieved by a big named director is NOT the last word in a 007 film being one of quality.

And to be fair, whilst CASINO ROYALE had a crackling script by - amongst others - Paul Haggis, its direction was fairly workmanlike. Martin Campbell has GREATLY improved since GOLDENEYE, but he still often drives a bulldozer (literally in the case of ROYALE) through the subtler moments of a film and the need for narrative clarity.

And if you "could go on" regarding the supposedly "awful" Bond films, then why are you wasting your efforts on this website? It cannot surely be solely just to tell a professional screenwriter how to re-write a sentence regarding Spielberg he knows he structured right in the first place?

Now, let's not fall out KneelBeforeZod. But let's at least understand how films are made a little more than you do right now. There is more to it than how many stars Empire magazine gives a film.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 14 February 2007 - 04:19 PM.

[dodge]

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

In a word...no. You can make a bad film from a good script but it is impossible to make a good film from a bad script.

You appear to be saying that a Bond film would not benefit creatively from the hiring of a heavyweight director. A great script and great direction equals a great film. A great script and Uwe Boll does not.

For Eon, a new director has to meet all sorts of criteria - Are they a UK resident? (tax laws will be a nightmare otherwise - which is exactly Michael Wilson's forte). Do they have nearly two years to spare to dedicate to pre-production AND the six month promotional tour after? Does their agent have good ties with other department heads and even other potential cast members?

Right... true as all that may be, I was thinking in terms of the creative impact on a film that a high calibre director has.

And we have never ended up with "God awful Bond films". We have ones that are less successful granted, but name me one of the 21 films that have not rewarded people's money and their time

Diamonds are Forever. Moonraker. Die Another Day. I could go on. All 3 would have benefitted from better scripts and better direction. That's all I'm saying really; that however unlikely it is to come to pass, and putting tax laws to one side, I fail to see how hiring one of the most gifted directors of action in the history of cinema could have a bad effect on a Bond film, creatively speaking.

Spielberg often hires the least heavyweight scribes going.

I would replace the word "often" with "rarely".

And in the history of British and International cinema there are very few experts who would say that the likes of Terence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt are not heavyweight directors.

They are well respected, they are a safe pair of hands, certainly, but they aren't really considered masterful visual stylists. I think that's what the thread starter meant by "time for a big name director". And if you argue they are heavyweights, then presumably you would agree that Spielberg is too, and he would have a positive effect creatively?

Dear KneelBeforeZod: I'm looking...and I'm looking...and I'm looking--and still I see nothing in this well-argued post that indicates that you 'lack understanding' to speak or that your 'wasting your time on this website.' As it happens, I agree with you pretty much every step of the way. But even if I didn't,I'd share your indignation that we even have to argue that a high-calbre director could benefit Bond 22. Also the suggestion that Campbell was anything but high-calibre or that CR succeeded despite him.

Edited by dodge, 14 February 2007 - 06:23 PM.

[draxingtonstanley]

I'll get my coat.....

[pieffra]

I would appreciate both of Spielberg or Jackson, but my favourite would be Nolan (but don't think he would accept, after his involvment in Batman franchise)

[00Twelve]

I've said before that if I could have any well-known or reputed director, it would be Steven Soderbergh. I absolutely love his stylish flare!

[Zorin Industries]

I'm confused now. Are you agreeing with KneelBeforeZod or Zorin Industries? (!)

Edited by Zorin Industries, 14 February 2007 - 05:56 PM.

[dodge]

I'm confused now. Are you agreeing with KneelBeforeZod or Zorin Industries? (!)

This time I'm with KneelBeforeZod

[Harmsway]

Of course it will never happen but... Spielberg would most likely make one of the best films in the series. He's a perfect fit for Bond, and I don't think he would seek to change it, he loves the series, and knows what works and what doesn't work.

Well, firstly, I'm not so sure that Spielberg wouldn't seek to change anything. He is one of the biggest names in Hollywood, if not THE biggest name, and he's going to want control.

Furthermore, his fee would shoot the Bond budget through the roof, and Bond would suddenly have to face that problem. Bond films have to keep their budgets as lean as possible these days to remain consistently profitable.

But the real problem is that once you go with Spielberg, there's no going back. At that point, you have to keep hiring auteur directors, and that's going to doom the franchise, because each director is going to want to bring their own "vision" and "spin" to the character, rather than keeping consistency.

And then there's the issue with Spielberg that he's really not all that great. Yes, in the past twenty years, he's managed to come out with two great films: SCHINDLER'S LIST and MUNICH. Beyond that, we have such mediocre fare as ALWAYS, HOOK, JURASSIC PARK, THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, A.I., MINORITY REPORT, and WAR OF THE WORLDS, as well as a few good-but-not-quite-great films (AMISTAD, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN).

I don't think there's any guarantee that a Spielberg-helmed Bond vehicle would be any better than what we had with CASINO ROYALE, and that the likelihood is that it wouldn't be as good. I mean, Spielberg's popcorn films of the past twenty years have been consistently upstaged by "lesser" directors such as Mike Newell (HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE).

Isn't the fact that it's a producer run franchise the reason we've ended up with so many god awful Bond films?

It's also a reason why we've ended up with some of the best Bond films, if you want to argue it that way.

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

CASINO ROYALE is actually evidence to the contrary - that the "workman" directors can produce work as great as the heavy hitters. Campbell's work on CASINO ROYALE was stellar, and I can't imagine a Christopher Nolan or any such other director doing better with the same material.

Now, I'm all for going for more artistically-proven directors. Bring on a Mike Newell or a Stephen Frears or a Matthew Vaughn or even an Alfonso Cuaron (they're all above the usual EON director), but there's no need to forsake producer control and add a huge increase to the budget as Spielberg would undoubtedly require.

[Zorin Industries]

Casino Royale benefitted from the bringing on board of a heavyweight writer... doesn't the same apply with directors?

In a word...no. You can make a bad film from a good script but it is impossible to make a good film from a bad script.

You appear to be saying that a Bond film would not benefit creatively from the hiring of a heavyweight director. A great script and great direction equals a great film. A great script and Uwe Boll does not.

For Eon, a new director has to meet all sorts of criteria - Are they a UK resident? (tax laws will be a nightmare otherwise - which is exactly Michael Wilson's forte). Do they have nearly two years to spare to dedicate to pre-production AND the six month promotional tour after? Does their agent have good ties with other department heads and even other potential cast members?

Right... true as all that may be, I was thinking in terms of the creative impact on a film that a high calibre director has.

And we have never ended up with "God awful Bond films". We have ones that are less successful granted, but name me one of the 21 films that have not rewarded people's money and their time

Diamonds are Forever. Moonraker. Die Another Day. I could go on. All 3 would have benefitted from better scripts and better direction. That's all I'm saying really; that however unlikely it is to come to pass, and putting tax laws to one side, I fail to see how hiring one of the most gifted directors of action in the history of cinema could have a bad effect on a Bond film, creatively speaking.

Spielberg often hires the least heavyweight scribes going.

I would replace the word "often" with "rarely".

And in the history of British and International cinema there are very few experts who would say that the likes of Terence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt are not heavyweight directors.

They are well respected, they are a safe pair of hands, certainly, but they aren't really considered masterful visual stylists. I think that's what the thread starter meant by "time for a big name director". And if you argue they are heavyweights, then presumably you would agree that Spielberg is too, and he would have a positive effect creatively?

Dear KneelBeforeZod: I'm looking...and I'm looking...and I'm looking--and still I see nothing in this well-argued post that indicates that you 'lack understanding' to speak or that your 'wasting your time on this website.' As it happens, I agree with you pretty much every step of the way. But even if I didn't,I'd share your indignation that we even have to argue that a high-calbre director could benefit Bond 22. Also the suggestion that Campbell was anything but high-calibre or that CR succeeded despite him.

I will stand by my belief that a 'high calibre' director is not where the Bond series is going towards nor where it needs to. 'High calibre' doesn't always mean a 'better' film. Spielberg could make a superb film about 007, but it wouldn't be a Bond film. There is a fine line here - one that Eon know exactly how to walk. Spielberg would doom the series. How do you go continue? George Lucas? Frank Darabont? Spielberg again - but not for five years as he is filming his Lincoln biopic now.

I don't want Bond feeling 'lucky' to get a big name director. It's like the ugly duckling at the school prom being asked to dance with the college jock. It's a great moment for the former, but will not be repeated the next night.

And by the way KneelBeforeZod...Spielberg does not always go for big named writers. He goes for extremely talented scribes - Tony Kushner, David Koepp and Tom Stoppard, but they are not really heavyweights. Try not to correct my sentence structure, there's a good chap.... ;o)

All this heated debate back and forth does make me question something that really should not be started here, but I am going to pitch it at KneelBeforeZod (cool name by the way...even if I disagree with you on this thread...)....

What do you want from a Bond film? A cinematic masterpiece that defines its era and justifies all those years of being a fan of films you didn't like? Or a well made crafted spy yarn that is intriguing and rewarding in a nearly dead genre its predecessors once pioneered from 1962 onwards?

Edited by Zorin Industries, 14 February 2007 - 06:50 PM.