54 replies to this topic

[Johnboy007]

Spielberg: Maybe
Jackson: No
Tarantino: Definitely not

[dodge]

Spielberg: Maybe
Jackson: No
Tarantino: Definitely not

Okay. But how about George 'Road Warrior/Twilight Zone' Miller? Assuming he hasn't been Disneyed to death...

[draxingtonstanley]

For that matter,how about Ridley Scott? I do take the point that the films
should be Bond films and therefore no name on the credits should be
too 'big' to distract or detract from that.
I'm not even a massive Speilberg fan,I would go along with Harmsway's
pick of Munich and Schindler's List as the two films I really am keen on.
With a nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I can leave the rest.
Guess I was playing Devil's advocate with this thread.

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 14 February 2007 - 07:28 PM.

[Harmsway]

For that matter,how about Ridley Scott?

Of all the "auteur" choices, he's the one I would like the most, but I'm still an advocate for keeping it in the Newell/Vaughn/Frears/Cuaron range.

[Zorin Industries]

For that matter,how about Ridley Scott? I do take the point that the films
should be Bond films and therefore no name on the credits should be
too 'big' to distract or detract from that.
I'm not even a massive Speilberg fan,I would go along with Harmsway's
pick of Munich and Schindler's List as the two films I really am keen on.
With a nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I can leave the rest.
Guess I was playing Devil's advocate with this thread.

And it worked...!!

Ridley Scott is a tad weak when it comes to plot, no? I love a great many of his landmark films, but HANNIBAL (his only dip in the waters of an existing franchise was a bit poor - though that wasn't strictly his doing...).

I like someone's mention of Sam Mendes.

I'd add - though I will live to regret it I'm sure (eh KneelBeforeZod....are we friends now...?!) - the likes of Stephen Frears, Matthew Vaughn and Paul Greengrass. They are the folk who SHOULD be doing the job, but no doubt we will hear the gig has gone to Alan Smithee...

[Harmsway]

Ridley Scott is a tad weak when it comes to plot, no? I love a great many of his landmark films, but HANNIBAL (his only dip in the waters of an existing franchise was a bit poor - though that wasn't strictly his doing...).

I respectfully disagree. I consider HANNIBAL the best film in the Lecter franchise.

[Zorin Industries]

Ridley Scott is a tad weak when it comes to plot, no? I love a great many of his landmark films, but HANNIBAL (his only dip in the waters of an existing franchise was a bit poor - though that wasn't strictly his doing...).

I respectfully disagree. I consider HANNIBAL the best film in the Lecter franchise.

Really? It must just be me. The film is okay, but suffers from not having Jodie Foster on board. It certainly unsettled me in the way THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS got under my skin.

Though it's better than MANHUNTER...

You watch the flood gates open now!! I just found the 1986 MANHUNTER really plodding, awash with unnecessary MIAMI VICE production design and RED DRAGON told the story a lot more ecomonically.

Horses for courses...

Though if Ridders was announced as the director of RETURN TO CASINO ROYALE I could live with that. It would certainly be less damaging than Luc Besson or some other action director named round these parts solely because he has directed a successful car chase.

[dodge]

[quote name='draxingtonstanley' date='14 February 2007 - 19:28' post='701748']
For that matter,how about Ridley Scott? I do take the point that the films
should be Bond films and therefore no name on the credits should be
too 'big' to distract or detract from that.
I'm not even a massive Speilberg fan,I would go along with Harmsway's
pick of Munich and Schindler's List as the two films I really am keen on.
With a nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I can leave the rest.
Guess I was playing Devil's advocate with this thread.
[/quote]

Devil's Advociate, eh? Grab your coat and go, huh? Oh, no you don't, friend, not so fast . The least you can do is stay here and watch while Zorin and I bloody ourselves half to death. He's on to Stephen Frears now. I sit patiently waiting for him to sleep so I can beam Dodgeian thoughts to his brain: Martin Campbell...George Miller...no Sam Mendes---bad, bad, bad!

[Zorin Industries]

[/quote][/color]

Devil's Advociate, eh? Grab your coat and go, huh? Oh, no you don't, friend, not so fast . The least you can do is stay here and watch while Zorin and I bloody ourselves half to death. He's on to Stephen Frears now. I sit patiently waiting for him to sleep so I can beam Dodgeian thoughts to his brain: Martin Campbell...George Miller...no Sam Mendes---bad, bad, bad!
[/quote]
I've always loved George Miller's work.... I thought as much last night whilst asleep and trying to think of ways of winding up my American cousins....!

[draxingtonstanley]

LOL! Well once again,Harmsway I find myself agreeing with your choice-I enjoyed Hannibal.
In fact it got me thinking of how Moonraker could have been as a serious,dark, verging on
Gothic,Bond adventure. Something about the house that the Gary Oldman character lived in,
propelled me into a reverie about Moonraker(the film story still)played straight. No Jaws. No
ponytailed blonde girl with specs. No double taking pigeon. No Alfie Bass cameo etc..
Bring on the Ridley Scott remake of Moonraker...MWAHAHAA!
Oops,have I done it again?

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 14 February 2007 - 08:18 PM.

[draxingtonstanley]

And while I'm here,I also agree with you,Zorin,about Manhunter. But not to
the extent of preferring Red Dragon. What I do think is that Brain Cox would've
been a great Bond villain. But he's gone and been in the Bourne films hasn't he?
Sort of rules him out. No?
Sod it,Brian Cox as Hugo Drax in Ridley Scott's remake of Moonraker...

[Safari Suit]

...awash with unnecessary MIAMI VICE production design

And that's why I loved it! Partly anyway.

My opinion on Spielberg is that he could have made a great Connery or Moore-era Bond film (could have, mind you, not definately), but I'm not sure he would mesh well with the current direction. Yes, I know he made "Munich", as well as somewhat gritty films like "Duel" and so forth, but I imagine a big, adventurous Bond film is the kind he would feel most enthused about. Heck, he might have been able to make "Die Another Day" into a more consistantly enjoyable film.

Jackson has proven himself somewhat chameleon-like as a director, so maybe he could pull off a decent Bond film. He might need a stern editor, however.

I personally see no burning need for a "name" director however.

[VisualStatic]

I could see Spielberg and would be interested in see what he would do. Although, he could do something akin to DAD, I do not think he would. And I don't think he would cost that much either, there have been actors and directors who have done movies for little or no money, simply to do something they wanted to do. However, that being said, Spielberg is going to be busy with Indiana Jones IV for the next year.

As for Jackson, no. Terantino, not really. Beyond that I don't know enough about the others mentioned to comment.

[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.

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....".

You just made the exact same argument I countered in the very post of mine you quoted. It has nothing to do with "cutting my favorite line." I've only read The Lord of the Rings once, and even in that single reading the significance of The Scouring of the Shire was screamingly apparent. I never criticized cutting down on the source material. I criticized what was disastrously cut.

Feel free to quote me again and then attack a straw man.

Edited by Mr. Du Pont, 15 February 2007 - 12:03 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

I never said it was. It can't hurt though.

And to be fair, whilst CASINO ROYALE had a crackling script by - amongst others - Paul Haggis, its direction was fairly workmanlike.

Yes... imagine how good it would have been with even better direction

And if you "could go on" regarding the supposedly "awful" Bond films, then why are you wasting your efforts on this website?

I love the idea of Bond. I've said on here before that for a Bond fan, I like surprisingly few of the films. I only own 5 of them on dvd. But when they are done right (Casino Royale), I'm in heaven.

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.

lol charming! For a professional screenwriter you display some surprisingly awkward turn of phrase. Full marks for arrogance though: don't let that screenwriting career go to your head (ah, the anonymity of the internet... did I mention I'm a formula one racing driver?)

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 15 February 2007 - 04:04 AM.

[PlayItBogart]

Spielburg: Dunno. All his movies end with the theme "love triumphs all" (except maybe Munich).
Jackson: No.
Tarantino: Dear Sweet Gentle Jesus Of The Middle East NO. I'm still pissed over being subjected to the Kill Bill movies by my roommates. I want to beat those four hours of my life back out of Quentin.

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

Oh I agree... when I said "change" I meant that I didn't think he would radically change what a Bond film was. I don't think he would turn it into a 250 million action extravaganza. I personally think that his presence behind the camera would more or less guarantee that the final product delivered everything we love about Bond. Drama, thrills, laughs, romance, and the best action in the business.

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.

Yes I'm sure that's true... I've always been coming at this from a creative standpoint.

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.

I'm not so sure about this. I think if you hire gifted big name directors that love what's best about the series, then they will endeavour to deliver that, and will totally understand the need for a level of consistency. Obviously if you hire Peter Greenaway, you're in trouble.

And then there's the issue with Spielberg that he's really not all that great.

Ah, well this is where we disagree entirely.

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

That maybe so, but there is a rock solid guarantee that a Spielberg-helmed Bond vehicle would be leagues ahead of Moonraker, Die Another Day, The World Is Not Enough.... and Diamonds are Forever.

And Tomorrow Never Dies. And... you get the idea.

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.

I agree, but Casino Royale is an anomaly. The presence of a Christopher Nolan, I think, would have benefitted, say, every single Brosnan film. As would better writers.

[PlayItBogart]

The following is an exerpt of dialogue for Casino Royale as written by Quentin Tarantino.

Bond: You know, it's the darndest thing.

Mathis: What's that?

Bond: I've always wondered what the difference is between Catsup and Ketchup.

Mathis: There is no difference.

Bond: What are you on about?

Mathis: It's the same condiment. You just don't hear people use "catsup" anymore.

Bond: What, so if I'm having Beer and cockles and ask the lad if they have "ketchup and catsup", he'll look at me like I'm a tosser?

Mathis: Well I would hope so. Catsup on your seafood?

Bond: Well that's besides the point. Where did this whole "catsup" nonsense come from?

Mathis: Gent by the name of Jonathan Swift. You see, ketchup was once spelled literally "catch up". It seems he probably mispelled or shortened the word.

Bond: Well I'd rather have "catsup" than "catch up" I suppose.

Mathis: You know, I wonder why we're even talking about this sort of rubbush?

Bond: It's that Tarantino chap. We have to have forty minutes of nonsensical banter before there can be any bloodshed. And even then I'll be staring down my opponent looking at them half the time.

Mathis: Right, right. Pass the catsup?

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

If Tony Kushner and Tom Stoppard are not writing heavyweights, then who is? Perhaps this is where we are getting our wires crossed; to me, they are most definitely "heavyweights".

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?

Well, I wouldn't complain if we got one of those! But no, I'm not really asking for all that. But by hiring "heavyweight" writers and directors, you reduce the risk of making Die Another Day. Watching that, I could almost feel myself slipping into a clinical depression.

I am certainly not suggesting that the Bond series needs Steven Spielberg. I also speak about it hypothetically, safe in the knowledge that it's never gonna happen. But I genuinely believe that he would make one hell of a Bond film. As would Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Nolan and several others with a strong creative vision and good taste.

And so when I heard Harmsway react so passionately against the idea of Spielberg, I was puzzled, especially since I consider Harmsway to be one of a few "Yodas" on this site. At least I did, until he said Hannibal was better than Silence of the Lambs

[Mr_Clark]

If QT directed a Bond film, then this is what it would look like.

James Bond: Everyone stay cool, this is a robbery.

Felix: English, , do you speak it?

Vesper: If any one of you mother ****ing pricks move I'll put one in akll of you!

Felix: Normally, both your would be dead as ing fried chicken, but you happen to pull this while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I can't give you this case, it don't belong to me. Besides, I've already been through too much this morning over this case to hand it over to your dumb .

Edited by Mr_Clark, 15 February 2007 - 01:02 PM.

[kneelbeforezod]

To be fair to Tarantino, I don't think he watches his favourite Bond films and says to himself "this would be so much better with some explicit bloodletting and foul-mouthed dialogue". I think some of you are selling him a bit short, his writing skills amount to much more than bad language and pop culture references.

I think he'd like to make a more hard-edged, atmospheric, retro-styled Bond film that was less reliant on outlandish action, and featured a Connery-esque badass Bond, and lots of witty, charged dialogue between Bond and the villian/Bond girls.

[ChronoBreak]

I'm firmly in the "No." camp in regards to hiring big name directors.

The series doesn't need a director to put their own spin on the character - That's the responsibility of the actor playing James Bond and the writers behind the film.

I can already see someone like Spielberg having Bond reconcile with his suddenly-not-really-dead father and repeatedly being saved by Q's adolescent son or something.

Edited by ChronoBreak, 15 February 2007 - 04:13 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

LOL! Well once again,Harmsway I find myself agreeing with your choice-I enjoyed Hannibal.
In fact it got me thinking of how Moonraker could have been as a serious,dark, verging on
Gothic,Bond adventure. Something about the house that the Gary Oldman character lived in,
propelled me into a reverie about Moonraker(the film story still)played straight. No Jaws. No
ponytailed blonde girl with specs. No double taking pigeon. No Alfie Bass cameo etc..
Bring on the Ridley Scott remake of Moonraker...MWAHAHAA!
Oops,have I done it again?

You may be onto something there... well, the gothic Oldman thought. A SLEUTH type gothic-ness could work in BOND. Just.

Look at me - one threat of a fight with Dodge and I'm running for the hills like a big girl in a NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN t-shirt and agreeing with folk! It won't last....!

[Zorin Industries]

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.

I never said it was. It can't hurt though.

And to be fair, whilst CASINO ROYALE had a crackling script by - amongst others - Paul Haggis, its direction was fairly workmanlike.

Yes... imagine how good it would have been with even better direction

And if you "could go on" regarding the supposedly "awful" Bond films, then why are you wasting your efforts on this website?

I love the idea of Bond. I've said on here before that for a Bond fan, I like surprisingly few of the films. I only own 5 of them on dvd. But when they are done right (Casino Royale), I'm in heaven.

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.

lol charming! For a professional screenwriter you display some surprisingly awkward turn of phrase. Full marks for arrogance though: don't let that screenwriting career go to your head (ah, the anonymity of the internet... did I mention I'm a formula one racing driver?)

I'm getting lost amidst all this quoting of quoting, KneelBeforeZod and I'm also losing the will to live. All I'll say is you too deserve "full marks for arrogance". And I say that with love. And - just for the record - I am a script writer (ask my agent...). And I get what you mean about the "awkward turns of phrases". I put it down to the fact that scripts - as opposed to prose - requires a different grammar, hence why I am all over the place...(!). And being a comedy writer makes that even worse! That's my defence and I'm sticking to it.

Now, let's not bicker any more...(!). We'll be sent to our bedrooms without supper and made to watch JOHNNY ENGLISH twice if we're not careful...

And for the record young Zod (see...'Zod' and 'Zorin'...we're not that different...!), I am a huge fan, admirer and collector of this Spielberg chap. MUNICH was a great retrun to his 1970's verisimilitude genius. The scenes with DRAX - sorry Micheal Lonsdale - were fantastic.

I just see getting Spielberg for BOND is like a 13 year old boy getting Cameron Diaz to babysit one night. How do you go back on that when the usual girl turns up the next time?

Edited by Zorin Industries, 16 February 2007 - 01:10 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Ridley Scott is a tad weak when it comes to plot, no? I love a great many of his landmark films, but HANNIBAL (his only dip in the waters of an existing franchise was a bit poor - though that wasn't strictly his doing...).

I respectfully disagree. I consider HANNIBAL the best film in the Lecter franchise.

Come on, Hannibal is an elongated tv ad! Both Scott brothers blow hot and cold - god knows why but their films are either souless, image based moodboards trying desperately to sell itself as a product... Or, an absolute bloody masterpiece (Bladerunner, True Romance, Alien, Top Gun - as cheesy as it now seems it is classic 80's cinema - Gladiator...etc).

So Ridley is a risk - if Eon&co understand why his misses miss so the risk is reduced, then he'd make a stonking great Bond flick (and hopefully nothing like Hannibal!)

In another thread someone mentioned Joe Carnahan polishing the next script - i'd like to see him direct it as well. But as i keep saying, my dream-team are Jonathan Glazer and his writing partners on Sexy Beast - hell, with that team i'd even accept Sexy Beast's Ben Kingsley as the otherwise predictable Blofeldesque villian.

As for Spielberg and Tarrantino, who wouldn't pay the ticket price to see what they did with Bond. And if the downside is how do you follow up such potentual class, then, as Craig said about his accepting-Bond dilemma, "its a very high class problem to have."

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 17 February 2007 - 01:31 PM.