538 replies to this topic

[Quantumofsolace007]

Last time we got a list about 2-3 weeks before we got the actual announcement. There are only 3 names out of 5 I can remember now.

Alex Proyas
Marc Forster (who got the job and did an execlent job)
and Jonathan Mostow.

We'll see soon enough if we will just get a director announcement or if we will get a list like last time.

Tony Scott's name was also on that short list of 5 directors.

I know i added him when i ressearched for the old rumour.

[crheath]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

[Orion]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

He'd be good, but i think he'd have the same problem as Christopher Nolan, he's a director who likes to have free reighn on his films, whilst the Bond films have always been very producer lead productions. I'm not confident the two would gel.

[Odd Jobbies]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

Crheath, i second that. Who'd have thought David Bowie and WWII were such a good match? But QT seemed to have his heart set on a retro, B/W, voiceover led Bond movie... Don't want that breaking Craig's momentum - need to keep his character arc and that of Quantum moving forward. If QT could pick up up from where they are, then yes please. I think he'd do amazing things with the score - probably sampling lots of 60/70s Bond scores.

He'd be good, but i think he'd have the same problem as Christopher Nolan, he's a director who likes to have free reighn on his films, whilst the Bond films have always been very producer lead productions. I'm not confident the two would gel.

Orion, I think you're doubtless correct that this would be the reason QT would never get the gig - too much of a wild card. But IMO that's unfortunate - we're being deprived of the possibility of a true Bond masterpiece. I think it's a gamble Fleming may have enjoyed seeing his character take - after all, Bond himself enjoyed a good gamble.

They should've given him the gig back in 2002, instead of giving us DAD, However, I understand any reluctance Eon may have now at taking unnecessary risks when the franchise is working so well - perhaps in 2 or 3 films time QT could be unleashed.

Have to say that i wouldn't put Nolan in the same unruly, unpredictable bag as QT. I think he'd have no problem working alongside Eon - more to the point i think Eon would have no problem giving Nolan some slack.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 02 September 2009 - 12:01 PM.

[Safari Suit]

All that aside, it also doesn't help that he's not a member of the Director's Guild.

[Odd Jobbies]

Good point Safari Suit.

What kind of problems would that cause Eon?

[Safari Suit]

To be honest I have no idea, I just know it doesn't help.

[Odd Jobbies]

Fair enough, i'm sure it doesn't. Done him no harm so far though!

[Tybre]

Personally I'm still in the anti-Tarantino camp, and I imagine I shall always be in it. Not only do I think his style is just plain wrong for Bond, I could never stand any of his films I've seen, which granted are just the two Kill Bills and Reservoir Dogs, but that was enough for me. Honestly I think the only thing Tarantino ever directed I actually enjoyed was an episode of CSI.

[The spy who loved me]

Bigelow is an interesting choice.
(She's attractive !)

[Harmsway]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

I loved INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and think it not only Tarantino's best, but one of the most magnificent pieces of cinema produced this decade. Absolutely astonishing.

Even so, I'm not sure I want Tarantino on Bond. He's much too interesting for a franchise like the EON-run Bond series. Tarantino should be doing bigger and better things.

[Judo chop]

Even so, I'm not sure I want [INSERT GREAT DIRECTOR] on Bond. He's much too interesting filmmaker for a franchise like the EON-run Bond series. [INSERT GREAT DIRECTOR] should be doing bigger and better things.

What is this attitude Harms?

You find there is something inherent in the Bond character (or more to the point, inherently missing from the Bond character) that automatically qualifies him as a waste of time for great filmmakers?

Or is Bond a plenty worthy character, and it is the fact that EON is still in charge, and simply wouldn’t let a master filmmaker make a masterful film of Bond?

[Harmsway]

You find there is something inherent in the Bond character (or more to the point, inherently missing from the Bond character) that automatically qualifies him as a waste of time for great filmmakers?

It's less the Bond character himself (though, admittedly, he is a bit of a "cardboard booby," as Fleming once referred to him), and more the nature of the stories he currently inhabits, which are lightweight pulpy action adventures. Furthermore, the character and his stories are immensely repetitive. Even after the "shake up" of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, it's hard to imagine EON being quite so bold as to allow some really radical shake-ups to the basic fashion of telling a "James Bond story."

When I'm considering those really great and intriguing directors, I'd rather not see them slumming it on a made-for-the-masses action film. They could be producing something so much more remarkable and interesting, something that really makes a valuable contribution to the realm of cinema. I'll take a film like INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS over the entirety of the Bond franchise.

Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't at all mind seeing a Christopher Nolan equivalent tackle Bond. But I don't consider that kind of director among the real great cinematic artists. Nor is that a slight. The Nolans and Spielbergs of the world are better at producing entertainment than the artists are, when you get down to it. What Bond needs are elegant entertainers, not artistes. I mean, honestly, does anybody crave Bond as envisioned by Godard?

[The Shark]

I'd rather see them working on their next art film than slumming it on a made-for-the-masses action film.

Quite right, though what about a Bond film?

[Loomis]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

I loved INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and think it not only Tarantino's best, but one of the most magnificent pieces of cinema produced this decade. Absolutely astonishing.

Even so, I'm not sure I want Tarantino on Bond. He's much too interesting for a franchise like the EON-run Bond series. Tarantino should be doing bigger and better things.

All of that is very true, Harms, but, still, it's impossible to come out of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and not feel a slight pang of regret over the fact that Tarantino didn't get to make his CASINO ROYALE. That Tarantino was by all accounts totally serious and passionate about CASINO ROYALE would have made it acceptable for him to lend his talents to it - the way he seems to see it, it was his baby, not Eon's.

I rather wish that Tarantino had been able to make his own version of CASINO ROYALE, starring Pierce Brosnan and a sequel to ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, outside the Eon franchise a la NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

[Judo chop]

I wouldn't at all mind seeing a Christopher Nolan type tackle a Bond film. But I don't consider that kind of director among the real great cinematic artists. It's my stance that Bond doesn't need remarkable, thoughtful artistes anyway. What Bond needs are elegant entertainers.

Fair enough. Bond doesn't need a Michelangelo. But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond? Or only bad for the film that didn’t get made as a result of the time spent on Bond?

Incidentally, Nolan, I’m coming to believe, is becoming an obscenely overrated director who has a knack for good, solid, action fare and as such, probably would meet your criteria… as long as he didn’t try to do to much, which is exactly when the foible at the core of his overratedness rears its ugly head.

[Harmsway]

I loved INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and think it not only Tarantino's best, but one of the most magnificent pieces of cinema produced this decade. Absolutely astonishing.

Even so, I'm not sure I want Tarantino on Bond. He's much too interesting for a franchise like the EON-run Bond series. Tarantino should be doing bigger and better things.

All of that is very true, Harms, but, still, it's impossible to come out of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and not feel a slight pang of regret over the fact that Tarantino didn't get to make his CASINO ROYALE.

Well, then I guess I embody the impossible, because the thought of Tarantino's CASINO ROYALE doesn't appeal to me at all, even after seeing a film as lovely as INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. To be honest, the idea of Tarantino's CASINO ROYALE actually makes me cringe a little bit.

But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond? Or only bad for the film that didn’t get made as a result of the time spent on Bond?

Both.

[Loomis]

Bond doesn't need a Michelangelo. But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond?

While I know you're asking Harsmway, I'll answer that, yes, it would be bad for Bond. Simply because it'd change the whole nature of the series forever. Let's say you had Tarantino direct a Bond film and it turned out to be a staggeringly brilliant piece of work (as it almost certainly would) - where would Eon go from there? The next film would be about getting a "star" director to match Tarantino - they wouldn't be able to go back to Business As Usual™.

I cream myself over Tarantino and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, but even the immense reward of a Tarantino Bond outing wouldn't be a price worth paying for the destruction of the Eon series. Which is why I say that I wish he'd been able to do his own rival CASINO ROYALE outside the Eon series, not that I wish Babs and Mikey had employed him.

Well, then I guess I embody the impossible, because the thought of Tarantino's CASINO ROYALE doesn't appeal to me at all, even after seeing a film as lovely as INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. To be honest, the idea of Tarantino's CASINO ROYALE actually makes me cringe a little bit.

Why? If (as seems to have been the case) Tarantino had passion and plans for it, why would it necessarily have been an awful thing? We're not talking about him doing a SAW movie or taking the reins on HOSTEL PART III or suchlike.

[Judo chop]

Bond doesn't need a Michelangelo. But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond?

While I know you're asking Harsmway, I'll answer that, yes, it would be bad for Bond. Simply because it'd change the whole nature of the series forever. Let's say you had Tarantino direct a Bond film and it turned out to be a staggeringly brilliant piece of work (as it almost certainly would) - where would Eon go from there? The next film would be about getting a "star" director to match Tarantino - they wouldn't be able to go back to Business As Usual™.

I think we (I) need to take a step back and clarify that we’re talking about Tarantino, here. I don’t think a Tarantino Bond film would necessarily be staggeringly brilliant at all. I think QOS could have been what we’re talking about it shouldn’t have been.
I’m asking anyone with an opinion here. But knowing what you two (Loomis & Harms™, Opinions Inc.) think of QOS, where do you think Forster’s potential rests? At his best, do you suppose he qualifies as a great director? And if so, could he have produced a ‘brilliant’ Bond film that would have been ‘too good’ thereby threatening the series from this point onward?

[Harmsway]

But knowing what you two (Loomis & Harms™, Opinions Inc.) think of QOS, where do you think Forster’s potential rests? At his best, do you suppose he qualifies as a great director?

No. Forster is undoubtedly a talented guy who has produced some well-made films, but he's no heavyweight. Forster's artistic ambition extends beyond the reach of his talent as a filmmaker.

[Loomis]

I don’t think a Tarantino Bond film would necessarily be staggeringly brilliant at all.

Heresy!

But knowing what you two (Loomis & Harms™, Opinions Inc.) think of QOS, where do you think Forster’s potential rests? At his best, do you suppose he qualifies as a great director?

Hardly. I think he's barely even a so-so director. It's only 'coz he's bald and European and comes across as quite an artsy-fartsy guy (no lager and chundering and punchups outside the football ground for our Marc, more like evenings spent listening to opera and going to art galleries) that people think he's A™ Talented™™ Director®.

And if so, could he have produced a ‘brilliant’ Bond film that would have been ‘too good’ thereby threatening the series from this point onward?

Only through sheer fluke.

[Judo chop]

No. Forster is undoubtedly a talented guy who has produced some well-made films, but he's no heavyweight. Forster's artistic ambition extends beyond the reach of his talent as a filmmaker.

So another at the level of Forster is not out of the question for Bond.

But Tarantino is?

I feel like the conversation has slipped a little out of my intent. I think 'good' and 'really good' directors would be most welcomed for Bond. I think Forster and Tarantino fall somewhere in that range. (Though I would probably say 'no' to a Taratino for reasons of style rather than raw ability.)

For argument's sake, Spielberg? A heavyweight when he wants to be, but he can also produce a grand adventure with perfect tonal balance, as evidenced by RAIDERS. Automatically discounted?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't discount anybody just for their esteem. It comes down to personal styles and which are most appropriate for Bond.

[Trident]

I don’t think a Tarantino Bond film would necessarily be staggeringly brilliant at all.

Heresy!

I'm starting to indeed wish for a Tarantino CR. Only so that either Loomis or I can say 'Told you so!' afterwards.

But knowing what you two (Loomis & Harms™, Opinions Inc.) think of QOS, where do you think Forster’s potential rests? At his best, do you suppose he qualifies as a great director?

Hardly. I think he's barely even a so-so director. It's only 'coz he's bald and European and comes across as quite an artsy-fartsy guy (no lager and chundering and punchups outside the football ground for our Marc, more like evenings spent listening to opera and going to art galleries) that people think he's A™ Talented™™ Director®.

It's perhaps worth to remember that Forster just turns forty this year. His filmography only started in '95. In terms of his artistic abilities he only just has spread his wings. While I wouldn't regard him a as the-definite-genius-of-contemporary-directors, I still can't help myself to feel it may be a little too early to judge Forster's impact on the art of making films. For all we know he may have forty or even fifty years of directing films ahead of him.

[Harmsway]

So another at the level of Forster is not out of the question for Bond.

Of course not. On paper, Forster was a perfectly appropriate choice for Bond, regardless of what I personally think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

But Tarantino is?

Yes. Admittedly, I'm also going off of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, which has given me a somewhat higher opinion of the man than I previously held. But I think Tarantino is a genius.

For argument's sake, Spielberg? A heavyweight when he wants to be, but he can also produce a grand adventure with perfect tonal balance, as evidenced by RAIDERS. Automatically discounted?

By no means. He's exactly the kind of the filmmaker who Bond should be going for. Spielberg, at his core, is an "elegant entertainer," even if he has gotten a bit more "serious" and "worthy" in the past few years. Obviously, Spielberg is a bit too big to be bothered with Bond now (and after CRYSTAL SKULL, is anybody really waiting with baited breath to see what he'd do to Bond?). But I think he would have been fine had Cubby brought him on board in the 70s, like Spielberg wanted.

But I don't think Spielberg is really an artiste, as we've been talking, which is what makes things a bit different. I've been claiming that artiste-types are wrong for Bond. Spielberg--as good as he can be--is not a Kurosawa, a Fellini, a Godard, a Herzog, a Tarantino, or even a Paul Thomas Anderson.

[Judo chop]

I've been claiming that artiste-types are wrong for Bond. Spielberg--as good as he can be--is not a Kurosawa, a Fellini, a Godard, a Herzog, or a Tarantino, or even a Paul Thomas Anderson.

Ok. Admittedly, I am sorely understudied in the works under those names, but I know a little here and there and I think at last I understand and we can agree. Those names are not right for Bond.

I thought we were categorically discluding folks like Spielsy and Aronoff and Ridley, etc...

I wouldn't want Bond to get soooo artsy. But I dearly hope to see him (continue to) be GOOD.

[Tybre]

You know it's a bit of a shame LOTR happened when it did. I recall reading somewhere Peter Jackson was considered for TWINE. Alas I severely doubt such would ever happen now.

[Trident]

Bond doesn't need a Michelangelo. But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond?

While I know you're asking Harsmway, I'll answer that, yes, it would be bad for Bond.

But this is not the point at all, is it? It's not about 'artsy' or 'workmanlike' or 'cheap popcorn fodder on a rainy weekend'.

The director's job is to transfer the storyline to the screen as best he/she can. The storyline is the crucial element here. The typical Bond story didn't call for an artsy approach and so YOLT or TMWTGG directed by Kurosawa would most likely not have fitted into the niche that the Bonds conquered for themselves.

But with a storyline that not only allows a more 'artistic' approach but perhaps even calls for it? Who's to say what a 'genius' director (lovely label!) would have achieved with that?

[Odd Jobbies]

I agree that QT making Bond could be depriving us of something original the man would've made had he not been engaged on Bond.

For example: Spielberg asked Cubby if he could do a Bond movie in 70s (after the huge success of Jaws). Cubby said no and so Speilberg, with the encouragement of Lucas, made Indiana Jones instead (Spielberg's said often enough that Indy is his version of Bond).

Who knows what [IMO] genius QT will give us in his frustration at not doing Bond. I doubt he's have gotten round to finally doing his 10 years in gestation Inglorious Barsterds. And i recently read somewhere that he's been scouting London locations for a spy franchise to rival Bond. That's a whole lot of good news.

[Aston V8]

Martin Campbell has knocked Bond out of the park twice, and is the only director in the past several decades to show that he truly has a handle on the franchise. His work stood out in the Brosnan films, and Casino Royale was light years ahead of Quantum. He's the obvious choice if he's up to it.

[Zorin Industries]

Obviously, Spielberg is a bit too big to be bothered with Bond now (and after CRYSTAL SKULL, is anybody really waiting with baited breath to see what he'd do to Bond?). But I think he would have been fine had Cubby brought him on board in the 70s, like Spielberg wanted.

But I don't think Spielberg is really an artiste, as we've been talking, which is what makes things a bit different. I've been claiming that artiste-types are wrong for Bond. Spielberg--as good as he can be--is not a Kurosawa, a Fellini, a Godard, a Herzog, a Tarantino, or even a Paul Thomas Anderson.

Spielberg mentioned wanting to direct a Bond in the late 1970's. Cubby Broccoli was not even thinking along those lines. It is not quite the same as being brought on board.

And to do what Spielberg does (and not just the blockbusters - a term invented for JAWS, I believe) requires great artistry. Be careful when suggesting those directors are in a different league to Spielberg when all their work straddles the same creative, artistic sensibilities Stevie-boy has done since DUEL. Those other names are not strictly the "upper end of the spectrum" some people mean when throwing their names into the discussion.