87 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

Now on the CBn main page...

Rumour Control: Tony Gilroy Under Consideration For 'Bond 23'?

Cinema Blend says 'Michael Clayton' director is a possibility

http://www.cinemable...lroy-12662.html

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Bourne wannabes? Pah! But still, Gilroy as director sounds OK.

[dinovelvet]

Well he's American, so that right there probably means no.

Though only earlier today, I did say that EON would be considering Oscar-level directors, and he certainly fits that bill. And judging from his work on The Bond Ultimatum and Duplicity, he appears to have really, really liked Casino Royale.

[Vauxhall]

And judging from his work on The Bond Ultimatum and Duplicity, he appears to have really, really liked Casino Royale.

Yep, I was about to say the same thing. By all accounts, he has already remade CASINO ROYALE, but simply called it DUPLICITY.

Gilroy would certainly not excite me in the same way as Forster did. It seems a "safe" choice rather than a remarkably good one.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Cool I wouldn't mind it. I'm sick of the bourne/Bond comparisons but Gilroy is a good director.

[Pierce - Daniel]

He'd be cool int he job by all means, but lets leave all the Bourne comparsions at the door opposed to welcome them in.
Get rid of Gilroy and Bradley and hire a new director and a new 2nd unit guy.
I still think Alfonso Cuaron is the best possible choice out there.

[Loomis]

I don't believe this ludicrous rumour for a second. Gilroy would be an extremely unimaginative choice on Eon's part, and why would he be interested in Bond when he can develop his own projects? Besides, he's probably sick of espionage.

Next!

[Pierce - Daniel]

The last rumour of a director from a film site like Cinema Bledn was Collider who said Forster was the the prods top choice for B22. Don't rule it out.

[Vauxhall]

By the article's own admission, they are merely claiming that Tony Gilroy is on the producers' list for BOND 23 - which is probably true. Expect a tabloid newspaper to pick up this rumour and extrapolate it somehow though.

Similar to how Danny Boyle was probably on some sort of list at EON, even if it was actually titled "Directors who we would like to direct a Bond movie but would never do it in a million years".

[plankattack]

Great idea! Gilroy's writing track record is good and his direction shows great potential. Michael Clayton was a terrific debut, well written, well constructed, and wonderfully acted and the director should get a lot of credit for that.

Considering the constant stories of script issues that seem to follow the franchise around (QoS, TWINE, TND) Gilroy's presence would be a great asset for a lead actor/creative team looking to provide more depth to the character and the stories in which he's placed. They asked Haggis, so why not Gilroy. The fact that he's an American is a non-factor and nothing more than some fanboy rule that seems to exist. These guys are professionals and savvy enough to know what makes the character tick. We've had two directors from the Southern Hemisphere - one made a solid film and a classic, and the other made one that gagged. So what does that mean - if you have Christmas in the summer it's even money whether or not you "get" Bond? Please.

[tdalton]

Hopefully this rumor turns out to be untrue. MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie, and DUPLICITY doesn't look to be much better either. There are plenty of other directors out there who would not only be more exciting choices, but would also make better choices for the director's chair as well.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I wouldn't mind it. the more important thing is that perhaps bond 23 is moving along to a 2010 date. and before people say "well it has to be 2011 cause we don't have a release date" WRONG Sex and the city 2 (not a film i will ever see) anounced a may 2010 release date recently while it's not as high profile as 007 it's not some back water independent film either so i have faith the 2 year cycle can continue.


Back on topic Gilroy is fine though if what half of the board says is true i'd prefer him in the writers chair then directors chair.

Altough I would like the bourne bond comparisons to stop. I wonder if say David Goyer (an underated writer and director in my opinon) was to write/direct bond 23 would we suffer though Batman bond comparisons probably not.

[Loomis]

MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie

Agreed.

[Vauxhall]

I wouldn't mind it. the more important thing is that perhaps bond 23 is moving along to a 2010 date. and before people say "well it has to be 2011 cause we don't have a release date" WRONG Sex and the city 2 (not a film i will ever see) anounced a may 2010 release date recently while it's not as high profile as 007 it's not some back water independent film either so i have faith the 2 year cycle can continue.

Yes, but SEX AND THE CITY 2 will require significantly less time for both filming and post-production than a Bond movie.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I wouldn't mind it. the more important thing is that perhaps bond 23 is moving along to a 2010 date. and before people say "well it has to be 2011 cause we don't have a release date" WRONG Sex and the city 2 (not a film i will ever see) anounced a may 2010 release date recently while it's not as high profile as 007 it's not some back water independent film either so i have faith the 2 year cycle can continue.

Yes, but SEX AND THE CITY 2 will require significantly less time for both filming and post-production than a Bond movie.

very true however they could (assuming they have a plot/script now) have a november/december 2010 release

[Germanlady]

MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie

Agreed.

It was a terribly boring film to me and I wouldn´t want that director near Bond.

[tdalton]

MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie

Agreed.

It was a terribly boring film to me and I wouldn´t want that director near Bond.

Agreed. A Gilroy directed Bond film would be the first Bond film that I would never see, whether it be in the theater or on DVD. There's countless other directors out there who are better fits for the Bond franchise.

[MattofSteel]

I tend to find his writing rather flat, and oftentimes generic. It's like the actors in Bourne underplay everything to begin with, and for some reason with Ultimatum, he thought that meant he was allowed to underwrite it.

Overall I'd call him a good writer for his work on Bourne and Clayton, but not phenomenal, and certainly not some king of espionage (despite the fact he keeps booking gigs). I think I might just hold a bias, because I want CR Haggis back so badly.

[jaguar007]

The guy has only directed 2 things. IMO, not enough experience to direct a Bond film. Remember Cubby turned down Spielberg in the 70s because he did not have enough experience as director (and this was after Jaws if I recall correctly).

[plankattack]

The guy has only directed 2 things. IMO, not enough experience to direct a Bond film. Remember Cubby turned down Spielberg in the 70s because he did not have enough experience as director (and this was after Jaws if I recall correctly).

Very true, though I'm not sure using Spielberg is the best example. We got John Glen while everyone else got Raiders!

[danslittlefinger]

Hopefully this rumor turns out to be untrue. MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie, and DUPLICITY doesn't look to be much better either. There are plenty of other directors out there who would not only be more exciting choices, but would also make better choices for the director's chair as well.

You stated exactly what I was going to post, so I won't post it twice.

[BlackFire]

Bring Martin Campbell again

[danslittlefinger]

Bring Martin Campbell again

Amen.

[Cody]

Fun fact: Gilroy was so upset with how Greengrass handled Bourne Supremacy that he never watched Ultimatum.

The story

For the next “Bourne,” Universal invited back Damon and Gilroy but looked for a new director. The studio offered the writer three million dollars if he wrote a script good enough to be filmed. Gilroy agreed, on the condition that the second “Bourne” not be a repeat of the first. He asked himself what was wrong with “The Bourne Identity,” and decided that Damon’s character had got off too easy; he was a murderer, if a reluctant one, and he had to suffer for his crimes. Gilroy’s new script took Bourne on a voyage to Russia to apologize to a girl whom he had orphaned. Years before, the C.I.A. had sent Bourne on a training mission. His target was a Russian politician, but his wife was in the room when Bourne arrived, and he killed them both. Afterward, he covered up the double murder as a murder-suicide. Bourne’s apology to the girl would have to be deep—a true repentance. This time, Bourne would earn the affection that the audience felt for him. As he was working to get his past back, he would give the girl her past back. “I think that movie could have been ‘The Searchers’ of action films,” Gilroy says.

The studio, with Gilroy’s help, hired a new director, Paul Greengrass, who had made “Bloody Sunday,” about the 1972 British massacre of Irish protestors in Derry. Greengrass’s aesthetic was cinéma vérité, his trademark a constantly moving handheld camera. Greengrass made the “Bourne” sequel a visually innovative picture, one in which dialogue was scant and motivation gave way to momentum. The Times praised the look, the speed, and the sheen of the film, calling a chase sequence “one of the three or four most exciting demolition derbies ever filmed.” There was no mention of Bourne’s atonement. Gilroy is still angry about it. “It was sort of like a crime against the gods of storytelling,” he says.

In 2005, the studio used another large check to persuade Gilroy to write the third “Bourne” movie. One of the conditions of his taking the money was that he would not have to speak with Greengrass. Gilroy wrote a draft of the script, and then left the project. Then Greengrass passed the script on to four other writers, among them Tom Stoppard. Frank Marshall, one of the series’ producers, says that “The Bourne Ultimatum” is, at its core, still Gilroy’s story. Its worldwide gross was four hundred and forty million dollars. Gilroy never saw it.

[Santa]

On the evidence of Michael Clayton I think this is a terrible idea. That was a bloody awful film.

[Loomis]

(Gilroy) asked himself what was wrong with “The Bourne Identity,” and decided that Damon’s character had got off too easy; he was a murderer, if a reluctant one, and he had to suffer for his crimes. Gilroy’s new script took Bourne on a voyage to Russia to apologize to a girl whom he had orphaned. Years before, the C.I.A. had sent Bourne on a training mission. His target was a Russian politician, but his wife was in the room when Bourne arrived, and he killed them both. Afterward, he covered up the double murder as a murder-suicide. Bourne’s apology to the girl would have to be deep—a true repentance. This time, Bourne would earn the affection that the audience felt for him. As he was working to get his past back, he would give the girl her past back. “I think that movie could have been ‘The Searchers’ of action films,” Gilroy says. ... There was no mention of Bourne’s atonement. Gilroy is still angry about it. “It was sort of like a crime against the gods of storytelling,” he says.

Well, of course, in SUPREMACY Bourne does visit the girl, but the scene has always struck me as a bit fudged and unsatisfactory (although it seems to me that most critics have praised it), and I wonder whether there was originally rather more to the scene and to the subplot about the girl.

For a start, where is Bourne's atonement? Sure, he lets the girl know that her mother was not a murderer (which is decent of him), but does he turn himself in? Does he wait with her in the apartment for the authorities to arrive? Does he hell. He just sods off, saving his own skin while leaving the girl confused (he doesn't explain who he is or why he was sent to kill her father), upset and, probably, wanting to see him dead or at the very least in handcuffs.

[HH007]

MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie

Agreed.

It was a terribly boring film to me and I wouldn´t want that director near Bond.

Agreed. A Gilroy directed Bond film would be the first Bond film that I would never see, whether it be in the theater or on DVD. There's countless other directors out there who are better fits for the Bond franchise.

While I didn't think MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible film, I didn't think it was particularly good either, and found it very over-rated. Gilroy doesn't interest me as a writer or a director. I think there are much better choices out there.

[Loomis]

Well, if there's really such bad blood between Gilroy and Greengrass, perhaps Gilroy would do Bond as a way of getting back at Greengrass. I hope he doesn't, though. I don't find him an exciting director at all.

[tim partridge]

Bourne, Bourne, go away.

Forever, infact.

[HildebrandRarity]

MICHAEL CLAYTON was a terrible movie

Agreed.

It was . Not as bad, however, as Watchmen.






Gilroy seems like a choice.

Bring back either Campbell or Forster. I'll take either for Bond 23.