87 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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

I by no means want Gilroy, but I don't want Campbell or Forster, either. I want a new director in charge of every installment, just to give each film a different tone and perspective.

I'm still pulling for Alfonso Cuarón. He'd have just the right blend of mainstream and artistic sensibilities to give BOND 23 a real edge. But there are a number of other directors who could handle the responsibility pretty well.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Fly the Cuaron flag!!!
I mean as far as a spy stories go Gilroy is pretty damn good at them, and i truly don't mind him taking the reigns. Have seen neither Michael Clayton and Duplicity (two of the worst title in film histroy). He could be good, but does it look as though the prods are now going for American directors with Oscar potential?
I say go for Gus van Sant, or Eastwood. There are alot better choices out there then Bourne's writter.

[tim partridge]

Is nobody interested in Joe Wright anymore?

[Harmsway]

Is nobody interested in Joe Wright anymore?

Oh, I still am. I think he'd be a fine choice.

[qofsqofs]

Watchmen was a great movie, I really don't get the backlash. I would love to see Matthew Vaughn get a shot at directing Bond 23. I think he has the perfect style for it. Layer Cake was done so well and an awesome movie. He also gets along really well with Craig. So win win.

[Loomis]

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

Same here. This Gilroy geezer wants kicking into the long grass, if you ask me. The green grass.

Joe Wright? What's the point? Plenty of better directors out there. This Cuarón fellow can also go to hell.

If we're gonna have a new director, I want one with a bit of an edge, a point of view. Someone like Michael Winterbottom might be interesting. Or Mira Nair. Or Eon could really go out on a limb and offer it to one of the several fascinating directors currently operating out of the Far East (OLDBOY's Park Chan-wook, for instance, or Japan's Hirokazu Koreeda). At any rate, why pick someone bland like Joe Wright?

[MR. BOND 93]

I would have no problem with Gilroy.

[Vauxhall]

At any rate, why pick someone bland like Joe Wright?

I don't think Joe Wright is particularly bland. For all its faults, he still made ATONEMENT an intriguing enough spectacle; the beach tracking shot being a case in point.

[Arbogast777]

One interesting thing that would come of this is to have one person write and direct, something I'd love to see Paul haggis do for a Bond.

[Bryce (003)]

Let the games begin...yet again.

While no great/must see, I enjoyed Clayton (having known a few "fixers", it worked for me) and have been urged to see Duplicity (still haven't) Gilroy seems to have competent chops for lensing, but at this point in time, nothing for certain. Just ideas and MGW and BB are clearly looking about. Eon's never been the ones to go for the flavor of the month.

Toss this on the pile of rumors but don't file it with "Beyond the Ice".

[dinovelvet]

One interesting thing that would come of this is to have one person write and direct, something I'd love to see Paul haggis do for a Bond.

He was offered the directing job for QOS, but passed on it.

[Royal Dalton]

Is nobody interested in Joe Wright anymore?

Well, Rosamund Pike isn't.

[dinovelvet]

Is nobody interested in Joe Wright anymore?

Well, Rosamund Pike isn't.

LOL, I was going to post something similar, but I thought nobody would get it.

[Harmsway]

This Cuarón fellow can also go to hell.

I'd hope not. He's quite a fine director, to say the least, and is perhaps the ideal for Bond, given his mainstream blockbuster experience as well as his "visionary" sensibilities.

If we're gonna have a new director, I want one with a bit of an edge, a point of view.

Well, Michael Winterbottom or Park Chan-Wook's just not gonna happen. orster raised the bar a bit in what we should be looking for in a Bond director, but he was remarkably commercial, overall (and rightly so, from EON's viewpoint). Hardly someone with a "bit of an edge."

You're probably a bit more on-target when you throw out the name Mira Nair, but I fail to see what really puts her beyond a Cuarón/Wright and gives her an edge (beyond her being a woman, that is, which would make her an unusual choice for Bond). She's not any more talented than Cuarón, and she doesn't exactly leave Joe Wright or Forster - who are about on the same level, if you ask me - in the dust, either.

At any rate, why pick someone bland like Joe Wright?

I don't think Joe Wright is particularly bland. For all its faults, he still made ATONEMENT an intriguing enough spectacle; the beach tracking shot being a case in point.

Indeed. And PRIDE & PREJUDICE is also a thoroughly watchable flick thanks to his efforts as a director. I like him. He's no Stanley Kubrick, but he's more than enough for what the Bond franchise requires, with quite a beautiful and elegant directorial sensibility. And the man has a flair for some sensational shots.

[Bryce (003)]

Is nobody interested in Joe Wright anymore?

Well, Rosamund Pike isn't.

Oooooo....SNAP!

[tim partridge]

Joe Wright might be about the closest we have now to what Gilbert was back in 1966. I mean in terms of an acclaimed, award winning British/commonwealth director. Forster was close though (and being part Swiss like Bond hekps him around the commonwealth criteria, IMO).

Thing is, some (most?) of the best entries in the franchise were directed by journeyman Bond helmers whose directorial work outside of 007 leaves a lot to be desired (and never won awards). Hello Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Martin Campbell and John Glen. That logic in mind, I'd be more than happy having Bond passed over to Iain Softley or Stuart Baird.

A lot of you guys seem to be really hung up on Bond getting a "big name talent" director, like Cuaron, but all of the most consistently popular Bond directors so far (and I am talking 23 films in, people) have been the type of journeymen you are now nasal flaring down upon. Oh, and that doesn't mean "any old hack", either. In my opinion there's a big difference between a Terence Young and a Roger Spotiswoode.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Joe Wright.....nah. He is too much into the drama, Bond needs to be handed to someeone who can handle the action well. I think Forster type directors haven't fared so well in the franchise, as it has been said guys like Campbell, with less then amazing back catalogue tend to delivier best. I mean for that reason it seems that a name like Iain Softley seems to be a perfect fit.

But Gilroy is the man in question. Interesting that he is the man credited for carving Bourne, when he wants (or it seems) to want little to do with the films. He isn't a fan of Greengrass' style and if Duplicity is anything to go by he likes zingy dialogue films, whihc Bond is reown for, while he understands and writts the spy world very well.
He seems a perfect fit, by hiring him the Bourne comparisons will be inevitable but i have a feeling the films couldn't be further apart, after all he hasn't even seen Bourne 3

[tdalton]

Add me to the list of those who would rather see Campbell or Forster return rather than Gilroy taking the reigns of a Bond film.

My choices for director would be Brian Helgeland. Helgeland has a great film on his resume in Payback Straight Up: The Director's Cut (not to be confused with the other Mel Gibson Payback film, which is a completely different film, despite featuring Mel Gibson in the same lead role and featuring the same overall storyline. Other than that, they couldn't be any more different form each other). Helgeland's Payback Straight Up would be an excellent template for a Craig Bond film in terms of its overall tone and style. It's a very dark film, to be sure, but I could see a marriage between this particular style and the wittier style of the Bond films to be a good fit.

[Joe Bond]

I don't think Gilroy would be that bad and I understand why some people dislike Michael Clayton since its a back-loaded film where the best scene is the last sequence but Duplicity was more of an even film, had a very Bondian look to it, had witty dialog, and was well crafted so I would not mind it if he did get the job although I would prefer Alfonso Cuaron or Joe Wright.

[Harmsway]

Joe Wright might be about the closest we have now to what Gilbert was back in 1966.

Sure. Though I suspect that what Wright would do with Bond would be very different from what Gilbert did. I suspect Wright's approach would be stylish, but ultimately restrained and elegant. From him, I don't think we'd see the indulgence that characterized Gilbert (or Forster, for that matter).

Thing is, some (most?) of the best entries in the franchise were directed by journeyman Bond helmers whose directorial work outside of 007 leaves a lot to be desired (and never won awards).

Most of the best entries were directed by journeymen. But I suspect that's more or less because the franchise hasn't really tried many other types than the journeyman director very frequently. There's Lewis Gilbert and Marc Forster, but none of the other Bond directors can be really taken seriously as "imaginative talents."

And as much as a few of the journeymen really struck gold, it backfired with John Glen, who was responsible for so much of the blandness and stagnation of the franchise during the 1980s.

A lot of you guys seem to be really hung up on Bond getting a "big name talent" director, like Cuaron, but all of the most consistently popular Bond directors so far (and I am talking 23 films in, people) have been the type of journeymen you are now nasal flaring down upon.

It's not so much "big name talent" I want. I just want an imaginative director, something that the so-called journeymen, by definition, aren't. I don't really care whether the director's a name or not, or was nominated for such-and-such award, I just want the director to have shown his or herself capable of some real creativity.

In my opinion there's a big difference between a Terence Young and a Roger Spotiswoode.

There undeniably is. Young is an infinitely more elegant director than Spottiswoode.

But Stuart Baird is hardly in the Terence Young mold. He's significantly closer to Spottiswoode than he is to Young or Hunt. He's had two films to his name, and NEMESIS was extraordinarily awful and demonstrated that the man is extraordinarily inept, lacking any real sense of how to handle a camera.

[tim partridge]

I disagree with you on Baird, and I think Nemesis is hardly a fair place to start on judging his talents. I'd also say Nemesis is as least as good as Young's bland, generic hack pieces ZARAK or NO TIME TO DO, probably his best films made before 007.

As far as the non-journeyman 007 directors go, I think there have only really been three: Gilbert, Forster and Hamilton. Hamilton actually had his greatest successes outside of Bond, having BAFTA and BERLIN film noms prior to Bond (the former as a writer). As I have said elsewhere on this forum, the other non-Bond films on Hamilton's resume are generally much much better and more consistent than his 007 output. Hamilton's version of AN INSPECTOR CALLS with Alistair Simm is beyond what any of the journeyman Bond directors could do in and outside of 007.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Hope it's not true. Regardless, the problem with MGW and BB is that they seem to have no long term plans for the series and every film seems to be going the opposite way the previous one did. Had they planned ahead after GE (a really good espionage film) instead of going 180o, they wouldn't have needed to reboot after DAD's excesses. QoS was nothing of what they promised Bond would be after CR and if this one proves to be true, they're into predictably safe American actioner territory. That they've considered such a stylistically wrong director as Danny Boyle (whom I deeply admired but wouldn't allowed within miles of a Bond set) makes me think they've lost the course. I wish Cubby was still with us. He would've stopped them from going too far.

[tdalton]

Hope it's not true. Regardless, the problem with MGW and BB is that they seem to have no long term plans for the series and every film seems to be going the opposite way the previous one did. Had they planned ahead after GE (a really good espionage film) instead of going 180o, they wouldn't have needed to reboot after DAD's excesses. QoS was nothing of what they promised Bond would be after CR and if this one proves to be true, they're into predictably safe American actioner territory. That they've considered such a stylistically wrong director as Danny Boyle (whom I deeply admired but wouldn't allowed within miles of a Bond set) makes me think they've lost the course. I wish Cubby was still with us. He would've stopped them from going too far.

While I very much like the current direction that they've taken with CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I do agree with you that there always appears to be a lack of a plan with EON. Given the mixed reviews that QUANTUM OF SOLACE received, even if there actually was a plan in place (which I doubt that there was) for BOND 23, it wouldn't have surprised me to see them do a complete 180 and head back into safer territory with a more generic action film. That's the one thing that I think I'll have to get used to with this new Bond franchise, which is that, even though there's an actor of Daniel Craig's quality involved in the franchise, and even though the new approach was met very enthusiastically, that a change over to the generic action film is not only inevitable, but it will probably arrive much sooner than it should, perhaps even as early as BOND 23.

[Harmsway]

I disagree with you on Baird, and I think Nemesis is hardly a fair place to start on judging his talents.

Well, fair enough. But NEMESIS was bad enough to scare me away from ever considering him. It seems to me that Baird could just as easily be the next Lee Tamahori as he could the next Terence Young.

As far as the non-journeyman 007 directors go, I think there have only really been three: Gilbert, Forster and Hamilton.

Maybe so. But even then, you have to differentiate between the three of them, or at least parse out what kind of non-journeyman director they are. Honestly, I really think Gilbert and Hamilton are essentially somewhere in-between journeymen and truly imaginative talents.

I'd like to see Bond move beyond that "tweener" category and really get some truly imaginative talents to helm the next few films. We came closest, I feel, with Marc Forster, who I think is a step above all prior Bond directors in terms of general creativity and talent, even though his efforts on QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a bit of a mixed bag. I'd like to see more from this strata of directors (which is where I feel someone like Wright or Cuarón falls; though I'm more intrigued by the promise displayed by Wright and Cuarón than I am by the work of Marc Forster).

[jaguar007]

I wish Cubby was still with us. He would've stopped them from going too far.

Cubby also allowed the series to veer too far off track on occation.

[HH007]

Add me to the list of those who would rather see Campbell or Forster return rather than Gilroy taking the reigns of a Bond film.

My choices for director would be Brian Helgeland. Helgeland has a great film on his resume in Payback Straight Up: The Director's Cut (not to be confused with the other Mel Gibson Payback film, which is a completely different film, despite featuring Mel Gibson in the same lead role and featuring the same overall storyline. Other than that, they couldn't be any more different form each other). Helgeland's Payback Straight Up would be an excellent template for a Craig Bond film in terms of its overall tone and style. It's a very dark film, to be sure, but I could see a marriage between this particular style and the wittier style of the Bond films to be a good fit.

I wouldn't mind Helgeland coming on board as a writer, because I liked his work on L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and MYSTIC RIVER, but as a director... I don't know. I wasn't too impressed with either version of PAYBACK. And his other directorial efforts (A KNIGHT'S TALE, THE ORDER) were just crap.

[dinovelvet]

I wish Cubby was still with us. He would've stopped them from going too far.

The producer of Moonraker has a concept of "too far"...?

[BoogieBond]

Tony Gilroy is no great surprise, and would be the fit that EON are looking for, Director with good reputation, but still young in directing terms, so not going to have the clout or reputation that a Speilberg or Nolan would have(as well as the wage demands) I thought Michael Clayton was pretty good, didn't set the world alight with me, and a little slow in places, but it was a good quality film. Duplicity, based on the critical reviews seems to be the same, although I have yet to watch it.

I would think it is also quite likely they are considering Gilroy as a possible writer for Bond 23, which would be a shame, as Paul Haggis has done pretty well, and I would like to see him continue for Bond 23, and even direct the thing.

Other suggestions for director, most I would be happy with, I just would prefer we went with a director with a good reputation and a decent CV behind them, I just feel with Forster they were going in the right direction(With DAD I felt in terms of story and direction they were going backwards fast) but the counterargument is strong as Terence Young and Peter Hunt were not in this category, but the preference remains for me for a decent reputable director.

[Zorin Industries]

I wish Cubby was still with us. He would've stopped them from going too far.

Cubby also allowed the series to veer too far off track on occation.

And never to the detriment of the series overall - i.e. we still have one. Trends and Bond films may appear ludicrous or too much right now, but the films have continued. Be grateful for that. And they wouldn't have continued had ultra serious spy thrillers been the main recipe for nearly 50 years.

[Loomis]

If we're gonna have a new director, I want one with a bit of an edge, a point of view.

Well, Michael Winterbottom or Park Chan-Wook's just not gonna happen.

Park's certainly not gonna happen, but I wouldn't be so sure about Winterbottom, who in many ways fits the Eon director's profile to a T (British, very versatile, has worked in various genres, some critical acclaim but not a household name or super-expensive [he's not Ridley Scott], proven interest in "current affairs" and "worthy" topics, good visual eye, excellent track record in "drama", and some experience with Hollywood stars [directing Angelina Jolie]). Actually, I can see Winterbottom being on the shortlist for both BOND 23 and BOURNE 4 (largely off the back of A MIGHTY HEART). I see him as an artier and more "indie" Apted, really, and an ideal compromise between a Forster type and A Safe Pair of Hands™.

Nick Broomfield is a somewhat similar British director I can also picture being considered by Eon, especially after 2007's BATTLE FOR HADITHA. Both men could serve as the Greengrass of the Bond series.

You're probably a bit more on-target when you throw out the name Mira Nair, but I fail to see what really puts her beyond a Cuarón/Wright and gives her an edge (beyond her being a woman, that is, which would make her an unusual choice for Bond).

Yes, I'm probably more on-target with Nair, but, honestly, her gender is irrelevant. Look past it (as I'm sure Eon would, not that I'm suggesting for a second that the idea of a female director would be any sort of problem) and you'll find that her CV fits the Eon profile like a glove. Acclaimed work across various genres, not a household name, some Hollywood experience. Look on the IMDb and you'll see that she has a very Aptedian/Forsterian resume.