87 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

What separates James Bond from run-of-the-mill Hollywood fare?

Style, elegance, an incorporation of art (mainly in the Main Titles), extreme beauty (both in terms of women and locations) and the like.

I think they should pick someone (if Campbell or Forster are not in the mix for 23*) who would push all those elements to some elevated and heightened reality because we all know that 23 will be less 'serious' than CR/Q0S.



* I wouldn't discount Campbell or Forster not being in the mix for 23.

[YOLT]

Well the important is for me is that it seems they are finished or have a draft about Bond 23 as of now. Is it true, if not hy are they looking for an director now ?

[Zorin Industries]

Well the important is for me is that it seems they are finished or have a draft about Bond 23 as of now. Is it true, if not hy are they looking for an director now ?

Directors are long "cast" before any official press announcements.

[HildebrandRarity]

Directors are only cast after the spine of a screenplay/treatment is in place.

And only after the director is 'cast' are things like Bond Girls cast.

So when any Bond Girl rumours hit the net before a director is chosen, these rumours should be dismissed as bull[censored].

[Zorin Industries]

Directors are only cast after the spine of a screenplay/treatment is in place.

And only after the director is 'cast' are things like Bond Girls cast.

So when any Bond Girl rumours hit the net before a director is chosen, these rumours should be dismissed as bull[censored].

Sorry. But that is not the case - certainly not with Bond and certainly not always with any film or tv production. Yes a director can work with a casting director / team to source potential cast members and writers, but key talent (i.e. the actors) are often in place before a director has signed (for example, Daniel Craig would have been the favourite pre-Martin Campbell getting on board - as would be a future Bond, as a particular actor is a potential favourite, but there will be no thoughts about directors too).

Yes, most (if not all) tabloid rumours about Bond Girls are ludicrous wish fulfilment, but Eon mentally pool - if not cast - actresses all the time regardless of whether a director is attached or not. And note - the press hears nothing about that as Eon are very successful in keeping their cards close to their chest. As they are right now.

[HildebrandRarity]

Who said anything about The Lead/007/Bond being cast after the director was chosen?

I specifically mentioned Bond Girls and James Bond movies.

When was Eva Green cast? [ans: after CR shooting began]

When was Olga K cast*?

I don't think i;m wrong in stating that a director has a big say in casting Bond Girls. It's been that way since Terence Young and Ursella Andres, Daniella Bianchi, Claudine Auger, et al, ending with Forster casting Kurylenko.







*it's a rhetorical question.

[Pierce - Daniel]

if the stories of the prods looking for a director are true, then work on B23 is underway heavily. It may or may not mean a Nov 2010 or summer 2011 release, but if they have a list of guys and Gilroy is the guy there after on top of the list. Then expect to hear soon i guess. Remeber Forster was annouced early June. So maybe 2 months time.

[Fro]

Duplicity certainly proves that Gilroy's a bond fan.

He threw in one twist too many in that one, but I think he'd do a solid job directing a Bond flick. I also liked the James Newton Howard score.

[Vauxhall]

if the stories of the prods looking for a director are true, then work on B23 is underway heavily. It may or may not mean a Nov 2010 or summer 2011 release, but if they have a list of guys and Gilroy is the guy there after on top of the list. Then expect to hear soon i guess. Remeber Forster was annouced early June. So maybe 2 months time.

Not necessarily. For instance, if EON were considering Gilroy, they would presumably also be wanting his input on formulating a script. That may mean the process is only as far along as starting to flesh out story ideas.

[Matt_13]

I can't picture this rumor possibly being true. I'm sure Gilroy is competent enough to direct a Bond film, maybe even a good one, but to me I see someone like him as being the "safe" choice, when a man more along Forster's line in terms of imagination and capability would better suit the franchise's fresh direction. Yes, you can argue that hiring Campbell was a considerably "safe" choice, but what he did with Bond was help bring him into a new age. He essentially got the ball rolling on what this "new direction" would entail.

I know that it has been beaten to death around here, but if EON wants to keep making (profitable) Bond films they need to keep things new and exciting. Pushing the envelope in terms of art direction, direction, cinematography, writing, and casting is what has made the Craig films so exciting. They are, for the most part, slightly more sophisticated than Bond films of the past. The grittiness and energy of DC's 007 (in my opinion, the only actor actually worthy of that title) should not go to waste. In order to keeps things relevant, they need to keep mixing it up a bit, and a man of Gilroy'a stature should be left as a resort.

[Harmsway]

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.

I'm not disputing any of that. She's right in there with Joe Wright and Marc Forster as a very EON-profile director.

But you suggested Nair had more "edge" than Cuarón/Wright. How so?

[Judo chop]

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.

Helgeland might be a decent choice. I did like PAYBACK a lot (though I don’t think I agree that the two versions of PAYBACK differ as much as you make it sound).
On the downside, he’s got a lot of writing credits that I’m not sure are best described as being ‘credits’. And PAYBACK is darker, and more sarcastic, than I’d ever want Bond to get.

I do believe that the general direction of B23 is set. Craig seems pretty sure that the tone is going to lighten up, and I’m pretty sure that Craig has something to say about these things, so I’m looking at any director rumors or suggestions through that lens.

[NVT]

The chances are the next Bond director will be based upon where the script is heading.

[Zorin Industries]

Who said anything about The Lead/007/Bond being cast after the director was chosen?

I specifically mentioned Bond Girls and James Bond movies.

When was Eva Green cast? [ans: after CR shooting began]

When was Olga K cast*?

I don't think i;m wrong in stating that a director has a big say in casting Bond Girls. It's been that way since Terence Young and Ursella Andres, Daniella Bianchi, Claudine Auger, et al, ending with Forster casting Kurylenko.

*it's a rhetorical question.

Olga Kurylenko would have been located by the casting director and her team. It is they who trawl every film, pop video, tv show, catwalk, commercial and modelling agency to try and find the female face of where we are with Bond at the time.

Eva Green would have been cast LONG before the public are told she is cast.

From my professional background, I can firmly say that there are all sorts of ways and avenues a person is cast in any film. The director's say can often be quite low in the pecking order.

Also, Eon Productions (which is unique in the industry) would have cast Eva Green (with Martin Campbell's thoughts and artistic strategies in mind) with their veto as paramount. You don't relaunch your own franchise with its best and bravest male lead yet and pass on all other casting decisions to your director. I would also imagine Sony had a say in both Green and Kurylenko.

All in all, it is not strictly the director's call. Not on a Bond film.

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.

Maybe I'm being a bit blonde here, but why on earth would Mira Nair be remotely suitable to direct a Bond film?

[Loomis]

But you suggested Nair had more "edge" than Cuarón/Wright. How so?

Well, I just find her a much more interesting filmmaker than those guys, whom I really don't find very interesting at all. And I wonder whether people would go on about Cuarón so much were it not for the phenomenally overrated CHILDREN OF MEN.

Zorin, look at Nair's IMDb resume. It'll answer your question. Why do you think she wouldn't be suitable?

[stamper]

They don't need Gillroy. They need Greengrass. Full stop.

[Harmsway]

Well, I just find her a much more interesting filmmaker than those guys, whom I really don't find very interesting at all.

Care to explain why? I ask because I don't find her very interesting at all. What does she have that the other two don't?

And I wonder whether people would go on about Cuarón so much were it not for the phenomenally overrated CHILDREN OF MEN.

Probably not. But overrated though CHILDREN OF MEN is (very little substance there), Cuarón does demonstrate some real promise on that film and it's his direction that makes the flick worth watching. I was also impressed with his direction on HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, which featured some nice touches without ever being distracting (it's by far the most imaginatively directed of the relatively pedestrian Potter series).

Cuarón's imaginative, but not self-indulgent, which might make him a more appealing choice than either Martin Campbell (who's solid, but none too imaginative) or Marc Forster (who's imaginative, but has a self-indulgent streak). Nevermind that his experience - and success - with a big-budget blockbuster makes it clear that he could handle the demands of something as big as Bond. He's almost a perfect candidate.

[Royal Dalton]

They don't need Gillroy. They need Greengrass. Full stop.

No offence, Stamper. But I don't think Bill Maynard would be a very good choice.

Although, I'm willing to be proved wrong...

[Zackman]

I personally loved Children of Men, but I don't know if I'd want Cuarón to direct a Bond film. I haven't seen any of his films other than CoM, but beyond the excellent camera setup for the car ambush scene, the cinematography was all "shakey-cam". I really do not want that for Bond 23.

Edited by Zackman, 09 April 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[MarkA]

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).

It was after Spielberg had directed Sugarland Express actually. After Jaws he didn't need Bond anymore.

Edited by MarkA, 09 April 2009 - 09:35 PM.

[Loomis]

Well, I just find her a much more interesting filmmaker than those guys, whom I really don't find very interesting at all.

Care to explain why? I ask because I don't find her very interesting at all. What does she have that the other two don't?

Hurm.

Well, she seems to me to be more experienced and more versatile than those fly by night fellows you mention, who haven't been in the biz for more than five minutes and haven't - IMO, anyway - come up with anything to rival SALAAM BOMBAY! in quality.

Mind you, I may be overstating the case for Nair. I've no idea whether she's got any time whatsoever for Bond. She'd probably be amazed to learn that there's some guy on the internet loudly championing her as the director of BOND 23! Still, she was offered one of the HARRY POTTERs, so it would seem that people in the industry have felt she might be willing to join a franchise. She turned it down, I think, but then so did Forster.

And I do think her filmography, when you look at it, does seem remarkably Eon-ish. I can definitely picture her as someone Eon might consider. I hate to bring gender into it, because it really doesn't matter, but I do think the day is coming when we'll have the first Bond film ever directed by a woman (if only as a selling point - can't hurt the publicity, after all), and I'm sure that Nair would be at or at least very near the top of a list of possible female directors. Incidentally, she was recently developing SHANTARAM (a project that sadly seems stuck in development hell, although I have hopes that it'll be revived now that SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE has everyone interested in Bombay), an actionpacked epic drama that I can definitely see Forster being interested in. I think these directors are all pretty similar, really, and circle similar projects.

[tim partridge]

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 cannot agree in the slightest, as for me Forster, Gilbert and Hamilton are all peas in a pod. They are all heavily indulgent Bond directors who have got a very sophisticated, cinematic vocabulary. Gilbert's movies outside of Bond are almost like a mirror of the kind of subject Forster would pursue on his own. Educating Rita, Shirley Valentine and Alfie are the kind of box office friendly but intimate, quirky character pieces not unlike Stranger than Fiction, Everything Put Together or Monster's Ball. Infact, if you listed Lewis Gilbert as director on the credits of Stranger than Fiction particularly I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. Marc Forster could EASILY be working with Julie Walters anytime soon!

I don't see anything in Forster or his films that is more exceptional than Hamilton or Gilbert. I also don't see any acclaim for Forster higher than Gilbert's Oscar nomination for Alfie. Infact, if you look on imdb, Forster even has a BATFA and GOLDEN BEAR award nom to his name as his awards calling card, just like Hamilton!

Even though I think Forster has Gilbert's eye for visuals, I think Forster is probably closer to Hamilton, in that he's an indulgent, Hitchcock inspired, apparent control freak who doesn't prioritise story and plot. Aside from the Bourne editing/action I cannot think of one thing in QOS, other than maybe the location titles, that we hadn't seen in Bond long before QOS came along. Certainly not in terms of creativity and talent. It only seemed new because we hadn't had a stylist Bond director since 1979.

Edited by tim partridge, 09 April 2009 - 10:51 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Aside from the Bourne editing/action I cannot think of one thing in QOS, other than maybe the location titles, that we hadn't seen in Bond long before QOS came along. Certainly not in terms of creativity and talent. It only seemed new because we hadn't had a stylist Bond director since 1979.

That sounds about right to me.

[Matt_13]

Even though I think Forster has Gilbert's eye for visuals, I think Forster is probably closer to Hamilton, in that he's an indulgent, Hitchcock inspired, apparent control freak who doesn't prioritise story and plot. Aside from the Bourne editing/action I cannot think of one thing in QOS, other than maybe the location titles, that we hadn't seen in Bond long before QOS came along. Certainly not in terms of creativity and talent. It only seemed new because we hadn't had a stylist Bond director since 1979.

We are 22 films in, you know. There are only so many ways to do an action movie, and what's important to keep in mind is that while many things in Quantum have been done, it does a good job of feeling fresh and that's thanks to Forster.

Feel free to tear me to shreds.

[Zorin Industries]

Well, I just find her a much more interesting filmmaker than those guys, whom I really don't find very interesting at all.

Care to explain why? I ask because I don't find her very interesting at all. What does she have that the other two don't?

Hurm.

Well, she seems to me to be more experienced and more versatile than those fly by night fellows you mention, who haven't been in the biz for more than five minutes and haven't - IMO, anyway - come up with anything to rival SALAAM BOMBAY! in quality.

Mind you, I may be overstating the case for Nair. I've no idea whether she's got any time whatsoever for Bond. She'd probably be amazed to learn that there's some guy on the internet loudly championing her as the director of BOND 23! Still, she was offered one of the HARRY POTTERs, so it would seem that people in the industry have felt she might be willing to join a franchise. She turned it down, I think, but then so did Forster.

And I do think her filmography, when you look at it, does seem remarkably Eon-ish. I can definitely picture her as someone Eon might consider. I hate to bring gender into it, because it really doesn't matter, but I do think the day is coming when we'll have the first Bond film ever directed by a woman (if only as a selling point - can't hurt the publicity, after all), and I'm sure that Nair would be at or at least very near the top of a list of possible female directors. Incidentally, she was recently developing SHANTARAM (a project that sadly seems stuck in development hell, although I have hopes that it'll be revived now that SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE has everyone interested in Bombay), an actionpacked epic drama that I can definitely see Forster being interested in. I think these directors are all pretty similar, really, and circle similar projects.

"If only as a selling point".... You have sort of cancelled the debate in that one sentiment. Bond management would not cast a female director because it would be a "selling point".

Loomis, you asked why I wouldn't warm to Mira Nair from her CV... well the reason I would give is that nothing in her CV is remotely in the action adventure genre camp. More importantly, the studios and paymasters wouldn't consider someone like Nair for a Bond film. She may or may not have been considered for a HARRY POTTER film, but the reality is - for whatever reasons - she didn't helm one.

[Loomis]

"If only as a selling point".... You have sort of cancelled the debate in that one sentiment. Bond management would not cast a female director because it would be a "selling point".

An unfortunate remark on my part. Please ignore it. You're quite right: Eon does not hire directors on the basis of their "selling points". Or party tricks. Or inside leg measurements. Instead, please keep your mind open as to the reasons why Nair or someone like her might be considered to direct a Bond film.

You say that "nothing in her CV is remotely in the action adventure genre camp", but I don't think that's entirely true. Look at SALAAM BOMBAY!, for instance (her KITE RUNNER). Now, it's hardly an action adventure flick, true, but then it does feature gangsterism and violence. And that Nair spent so long developing SHANTARAM (after Peter Weir, I think it was, quit the project) tells me that she's willing to work with scenes of guns n' chases n' punchups if the material also allows her to tell an interesting and worthwhile story with some artistry. Dammit, man, she and Forster are - I think - brother and sister, separated at birth!

More importantly, the studios and paymasters wouldn't consider someone like Nair for a Bond film. Well, here you're touching on something that you yourself recognise is more important than Nair's CV - she's not, perhaps, the most commercial choice for Bond. Yes, she might be a difficult sell to some interested parties (but then so was Craig, as I understand it).

But what if - and it's a big if, I know - Broccoli and Wilson like Nair's work and are intrigued by the idea of working with her? Surely she'd be in with a shot, at least.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop plugging Nair now. It's obviously pure speculation on my part and nothing to do with this Gilroy rumour.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I wouldn't mind Tony Gilroy to be honest.

[AgentBentley]

Maybe Tony Gilroy is too closely 'allied' to the Bourne franchise to be considered for Bond.
Not that I mind anybody as long as they keep it in the Bond/Daniel Craig spirit.