33 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

Then again, Marc Forster had absolutely NOTHING on his resume which might have suggested he'd be a good fit for Bond.

Bit for a warning sign, eh? Same goes for Michael Apted. Bond directors shouldn't second rate pseudo-art house directors, or directors of sentimental drama or tripe. If you let those flood gates open you end up have a film directed by a directed who's heart isn't really in the film or the world of Bond.

Didn't Forster say he hadn't watched any Bond films and the producers gave him a few to get a feel of the films? Didn't he also say that working under the Bond Producers was liking working under a ******* totalitarian regime- Oh dear, what a sensitive soul!

If the director has produced any suitable or Bondian-like work, and is more interested in 'projecting' his vision onto Bond than anything else, and hasn't seen any Bond films before, then forget about it.

[HH007]

If his Script for the never done Batman year one is anything to go by NO NO NO NO NO NO for the love of god NO!

Not that I'm for or against Aronofsky as director. But how does the quality of a script he's written have anything to do with his suitability as a director?

And for the record, Frank Miller wrote that script, not Aronofsky.

I think, speaking as someone's who's seen all of Aronofsky's films, that because of the fact that "The Wrestler" was stylistically so different from his previous movies, it shows that he is a versatile filmmaker, and that he could direct a Bond film, if he ever so desired.

He won't even be available for Bond 23, since he has two projects already lined up (some Natalie Portman movie and the "Robocop" remake).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I’d prefer to see a variety of approaches at the films.

What about some continuity with the directors like it happened with the first sixteen EON Bond movies, when we only had five directors (and all of them being british).

[Judo chop]

What about some continuity with the directors like it happened with the first sixteen EON Bond movies, when we only had five directors (and all of them being british).

There’s nothing to say that approach wouldn’t work well. Or that it would.

They kept the same director with John Glen for 5 films, and I’m not particularly excited about the results of that decision. They changed directors left and right in the Pierce Brosnan era and I’m not particularly excited about the results of that decision.

I’m just stating my preference. Of course what I prefer, first and foremost, are GOOD Bond films. Given that, if I am allowed to choose between a stretch of good Bond films made under the same style of direction or a stretch made under a variety of styles of direction, I’d choose the latter.

Why?

Just because.