4014 replies to this topic

[genuinefelixleiter]

Lazenby, to his own admission wasn't an experienced actor. Depending on which telling of how he got cast in the roll, he basically sold the producers on his looks and a bogus resume. However, you got to give the guy an "A" for being able to pull that off.

 

Regardless, he's physical presence was great. Some of the best stunt work performed by any of the actors who portrayed bond; kudos to DC.

With a little more coaching and polish he might have wound up being regarded as a very good Bond. OHMSS stands out as one of the best films of its era, holds up much better than DAF. Although, Charles Gray's performance as a dopple ganged, drag queen Blofeld really takes the cake; "a bomb suprise".

 

A year or two prior to his death, Cubby Broccoli said of Lazenby, "George wasn't a bad fella at all".

[When In Egypt]

I don't know who can or should play Bond in a couple of movies time, when Craig leaves the series, but I'll tell you this for nowt ...

 

With a brand new actor the series should do a complete turnaround and give us an absolutely massive Bond movie in the classic style.  I mean, it should well and truly be the biggest and most ambitious production ever undertaken by Eon.  Remember how Cubby gambled everything on The Spy Who Loved Me only for it to pay off spectacularly?  It should be like that.

 

I'm talking flying cars, underwater cities, and my ultimate Bond wishlist moment ... a submarine bursting through the banks of a harbour and tearing down a busy metropolis avenue with Bond standing on top of it!

 

You've got to remember that the Bond movies have always gone back and forth between styles.  After a run of bonkers movies you then get gritty, down to earth movies like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only and Casino Royale.  And after serious flicks you get You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me, etc.  

 

I don't want Mike and Babs to keep giving us the same style over and over again.  Mix it up a bit!

[JCRendle]

I'm talking flying cars, underwater cities, and my ultimate Bond wishlist moment ... a submarine bursting through the banks of a harbour and tearing down a busy metropolis avenue with Bond standing on top of it!

 

Die Another Day got flack for the invisible Aston Martin "Vanish", for being too outlandish, even for a James Bond film - I doubt they would go as far as having flying cars until they become a reality in real life.

[When In Egypt]

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

[HellIsHere]

David Gandy!

[Odd Jobbies]

David Gandy!

Maybe he can model for the 007 aftershave ads!

[tdalton]

 

I'm talking flying cars, underwater cities, and my ultimate Bond wishlist moment ... a submarine bursting through the banks of a harbour and tearing down a busy metropolis avenue with Bond standing on top of it!

 

Die Another Day got flack for the invisible Aston Martin "Vanish", for being too outlandish, even for a James Bond film - I doubt they would go as far as having flying cars until they become a reality in real life.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Flying cars and submarines going down the street would be venturing too far into Michael Bay territory for the Bond franchise.  I'm not really sure that there is any way possible to pull off those things in a Bond film and not have them feel too outlandish.

[AdaShelby]

This guy needs to be the next Bond. He's so charming and such a great actor.

 

[When In Egypt]

 

 

I'm talking flying cars, underwater cities, and my ultimate Bond wishlist moment ... a submarine bursting through the banks of a harbour and tearing down a busy metropolis avenue with Bond standing on top of it!

 

Die Another Day got flack for the invisible Aston Martin "Vanish", for being too outlandish, even for a James Bond film - I doubt they would go as far as having flying cars until they become a reality in real life.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Flying cars and submarines going down the street would be venturing too far into Michael Bay territory for the Bond franchise.  I'm not really sure that there is any way possible to pull off those things in a Bond film and not have them feel too outlandish.

 

 

 

Ah, but it's all about tone!  Atlantis in The Spy Who Loved Me was, if you think about it, completely stupid.  So was the supertanker swallowing submarines.  And the rocket capturing smaller rockets in You Only Live Twice.  And the launch pad in a volcano ... etc., etc., but it's the style and panache applied by the filmmakers that makes it work.  

 

It's funny that in this age of 'you can put anything on screen' filmmaking technology and utterly preposterous movies, the Bond films are at their most conservative, style-wise.  I love the Craig flicks and From Russia With Love and Licence To Killl just as much as I love You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, etc., but I am getting a restless with each successive film having the same realistic tone.  

 

One of the great things about the Bond series, and it's one of the reasons it's lasted so long, is variety. 

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

I'm talking flying cars, underwater cities, and my ultimate Bond wishlist moment ... a submarine bursting through the banks of a harbour and tearing down a busy metropolis avenue with Bond standing on top of it!

 

Die Another Day got flack for the invisible Aston Martin "Vanish", for being too outlandish, even for a James Bond film - I doubt they would go as far as having flying cars until they become a reality in real life.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Flying cars and submarines going down the street would be venturing too far into Michael Bay territory for the Bond franchise.  I'm not really sure that there is any way possible to pull off those things in a Bond film and not have them feel too outlandish.

 

But what if the submarine became a hovercraft as it hit the street. To make the scene perfect a pigeon could do a double take!!!  I should be selling these ideas - i have a gift

[When In Egypt]

Actually, I was thinking it should be a 'special' submarine with jet engines.  

 

What the hell, eh?  Throw the whole damn lot at the screen!  A good time will be had for all, and no mistake.

[tdalton]

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

[Vauxhall]

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

[When In Egypt]

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

 

I meant conservative in the sense that these recent flicks are very stripped down with an almost pathological determination to keep it grim.  The massively reduced usage of the Bond theme is a symptom of that.

 

What I'm describing is most certainly not a Michael Bay film.  There's a certain style and tone to those enormo-70s Bond movies, and it's a style that's as far removed from Michael Bay as you could possibly imagine.  I'm talking about replicating that kind of massive crowd-pleasing style with today's advances in filmmaking technology.  It would not necessarily be a 'CGI crapfest'.

 

Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle.

 

 

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

 

 

First, Quantum Of Solace wasn't rubbish.  And second, what the chuff has that got to do with it!

Edited by When In Egypt, 16 January 2015 - 11:19 PM.

[Skylla]

 

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

 

I meant conservative in the sense that these recent flicks are very stripped down with an almost pathological determination to keep it grim.  The massively reduced usage of the Bond theme is a symptom of that.

 

What I'm describing is most certainly not a Michael Bay film.  There's a certain style and tone to those enormo-70s Bond movies, and it's a style that's as far removed from Michael Bay as you could possibly imagine.  I'm talking about replicating that kind of massive crowd-pleasing style with today's advances in filmmaking technology.  It would not necessarily be a 'CGI crapfest'.

 

Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle.

 

 

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

 

 

First, Quantum Of Solace wasn't rubbish.  And second, what the chuff has that got to do with it!

 

In my opinion: I don´t care if it´s an outlandish or down to earth-Bond, I like all of them. Even DAF, AVTAK or DAD have grat stuff in them. The difference between a Bond-film and the rest of the action-films was always the over the top-handmade stunts. Backpack-fly, little Nelly, Willy Bogners skiing, no parachute or the HALO jump, several car stunts and many things more were always way ahead of the competition. It´s things like DAD´s CGI-stunts when it gets ugly...

[When In Egypt]

 

 

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

 

I meant conservative in the sense that these recent flicks are very stripped down with an almost pathological determination to keep it grim.  The massively reduced usage of the Bond theme is a symptom of that.

 

What I'm describing is most certainly not a Michael Bay film.  There's a certain style and tone to those enormo-70s Bond movies, and it's a style that's as far removed from Michael Bay as you could possibly imagine.  I'm talking about replicating that kind of massive crowd-pleasing style with today's advances in filmmaking technology.  It would not necessarily be a 'CGI crapfest'.

 

Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle.

 

 

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

 

 

First, Quantum Of Solace wasn't rubbish.  And second, what the chuff has that got to do with it!

 

In my opinion: I don´t care if it´s an outlandish or down to earth-Bond, I like all of them. Even DAF, AVTAK or DAD have grat stuff in them. The difference between a Bond-film and the rest of the action-films was always the over the top-handmade stunts. Backpack-fly, little Nelly, Willy Bogners skiing, no parachute or the HALO jump, several car stunts and many things more were always way ahead of the competition. It´s things like DAD´s CGI-stunts when it gets ugly...

 

 

That used to be Bond's unique selling point: stunts you simply couldn't believe!  Throw in some jaw-dropping Ken Adams sets and you're on to a winner.

[Skylla]

 

 

 

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

 

I meant conservative in the sense that these recent flicks are very stripped down with an almost pathological determination to keep it grim.  The massively reduced usage of the Bond theme is a symptom of that.

 

What I'm describing is most certainly not a Michael Bay film.  There's a certain style and tone to those enormo-70s Bond movies, and it's a style that's as far removed from Michael Bay as you could possibly imagine.  I'm talking about replicating that kind of massive crowd-pleasing style with today's advances in filmmaking technology.  It would not necessarily be a 'CGI crapfest'.

 

Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle.

 

 

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

 

 

First, Quantum Of Solace wasn't rubbish.  And second, what the chuff has that got to do with it!

 

In my opinion: I don´t care if it´s an outlandish or down to earth-Bond, I like all of them. Even DAF, AVTAK or DAD have grat stuff in them. The difference between a Bond-film and the rest of the action-films was always the over the top-handmade stunts. Backpack-fly, little Nelly, Willy Bogners skiing, no parachute or the HALO jump, several car stunts and many things more were always way ahead of the competition. It´s things like DAD´s CGI-stunts when it gets ugly...

 

 

That used to be Bond's unique selling point: stunts you simply couldn't believe!  Throw in some jaw-dropping Ken Adams sets and you're on to a winner.

 

Absolutely. And not to forget: about a dozen of gorgeous women  ....

[Odd Jobbies]

The Craig era has brought dramaitc-tension back to Bond in a way that's been absent since FRWL (with the exception of OHMSS for the most part).

 

Tension is supplied by high quality scripts, acting and direction that provide a high enough dose of realism throughout to make the characters appear to be genuinely at risk..

 

With tension the spectacle is that much more spectacular.

 

Without it, it's a cartoon - light entertainment.

 

Bond movies come in 3 varieties:

 

1) Those that achieve real dramatic-tension (these are the rare variety, but not so rare of late)

 

2) Those that try, but in all honesty fall short of real dramatic-tension (a few of these are dotted around, particularly in the late 80s)

 

3) Those that don't bother trying, instead picking the far bigger and easier target of light-entertainment (the vast majority - late Connery, most of Moore and late Brosnan).

 

For me achieving variety 1 should always be the aim, but in doing so there's bound to be some that end up in variety 2.

 

But going for variety 3 from the get go! Well that's just aiming low and then patting yourself on the back when you hit the bullseye.... No thanks.

 

Bring on the spectacle, i say, but not at the expense of real dramatic-tension, or it's a worthless splash of cash - all bang and no buck.

 

 

 

ETA: sorry if that all sounds a bit pompous, but i've just had a pompously large whiskey and its late)

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 17 January 2015 - 12:12 AM.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

Well, I'd take the opposite approach.  IMO, just because you "can put anything on screen" doesn't mean that you should.  I'm also not sure that I'd call this current era of Bond filmmaking "conservative", as I think that EON has been much less conservative than they usually have been over the course of their history.  Craig and the current direction was a huge risk, and it has paid off.  

 

I just can't help but see anything involving flying cars and Bond surfing on top of submarines as being anything more than an imitation of Michael Bay.  Yes, there are probably some quality filmmakers who could make it more believable than Bay, but I don't think that the difference would be that noticeable.  Plus, then there's the question of whether or not many of the respected filmmakers out there would even want to take the films in that direction anyway.

 

I meant conservative in the sense that these recent flicks are very stripped down with an almost pathological determination to keep it grim.  The massively reduced usage of the Bond theme is a symptom of that.

 

What I'm describing is most certainly not a Michael Bay film.  There's a certain style and tone to those enormo-70s Bond movies, and it's a style that's as far removed from Michael Bay as you could possibly imagine.  I'm talking about replicating that kind of massive crowd-pleasing style with today's advances in filmmaking technology.  It would not necessarily be a 'CGI crapfest'.

 

Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle.

 

 

Yeah, but Die Another Day was rubbish.  Imagine all that stuff handled by the best possible filmmakers.  It was be fantastic!  Just once I want this happen.  Just once ...

QOS was rubbish...

The merits or otherwise of QUANTUM OF SOLACE don't mean that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't rubbish.

 

 

First, Quantum Of Solace wasn't rubbish.  And second, what the chuff has that got to do with it!

 

In my opinion: I don´t care if it´s an outlandish or down to earth-Bond, I like all of them. Even DAF, AVTAK or DAD have grat stuff in them. The difference between a Bond-film and the rest of the action-films was always the over the top-handmade stunts. Backpack-fly, little Nelly, Willy Bogners skiing, no parachute or the HALO jump, several car stunts and many things more were always way ahead of the competition. It´s things like DAD´s CGI-stunts when it gets ugly...

 

 

That used to be Bond's unique selling point: stunts you simply couldn't believe!  Throw in some jaw-dropping Ken Adams sets and you're on to a winner.

 

 

Those kind of stunts were a key selling point to the franchise, but that's not something that would be achieved with flying cars and Bond surfing on top of a submarine as it crashes through a busy street.  Both of those things would have to involve quite a big of CGI as opposed to real stuntwork.

[Call Billy Bob]

With regard to the stuntwork, the recent pics from Austria are hinting to me that some very Bond-worthy action is in store for SPECTRE. As long as we still get top notch action on film, we're still in good hands.

[KB 007]

Tom Cullen. He's 29 years old, tall, Welsh. He plays on Downton Abbey.

 

 

 

[When In Egypt]

The Craig era has brought dramaitc-tension back to Bond in a way that's been absent since FRWL (with the exception of OHMSS for the most part).

 

Tension is supplied by high quality scripts, acting and direction that provide a high enough dose of realism throughout to make the characters appear to be genuinely at risk..

 

With tension the spectacle is that much more spectacular.

 

Without it, it's a cartoon - light entertainment.

 

Bond movies come in 3 varieties:

 

1) Those that achieve real dramatic-tension (these are the rare variety, but not so rare of late)

 

2) Those that try, but in all honesty fall short of real dramatic-tension (a few of these are dotted around, particularly in the late 80s)

 

3) Those that don't bother trying, instead picking the far bigger and easier target of light-entertainment (the vast majority - late Connery, most of Moore and late Brosnan).

 

For me achieving variety 1 should always be the aim, but in doing so there's bound to be some that end up in variety 2.

 

But going for variety 3 from the get go! Well that's just aiming low and then patting yourself on the back when you hit the bullseye.... No thanks.

 

Bring on the spectacle, i say, but not at the expense of real dramatic-tension, or it's a worthless splash of cash - all bang and no buck.

 

 

 

ETA: sorry if that all sounds a bit pompous, but i've just had a pompously large whiskey and its late)

 

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  Why can't it have a dramatic story running through it as well as bonkers action and spectacle?  Like I say, a project like that would require the team working at their very best - which is something every Bond film should aim for.

Just because I want to see a return of the best elements of those massive Connery/Moore films, it doesn't mean I also want the worst elements.  Aim high, as you say, and shoot for the best of the classic spectacle of the 70s and the dramatic weight of Craig.

[JCRendle]

For me, DAD is much better than QOS...

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but my opinion differs from yours - Though I won't get into a discussion here on the merits and lack thereof of each, there are other subforums and threads for that.

 

The Craig era has brought dramaitc-tension back to Bond in a way that's been absent since FRWL (with the exception of OHMSS for the most part).

 

Tension is supplied by high quality scripts, acting and direction that provide a high enough dose of realism throughout to make the characters appear to be genuinely at risk..

 

With tension the spectacle is that much more spectacular.

 

Without it, it's a cartoon - light entertainment.

 

Bond movies come in 3 varieties:

 

1) Those that achieve real dramatic-tension (these are the rare variety, but not so rare of late)

 

2) Those that try, but in all honesty fall short of real dramatic-tension (a few of these are dotted around, particularly in the late 80s)

 

3) Those that don't bother trying, instead picking the far bigger and easier target of light-entertainment (the vast majority - late Connery, most of Moore and late Brosnan).

 

For me achieving variety 1 should always be the aim, but in doing so there's bound to be some that end up in variety 2.

 

But going for variety 3 from the get go! Well that's just aiming low and then patting yourself on the back when you hit the bullseye.... No thanks.

 

Bring on the spectacle, i say, but not at the expense of real dramatic-tension, or it's a worthless splash of cash - all bang and no buck.

 

 

 

ETA: sorry if that all sounds a bit pompous, but i've just had a pompously large whiskey and its late)

 

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  Why can't it have a dramatic story running through it as well as bonkers action and spectacle?  Like I say, a project like that would require the team working at their very best - which is something every Bond film should aim for.

Just because I want to see a return of the best elements of those massive Connery/Moore films, it doesn't mean I also want the worst elements.  Aim high, as you say, and shoot for the best of the classic spectacle of the 70s and the dramatic weight of Craig.

 

 

If they did go down this route, a well acted and dramatic plot and outlandish and bonkers action, then it would have to be handle very carefully, bad special effects and stunt work can ruin a movie, however well scripted, acted and directed. You can have the best cast and crew you ever dreamed of, but an action sequence that goes too over the top or doesn't look real would just take the audience completely out of the picture and kill any dramatic tension built up during the rest of the movie, and it would only be remembered for that, not all the good that was on screen before and after.

[Odd Jobbies]

f they did go down this route, a well acted and dramatic plot and outlandish and bonkers action, then it would have to be handle very carefully, bad special effects and stunt work can ruin a movie, however well scripted, acted and directed. You can have the best cast and crew you ever dreamed of, but an action sequence that goes too over the top or doesn't look real would just take the audience completely out of the picture and kill any dramatic tension built up during the rest of the movie, and it would only be remembered for that, not all the good that was on screen before and after.

 

 

Very well put.  DAD is a fine example of this. I like the first half a lot, up Cuba and the Jinx backward dive - Toy Story is more life like than that awful CGI. Now i can't even watch it, thanks to kite surfing CGI...!  Did they really watch their final cut of that and think, "Yeah, outta the park, guys!" ?

 

So instead of remembering the interesting first half, DAD will always be the one with the 'kite-surfing'....

 

You need director's that don't want to hand over the action scenes to a 2nd unit while they work on the 'Story' (TWINE is like 2 movies spliced together). It's all  the 'Story'.

The likes of Kubrick, McTiernan (in his heyday), Cameron and Nolan appear to understand how to direct action (around the characters) and want control over every moment and in movies like The Dark Knight it's that approach that gave us an all time classic.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 17 January 2015 - 12:53 PM.

[Vauxhall]

I don't know, but does height really matter these days? People said Craig was too short, but now people are even linking Tom Hardy to the role, who's even shorter. Anyone who's in the average height bracket could surely be acceptable.

[Odd Jobbies]

T2 & THE DARK KNIGHT are my two favourite movies...

There are no finer examples of the 'spectacular-action movie' sub-genre.  If you want Bond a a truly epic scale, then Nolan's the man.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 17 January 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[tdalton]

 

T2 & THE DARK KNIGHT are my two favourite movies...

There are no finer examples of the 'spectacular-action movie' sub-genre.  If you want Bond a a truly epic scale, then Nolan's the man.

 

 
Going back to your "3 varieties" of Bond films, though, hiring Nolan would firmly plant the film somewhere between the #2 and #3 category.  It's pretty much all spectacle with Nolan, albeit spectacle grounded in a "gritty" context, but when it comes to actual storytelling, Nolan's films are very lacking.  
 
As far as I'm concerned, Nolan would be a massive step backward for the Bond franchise in terms of storytelling quality and, therefore, the overall quality of the films.  It would make a boatload of money because it's NOLAN, but it would be a step back in virtually every other way.
 

Rosamund Pike & Halle Berry <3

 

Two of the biggest miscasts ever in the Bond films.  Two very bland and one-dimensional performances.

Edited by tdalton, 17 January 2015 - 04:49 PM.

[When In Egypt]

 

If they did go down this route, a well acted and dramatic plot and outlandish and bonkers action, then it would have to be handle very carefully, bad special effects and stunt work can ruin a movie, however well scripted, acted and directed. You can have the best cast and crew you ever dreamed of, but an action sequence that goes too over the top or doesn't look real would just take the audience completely out of the picture and kill any dramatic tension built up during the rest of the movie, and it would only be remembered for that, not all the good that was on screen before and after.

 

 

It would indeed need to be handled very carefully to be a success, and I guess that's why it will always be nothing more than a wish on my part!

 

 

 

 

 

T2 & THE DARK KNIGHT are my two favourite movies...

There are no finer examples of the 'spectacular-action movie' sub-genre.  If you want Bond a a truly epic scale, then Nolan's the man.

 

 

Going back to your "3 varieties" of Bond films, though, hiring Nolan would firmly plant the film somewhere between the #2 and #3 category.  It's pretty much all spectacle with Nolan, albeit spectacle grounded in a "gritty" context, but when it comes to actual storytelling, Nolan's films are very lacking.  

 

As far as I'm concerned, Nolan would be a massive step backward for the Bond franchise in terms of storytelling quality and, therefore, the overall quality of the films.  It would make a boatload of money because it's NOLAN, but it would be a step back in virtually every other way. 

 

 

I must say Nolan is the wrong man.  He's far too heavy duty.  What I'm hoping for is the kind of lightness of touch Spielberg brought to Indiana Jones in the 80s.  Spectacular but not beyond the suspension of disbelief, and fun/funny without being stupid.  The first two Iron Man films suggest Jon Favreau might have that kind of vibe.

[Odd Jobbies]

....when it comes to actual storytelling, Nolan's films are very lacking. 

Momento...

 

 

 

I'd also add that The Dark Knight is a story telling tour de force, balancing character work, plot, sub-text and spectacle perfectly, utilising all of these to tell it's story. He does get it a little wrong sometimes - his direction of Cain in TDKR is very poor, making his sole task 'emotional expositor' for Wayne. But i'd take the chance that he'd give us a great Bond. Even if his first is average, his second could be perfect, like The Dark Knight.

[coco1997]

It's pretty much all spectacle with Nolan, albeit spectacle grounded in a "gritty" context, but when it comes to actual storytelling, Nolan's films are very lacking. 

Not saying that I necessarily agree with you on this point, but hasn't Nolan (and/or his brother) had a hand in writing all the movies he's directed? I imagine if Nolan directed a future Bond film he wouldn't necessarily be the one writing it.