Future Bond Film Directors
#1
Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:38 AM
#2
Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:26 AM
#3
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:21 PM
In other news, Wright in a recent interview, even stated how jealous he was of Mendes shooting the next film
http://www.empireonl...ew.asp?IID=1259
#4
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:48 PM
#5
Posted 06 May 2011 - 05:27 PM
Christopher Nolan all the way!
No, no, no, no, no. Nolan may be a great director but his Bat films are way overrated, pretentious, and convoluted. I don't want to watch a 3+ hour Bond movie where Bond vilifies himself to save face for the United Kingdom only to find out that his enemies were just projections inside his fourteen dream sequences. The very last thing we need is for rabid blind 'Nolannazi' TDK devotees coming onto CBN proclaiming that a Nolan directed Bond film is the greatest film of all time, but could have been better had Heath Ledger been the villain.
Nolan is the kind of director who just got lucky, peaked, and now has to recycle his formula to recapture his success. Keep him away from Bond, please.
Edited by TheREAL008, 06 May 2011 - 05:47 PM.
#6
Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:21 AM
- Tom Hooper (Imagine a Bond film with all the power of The King's Speech?)
- Kenneth Branagh (One of my favourite actors, and he's proven to be a good director with films that range from Shakesphere to Thor)
- Joe Wright (Haven't seen any of his work, but from the clips of Hanna I've seen and what I've heard, he's welcomed in my books)
- Edgar Wright (Love his work, just wonder if his style would clash too much with Bond?)
- Brad Bird (I still can't believe he's directing Mission 4, but he would be perfect, although I've heard first hand accounts that he's a bit eccentric)
- Christopher Nolan (A list wouldn't be complete without his name, but I'm gonna keep dreaming - pun intended)
- Jonathan Nolan (Unlike his brother, a bit more realistic as he hasn't directed a feature yet although he came close to directing Superman)
#7
Posted 19 May 2011 - 10:35 AM
Christopher Nolan all the way!
No, no, no, no, no. Nolan may be a great director but his Bat films are way overrated, pretentious, and convoluted. I don't want to watch a 3+ hour Bond movie where Bond vilifies himself to save face for the United Kingdom only to find out that his enemies were just projections inside his fourteen dream sequences. The very last thing we need is for rabid blind 'Nolannazi' TDK devotees coming onto CBN proclaiming that a Nolan directed Bond film is the greatest film of all time, but could have been better had Heath Ledger been the villain.
Don't you think you might have over-reacted a bit?
#8
Posted 19 May 2011 - 01:05 PM
No Nolan please. His films have all the personality of a park bench.
#9
Posted 19 May 2011 - 01:22 PM
#10
Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:12 PM
Anyway, back to topic, where the interesting issue is.
I think Nolan is a good director insofar as cinematography is concerned: great shots, great choice for angles, great light, great rythm, etc. Overall, I think Nolan has a really good eye for those kinds of film.
For instance, I suggest you check out The Prestige (2006).
Although I really disliked Inception as such, I found the direction very good: most notably, the snow chase (obviously a reference to Bond) was shot in a clever way. That's what made me think that Nolan could deliver a pretty solid job on Bond.
#11
Posted 21 May 2011 - 04:05 PM
-Easily the largest film he has done
-A part of an already established series
-The first he is not a producer on
-The short time from him being hired as director to when the film is released
-May have to make changes to satisfy the studio (more likely with X-Men than James Bond given Fox's history)
-He has already stated that the 60s Bond films were an influence on the film
#12
Posted 21 May 2011 - 07:22 PM
Christopher Nolan all the way!
OH LAWD NO !
#13
Posted 21 May 2011 - 07:42 PM
#14
Posted 21 May 2011 - 07:52 PM
(and btw I really think he's content with a single b, mustn't be too generous with those)
#15
Posted 07 June 2011 - 06:27 PM
They should give Roger Spottiswood a crack at another one.Future Bond Film Directors for the Future Bond Films. I for one would love to see Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider, Collateral, Public Enemies) direct a Bond film. He handles action scenes very well, as well as emotions and compelling dialogue. I'm a huge Michael Mann fan, and having been I just met him last night, I'd like to see him give his spin on the character and series. Some of my other choices include Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, X-Men: First Class. I thought he did a fantastic job on Layer Cake and I look forward to XM:FC), Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight. What Else can be said 'bout Nolan?), Pierre Morrel (Taken, From Paris With Love. Handles Action and suspense very well as seen in Taken.), and David Cronenberg (A History Of Violence, Eastern Promises. ). What are some of your choices?
#16
Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:10 AM
#17
Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:18 AM
#18
Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:31 AM
I understand of course the aversion towards Forster, Burton, Nolan and female directors in general. But why ever are you against Abrams?
He's a crass TV/commercial grade director, who has no flair for directing film. Unlike say, Tim Burton, Abrams's films won't last. They're dead ends.
#19
Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:49 AM
After seeing FIRST CLASS, you can put me down for Matthew Vaughn as well. I think he'd be an interesting choice. Likewise Danny Boyle; 28 DAYS LATER, 127 HOURS and SUNSHINE were all fantastic.
And this one might seem like an odd choice, but I wouldn't mind seeing Joss Whedon have a go (though he'd be better off writing it). SERENITY might have been an extended episode of "Firefly" in places, but he's being entrusted with THE AVENGERS, the first ensemble superhero film to draw on multiple franchises (unlike X-Men, which has always used its own characters).
That's a bit sexist. Where is it written that women directors cannot direct Bond films? Look at Katherine Bigelow - not only did she do a fantastic job with THE HURT LOCKER, but she also directed POINT BREAK, one of the blokiest films of all time.no women directors ever for Bond.
Because he's a hack. Take MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III for example. The plot hinges on a MacGuffin. It can supposedly be anything from a nuclear warhead to a pint of Guinness. But it's compeltely mishandled - the MacGuffin works if it's a warhead, but not if it's a pint. He's got a history of creating and supporting project that are poorly-written (like "Alias", which had to be rebooted every season), require a Doctorate of Philosophy to understand (see "Lost"; after one season, it was fairly obvious the writers were making things up as they go), just get plain silly (I'm looking at you, "Fringe"), are simply pastiches of someone else's work ("Fringe" is again guilty of this, as is SUPER 8) or ignore the basic laws of storytelling (in SUPER 8, the truck hits the train head-on, resulting in an elaborate and explosive derailment that completely ignores the laws of physics and thus I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to see it). But most disturbingly, he tends to make films and television shows that are based around the special features he wants to include on the DVD. CLOVERFIELD, which he produced, is especially guilty of this: the final shot shows something crashing into the ocean. Fans believed that this was the monster landing on earth, but playing the viral marketing tie-in for the film revealed that it was actually a satellite crashing to earth that awoke the sleeping monster. You literally had to go through all the extra stuff attached to the film just to understand the finer points of it. This is a massive failure in storytelling. True, CLOVERFIELD was written by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" alumni Drew Z. Greenberg (who is actually rated as one of the worst writers the show ever had; after a nasty incident where his script called for two men to have a homosexual experience against their will and under the compulsion of magic, Joss Whedon pretty much banned him from ever writing large character-based episodes without a writing partner ever again), but Abrams came up with the concept and bankrolled the entire thing.But why ever are you against Abrams?
#20
Posted 08 June 2011 - 04:07 AM
But the one to beat is a young lad from the ol' USA called Jacob Scarberry. A warm, literate lad who is a huge fan of the Bondian culture, heavily favored to direct Bond 27.
#21
Posted 08 June 2011 - 04:08 AM
I understand of course the aversion towards Forster, Burton, Nolan and female directors in general. But why ever are you against Abrams?
He's a crass TV/commercial grade director, who has no flair for directing film. Unlike say, Tim Burton, Abrams's films won't last. They're dead ends.
Because he's a hack. Take MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III for example. The plot hinges on a MacGuffin. It can supposedly be anything from a nuclear warhead to a pint of Guinness. But it's compeltely mishandled - the MacGuffin works if it's a warhead, but not if it's a pint. He's got a history of creating and supporting project that are poorly-written (like "Alias", which had to be rebooted every season), require a Doctorate of Philosophy to understand (see "Lost"; after one season, it was fairly obvious the writers were making things up as they go), just get plain silly (I'm looking at you, "Fringe"), are simply pastiches of someone else's work ("Fringe" is again guilty of this, as is SUPER 8) or ignore the basic laws of storytelling (in SUPER 8, the truck hits the train head-on, resulting in an elaborate and explosive derailment that completely ignores the laws of physics and thus I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to see it). But most disturbingly, he tends to make films and television shows that are based around the special features he wants to include on the DVD. CLOVERFIELD, which he produced, is especially guilty of this: the final shot shows something crashing into the ocean. Fans believed that this was the monster landing on earth, but playing the viral marketing tie-in for the film revealed that it was actually a satellite crashing to earth that awoke the sleeping monster. You literally had to go through all the extra stuff attached to the film just to understand the finer points of it. This is a massive failure in storytelling. True, CLOVERFIELD was written by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" alumni Drew Z. Greenberg (who is actually rated as one of the worst writers the show ever had; after a nasty incident where his script called for two men to have a homosexual experience against their will and under the compulsion of magic, Joss Whedon pretty much banned him from ever writing large character-based episodes without a writing partner ever again), but Abrams came up with the concept and bankrolled the entire thing.
Thanks for elaborating this question (though my initial remark was meant more in a rhetoric, epitaph kind of way). Personally I tend to agree with both of you, given the numerous disappointments I had to endure on Abrams's hands.
#22
Posted 08 June 2011 - 05:41 AM
What I don't get is why he's hot property in Hollywood given the amount of crap he produces. Despite its consistently poor quality, "Lost" was a runaway success (funny story: I have a very clear memory of saying 'the island is a form of purgatory' after the second or third episode ...). But then there's stuff like "Felicity" and "What About Brian?" that also has Abrams' name on it, and he's still painted as a genius? The mind boggles.Personally I tend to agree with both of you, given the numerous disappointments I had to endure on Abrams's hands.
#23
Posted 08 June 2011 - 10:14 AM
I understand of course the aversion towards Forster, Burton, Nolan and female directors in general. But why ever are you against Abrams?
He's a crass TV/commercial grade director, who has no flair for directing film. Unlike say, Tim Burton, Abrams's films won't last. They're dead ends.
Oh I believe there is tons of 'flair' in his directing
Have not been blown away by any of his films so far, was actually hoping he would not be back for the Star Trek sequel but it looks like they will do anything to have him on it.
#24
Posted 08 June 2011 - 06:50 PM
What I don't get is why he's hot property in Hollywood given the amount of crap he produces.
Personally I tend to agree with both of you, given the numerous disappointments I had to endure on Abrams's hands.
It's 'cause he's safe and bankable. Simple as that.
#25
Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:53 AM
Give his abhorrent run with stuff like "Alias" and "What About Brian?" and "Felicity", I'd say he's anything but safe or bankable.
#26
Posted 09 June 2011 - 01:25 AM
Safe and bankable?
I meant as a film director. He gives the studios and Hollywood fatcats the money they want, and gets decent reviews (not hard though, considering most film critics today are a bunch of corporate shills).
#27
Posted 09 June 2011 - 07:02 AM
Safe and bankable?
I meant as a film director. He gives the studios and Hollywood fatcats the money they want, and gets decent reviews (not hard though, considering most film critics today are a bunch of corporate shills).
He's also probably well capable of bringing things in under budget, which must be an attractive quality. Boring, but attractive.
#28
Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:39 PM
I thought Marc Forster did OK. I certainly would not mind Martin Campbell directed again.I understand of course the aversion towards Forster, Burton, Nolan and female directors in general. But why ever are you against Abrams?
(and btw I really think he's content with a single b, mustn't be too generous with those)
I'd accept anyone EXCEPT Lee Tamahori!!!Future Bond Film Directors for the Future Bond Films. I for one would love to see Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider, Collateral, Public Enemies) direct a Bond film. He handles action scenes very well, as well as emotions and compelling dialogue. I'm a huge Michael Mann fan, and having been I just met him last night, I'd like to see him give his spin on the character and series. Some of my other choices include Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, X-Men: First Class. I thought he did a fantastic job on Layer Cake and I look forward to XM:FC), Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight. What Else can be said 'bout Nolan?), Pierre Morrel (Taken, From Paris With Love. Handles Action and suspense very well as seen in Taken.), and David Cronenberg (A History Of Violence, Eastern Promises. ). What are some of your choices?
#29
Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:50 PM
#30
Posted 11 June 2011 - 07:26 AM