343 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

Stuart Baird

Oh, please no. He's an excellent editor, but let him find his directorial feet on something other than Bond.

U.S. Marshalls was highly middling, not a patch on sister movie The Fugitive.
Star Trek: Nemesis was a dire entry (not as bad as Insurrection, but almost.
Executive Decision was so bad that when the cinema's projector broke down halfway through the film the audience cheered (no exaggeration).

He may well turn out to be a great Directorsomeday - who really knows - but let him cut his teeth elsewhere (not that i imagine he'd be considered by Eon to direct now Craig's moved their options into the big league.

Edit: sorry if that seemed condescending, didn't mean it to be, it's just pure horror!

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 10 June 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[PerrysburgGuy]

After seeing The Incredibles and MI:4, I think Brad Bird would be a great choice for Bond 24.

[SecretAgentFan]

Stuart Baird

Oh, please no. He's an excellent editor, but let him find his directorial feet on something other than Bond.

U.S. Marshalls was highly middling, not a patch on sister movie The Fugitive.
Star Trek: Nemesis was a dire entry (not as bad as Insurrection, but almost.
Executive Decision was so bad that when the cinema's projector broke down halfway through the film the audience cheered (no exaggeration).

He may well turn out to be a great Directorsomeday - who really knows - but let him cut his teeth elsewhere (not that i imagine he'd be considered by Eon to direct now Craig's moved their options into the big league.

Edit: sorry if that seemed condescending, didn't mean it to be, it's just pure horror!

Ooh, to each his own. But to me, "Nemesis" and especially "Executive Decision" were pretty good films. Baird could be a the next John Glen for the Bond franchise.

But I guess, this is not a possibility anymore. Bond now attracts major directors.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 12 June 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Haven't seen Nemesis, but I did very much enjoy Executive Decision. It would be interesting having him direct.

[The Shark]

Baird could be a the next John Glen for the Bond franchise.

Is this supposed to be a warning or an endorsement?

[SecretAgentFan]

Haha!

I must admit: for some time I would have leaned towards warning. But nowadays, with the ADD-styled editing of modern blockbusters, I become nostalgic for the Glen years and good old-fashioned action films.

In any event, I don´t think Baird will get the chance to be a director for Bond. After Mendes EON will go for another high profile guy.

[Vauxhall]

Interested to see what people think on the following question - is it design or coincidence that there has never been an American director for an EON Bond movie and, at this stage of the franchise, is a director from the United States more or less likely?

[SecretAgentFan]

Design, I would think. And hope. Somehow IMO this is connected to Bond not being played by an American. The British-ness of the character has to be protected since it is such an integral part of the character. And a non-American director probably understands that better than others.

On the other hand, maybe this is just a way to keep Brett Rattner off the franchise.

[Dustin]

I'd say it's both, coincidence and design. The series started out small, American names would have cost dearly both in front and behind the camera, and on top you could profit in various ways from employing British locales and British workforce, so the natural way was to go with that. When the success came the need to safe money wasn't as pronounced any more, but the tradition remained. Later in the seventies it looked for a time as if the future of the series would be in opening it up to Americans. I have little doubt Eastwood wasn't just bragging when he claimed he had been asked to take over Bond. Today, such a move looks almost incredibly ludicrous. But back then it seemed quite natural. I still remember newspapers claiming Burt Reynolds would soon play 007 and nobody considered this a hoax. It seemed the natural thing to go with a big star if Connery could not be had, and many of those were Americans. I daresay the studio would have rather wanted a 'safe' American with box office value playing Bond, than they cared for who directed the film.

How much of this was actually coincidence we'll never know. But there is also a definite feeling the franchise may have missed out some most remarkable chances by not giving the director's chair to an American every now and then.

Today it's really up in the air. Very much depends on what the future will bring, but there is also a definite feeling of a growing gap between themes that entertain the US and the rest of the world. As if there was a kind of subtile dialect that slowly permeates the cultural idiom and keeps both from enjoying that of the other. If such a trend should keep going for a considerable time - then I doubt we'll see an American director any time soon. Even if it was Spielberg²-grade talent and came for free.

Edited by Dustin, 12 June 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Design, I would think. And hope. Somehow IMO this is connected to Bond not being played by an American. The British-ness of the character has to be protected since it is such an integral part of the character.

He's half Swiss (on his mother's side), so Britishness isn't all that integral. In fact i think Fleming saw this as one of the factors that made him an odd one out at Eton, to be expelled and then pursue what is an incredibly, uniquely international lifestyle - from swanning around the Riviera to thinking of Jamaica as his home from home.

If anything i think its the inward looking imperialism of America that has made the franchise shy of US directors; that and the fat pay checks and desire by the top dogs to have final cut.

To answer Vauxhall's question i think it is perhaps more likely than ever that we'll get a US director, since Eon have now embraced expensive auteurs and seem a little at the tasteful whim of Craig's desires (a good think, since he's so far attracted more talent than in the previous 2 or 3 decades of Bond)

I still remember newspapers claiming Burt Reynolds would soon play 007 and nobody considered this a hoax.

Looking at his early movies Hustle and Deliverance (before Smokey & The Bandit turned him into a self-parody) i can see a potentially great Bond in Reynolds: Dark, brooding, violent, yet sexual, seductive and capable of charm.

[Dustin]

If anything i think its the inward looking imperialism of America that has made the franchise shy of US directors; that and the fat pay checks and desire by the top dogs to have final cut.

That is a very good point. The Spielberg generation - arguably the most talented in the history of cinema - turned the studio industry into a director industry. They reclaimed a large part of the business to the creative forces, but they also instigated an unprecedented influence for the big names with little to zero actual risk of losing a single dollar.

To answer Vauxhall's question i think it is perhaps more likely than ever that we'll get a US director, since Eon have now embraced expensive auteurs and seem a little at the tasteful whim of Craig's desires (a good think, since he's so far attracted more talent than in the previous 2 or 3 decades of Bond)

Craig now seems to have more influence than MGM (or whatever they call themselves nowadays), perhaps he could even convince EON house to have a go with a particular name, an intriguing talent that would be able to keep the foot down on things in just the direction they have chosen. But I suppose the initial answer would be that you can get this on the British side of the world.

I still remember newspapers claiming Burt Reynolds would soon play 007 and nobody considered this a hoax.

Looking at his early movies Hustle and Deliverance (before Smokey & The Bandit turned him into a self-parody) i can see a potentially great Bond in Reynolds: Dark, brooding, violent, yet sexual, seductive and capable of charm.

Yes, as I said - Reynolds seemed natural.

[SecretAgentFan]

That is a very good point. The Spielberg generation - arguably the most talented in the history of cinema - turned the studio industry into a director industry. They reclaimed a large part of the business to the creative forces, but they also instigated an unprecedented influence for the big names with little to zero actual risk of losing a single dollar.

But those times have already changed (sadly). These days, studios are absolutely the ones who call the shots. Of course, they like their high profile directors (for marketing reasons) - but even Spielberg cannot do anything he wants anymore.

He's half Swiss (on his mother's side), so Britishness isn't all that integral.

I must disagree. His Swiss side has never been what characterized him (thankfully, since Schweizerdütsch would have made his "Bond, James Bond" pretty unbearable). James Bond is absolutely a British icon. And this is what makes him unique first and foremost. "On her Majesty´s Secret Service" is not just a nice title, it´s what defines Bond.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 12 June 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Messervy]

One question I've had for quite some time about Nolan (whom I'd love to see direct a Bond movie: the first scene of TDKR would be one hell of a tremendous Bond PTS):
IF he were to direct a Bond movie, given the fact that he's the writer of almost all of his films (alongside Jonathan), would he accept to just direct (since I highly doubt EON would let him write the next Bond)?

[Dustin]

I suppose it depends. Depends on both sides, his and EON house's. If they wanted him bad enough I'm sure they'd let him and his brother have a go at a script, too. Not exclusively, no. But past experience indicates a lot of 'outsiders' contributed to EON scripts over the years, it's absolutely nothing new to them.

And if Nolan wanted to do a Bond film hard enough I doubt he would not be willing to reach a compromise, perhaps even use a script he didn't write or influence at all.

[Messervy]

That's also what I think.
I just like to entertain the thought, really, wishing it could happen.

[x007AceOfSpades]

While I didn't enjoy The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan could still make an interesting Bond film. I'm just not jumping at my feet wanting him to direct B24.

[tdalton]

I'm just not jumping at my feet wanting him to direct B24.

I'm not either.

Even though I still have some reservations about Skyfall, from what I've seen of that, I'd much rather Mendes return than for Nolan to take over the next installment of the franchise.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I'm just not jumping at my feet wanting him to direct B24.

I'm not either.

Even though I still have some reservations about Skyfall, from what I've seen of that, I'd much rather Mendes return than for Nolan to take over the next installment of the franchise.

Glad I'm not alone on this. I'm very excited at what I've seen so far with Mendes and his work on Skyfall. If it turns out to be great (which I feel it will) I'd love for him to return.

[Dustin]

Well, tradition has it EON supposedly asked back every director since Tamahori (or Apted even?). With the current state of affairs seeming reasonably satisfying I'd not be surprised if Mendes is indeed asked back, too. He may be the first since the days of John Glen to actually do so, though it's anybody's guess if he's really willing to.

However, I think at the moment Nolan is about as likely to direct a Bond film as Peter Jackson.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Yeah I'd be happy with Mendes (asuming Skyfall turns out to be as good as it looks) or Campbell doing the next one. Keep it in the family so to speak!

[DamnCoffee]

I'm personally hoping for Fincher. I think he'd do a brilliant Bond film, and he does have a very close working relationship with Daniel Craig, so I feel that he could get a brilliant performance out of him. Mendes, from what I've seen of 'Skyfall', would be lovely as well. I'd welcome him back with open arms. It looks like he knows exactly what the fans want, and thats the kind of director we need.

Coen Brothers would be nice, too. What about Martin Scorcese? He could be interesting.

[tdalton]

I'm personally hoping for Fincher. I think he'd do a brilliant Bond film, and he does have a very close working relationship with Daniel Craig, so I feel that he could get a brilliant performance out of him. Mendes, from what I've seen of 'Skyfall', would be lovely as well. I'd welcome him back with open arms. It looks like he knows exactly what the fans want, and thats the kind of director we need.

Agreed on Fincher. I'd love to see what he could do with Bond. Certainly it would be a bit darker in tone, but that wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think.

I'd also like to see Mendes return, assuming that Skyfall can reach the same measure of quality as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. My only worry for the potential for a return for Mendes would be that Skyfall doesn't live up to the massive expectations being heaped upon it and is then looked at as a failure when it really isn't (assuming it isn't, of course, we don't know yet).

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

David Fincher would be an interesting choice. I am adamantly against Nolan, those flying rodent-man flicks are the most overrated kiddiefilms ever and Inception was nothing but eyecandy without any profound substance. I'd rather even see Forster to return.
If we're talking about continental talent, how about Oliver Hirschbiegel? He certainly knows how to present characters in extreme situations and his Hollywood debut was butchered by the studio.

[Messervy]

Well, tradition has it EON supposedly asked back every director since Tamahori (or Apted even?). With the current state of affairs seeming reasonably satisfying I'd not be surprised if Mendes is indeed asked back, too. He may be the first since the days of John Glen to actually do so, though it's anybody's guess if he's really willing to.

And that would be a good thing indeed. Continuity can bring even more substance. I would welcome it (provided, of course, SF is as good as it seems).

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I'm personally hoping for Fincher. I think he'd do a brilliant Bond film, and he does have a very close working relationship with Daniel Craig, so I feel that he could get a brilliant performance out of him. Mendes, from what I've seen of 'Skyfall', would be lovely as well. I'd welcome him back with open arms. It looks like he knows exactly what the fans want, and thats the kind of director we need.

Coen Brothers would be nice, too. What about Martin Scorcese? He could be interesting.

Not sure about Fincher. Never been a huge fan of his work.

Coen Brothers could potentially do a great job, and I'd love Scorcese to direct one!

[Dustin]

Well, tradition has it EON supposedly asked back every director since Tamahori (or Apted even?). With the current state of affairs seeming reasonably satisfying I'd not be surprised if Mendes is indeed asked back, too. He may be the first since the days of John Glen to actually do so, though it's anybody's guess if he's really willing to.

And that would be a good thing indeed. Continuity can bring even more substance. I would welcome it (provided, of course, SF is as good as it seems).

In my view it could also be a matter of development. Does the director feel he can add something? Is there something - character, situation, atmosphere or whatever - that he wasn't able to show previously? Does he have ideas for further entries, for undiscovered country to explore? Or does he feel some aspect could be handled even better with another go?

If any of these questions is answered by a director with 'yes', then I'm for giving him a second chance, even if a previous film may not have been stellar. That's why I used to be not fond of the idea of a Tamahori or Apted comeback; I just don't see what they'd do different at a second go.

On the other hand that's of course hardly for me to judge, they may have loads of fresh ideas. But the fact they didn't take up the challenge a second time to me speaks for itself. Had they had the urge to improve on their work by doing another Bond film, then they surely would have done so. Even Forster, who admitted his entry was a shaky one, apparently did not feel inclined to do better with his experiences of QOS as a capital. In such cases I'm thankful a new name comes on board.

[Messervy]

The trouble, I think, with Fincher is that he's very uneven. One film will be great, and the next one will be terrible. I wouldn't want Bond to be the victim of this.

[Odd Jobbies]

The trouble, I think, with Fincher is that he's very uneven. One film will be great, and the next one will be terrible. I wouldn't want Bond to be the victim of this.

I agree. Also, i think there's something very particular and american about the feel of all his films - how they're lit, shot and cut, which isn't IMHO Bond. I think this applies more so when his films are good, such as Seven and Fightclub (one of best movies of the 90s). Same thing could be said of Tarrantino (though that may be an experiment worth conducting!)

Having said that, i'd rather pay to see a Fincher film, than a mediocre safe pair of hands Bond movie. But hopefully the Craig era has put those days behind us.

[Messervy]

Having said that, i'd rather pay to see a Fincher film, than a mediocre safe pair of hands Bond movie. But hopefully the Craig era has put those days behind us.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing lately. It seems we now entered an era where we won't just get "another" director for "another" Bond movie. It seems they're now going for high-profile directors with a real personal touch (I count Forster as such, artisticly speaking), instead of just hiring a capable but interchangeable figure.

[Odd Jobbies]

I think that's down to Craig's approach giving the dramatic aspects more potential.