Commander
Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:01 AM
He's not my sort of thing but I can imagine and understand why they would be talking to each other. I'd be less excited if he were to do it but I expect it would be fine.
But after doing Batman and Superman is it really a good idea to do Bond as well? Wouldn't he want to do his own thing a bit more now?
Lt. Commander
Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:42 AM
But after doing Batman and Superman is it really a good idea to do Bond as well? Wouldn't he want to do his own thing a bit more now?
He is.
INTERSTELLAR (2014)
Lieutenant
Posted 20 May 2013 - 01:41 PM
I agree with what you said. I'm just a little curious why you hope it is not true? Clearly not a fan but anything in particular?
I'm just not a fan of Nolan's films in general, with The Dark Knight Rises being the only one of his recent films that I've enjoyed (and, admittedly, I enjoyed that one quite a bit). The idea of a Nolan-directed Bond film just doesn't get me excited, especially since the finished product would probably turn out to be quite a bit like Skyfall.
Just out of curiosity, what do you define as 'recent'? He's only got 7 films (discounting Following) under his belt as director, and all in the past 13 years. In contrast - to use an example from this thread - Spielberg's got 30 films over 42 years. I'm just intrigued as to where you draw the line chronologically between Nolan's enjoyable films and his unenjoyable ones...
Personally I'll be first in line if Nolan directs Bond 24, and I'm glad EON's talking with him about it. But I think his commitment to interstellar will prevent him from making it (otherwise, why aren't they just waiting for Mendes to finish his theatre work?) and am pretty sure he'd want to rewrite and co-produce Bond 24 with a Syncopy credit, and I doubt that'd go down well with EON.
As for casting, Michael Caine's a given, and I wouldn't mind Christian Bale as the villain... but if you're going to second-guess his casting, it's more accurate to look at Nolan's latest released film (e.g. Interstellar cast = new faces + TDKR cast members = new faces + Inception cast = new faces + Batman cast)
Lt. Commander
Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:42 PM
I would be extremely nervous if Nolan did a Bond movie..
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:56 AM
Hope so. However, any new director will bring his special writer with him. And if Nolan actually signs up, I would not be surprised if his brother would pen the final script.
I would hope so as well, but I also wouldn't be surprised if we saw Nolan jettison a lot of that from the script because it either doesn't play to his strengths as a director (not that we would know, as he's never really incorporated humor on the scale that a film like Skyfall attempted to) or he simply just doesn't like those elements. Or, Nolan could end up pulling a page from Marc Forster's playbook and begin work on a new script from scratch once he's hired to direct the film.
Actually disagree with the humour part: while he would never have a film with humour at the level of the Roger Moore films there is more or less the same level of humour in Batman Begins as there is in Skyfall (The Dark Knight, despite its dark tone, also has several humourous exchanges between Bruce and Alfred.)
Of his recent films the only two that really don't try and have any humour in them are The Prestige and Dark Knight Rises. And as a Bond fan he has always expressed his love of the 60's Connery films, so I would think he wouldn't be adverse to having a bit more humour than he would usually have in his scripts as he may want to make a Bond film with a simillar tone to an early Connery film (rather than one with a stereotypical Christopher Nolan tone.)
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:03 AM
Hope so. However, any new director will bring his special writer with him. And if Nolan actually signs up, I would not be surprised if his brother would pen the final script.
I would wager that it would be Chris himself who did any rewrites unless he forced them to toss Logan's treatment/script completely. On all of the projects where Chris and Jonah worked together, the standard operating procedure was that Jonah did the heavy lifting by writing the first draft and then Chris tailored it to his needs. It is well documented that they did that for The Prestige and The Dark Knight Rises and Chris Nolan did the same thing with Goyer's draft for Batman Begins.
Commander
Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:01 PM
I hope he's the director for the next one, but being that he's busy with Interstellar, it can be quite problematic in terms of his time schedule.
Commander
Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:54 PM
I suppose if they rushed it, Bond 24 could start shooting once Nolan is done with Interstellar (Nov 2014) and possibly be out by Nov 2015.
I was really hoping they would get the SF follow up out by 2014 and now it seems like there is no chance of that.
Commander
Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:49 PM
I suppose if they rushed it, Bond 24 could start shooting once Nolan is done with Interstellar (Nov 2014) and possibly be out by Nov 2015.
My impression is rushing is the last thing on Eon's combined minds. Experience teaches rushed results usually don't satisfy on every level, not when it comes to Bond at the cinema. I suppose BOND 24 will rather come later than rushed, rather with a - relatively speaking - unknown director than with Nolan.
Edited by Dustin, 21 May 2013 - 07:03 PM.
Lieutenant
Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM
Exactly my impression as well. I'm okay with that. I'll take quality over quantity, but the problem is that it potentially cuts short Daniel Craig's reign as Bond. Could we potentially get only one more DC film, instead of the two I am hoping for? I'm sure he doesn't want to ride this rollercoaster forever and he will be pushing 50 when Bond 24 is released.
Commander
Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:51 PM
Exactly my impression as well. I'm okay with that. I'll take quality over quantity, but the problem is that it potentially cuts short Daniel Craig's reign as Bond. Could we potentially get only one more DC film, instead of the two I am hoping for? I'm sure he doesn't want to ride this rollercoaster forever and he will be pushing 50 when Bond 24 is released.
Daniel has two more movies on his contract right? I'm not really sure, but I think it's 2 more.
Lieutenant
Posted 21 May 2013 - 08:53 PM
It appears there is some kind of contract involved but public info on that is pretty spotty. And these kind of contracts get "re-negotiated" all the time. Making these films is really demanding and there has been some buzz, albeit from unverified sources, that Craig is getting tired of the whole thing and that cracks are forming. If he loses patience I have a feeling, and it is only a feeling, that he could make a pretty fast exit.
Lieutenant
Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:55 PM
At the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig ends up making only 4 films, regardless of contract :(
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:33 AM
I suppose if they rushed it, Bond 24 could start shooting once Nolan is done with Interstellar (Nov 2014) and possibly be out by Nov 2015.
My impression is rushing is the last thing on Eon's combined minds. Experience teaches rushed results usually don't satisfy on every level, not when it comes to Bond at the cinema. I suppose BOND 24 will rather come later than rushed, rather with a - relatively speaking - unknown director than with Nolan.
Also, Barbara and Michael are probably not in a rush considering how crowded November 2014 is looking already. You've got Nolan's Interstellar, Vaughan's The Secret Service, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. While the last film is more targeted towards female audiences, the first two films largely scratch the same itch and have the same audience as a Bond film. And then in December, you have the final installment of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. Holiday film season 2014 looks more like a crowded summer month than Novembers of years past.
Edited by TheManwiththeWaltherPPK, 23 May 2013 - 12:33 AM.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:16 AM
That is a very good assessment. Looking at that, the next Bond movie will definitely be not there until 2015.
Damn.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:22 AM
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:36 AM
This is a good analysis. Well, I think we'll see Bond 24 in 2015 or later.
But Ben Whishaw recently said the shooting would probably begin at the end of this year...
And Daniel Craig has to make two Bond movies before 2016, doesn't he ?
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:39 AM
The longer wait certainly will turn the next Bond into more of an event again, and maybe that´s a good thing considering all the media hoopla about SKYFALL and the anniversary.
Still, these long gaps will shorten Craig´s tenure. And again I hammer on about too "high profile"-directors for Bond: when every Bond film becomes an EVENT, they have to get those A-listers which will change the series from being action-adventure-entertainment into action-thrillers-showcasing serious directors and actors.
I loved SKYFALL. But it probably created a dangerous trend.
Edited by SecretAgentFan, 23 May 2013 - 11:39 AM.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:10 PM
Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:51 PM
What's changed since is that Bond alone isn't the event any more. It needs some kind of added attraction factor to make these films the huge hits they need to be to justify the budget. I agree, that probably may be a dangerous route for the series. Only - I don't really see how this development could be avoided. Could have been avoided, as it's now an ongoing trend for some time already.
Good point: Bond alone isn't the event he used to be and for a long while the marketing has made an effort to justify the making of yet another Bond film, but the only recent trend I've noticed is that they keep trying to push each film as a worthwhile film and not just another Bond film. During the Craig era they've so far lived up to the promise.*
But I'm not sure I fully understand you: you've summed up how blockbuster cinema - and its marketing - works in general; how does this relate to Bond specifically? Before SkyFall (which still simply let the director-crew-and-cast prestige speak for itself rather than shove it down the audience's throat) what 'added attraction' did the Bond films feel obliged to include?
*(yes, I even include QoS. It's not just another Bond film, regardless of how far it succeeds as a film.)
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:35 PM
What's changed since is that Bond alone isn't the event any more. It needs some kind of added attraction factor to make these films the huge hits they need to be to justify the budget. I agree, that probably may be a dangerous route for the series. Only - I don't really see how this development could be avoided. Could have been avoided, as it's now an ongoing trend for some time already.
Good point: Bond alone isn't the event he used to be and for a long while the marketing has made an effort to justify the making of yet another Bond film, but the only recent trend I've noticed is that they keep trying to push each film as a worthwhile film and not just another Bond film. During the Craig era they've so far lived up to the promise.*
But I'm not sure I fully understand you: you've summed up how blockbuster cinema - and its marketing - works in general; how does this relate to Bond specifically? Before SkyFall (which still simply let the director-crew-and-cast prestige speak for itself rather than shove it down the audience's throat) what 'added attraction' did the Bond films feel obliged to include?
*(yes, I even include QoS. It's not just another Bond film, regardless of how far it succeeds as a film.)
Well, it started with CASINO ROYALE being the reboot-Bond, the 'start-of-a-legend'-Bond. And even though you could almost totally ignore that angle - deliberately shot and cut so as not to alienate too many old fans - it obviously went in a different direction by the decision to have Craig as Bond, someone not previously regarded as the cinema-Bond material. QOS tried to play that angle a little longer by being the first direct sequel, an advantage possible because of the end of CR and the unsolved riddle about Mr White. They could have just continued with a by-the-numbers entry, without any reference to the events of CR, yet they chose to squeeze that material for more and spin on another yarn from the product. Of course audiences who had seen and liked CR were eager to get the full story.
Sadly the idea of a direct sequel hadn't been concrete enough by the time CR wrapped and when QOS finally went into production not much of a script had been available. But the general idea had obviously been to have art-house director Forster - after a fashion - continue the tale of Bond becoming Bond. Not just another Bond film, a Bond film with a distinctive meaning for the entire series, a claim grabbed from CR and carried on regardless.
Finally SKYFALL. I think that one very much was marketed as 'A Sam Mendes film'. It's the one Bond film where they actually waited for the dust to settle and the investors being sung back to sleep by 'New MGM', after being squeezed out of most of their investment. A script by Morgan with a supposedly shocking development, which in turn was dropped in favour of one by Logan with either the same shocking element or another. The hype around this one wasn't just the because of the - by now standard - viral marketing and the ingeniously placed youtube snippets and production diary. It was also that vibrant undertone of 'now Mendes is selling out to mainstream' - as if his work hadn't been mainstream all along - and 'now he's shooting for money' - as if he ever had done it for free or for a beer lorry. Mendes's involvement was massively capitalised for SKYFALL, in a way I don't think Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori ever were. This was a film critics and a considerable part of the audience wanted to see because of Mendes, too. And some just because of Mendes, no doubt.
Edited by Dustin, 23 May 2013 - 02:38 PM.
Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:44 PM
What's changed since is that Bond alone isn't the event any more. It needs some kind of added attraction factor to make these films the huge hits they need to be to justify the budget. I agree, that probably may be a dangerous route for the series. Only - I don't really see how this development could be avoided. Could have been avoided, as it's now an ongoing trend for some time already.
Good point: Bond alone isn't the event he used to be and for a long while the marketing has made an effort to justify the making of yet another Bond film, but the only recent trend I've noticed is that they keep trying to push each film as a worthwhile film and not just another Bond film. During the Craig era they've so far lived up to the promise.*
But I'm not sure I fully understand you: you've summed up how blockbuster cinema - and its marketing - works in general; how does this relate to Bond specifically? Before SkyFall (which still simply let the director-crew-and-cast prestige speak for itself rather than shove it down the audience's throat) what 'added attraction' did the Bond films feel obliged to include?
*(yes, I even include QoS. It's not just another Bond film, regardless of how far it succeeds as a film.)
Well, it started with CASINO ROYALE being the reboot-Bond, the 'start-of-a-legend'-Bond. And even though you could almost totally ignore that angle - deliberately shot and cut so as not to alienate too many old fans - it obviously went in a different direction by the decision to have Craig as Bond, someone not previously regarded as the cinema-Bond material. QOS tried to play that angle a little longer by being the first direct sequel, an advantage possible because of the end of CR and the unsolved riddle about Mr White. They could have just continued with a by-the-numbers entry, without any reference to the events of CR, yet they chose to squeeze that material for more and spin on another yarn from the product. Of course audiences who had seen and liked CR were eager to get the full story.
Sadly the idea of a direct sequel hadn't been concrete enough by the time CR wrapped and when QOS finally went into production not much of a script had been available. But the general idea had obviously been to have art-house director Forster - after a fashion - continue the tale of Bond becoming Bond. Not just another Bond film, a Bond film with a distinctive meaning for the entire series, a claim grabbed from CR and carried on regardless.
Finally SKYFALL. I think that one very much was marketed as 'A Sam Mendes film'. It's the one Bond film where they actually waited for the dust to settle and the investors being sung back to sleep by 'New MGM', after being squeezed out of most of their investment. A script by Morgan with a supposedly shocking development, which in turn was dropped in favour of one by Logan with either the same shocking element or another. The hype around this one wasn't just the because of the - by now standard - viral marketing and the ingeniously placed youtube snippets and production diary. It was also that vibrant undertone of 'now Mendes is selling out to mainstream' - as if his work hadn't been mainstream all along - and 'now he's shooting for money' - as if he ever had done it for free or for a beer lorry. Mendes's involvement was massively capitalised for SKYFALL, in a way I don't think Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori ever were. This was a film critics and a considerable part of the audience wanted to see because of Mendes, too. And some just because of Mendes no doubt.
Ah, I see what you mean. Lots and lots of 'firsts' in the Craig era, for sure.
As for Mendes...it was the critics (and consequently the media reporting) hyping his involvement up a lot - almost like free marketing. Babs and Wilson must have enjoyed and planned playing that angle. He ticked many boxes: in keeping with the more arthouse direction they've been going in since the reboot, drawing in people who wouldn't normally see a Bond film and easily winning critics over before the film was even made. And another 'first', as an Oscar winner in the director's chair.
Hm, perhaps we should start a new thread on the Craig era's 'firsts'...
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:47 PM
Maybe I just overthink this (me? overthinking on the internet?) because of this Nolan-rumor.
But is it really good for the series to only go with such high profile directors now? Has it suddenly become impossible to get a "just solid" director or even newcomer? Has a Bond film become such a prestige object that "just good entertainment" is aiming too low?
That´s what is beginning to bother me.
Personally, I´d rather have a solid Bond film every two years without all the A-list pedigree than only get a Bond film when those "masters of cinema" are attached, waiting for their schedules to clear up, only so they can deliver their take on Bond.
John Glen definitely was no auteur or even an A-lister. But he delivered back-to-back good if not great Bond films (at least the two Dalton entries).
Such a director type would be perfectly fine with me, as long as he understands Bond like Glen did.
Edited by SecretAgentFan, 23 May 2013 - 05:48 PM.
Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:53 PM
Interesting viewpoint but I just don't see it this way. This is a golden age for 007. We are getting pretty much the best of everything for these films, including the best and most interesting directors of our time. Even when the recent directors don't hit on all cylinders, the creative team is taking chances by selecting someone like Forster and I for one really like that approach.
Just as the sun rises it will set. Just as in the past the franchise had its ups and downs, so to will the productions in the future. I say while we are experiencing a serious upswing let's get the most talented directors of our generation to make some Bond films, since we don't know how attractive the series will be in the future to best and brightest.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:59 PM
Maybe I just overthink this (me? overthinking on the internet?) because of this Nolan-rumor.
But is it really good for the series to only go with such high profile directors now? Has it suddenly become impossible to get a "just solid" director or even newcomer? Has a Bond film become such a prestige object that "just good entertainment" is aiming too low?
That´s what is beginning to bother me.
Personally, I´d rather have a solid Bond film every two years without all the A-list pedigree than only get a Bond film when those "masters of cinema" are attached, waiting for their schedules to clear up, only so they can deliver their take on Bond.
Maybe it won't always be the A-list hitters. But I suspect Eon will try and give further entries a kind of 'twist', something to make productions special, beyond the ordinary every-other-year diet. Amongst all that new-MGM-this and new-MGM-that talk we've heard about during their recent troubles there was one thing ringing decidedly hollow to me: trying to get Bond out every other year again. I doubt that will ever become possible again, not unless there is a change in production drill towards a 24/7-round-the-year schedule. Which I think is unlikely with Eon.
Lieutenant
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:10 PM
Interesting viewpoint but I just don't see it this way. This is a golden age for 007. We are getting pretty much the best of everything for these films, including the best and most interesting directors of our time. Even when the recent directors don't hit on all cylinders, the creative team is taking chances by selecting someone like Forster and I for one really like that approach.
Just as the sun rises it will set. Just as in the past the franchise had its ups and downs, so to will the productions in the future. I say while we are experiencing a serious upswing let's get the most talented directors of our generation to make some Bond films, since we don't know how attractive the series will be in the future to best and brightest.
Hear hear!
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:31 PM
I still don't understand why people insist on having Nolan direct a Bond film. He's completely wrong for it. Present and future.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:42 PM
That's not insistence, merely a case of usual suspects mentioned during the slow news season. Once some concrete piece of news in connection to BOND 24's director is confirmed officially these speculations will immediately cease. I'd be much more concerned if Nolan wasn't mentioned as a possible candidate for the director's chair...
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:50 PM
I know it's merely a rumor, but still. I doubt he'd do it anyways with his next film Interstellar coming out Next November, he's about to get filming underway, so if was to do Bond 24, he would have to start pre-production anywhere from now until next year before filming will commence because it's likely Bond 24 will be out in 2015 and will most likely follow the same schedule as Skyfall did.
Commander
Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:02 PM
Maybe I just overthink this (me? overthinking on the internet?) because of this Nolan-rumor.
But is it really good for the series to only go with such high profile directors now? Has it suddenly become impossible to get a "just solid" director or even newcomer? Has a Bond film become such a prestige object that "just good entertainment" is aiming too low?
That´s what is beginning to bother me.
Such a course wouldn't really bother me if we were getting these directors and they were turning out work that was substantially better than what they no-named, journeymen directors who preceded them were turning out. At this point, short of landing either Michael Mann, David Fincher, or Ben Affleck, I'd rather see them turn the reigns over to a rising newcomer. Go find someone who can come in and really inject some new life into the series rather than hiring an "acclaimed" director to simply put a more sophisticated coat of paint on what is otherwise pretty much the same thing we've seen over and over again.