612 replies to this topic

[Hockey Mask]

Sam Mendes

[Vauxhall]

Martin Campbell or George Miller...no more Mendes, please.

It'd be an amazing story if Martin Campbell was an option to introduce Bond #7. Debuting three Bonds. Probably won't happen though.

I guess not. He'd probably be at least 77 or 78 by then, assuming Craig does one more, and it's quite a burden to take on. Successfully introducing two Bonds is quite an accomplishment though.

[casinoroyale75]

I didn't know MC was that old. He was incomparable in directing Casino. I wonder why he didn't do QOS?

[rubixcub]

He'd be 75 when Bond 25 rolls around; too old to be in the running?

 

I just re-watched "The Dark Knight Rises" and, so long as his brother or some such co-scripts it with him rather than him writing it solo, I could see him doing one.  If SP doesn't wring all it can out of the global box office (though it has yet to open in Australia, China, India, and Japan), Nolan's name attached might be a way to goose it.

 

Dave

[rubixcub]

I think the US reviews and criticism will have put an end to any idea that Mendes would do another one.

 

Agreed.  One senses he really didn't want to do this one, and now that he's had his ears pinned back by the critics, despite Barbara Broccoli's claim that they're intent on keeping him and Craig for the next one, I think Mendes will decline, citing the reasons he was reluctant to do SP in the first place, but with additional weight behind his comments.

 

One thing is for sure: they need to get the script in shape EARLY in the process for the next one.  I never thought I'd say it, but I think P&W having crafted the plot may have been what has helped Craig's most successful Bonds; when they participate early in the process & then have their dialogue redrafted, it seems to work better than the other way around.  And Logan's screenplays often have a frustrating structure ("Gladiator", "The Aviator") and poor pacing.

 

Depending on the success of their upcoming projects, the next director will probably be someone the likes of Morten Tyldum or Denis Villeneuve.  Watch out for Tom Hooper being contracted to do one of these, it's probably only a matter of time.

 

Dave

[DavidSomerset]

Brocollis lost a great opportunity in the 80s when they refused Spielberg. They shouldn't do the same mistake with Nolan. Chris should be given a SPECTRE Trilogy (Bond 25 and 26) to end DC's run. Bonus - we will get Anne Hathaway as the Bond Girl. And Michael Caine as  Hannes Oberhauser to make the Austin Powers connection explicit.  

[tdalton]

One thing is for sure: they need to get the script in shape EARLY in the process for the next one. I never thought I'd say it, but I think P&W having crafted the plot may have been what has helped Craig's most successful Bonds; when they participate early in the process & then have their dialogue redrafted, it seems to work better than the other way around. And Logan's screenplays often have a frustrating structure ("Gladiator", "The Aviator") and poor pacing.

I think the best thing they can do on the writing front is to cut ties with all of the current writers and start over with new people. For BOND 25, I think MGW should come up with a very basic premise and then identify several potential screenwriters to draft a treatment based on it and then whittle the list down from there. There has to be a new team of writers, though. They'd already decided to cut ties with P&W and then Logan was a disaster, so its time to completely move on from that team.

As for Nolan, I hope EON is wise enough not to give in to that popular temptation. A Nolan Bond film, especially a post-Batman Nolan Bond film, would be terrible.

[occhile007]

I honestly don't think Sam Mendes will come back. Mendes gave everything he could in both Skyfall and SPECTRE. Let the man go with some dignity. Even if EON were to send a dump truck full of money to his house, I highly doubt he will return. At most I would like to see him as a creative consultant, producer or even executive producer. As for replacements, Bond 25 needs a director who can keep the same themes that CR, SF and SP had. That darker tone, but throw in the jokes when necessary. Sorry to say it, but unless the Bond rights get picked up by WB, then there's little to no chance that Christopher Nolan will direct a Bond film. He does not want to come into the middle of a story that is already being told. He likes to create his own story and not pickup where someone left off.

 

As for new directors, EON can go one of two ways, as I mentioned before, find a dramatic/character director who can pickup/give Daniel Craig's Bond the proper ending it deserves. Sure they could tap Martin Campbell (who happened to be at the SP world premiere), but let's not limit our options. I will throw one name out there...Denis Villeneuve. He directed Prisoners, just directed Sicario and will be directing Blade Runner 2. And guess who he works with...Roger Deakins. EON needs to get Roger Deakins back, as well as, Stuart Baird in the editors chair. Throw in Gary Powell as your stunt coordinator and you've got yourself another classic Bond movie.

 

 

"I'm not looking for the best players. I'm looking for the right players."

[dtuba]

Alejandro González Iñárritu

 

If you loved the first camera shot in SP as much as I did, how about a Bond film that appears to be one continuous take?

 

(p.s.  Not a serious suggestion)

[Agent 76]

I think it will do the franchise good things, to bring a new director instead of Sam Mendes. He did a good job, but it's time for another approach to the franchise.

[Dustin]

I'm not at all sure the make-or-break is the choice of director for Bond. I think a good script is much more important. And once you have that you need the right director to translate it into a vision and put it on screen. Ultimately, whatever shortcomings SKYFALL had, the basic recipe of story, themes and realisation by Mendes worked splendidly. For me SPECTRE didn't come close to this, despite considerable talent involved on all fronts. The basis is where the fate of a film is decided; and that basis is the script, is a stringent story, is a clear characterisation and an involving development from start to finish. Which director tell this story is not necessarily all that important, as long as it's told in the fitting manner.

[Agent 76]

Yes Dustin, the script really is the most important aspect of a movie, and also you need good actors to make the said script shine. Buy certain directors have the midas touch when it comes to bring a story to life.

[Dustin]

That Midas touch is actually not so hard to understand: they just don't touch what doesn't resonate with them. Many many good directors have the odd dud in their résumé - but the best of the best nearly always delivered decent work, simply because they kept away from the stuff they couldn't wrap their heads around.

Sadly, with Bond you usually don't get a finished story - much less a script - when Eon calls. There is just no way of knowing what's in it beyond the usual paraphernalia of the Bond wagon: girls and cars and bling bling. And just 'wanting to do a Bond film one day' is by no means a guarantee for success.

[Harmsway]

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

[SecretAgentFan]

That Midas touch is actually not so hard to understand: they just don't touch what doesn't resonate with them. Many many good directors have the odd dud in their résumé - but the best of the best nearly always delivered decent work, simply because they kept away from the stuff they couldn't wrap their heads around.

Sadly, with Bond you usually don't get a finished story - much less a script - when Eon calls. There is just no way of knowing what's in it beyond the usual paraphernalia of the Bond wagon: girls and cars and bling bling. And just 'wanting to do a Bond film one day' is by no means a guarantee for success.

 

Spot on.  That´s why the so-called "journeymen"-directors have fared pretty well with Bond, IMO.  They took what was there and made it work without forcing their personal themes into the film.

 

I love SKYFALL.  And I have gotten over my initial disappointment with SPECTRE and can enjoy it as decent and entertaining.  

 

But Mendes definitely pushed for the personal angle and heightened emotional stakes in his two Bond films.  With SKYFALL it worked, with SPECTRE it became obvious how dificult that kind of merger really is.

 

Especially when the script is constantly debated by too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

You can see so clearly that a unity of vision for SPECTRE was hampered by those who wanted to tell the Bond´s nemesis is his foster-brother-story, those who wanted to bring back Blofeld and Spectre, those who were in charge of delivering action-setpieces, those who felt the unproductive pressure of getting another SKYFALL-like box office result by trying to use elements that seemed to be loved in that film, and those who wanted to play it safe by injecting more of the typical Bond elements into the film.

 

Of course, this is not the first time that this mix of creative approaches was tried, and it won´t be the last time.  But IMO SPECTRE suffers from the same problems that made THUNDERBALL and DIE ANOTHER DAY less successful.  For me.  Not at the box-office.

 

Strangely, MOONRAKER, I feel, works much better than those three "fourth films", although it basically repeats the THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-formula.  Maybe that´s due to Sir Roger and Christopher Wood´s unashamed flamboyance of the setpieces.  Maybe it´s because MOONRAKER has much more consistent narrative tension than THUNDERBALL.  Or that it does not need to make it personal and gritty like DIE ANOTHER DAY tries in its first half.

[Orion]

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

I ADORE Bryan Fuller's writing and he could do wondrous things with Bond (he is a Bond fan, Hannibal being replete with Bond references), but I'm going to be really selfish and say NO! He should be working on bringing back my favourite TV series (Hannibal) as well as his adaptation of my favourite book (American Gods)

[Odd Jobbies]

Yes Dustin, the script really is the most important aspect of a movie, and also you need good actors to make the said script shine. Buy certain directors have the midas touch when it comes to bring a story to life.

Absolutely right. I can tell you from experience that directing poorly is indeed easy, but directing well is one of the hardest gigs in the world. You have to be not only a good artist (an autuer, as in a claim to authorship of the film), but also a good leader and politician. It's many hats to wear.

 

The Directors that can do all this with aplomb are worth their weight in gold and fairly thin on the ground. Mendes is a very good Director, but not IMO in the league of Scorsese for example in terms of wearing all those hats almost flawlessly. We've gotten 2 fantastic Bond movies from Mendes, but of course they are not perfect, But I think the failings do not mean we should revert back to jobbing directors, with less freedom and authorship, who simply block in the script. In fact i think it means that Eon should aim even higher and strectch further the artistic freedom they grant such talent, eg. Miller, Refn, Nolan.

 

It's also absolutely right that everything hinges on the script - without a good script you can throw all of the directing, acting talent etc. you want at it, but only come away with mediocre results at best.

 

Craig has brought the directing talent, now Eon et al need to chose the writing talent better and then have faith in it, rather than bringing back P&W with their hackneyed vision to re-write, which means 'Bond-format' it for Eon, cutting away all that made it unique and self-contained (which is my guess). Then hiring last minute script doctors to try and put back the class, uniqueness and nuance that re-formatting it has removed.

 

SPECTRE is very successful in many areas, but the script and more over the plotting is a major weak point and it wreaks of re-writes that keep what they like and throw away the rest, leaving plot holes and weak character motivation.

But Mendes definitely pushed for the personal angle and heightened emotional stakes in his two Bond films.  With SKYFALL it worked, with SPECTRE it became obvious how dificult that kind of merger really is.

 

Especially when the script is constantly debated by too many cooks in the kitchen.

Indeed.

[SecretAgentFan]

Craig has brought the directing talent, now Eon et al need to chose the writing talent better and then have faith in it, rather than bringing back P&W with their hackneyed vision to re-write and then script doctors to tweak. 

 

I disagree on this strongly.  P & W seem to be much more familiar with Fleming´s ideas and eager to write an interesting spy thriller.  It´s the constant re-writing of their vision that inhibits the impact, with all the "name" writers being called in, getting all the praise while, IMO, someone like Butterworth actually did not improve the SPECTRE script at all.  And Logan has no firm grasp of Bond at all, being only adept at charming directors by doing what they want.

 

Still, it´s time to shake things up completely, starting over with a new writer.  And please - don´t re-write him.  Stick to his vision with a director who does not want to enforce his own themes onto the story.

 

Of course, that´s not how the business works.  I know...

[Major Tallon]

Wonderfully said, Dustin and SecretAgentFan.  I've come to enjoy "Spectre" for what it is, but I'd hoped for so much more.  A lot of effort and, dare I say it, love went into making this film and yet I feel it ultimately is uninvolving, largely because of problems with the script. 

[Harmsway]

 

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

I ADORE Bryan Fuller's writing and he could do wondrous things with Bond (he is a Bond fan, Hannibal being replete with Bond references), but I'm going to be really selfish and say NO! He should be working on bringing back my favourite TV series (Hannibal) as well as his adaptation of my favourite book (American Gods)

 

Hannibal ended perfectly and the idea for the fourth season wasn't a great one. They should leave that alone. And Fuller's work on American Gods will be mostly concluded by the end of the year.

[Professor Pi]

Strangely, MOONRAKER, I feel, works much better than those three "fourth films", although it basically repeats the THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-formula.  Maybe that´s due to Sir Roger and Christopher Wood´s unashamed flamboyance of the setpieces.  Maybe it´s because MOONRAKER has much more consistent narrative tension than THUNDERBALL.  Or that it does not need to make it personal and gritty like DIE ANOTHER DAY tries in its first half.

 

I feel that MOONRAKER works in that it's paced pretty well and it's not trying to be something it's not.  Yes, there are double taking pigeons, hover gondolas, and Magnificient Seven and Close Encounter musical jokes.  But anyone who stayed passed the PTS where Jaws lands on a circus tent couldn't say they didn't know what they were in for.  It's a Bond movie for kids.

 

THUNDERBALL has pacing problems.  It's not as good as its two predecessors, nor as original.  In that way, SPECTRE is much like Connery's fourth.  But both of them have better dialog than DIE ANOTHER DAY, which like SPECTRE, undermines itself by embracing just about every formulaic Bond trope, making the referrals explicit.  Each starts with a promising first half, then collapses under its own weight in the second.

 

SPECTRE wants its Blofeld to be the most personally dangerous to Bond, but Waltz comes across as a mixture of Charles Grey 's effeminate portrayal and Donald Pleasance's cartoonish rendition.  Both Telly Savalas' OHMSS and even the limited appearance in FYEO had more menacing Blofelds.  EON had a chance to be loyal to the literary roots of Bond's longest running nemesis, and instead opted to show Dr. Evil and his cat.  Which would have been fine if they hadn't fabricated the foster brother story, trying to make SPECTRE something it is not.  Craig's fourth film can't decide if it wants to be serious (CR/SF/OHMSS) or just fun (YOLT/LALD).  It ends up being neither.  It's by no means the worst Bond film, and in many ways it is satisfying.  And yet shares problems similar to DIE ANOTHER DAY making it a bit of a disappointment too.

[Orion]

 

 

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

I ADORE Bryan Fuller's writing and he could do wondrous things with Bond (he is a Bond fan, Hannibal being replete with Bond references), but I'm going to be really selfish and say NO! He should be working on bringing back my favourite TV series (Hannibal) as well as his adaptation of my favourite book (American Gods)

 

Hannibal ended perfectly and the idea for the fourth season wasn't a great one. They should leave that alone. And Fuller's work on American Gods will be mostly concluded by the end of the year.

 

I had faith in the season 4 idea, afterall Hannibal as a TV series is replete with bad idead made to seem like good ones by VERY good writing. Do agree that 3's ending was a perfect ending, I'd just rather see more. I do think he'll be working on American God's for some time yet though, he is (now) lead show runner so will be still working on it well into production, which initself is still some time off going by a distinct lack of cast.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

 

 

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

I ADORE Bryan Fuller's writing and he could do wondrous things with Bond (he is a Bond fan, Hannibal being replete with Bond references), but I'm going to be really selfish and say NO! He should be working on bringing back my favourite TV series (Hannibal) as well as his adaptation of my favourite book (American Gods)

 

Hannibal ended perfectly and the idea for the fourth season wasn't a great one. They should leave that alone. And Fuller's work on American Gods will be mostly concluded by the end of the year.

 

I had faith in the season 4 idea, afterall Hannibal as a TV series is replete with bad idead made to seem like good ones by VERY good writing. Do agree that 3's ending was a perfect ending, I'd just rather see more. I do think he'll be working on American God's for some time yet though, he is (now) lead show runner so will be still working on it well into production, which initself is still some time off going by a distinct lack of cast.

 

I think Hannibal is better left the way it is. It was always Will & Hannibal and the show perfectly ends with them. Would I have liked a fourth season? Sure, but season 3 concluded very well. Looking forward to whatever Fuller cooks up next (American Gods). As for Bryan Fuller writing Bond 25, I could definitely get behind that idea.

[Orion]

 

 

 

 

If they want a good script, there's only one guy they gotta call: Bryan Fuller.

I ADORE Bryan Fuller's writing and he could do wondrous things with Bond (he is a Bond fan, Hannibal being replete with Bond references), but I'm going to be really selfish and say NO! He should be working on bringing back my favourite TV series (Hannibal) as well as his adaptation of my favourite book (American Gods)

 

Hannibal ended perfectly and the idea for the fourth season wasn't a great one. They should leave that alone. And Fuller's work on American Gods will be mostly concluded by the end of the year.

 

I had faith in the season 4 idea, afterall Hannibal as a TV series is replete with bad idead made to seem like good ones by VERY good writing. Do agree that 3's ending was a perfect ending, I'd just rather see more. I do think he'll be working on American God's for some time yet though, he is (now) lead show runner so will be still working on it well into production, which initself is still some time off going by a distinct lack of cast.

 

I think Hannibal is better left the way it is. It was always Will & Hannibal and the show perfectly ends with them. Would I have liked a fourth season? Sure, but season 3 concluded very well. Looking forward to whatever Fuller cooks up next (American Gods). As for Bryan Fuller writing Bond 25, I could definitely get behind that idea.

 

I loved how all of Hannibal's seasons ended with things that could be a proper (if incredibly dark) ending should they not get renewed, all three involving (SPOILER!!!) Hannibal getting away with it all (i'm assuming you stayed till after the credits for s3). As for him writing Bond 25, as much as my mouth waters at the notion (given this is a man who intentionally designed Hannibal's "cleaning up suit" to be like Dr No's radiation suit) I think his commitments to American Gods will take him out of contention for now, assuming of course we aren't just about to go into another 4 year gap between films.

[Bucky]

All the talk of Hannibal makes me curious what a David Slade or Michael Rymer directed Bond film would look like, although I expect they will go after more accomplished names.

 

I would still love to see Joe Wright direct a Bond film, although that may be unlikely to happen until he has recovered from Pan, especially if the rights get picked up by WB.

[JohnnyWalker]

David Slade

That would be interesting since his last film destroyed his credibility.

[Harmsway]

All the talk of Hannibal makes me curious what a David Slade or Michael Rymer directed Bond film would look like, although I expect they will go after more accomplished names.

I'd only have interest in them if Fuller was on-board as writer. Same for Vincenzo Natali.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

David Slade

That would be interesting since his last film destroyed his credibility.

 

Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night are both superb movies. His tv resume is even more impressive, with Hannibal having more cinematic credibility than most made for cinema movies.

 

Whether he's the right man for Bond is debatable, but he's a solid filmmaker with plenty of flourish. Way back i remember Paul Mcguigan being touted (a missed opportunity i thought at the time) and i'd put Slade in the same pedigree.

 

Now we have Craig and the calibre of Mendes, with Nolan seeming entirely plausable, it seems to have moved beyond Slade's reach, but he's indeed a very good filmmaker that'd turn in a solid effort imo.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

All the talk of Hannibal makes me curious what a David Slade or Michael Rymer directed Bond film would look like, although I expect they will go after more accomplished names.

I'd only have interest in them if Fuller was on-board as writer. Same for Vincenzo Natali.

 

Now, Natali... his movies are hit and miss (Cypher = hit, Splice = miss), but he makes some of the best tv out there - his eps of Hannibal were outstanding. And Cypher  really is a lost gem of a movie.

[JohnnyWalker]

 

David Slade

Now we have Craig and the calibre of Mendes, with Nolan seeming entirely plausable, it seems to have moved beyond Slade's reach, but he's indeed a very good filmmaker that'd turn in a solid effort imo.

 

I'd imagine it's more about them all trusting the filmmaker, I'm sure they haven't forgotten the success they've had with Martin Campbell, who was really a TV director before Bond.