612 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

It's a far, far better film than SPECTRE.

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, on this one I have to strongly disagree.  U.N.C.L.E. was, for me, so far the biggest movie disappointment of the year.

 

Ah, wait.  No, that was TERMINATOR SALVATION.  But these two, definitely.

[Solex Agitator]

I would bet that Kenneth Branagh is on the consideration list.

[SecretAgentFan]

And I would love him to direct a Bond film, with a score by his go-to-composer Patrick Doyle.

[tdalton]

I can't imagine Branaugh being on the list. It's funny that people use the Shakespearean credentials against Dalton yet it's not an issue for Branaugh.

Just taking into consideration Branaugh's entry in the spy-thriller genre, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, he'd be completely wrong for the gig. He's not a strong enough director in the first-place, at least outside of Shakespearean projects, and his two big-budget films have been disasters, most notably the dull-as-dishwater Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.

[SecretAgentFan]

"Jack Ryan" had its moments but was mainly botched by all the post-production struggles.

 

Kenneth Branagh, IMO, is a fantastic director, able to bring out truly great performances.  In that way he is similar to Sam Mendes, coming from the theatre.

 

I would prefer, however, someone who is mainly an action director, a solid craftsman, not an auteur anymore.

[tdalton]

I think Jack Ryan was botched long before any post-production issues.  I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it if there was anything worthwhile in the film, but it's just underwhelming from the outset and never does anything particularly interesting.  If there was something there that had been worthwhile or interesting, then I think that a case could be made that studio interference played a large enough role to try to give Branagh some benefit of the doubt, but that's not the case with Jack Ryan.  

[Orion]

I can't imagine Branaugh being on the list. It's funny that people use the Shakespearean credentials against Dalton yet it's not an issue for Branaugh.

Just taking into consideration Branaugh's entry in the spy-thriller genre, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, he'd be completely wrong for the gig. He's not a strong enough director in the first-place, at least outside of Shakespearean projects, and his two big-budget films have been disasters, most notably the dull-as-dishwater Jack Ryan: Shadow RecruitT.

Thor was a disaster?
It was the strongest of Marvel's early efforts, getting easily the best reviews Marvel had pre-Avengers. Jack Ryan's failure is probably down to the reason the other 3 attempts to make a franchise out of it failed - Those books do not translate well to screen.
 

[tdalton]

Being the strongest and best-reviewed Marvel film is faint praise.  Marvel hasn't put out a decent film since the original Iron Man.  

[Orion]

The reviews and box-office receipts would disagree with you but...

I'm sorry, I don't know why I'm arguing with you, I'd actually agree with you and be against Branagh doing Bond 25 simply because it will just seem like they're trying to get another Sam Mendes, if they aren't getting Mendes back, I think they should go for very different.
 

[Odd Jobbies]

I would bet that Kenneth Branagh is on the consideration list.

 

 

 

I can't imagine Branaugh being on the list. It's funny that people use the Shakespearean credentials against Dalton yet it's not an issue for Branaugh.

Just taking into consideration Branaugh's entry in the spy-thriller genre, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, he'd be completely wrong for the gig. He's not a strong enough director in the first-place, at least outside of Shakespearean projects, and his two big-budget films have been disasters, most notably the dull-as-dishwater Jack Ryan: Shadow RecruitT.

Thor was a disaster?
It was the strongest of Marvel's early efforts, getting easily the best reviews Marvel had pre-Avengers. Jack Ryan's failure is probably down to the reason the other 3 attempts to make a franchise out of it failed - Those books do not translate well to screen.
 

 

 

If Branagh was spending my production money making a Bond movie i'd look to his Jack Ryan movie, rather than Thor as to how my cash might look onscreen. Unfortunately his Ryan was a damp squib.

[Harmsway]

I can't imagine Branaugh being on the list. It's funny that people use the Shakespearean credentials against Dalton yet it's not an issue for Branaugh.

Just taking into consideration Branaugh's entry in the spy-thriller genre, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, he'd be completely wrong for the gig. He's not a strong enough director in the first-place, at least outside of Shakespearean projects, and his two big-budget films have been disasters, most notably the dull-as-dishwater Jack Ryan: Shadow RecruitT.

Thor was a disaster?
It was the strongest of Marvel's early efforts, getting easily the best reviews Marvel had pre-Avengers. Jack Ryan's failure is probably down to the reason the other 3 attempts to make a franchise out of it failed - Those books do not translate well to screen.

THOR is dreadful. Easily the weakest of the original Marvel run. Branagh's "canted angles everywhere" approach to film direction is especially poor.

[Solex Agitator]

I think we can all agree that the budget of BOND 25 will not be that of SPECTRE. My guess is that BOND 25 will be comparable to CASINO ROYALE in scope. And I am more than okay with that. Please note that I greatly enjoyed SPECTRE.

 

As much as I think he would be an inspired choice, Christopher Nolan might tip the budgetary scale in more ways than one.

 

Like it or not, Branagh did prove himself with THOR. Like Mendes, Branagh is much beloved as an actor's director. Dame Judi Dench seems to enjoy working with him.

 

The idea of Guy Ritchie just doesn't peak my interest. 

[tdalton]

Branaugh in no way "proved" himself with Thor, but even if he did, for the sake of argument, he got rid of any goodwill he got for that film with the equally dreadful Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, a film that is a much closer indicator of how he'd do helming a Bond film.

[seawolfnyy]

I like Branagh more as an actor than a director. I wouldn't mind seeing Bryan Singer helm a Bond film. He's done very well with the X-Men films and Valkyrie still remains one of my favorite films (despite not being 100% accurate).

[JohnnyWalker]

How about Paul King and Bryan Fuller collaborate on a series of Bond scripts to be swapped between directors Morten Tyldum, David Slade and Michael Rymer?

[rubixcub]

Anyone else think one last shot from Martin Campbell, to close out the Craig era, would be worthwhile for Bond 25?

 

Dave
 

[Dustin]

I think Campbell must have been mentioned at least a dozen times already, many would like to,see him return. Seems unlikely though.

[Professor Pi]

Martin Campbell is now 72 and was already the oldest Bond director when he did Casino Royale at 62.  The previous record was Lewis Gilbert helming Moonraker at 59.  Plus, there's the whole Green Lantern thing to consider.  If Thor disavows Branagh, certainly Green Lantern would dampen Campbell's chances.

 

I'm also of the mind that if Christopher Nolan did Bond, it wouldn't be that much different than SPECTRE, which is to say, Sam Mendes already gave us a Christopher Nolan Bond film (Hoyte van Hoytema, Lee Smith, dreamlike feel, etc.) 

 

I've voted for Shane Black before (Iron Man 3, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), but he's busy writing a Predator reboot.  The producers found Craig when watching Layer Cake because they were checking out Matthew Vaughn as a director.  So he's probably still on their list.

[Harmsway]

Vaughn and Barbara Broccoli didn't get along. He's not on their list.

[SecretAgentFan]

Nolan is definitely not a candidate for BOND 25, due to his commitment to his next film DUNKIRK - unless EON and the new distributor decide to wait again (and I doubt that Nolan wants to throw himself into the Bond circus after completing DUNKIRK and its PR).

 

Mendes returning is a possibility since he and Craig get along so well - but the question is whether he wants to do it after two entries back to back.

 

Campbell - well, he delivered two great Bond films introducing new actors.  But seriously, those who want them back, IMO, hope for a kind of security that might not be there.  Campbell was lucky (and clever) to say yes to steer two pivotal moments in the series.  Would he have been received as well if he had directed films which did not introduce new actors?

 

Personally, I would opt for a director who can do action, not an auteur, someone who can be managed by EON better than Mendes.  Also, despite my constant defending of P & W, I think it´s time to get a new writer in there, but again: no Oscar bait, only an interesting craftsman who knows how to deliver without imposing his artistic ambitions.

[Bucky]

Personally, I would opt for a director who can do action, not an auteur, someone who can be managed by EON better than Mendes.  Also, despite my constant defending of P & W, I think it´s time to get a new writer in there, but again: no Oscar bait, only an interesting craftsman who knows how to deliver without imposing his artistic ambitions.

 

I nominate Mark Gatiss for writing duties.

[plankattack]

Personally, I would opt for a director who can do action, not an auteur, someone who can be managed by EON better than Mendes.  Also, despite my constant defending of P & W, I think it´s time to get a new writer in there, but again: no Oscar bait, only an interesting craftsman who knows how to deliver without imposing his artistic ambitions.

 
I nominate Mark Gatiss for writing duties.

Couldn't agree more on Gatiss. While I'm not against an auteur in the director's seat by any stretch, I do think having a new voice at the earliest writing stages is a must for the series.

[SecretAgentFan]

Not a fan of Gatiss.  His plotting is too gimmicky for me.

[Professor Pi]

Vaughn and Barbara Broccoli didn't get along. He's not on their list.

 

Interesting.  I didn't know that.  Not high on my list anyway.

[Odd Jobbies]

Couldn't agree more on Gatiss. While I'm not against an auteur in the director's seat by any stretch, I do think having a new voice at the earliest writing stages is a must for the series.

 

I'd imagine that hiring Gatiss would be comparable to the hiring of Rold Dharl for YOLT.  We'd get highly contrived story telling that would doubtless be gimmicky (as SecretAgentFan pointed out). But we'd get some Fleming-esque colour that's been sorely missing since the 70s; outlandish ideas, rather than contemporary geo-political 'relevance' (i.e. fantasy) and great villains.

 

Fleming's villains are imo closer to The Bros. Grimm than anything else - there's something playfully sinister about then, with their deformities and often obscure predilections for pain, torture and sadism in general. Dharl had already brought one of Fleming's most terrifying villains to life before YOLT: The Kiddie Catcher is just as, perhaps more disturbing as any in the Bond canon.

 

Gatis proved beyond doubt that he understands this with The League of Gentleman. Indeed that was collaborative, but i'm sure he was a loud voice the writing. I'm not pushing for Gatiss, as there's others i'd prefer overall, but i'd be happy enough to see his Bond movie - whatever else it'd be fantastical, disturbing fun in the Dharl/Fleming mould.

 

If B25 does end up being adapted from YOLT (i really hope so), then having Gatiss write it would mirror Dharl being the writer on the 67 version.

[Odd Jobbies]

Back on topic (Directors)....

 

I know Iron Man 3 didn't go down particularly well with the comic/Marvel fanboys, but watching it on tv right now, his direction is better than solid, he gets great performances - Downey riffs off him superbly and Kingsley gives his best since Sexy Beast (before, but especially after Iron Man 3's big reveal). He directs a satisfying action packed finale (the best of the Iron Man movies, i think).

 

It's not all about things blowing up (of which there's plenty), but what makes his finale way better is that the script has set up plenty of stuff, secrets and tensions that he can pay-off amid the mayhem; there's dramatic progression there, rather than just pyrotechnics and CGI. That's perfect for a great Bond movie many of which succeed or fail by the quality of the final villain v. Bond confrontation (the good ones have high stakes and character driven action, with plenty of wit (that's wit, not comedy). The poor ones involve lots of henchmen, shooting and explosions, but very little character driven resolutions.

 

To be fair to Bond, they invented this balancing act between action and dialogue (well, actually i think Hitchcock did with North By Northwest and Bond made it his own). But i think Black proves adept at this balancing act (he already had with his Lethal Weapon and Last Boy Scout scripts, but for me he's now proven he can shoot his fantastic scripts as well as anyone, if not better (naturally, i think it'd be crazy to snag one of the best action writers of all time and not have him write B25, as well as shoot it)

 

And of course his sharp, witty and very clever non-expositional dialogue is second to none (including Tarantino, but with the exception of Woody Allen in the 80s)

 

With Nolan busy Dunkirk and Eon Refn unlikely to risk it with Refn (not that he's ever really been mentioned anywhere apart from my posts here), Shane Black is fast becoming my favourite for B25. But his availability with Predator would be the potential issue.

[glidrose]

We do have a dedicated "Gatiss writing film Bond" thread here http://debrief.comma...-scriptwriters/

[Orion]

 

 

I know Iron Man 3 didn't go down particularly well with the comic/Marvel fanboys

It mostly did actually, it just didn't go down well with 6 racists who wanted a Chinese stereotype of The Mandarin and have done nothing but whinge on the internet about it since. Most adored Iron Man 3 for the very reasons you just said, same reason Kiss Kiss Bang Bang went down so well. 

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

 

I know Iron Man 3 didn't go down particularly well with the comic/Marvel fanboys

It mostly did actually, it just didn't go down well with 6 racists who wanted a Chinese stereotype of The Mandarin and have done nothing but whinge on the internet about it since. Most adored Iron Man 3 for the very reasons you just said, same reason Kiss Kiss Bang Bang went down so well. 

 

Well, those 6 racists had me pretty depressed about the poor taste of fanboys, so your insight makes me feel better about mankind in general, really. Thanks for that positive note

 

btw, i adore Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. No one mimics the sharp talking wit of Raymond Chandler better than the Black/Downey partnership - they really need to go make a Marlowe movie together.