612 replies to this topic

[Bryce (003)]

Catching up here, but Nolan is a strong choice. I did read Soderbergh's bit on OHMSS. A great read and he is stylish in his direction. An interesting notion.

[Eskyfall]

I think Soderbergh would be excellent for a period Bond film. For a contemporary one, I'm not sure who I'd like at the moment. I've said Kathryn Bigelow before and stand by my choice. I guess I wouldn't mind Nolan, however, I would probably vomit when I heard Hans Zimmer's score as his organ blasts are drowning out Bond and Q's banter.

[SecretAgentFan]

Actually, the thought of Soderbergh, being inspired by his favourite Bond film OHMSS, directing Craig´s last effort - becomes more enticing the longer I think about it.

 

And since Soderbergh is very cost effective he could even deliver this film on a much tighter budget than EON is used to, doing his own camera work as well.

 

Hey, EON - go for it!

[Odd Jobbies]

So long as they let him off the leash. I don't want a cutsie, polite caper movie.

[SecretAgentFan]

It is a Bond movie, so... maybe a longer leash.

[Odd Jobbies]

It is a Bond movie, so... maybe a longer leash.

Indeed

[dirtymind]

Soderbergh would be a nice surprise. And he would be the first American Bond director.

[dirtymind]

How about Sir Ridley Scott?

[Toxteth_OGrady]

Hmm...

https://hmssweblog.w...y-helm-bond-25/

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, indeed: http://www.slashfilm...director-rumor/

 

Which would be exactly what I was hoping for: getting back to choosing directors who do not impose themselves on the film but work with the producers to create entertainment.

 

Paul McGuigan could be the next Martin Campbell.

[Orion]

Martin Campbell would be the best comparison - similar approach to directing in that, for better or for worse, they just make the best film possible out of the script they're given, preferring to focus on visuals and cast performances rather than adding their own ideas to scripts. 

[MISALA1994]

Yes, indeed: http://www.slashfilm...director-rumor/

Which would be exactly what I was hoping for: getting back to choosing directors who do not impose themselves on the film but work with the producers to create entertainment.

Paul McGuigan could be the next Martin Campbell.

+1

[Odd Jobbies]

I had been rooting for McGuigan to do a Bond since Gangster No1.  I was also a fan of the underrated Lucky Number Slevin to a lessor extent.

 

However, his movie work has been unremarkable and tailed off since then, which is a worry. And his recent return to the big screen, Victor Frankenstein was just god awful.

 

On the plus side he's been one the the better jobbing tv directors for a while, along with Vincenzo Natali, Neil Marshall and John Dhal; all names i love to see on the opening of a tv show.

 

 

BTW, Best news ever:  The writer's strike is off   

 

I wonder if the McGuigan news (leak?!) is connected to this; now the strike's off they've gotten the ball rolling, perhaps!

[Orion]

Well that's good. Regarding McGuigan and variable quality of the films on his cv, that is the risk of the "script as is" approach - for.very Casino Royale or Lucky Number Slevin, both of which I love, there is a Green Lantern or Frankenstein. On the plus side for this approach on Bond is that it goes very well with the more producer led production EON generally is. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I'm in favour of Producers giving the Director what he/she needs, rather than producer led vehicles that see the director merely as someone fit to assemble the factory parts.

 

IMO the best Bond movies are not producer led - they don't need to be because the Director has the reigns. The rest of the canon, sure, they're producer led, which is why they all hit the same story beats like they were mass produced.

 

I'm not 'dissing' the Producers - Producing is one of the more difficult jobs to do well, which is why great ones are thin on the ground. But they're not directors, so when a movie shoot is 'Producer led' it's a signal that the director is not up to it. I'm sure Eon would prefer not to lead the production; they'll want to hire a Director that confidently takes the reigns to the end.

 

Personally i think it's down to individual directorial talent, script quality aside, rather than the categorising of the director as being either an auteur or someone for hire. Just look at Mendes and Campbell - 'auteur' and 'jobbing director'. Their pigeon holes appear to be very different, yet they directed 2 of the best Bond movies in decades IMO.

 

Campbell may be seen as a director for hire, but i'll bet there was little call, and little room, for the Producers to step in and interfere, let alone lead the production.

 

However, many director's for hire (Brossa's latter 3 and most entries post FYEO, plus a few before) have been lacklustre in comparison to the directorial flare shown by Campbell and Mendes.

 

What i'm trying (and failing) to boil down is that it's not as simple IMO as asking 'Do 'for hire' directors, or Auteurs turning in the best Bond movies'. There's so many factors, and so much luck involved that it makes such deductions guess work.

 

McGuigan seems to be seen as a director for hire, but i think that's a poor assessment. There's definitely a McGuigan eye and a visceral sensibility to all of his work. I'd look forward to him bringing that to Bond.

 

However, the problems with Frankenstein are plentiful; at times his visceral skills rescue it, but at others they exacerbate the problems. I hope he's aware of this and knows why these issues occurred to make him a better Director. Also it was his first feature in a while, so perhaps he needs to get 'match fit', and perhaps Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool has evidenced that.

 

An 'In-form' McGuigan will make a very exciting and probably fairly violent Bond movie. Out of form it could be a bloody mess. Fingers crossed!

[Harmsway]

McGuigan seems like a very plausible choice for Bond 25, given EON's tendency to value established relationships. McGuigan would not be my favorite option--I kinda like the thought of the Bond franchise become the big-screen version of The Hire--but he's very much in the classic EON mold. It's impossible to tell what becomes of directors like McGuigan when they become attached to the EON machine; he could do well or poorly, regardless of his current CV.

 

Let's not forget that even Sam Mendes was, like Forster before him, just a more prestigious version of the British dramatists that usually catch EON's eye, and, again, they pursued him because of his existing relationship with Craig. As always: relationships first.

[SecretAgentFan]

Haven´t seen McGuigan´s "Frankenstein"-version, only the trailers - but if that one did not work out so well, it might have been due to the subject matter which seems to elude most modern directors.  Branagh tanked with it, and maybe that story is just impossible to update because the central idea is no longer shocking or has been done to death (Yes, PUN!).

 

Besides, every director has projects going south, even the biggest A-listers.  So I wouldn´t hold that film against McGuigan.  The important thing is: EON has obviously enjoyed a great working relationship and loves how their film directed by him has turned out.  And if you look at his "Sherlock"-work I must say: I´m already sold.

[Odd Jobbies]

It took me a while to get round to watching Netflix Luke Cage. Despite the good reviews the idea seemed a bit lame - too juvenile even for me

 

However, as usual i was wrong and the reviews were right - it's a great tv show (even if it does run out of steam 2/3s way through the series).

 

But back on topic, McGuigan did the first 2 eps and they are wonderfully directed. It's the big screen stuff he needs to get match fit for, but as i said, hopefully the Liverpool film has evidenced this.

[Pierceuhhh]

McGuigan is exactly the sort of bread and butter director this series should have. I haven't seen a single thing he's done, but he has the same pedigree as Campbell pre-GE - well-regarded TV work and fair-to-crap movies. He'll keep the budget down by working for a pittance. Throw in some nobody Eurotrash actors (Frobe! Celi! Lonsdale! Mikkelsen!) and put the extra money into a climactic action scene that has more than four people running around a facility! The Bond formula!

The current Nolan rumours doing the rounds depress me. The baseline competence just isn't there - only hype.

[Pussfeller]

Nolan's films may be joyless, overlong, and sophomoric, but there's nothing incompetent about them. Technically, I mean. He knows how to put a movie together. I wouldn't want him to create a Bond film from scratch, but I think I'd trust him to direct somebody else's script. If he insisted on writing his own script, then I'd worry. 

 

In any case, the Nolan rumor is probably a false alarm. As some CBNers have pointed out, it's unlikely that Eon would farm out to another production company. And it's unlikely that they'd blow tons of money on a "visionary" known for high-concept projects when all they really need is a capable workman director. Like McGuigan. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I predict: the Nolan rumour is the typical imdb.com fanboy speculation that only stirs up interest.

 

And really - would EON want another production entity to participate?  Another McClory-situation in the making?

 

C´mon. 

[Odd Jobbies]

McGuigan is exactly the sort of bread and butter director this series should have. I haven't seen a single thing he's done, but he has the same pedigree as Campbell pre-GE...

Campbell had been doing action and thriller direction for almost 20 years when did GE.

 

The Professionals x5, Reilly: Ace of Spies x6, Edge of Darkness x6.

 

The latter is one of the best tv mini-series ever made (imo) and Campbell did the whole series. I think his Bond pedigree far outweighs McGuigan's.

[Odd Jobbies]

Nolan's films may be joyless, overlong, and sophomoric, but there's nothing incompetent about them. Technically, I mean. He knows how to put a movie together. I wouldn't want him to create a Bond film from scratch, but I think I'd trust him to direct somebody else's script. If he insisted on writing his own script, then I'd worry. 

 

In any case, the Nolan rumor is probably a false alarm. As some CBNers have pointed out, it's unlikely that Eon would farm out to another production company. And it's unlikely that they'd blow tons of money on a "visionary" known for high-concept projects when all they really need is a capable workman director. Like McGuigan. 

I have to disagree. I think Nolan is the dream director for Eon. Like Mendes i'll bet he's very professional, knowing how to collaborate with Eon; he's made it clear that he respects Eon and understands that Bond has treasured tropes that shouldn't be screwed with (too much). It's that comprehension that'll allow Nolan to (as SAF put it in another thread), give us new that's the same but different.

 

Likewise it's documented in as many words that Bond is a dream gig for Nolan. It's not a question of 'if', but 'when' will Nolan do a Bond movie. I expected him to manage the soft reboot with a new actor he helps to choose. But i'll be delighted if he gets to call the shots on a grand finale for Craig.

 

Also, I believe Nolan has said the OHMSS is his favourite Bond movie and the current story arc has a distinct OHMSS/YOLT flavour to it (which is quite on purpose if you recall that the OHMSS score was used in the Spectre trailer). So maybe Nolan and Eon feel this is the time for him.

 

As the Syncopy issue. Well Eon has said this is a one picture deal, so maybe they're will to give Syncopy a try, knowing they're not locked into anything.

...would EON want another production entity to participate?  Another McClory-situation in the making?

Doesn't that depend upon the small print of this particular deal?

 

Having been burned in the past, couldn't Eon add clauses to ensure that all story and character rights remain there's?  Surely Nolan would contend such clauses, being such a Bond fanboy.

[Tiin007]

Nolan would be Mendes on steroids. The overlong, pretentious melodrama is something we should be moving away from. 

[SecretAgentFan]

My take:

 

The whole "Nolan must/will direct Bond" is blown out of proportion.  Of course, EON might have met with him at the height of his director stardom (around "Inception").  And the media would consider it a coup for EON if they managed to secure him as a Bond director.

 

But EON will be aware that Nolan is, even more so than Mendes, not giving up any creative decisions.  He couldn´t, actually, do that businesswise because it would set a precedent for his future dealmakings.  And since he totally relies on his wife as the producing partner, he would not freeze her out here, either.  So EON would have to deal with handling Nolan who would not let himself be handled, and EON would have to go through his wife which would be extra demeaning to them.  Also, Nolan would demand a huge part of the money coming in - and quite frankly, no director would be worth that for EON.

 

And this is business.  Nolan might stress in interviews how much he is a fan of Bond.  But the moment he starts to give up the kind of control he fought so hard to get film after film his status will be diminished.

 

Also, let´s wait how DUNKIRK does.  I actually don´t expect it to flop completely, but it will be more of a middling success, just like INTERSTELLAR was.  There actually are only three box office hits on his resumee: THE DARK KNIGHT, INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

 

And the perception of Nolan as a great filmmaker has diminished already.  People mainly love or hate him.  His plot contrivances have irked the critics for some time now, also the sombre seriousness and the lack of humour.  EON will think long and hard whether that is the direction they want to go in.

 

If DUNKIRK flops, by the way, maybe Nolan will be eager to prove his box office power again and concede to EON´s wishes, however.  So...

[Odd Jobbies]

That all makes absolute sense. But, as you said it would be a coup for Eon. They'll be balancing the good and the bad, but this one picture deal may make them feel like they have a chance to test the water with this relationship. 

 

From Nolan's perspective i think he'd be aware that the industry recognises Bond as a unique property with unique demands upon the director. I doubt he'd be too worried that giving up some control on this gig would give other producers license to demand the same (unless he were make a Marvel, or Star Wars movie in which case they'd have unique demands of their own he'd have to abide by).

 

I think he'd want to do and early pass on the script along with his brother Jonathan (if he can be dragged away from Westworld long enough). He'd want Syncopy/his wife to be in the loop with BB and he'd want as close to final cut as possible (which i imagine was the case with Mendes).

 

And you're right, if Dunkirk flops it might even make it more likely that he does Bond, but if it's a hit it certainly won't make him less desirable.

[MISALA1994]

No more this "Nolan & Bond" thing...

[Odd Jobbies]

Nolan & Bond...  

[Agent 76]

Matthew Vaughn

 

Bold, british and talented

[Odd Jobbies]

...And already made 2 of his 'f**k you' letters to BB for not hiring him on CR (if recall the rumours correctly). And he just said he has Kingsman 3 planned. I'd be surprised if he did Bond, at least for a while.

 

Also, like Snyder and John Woo, he's still a fan of the hackneyed 'super-slow-mo' fight scene moments. I'm not, so i'd worry that he'd bring this to Bond.