According to Matthew Vaughn rather than internet rumours, MGM where keen on him doing what was at the time Bond 21. EON had a different direction in mind than MGM, so no Vaughn. Rumours at the time where Vaughn and BB hated each other because she wouldn't let him cast his Layer Cake lead as Bond. The lazy bullshit knows no bounds. However the rumour of a relationship spat remains despite history proving it to be rubbish because of places like reddit and IMDB forums circulating it then click bait articles stating it as fact.
As a Bond fan himself, Vaughn used Connery's Bond as a reference point for Magneto in X-Men: First Class. He was given producer credit on Kingsman (as he was for the book) because the idea came from a pub conversation Vaughn had with Mark Millar whilst making Kick Ass. He later took the directorial reigns on Kingsman because a few other projects with the same idea started cropping up so if they didn't make.Kingsman immediately, it wouldn't get made at all. Vaughn's work is a love letter to Bond of old, not a f you over a fictitious grudge.
Serves me right for listening to rumours 
Because of LAYER CAKE, EON approached Vaughn for CASINO ROYALE very early on (even before Craig was officially cast). This is all covered in SOME KIND OF HERO.
Vaughn didn't get along with EON, however, and has said as much in interviews.
Oh, I'm not so wrong then
Here's a bit more
"MGM told me I was going to do [“Casino Royale”]. I was like, “Aaaaaah!” And they were like, “Don’t say anything, the Broccolis [Bond producers] need to tell you themselves.” And then they never told me. I’m told they were like, “Nah,” and changed their minds"
http://www.denofgeek...l-and-much-more
Bit hard to have a personal spat without actually talking to them.
...Aaaaand I'm wrong again
It worries me when he says: "...We said it was time to re-create the fun, stylish, crazy, witty, sort of spy movies I grew up on."
I don't want to go back to days of TSWLM and MR. They're wonderful time capsules, as DAD proved.
And: "What I'm saying is the world right now is really not a nice place. We're seeing a tough time and I think people are wanting escapism. There's a reason why Marvel movies have done so well."
Why is 'serious' not escapism? CR and SF are wonderfully escapist movies. Whereas Marvel is bubblegum for the kiddies. Sometimes i like some gum, but not Bond flavoured.
But then there's this: "The basis of this was that Ian Fleming's main number one choice for Bond was going to be David Niven... So when I was doing [Kingsman] I thought I would love to get the modern day David Niven to play this role and that's Colin Firth."
That's damn fine straight forward logic and casting, which is true to the material, rather than studio cravings for big names that the kiddies will pay to watch. Add to that the article making it sound as though Craig-as-Bond was his idea (was it? Who knows?) and Vaughn would seem to bring an understanding and love for the source material and Bond.
But he finishes with: "In a couple of years if they're thinking they want to change Bond up and reinvent it and do something different with it and they're looking for a take, yeah I would be interested."
I don't want it reinvented and 'changing it up'...what does that really mean? I'm afraid it means lots of CGI and super-slo-mo fights.
He grasps the fundamental mechanics of Bond, but i think he has a fetish for the anachronistic; combing Fleming's Bond with very modern cinematic tropes. In terms of the script that's no bad thing, but in terms of the aesthetic it's bloody annoying and cartoonish. Kingsman is basically a rich man's Guy Ritchie movie; there's little brains under the bonnet - he's far more interested in the slick, throw away aesthetics.
Maybe he'd approach Bond very differently to Kingsman, but these quotes don't particularly suggest he would.
)
