21 replies to this topic

[SeanValen00V]

As far as stories go, I don't think they've serviced villians and Bond that well, Goldeneye it did, but I don't have complaints much about directors, but Brosnan's needs a good story for Bond 21, and be great to have a acclaimed writer do it, something fresh, all respect to Neal and Wade, but Brosnan deserves better. Something like The Living Daylights, and Licence to Kill, where the story fleshes out Bond througout the film, which makes those 2 films timeless in respect to story and character. I do like Pierce's films, but I can see it being better, and for his 5th, deserves it.

[Felix's lighter]

I can't honestly tell you that I see a difference between the directing styles of Spottiswoode (sp?) and Campbell, at least where it comes to Bond movies. However, the difference in quality between Bruce Feirstein's dialogue and that of Purvis and Wade's is high. As I've mentioned before, I'm really pulling for Feirstein's return in Bond 21.

[Loomis]

I'm overwhelmingly more concerned about the writers.

I get the impression that directors don't have much creative control over Bond films, and that they are in fact kept on a fairly short leash.

I don't say that directors are totally unimportant to the franchise, but I don't think that the selection of a director for BOND 21 will be remotely as crucial as ensuring a good story and script.

As long as Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli were in charge, and all the crucial elements in place (Brosnan, David Arnold, Vic Armstrong, etc. etc.), with a decent script to work with, Michael Winner could direct BOND 21 and it would probably still end up being good.

[Double-0 Six]

I'm more concerned about the writers, especially given some of the dialogue in Die Another Day. In particular the innuendo, which as I've said elsewhere I considered very childish rather than witty. I'd like to see a script with the sharpness of GoldenEye for Bond 21.

I'm equally concerned about the editor, who cuts the film so frequently I didn't have a clue what was going on much of the time. A shame.

[Harmsway]

I'm worried about both. I want a director with style and flair that matches up with the style of the 60s (what I feel we have now is an action movie feel, not Bond in and of itself). McTiernan did a good job on Thomas Crown Affair and I feel he's the man for the job. Brett Ratner could do a good job too, but Wilson and Broccoli won't pick either.


The script needs to be sharp, clean cut, and edgy. We need a plot that makes sense, characters that are well fleshed out, and dialogue that is the tops. In part, the dialogue in GoldenEye was the best of the Brosnans. It's edgy, sharp, and the villain has never gotten under Bond's skin more. We need that edge for Bond 21. The dialogue in DAD was somewhat faltering in places, which probably could've been fixed with a rewrite or two.

I want a script that's got plenty of style and flair, plenty of solid humour, and a more light-hearted approach than we've had with the last 2 Bond films. TND may not have been perfect, but at least it wasn't too personal and emotional (I mean, in TWINE Bond wipes away a tear on a screen! That's not Fleming's Bond!).

[ChandlerBing]

So I guess Michael Bay is out of the question then, right?

[General Koskov]

So far, the stories are pretty good (except the endings of TND and DAD, IMO) but DAD's dialogue was so bad that I wish Eon doesn't take another chance.

I can't remember one line that Jinx and Bond exchanged which was not silly innuendo. '[Ornothologist] is a mouthful'? Is that supposed to imply Jinx is stupid?

[Blue Eyes]

I'm more concerned about the director. The script is not just a product of Purvis and Wade, but also of the producers and the director. If it's bad, I know that Michael and Barbara would say so and make moves to change it. However, once you've hired a director there's little you can do to change their style etc... if you don't like it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
once you've hired a director there's little you can do to change their style etc... if you don't like it.

That's assuming you hire a director with a recognisable style and allow him the freedom to exercise it in the first place.

MGM/Eon make sure that they never hire "auteurs" and never give final cut.

[ChandlerBing]

The directors they get are not A-list ones, in that they are perfectly willing to give up final cut of the picture to the producers. These people are not ones who are coming in eagerly proclaiming to take Bond into R-rated T&A land with heads exploding with blood and guts galore.

[Loomis]

I seem to remember Tamahori talking about how he was planning to make Bond's bedroom exploits more steamy....

And what happened? Some of the material shot supposedly verged on soft pørn, and it was left on the cutting room floor. I'd guess that Tamahori would have included it given the chance, which he wasn't.

[B5Erik2]

I'm concerned about both equally.

The dialog through most of DAD is poor at best, juvenile at worst. The character development was very good for Bond in the first hour, but the rest of the characters came off VERY one dimensional.

The look of DAD didn't impress me, either, and the performances in the last 45-50 minutes were poor as well (even Brosnan was very robotic as he just seemed to be reading his lines).

I guess a great script can't be TOO screwed up by a director, but I'd rather see a great script (written by Michael G WIlson and Bruce Feirstein) and great direction (by John McTiernan, the PERFECT director for the job) for Bond 21.

Brosnan deserves that for his final Bond film. It would be a shame for him to go out the way Connery and Moore did.

[Loomis]

You're right, B5Erik2, it's sensible to be equally concerned about both, but in response to the question asked by the title of this thread, I'd rather BOND 21 had a mediocre director but a terrific script, instead of the other way around.

[Simon]

To be honest, I would always be more concerned about the producers - afterall, it is on their say so that people are hired. To wit, it was their decision that gave us a director who can direct women in TWINE. Precious little else mind, but the women were covered.

I hope that we don't get a picture that has a horror element/line to it in case the whole thing is handed over to Wes Craven.

Ok, so that was exemplifying my point perhaps one step too far.

The point is that they have to tread the line between classic picture and one that is going to keep the MGM hacks at bay. And since this one is currently raking in the potatoes, there is very little chance that there won't be CGI and innuendo in the next flick.

I would be happy to keep Tamahori around for the next flick, he can always have the power to veto a line if he feels so inclined.

[Rayliottaasbond]

Writers are more important, definately.

[deth]

I'm more concerned with the editors. Those slow-mo's in DAD have got to go.

[kevrichardson]

the Director's and the screenwriters are a very important part for the film making process. it is with the revial of the bond series that the director's chair has now more weight. after years of hacks like John Glen, a new set of Directors bring a different slant to Bond. Wade and Pervis are not grear writers, just good Bond fan. in a interview in HMSS, both fell that they can not adpat Casino Royale as a film. Bond is hot and Talented Director's want a shot a working with Bronsan, why not get some good screenwriter, bring back Michal France to adpat ans let Wade and Pervis, with Martin Campbell take over.

[B5Erik2]

John Glen a hack? I don't think so....

Tamahori is the hack, based on DAD which lacks all the Bond style and panache of Glen's films. Glen knew how a Bond film should look, and what kind of pacing a Bond film should have - and he achieved that every time.

If Purvis and Wade REALLY believe that Casino Royale can't be adapted for the big screen they they should be immediately taken off the short list for writers for Bond 21. I came up with a viable outline for a Casino Royale adaptation for Bond 21, and it would work VERY well. The fact that they don't believe that Casino Royale could be adapted for the big screen would just be further proof that they should have NOTHING to do with Bond 21. It could EASILY be adapted with just a few tweaks.

[RITZ]

I must admit Tamahori's direction in DAD was totally new for a Bond film. It had a slick style and edge(with photography and S/FX) but I think we need a director familiar with the Bond style.

We need an elegant, beautiful and powerful Bond thriller for the next film. Back to basics.

[kevrichardson]

if john glen was not a hack what was he??????????? certainly not Terrance Young. the Bond films suffer from hte stale direction of men like John Glen. the Producers solution of new director is nothing short of brilliant each man brings his own version/vision of Bond to the screen. it now just a question of finding the right screenwriting talent. Purvis and wade have done a good job , they according to a interview in HMSS, feel that Casino Royale is not adpstible to the screen . t lacks the action for the movie going public. the sad part Bronsan will go down as the man who revived Bond ,yet was never given a film worthy of his talents. look at Thomas Crown Affair , Tailor of Panama, and now the movie Evelyn. The problem is that the screen writers unlike Maibaum, who many can also find fault with . was able to adpat 5 Fleming novels Dr.No,FRWL,GOLDFINGER,THUNDERBALL(yes he had Fleming,Mcclory,original material)and OHMSS. all of which use or follow the book very close ,with some updating.

[JimmyBond]

Glen wasnt a hack, but out of the five films he directed, only two don't appear stale and tired (the direction, not the films themselves). FYEO and LD are both lively and nicely paced. The other three films of his are pretty flat, and you can tell his direction is lacking.

[jim74454]

PURVIS AND WADE HAVE GOT TO GO! BRING BACK FERNSEIN!