328 replies to this topic

[kevrichardson]

Never thought of Tony Scott as a "Auteur Filmmaker" . I mean "Beverly Hill Cop 2 . I was under the impression that MGM only okay the film and supplies the Money(!!) . Since when did it look for Directors . From what i read every thing is up to EON (Broccoli /Wilson ) from script to cast and crew . When did this change with MGM . Suggesting who should direct ?

[kevrichardson]

Also CrashDrive you never answered my question regarding Mick Jackson . I am sorry but i must protest the waste of time given to John Mc Tiernan ! He will never direct a Bond . I don't care if "BASIC" is a flop . Which from all indications it may will be . Still i will not go and see it . British and commonwealth director only . There is a historic reason for that . in the early days of Bond , the franchice got a Eady Plan subsidy (from the British film industry) . Which menat that it had too have a all-British cast and be shot on "British" locations ( namely Pinewood and Commonwealth ) . I don't know if it still does need this or if it is still avaible . But Bond's have been all British productions . And generate a great deal of work for the British film industry . That said as the listing proves there are a great number of A-list British/ Commonwealth Director ready to direct a Bond . Many of whom could fit into EON/DANJAQ requirements . Frankly John McTiernan name listed smacks of the old "Fantasy" of Connery returning to the role . It waste !

[Loomis]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Never thought of Tony Scott as a "Auteur Filmmaker" . I mean "Beverly Hill Cop 2  .

I've already acknowledged that Scott directed BEVERLY HILLS COP II (as well as TOP GUN). However, while he's certainly no art house merchant (and while he's arguably less of an "artist" and less talented than his brother Ridley), Scott qualifies as an "auteur" since he's managed to develop a style that's strong and unique (which in itself doesn't necessarily make him a good director, of course).

Indeed, Scott fits the classic definition of an "auteur" as first put forward by Truffaut, Andrew Sarris and others, insofar as he succeeds in putting a personal stamp on mainstream Hollywood popcorn movies that are very much part of "the system". He's not exactly a critics' darling, but he's nonetheless the kind of director film buffs discuss. Some of his pictures have become cult movies (THE HUNGER, REVENGE, THE LAST BOY SCOUT, TRUE ROMANCE), and it's easy to imagine a film festival or an independent cinema putting on a retrospective of his work.

Obviously, it would be just as easy to make a case for McTiernan being an auteur director, and just as easy to picture a McTiernan season being held somewhere, but I happen to feel that McTiernan's personal style is less pronounced than Scott's, and that he would be a better choice to direct a Bond film.

Originally posted by kevrichardson
 
I was under the impression that MGM only okay the film and supplies the Money(!!) . Since when did it look for Directors . From what i read every thing is up to EON (Broccoli /Wilson ) from script to cast and crew . When did this change with MGM . Suggesting who should direct ?  

From what I've read on this site and elsewhere, it seems that MGM has more than once given EON "advice" on who should and shouldn't be hired, with an eye to making the Bond films more "commercial" (read: more attractive to US audiences). For example, MGM apparently insisted on Teri Hatcher being cast in TOMORROW NEVER DIES and Denise Richards being cast in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Quite possibly it was MGM's idea to woo Halle Berry for DIE ANOTHER DAY. It is also rumoured that MGM top brass persuaded Albert R. Broccoli to "fire" Timothy Dalton and director John Glen after the perceived failure of LICENCE TO KILL. Bearing all that in mind, it would appear logical to assume that Tony Scott was approached by MGM and not EON, since he had established a track record in slick Hollywood action thrillers (EON evidently felt that Scott was too much of an auteur and/or that his style was just plain wrong for Bond).

Originally posted by kevrichardson

I am sorry but i must protest the waste of time given to John Mc Tiernan ! He will never direct a Bond . I don't care if "BASIC" is a flop . Which from all indications it may will be . Still i will not go and see it . ... Frankly John McTiernan name listed smacks of the old "Fantasy" of Connery returning to the role . It waste !

Protest all you like! McTiernan may be a "fantasy" candidate (I've acknowledged as much many times before), but the fact is that he would be the preferred choice of a lot of fans, and since this is a fansite that is not something we should dismiss out of hand just because EON might be likely to.

After all, the internet has become the "voice" of the fanboys and film geeks. If enough people, on enough sites, cry out for McTiernan, it won't automatically mean that McTiernan will be approached by The Powers That Be, but it will mean that TPTB will become aware of the fact that many fans want him to do a Bond flick.

[kevrichardson]

Once again Loomis i must hand it too you!! Some ascepts of you post i narturally agree with . The statement on "Advice" from MGM for example . Only a hermit would not agree that MGM "pressured" Broccoli to relief John Glen and Dalton from there Bondage . The push ( yes it 's a push ) to get Bond 21 into pre-production sooner ( EON- Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson seemed comfortble with the 3 year wait , especially if Brosnan was happy) now that's changed .The last 3 film proior to "DAD' had small scale villians ( 006 "GE" , Carver"TND" , Electra King "TWINE" ) now we had a villian who was "Larger than Life" in DAD . I still can not be persuaded that John McTiernan is "right " for Bond . regardless of the majority of the fans . I hope that EON would look in another avenue for some one to helm Bond 21 .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
...but it will mean that TPTB will become aware of the fact that many fans want him to do a Bond flick.

Don't take this personal, because I know you are definately an exception, but most Bond fans don't know what they want. Nobody would have voted for someone like Martin Campbell or Lee Tamahori before 'GoldenEye' and 'Die Another Day' respectively. Bond fans don't have vision. They only want people they have seen direct a Bond film or a Bond-esque film (like say 'The Thomas Crown Affair') and cheer for them. I have a feeling EON knows this, so they just ignore what the fans want, because in the end, they know what the fans want without them realising it.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Also CrashDrive you never answered my question regarding Mick Jackson .

Which one?

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Do you mean that fans lack the long term vision for the series the producers have? Or do you mean that fans lack the vision to know who will do a good or great job in the director's seat for one film? If it's the former I might agree, if its the later I really don't.

I believe I have enough vision to know I'd rather have the director of TCA, Die Hard, Hunt For The Red October and not the guy who did Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot or Nemesis. I'm fully aware that at it's heart the Bond series is a producers medium and they don't want a director overly controlling the tone and direction of a film, esecially since they're not thinking one film at a time they're thinking of the legacy and the future of the franchise. And basically that outlook has been proven to be correct, it's much of the reason the franchise has prospered and lasted while others have gone off the rails and crashed.

But even within those restrictions there are still directors who are better able and more suited to make a good or great Bond film than others, and many fans are very able to look at track records and styles and glean this. Does McTeirnan or even Scott fit within the narrow parameters of what EON want from a director, most likely not but again that has more to do with an overall vision for the series than the vision for a particular film and how great it could possibly be in the hands of just the right director.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Which one?

Okay! The question with regards to Mick Jackson . One i recall if he was ever on any short list to direct a Bond . And frankly any other's i ask about him . Since you would be the only person in creation who would know. Help a brother out !

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
I believe I have enough vision to know I'd rather have the director of TCA, Die Hard, Hunt For The Red October and not the guy who did Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot or Nemesis.

That's exactly what I mean. Who would have thought the director of 'Turner and Hooch' could deliver a good Bond film? The fans certainly wouldn't. But fortunately EON would. With vision I mean, to see past the usual suspects (for example 'Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot') and look deeper. Then fans would find Spottiswoode directed wonderfull films like 'Under Fire' starring Nick Nolte, Gene Hackman and Ed Harris. The same goes for the other directors I've listed. A director like McTiernan is an obvious choice. Of course you would prefer someone like him over Baird. But a lot of fans just aren't able to look deeper. And I really wish they would. It would make the discussion much more interesting and realisitc.

[kevrichardson]

Crash Drive may Questions on Mick Jackson .Please !!! CrashDrive Roger Spottiswoode directed a Tom Hanks film . So what ? My question !

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Sorry but McTeirnan would have made a much better TND IMO than Spottiswood did. I liked it, he gives good workmanlike direction but there could have been much more to it than that and McTeirnan could have done more with it. And as much as I love TWINE, he could have done better than Apted as well, I think he could have made the drama and the action work better together.

You're arguing two different points. One is asking us to discuss who EON would realistically hire because of their need for control and their vision of what Bond is. The other is trying to convince me that Spottiswood was actually a better artistic choice for TND than McTeirnan would have been and with that I will not agree. Fine you want to only discuss the "realistic" hires but please don't tell me because they're more realistic they're necessarily better, they're not.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Don't take this personal, because I know you are definately an exception, but most Bond fans don't know what they want. Nobody would have voted for someone like Martin Campbell or Lee Tamahori before 'GoldenEye' and 'Die Another Day' respectively. Bond fans don't have vision. They only want people they have seen direct a Bond film or a Bond-esque film (like say 'The Thomas Crown Affair') and cheer for them. I have a feeling EON knows this, so they just ignore what the fans want, because in the end, they know what the fans want without them realising it.  

There's a great deal of truth in that, crashdrive. On the other hand, MBE's points are also valid: "I believe I have enough vision to know I'd rather have the director of TCA, Die Hard, Hunt For The Red October and not the guy who did Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot or Nemesis ... But even within those restrictions (of the producers' hiring traditions) there are still directors who are better able and more suited to make a good or great Bond film than others, and many fans are very able to look at track records and styles and glean this."

crashdrive, the results of this poll (with McTiernan, Campbell and Tamahori in the lead) bear out your assertion that fans "only want people they have seen direct a Bond film or a Bond-esque film". And if zencat had put James Cameron on the list instead of John McTiernan, it's quite possible that Cameron would have run away with it the way McT has done, even though Cameron would be - I think you'll agree - a far more implausible candidate to direct a Bond film than McTiernan.

Then again, MBE is an example of a fan who isn't stupid or dazzled or by big names but who has indeed weighed up a host of directors, famous and not-so-famous. She's not voted for McTiernan simply because she knows the name and isn't aware of who the others are and what they've done. As you point out, crashdrive, I myself am another fan familiar with the work of all the directors listed here, who has thought things through in a reasonably "realistic" manner and still ultimately decided in favour of McTiernan.

Now, I know this all just a meaningless bit of "what if?", but I don't see the harm in making The Powers That Be aware of what fans want even if it's highly unlikely that TPTB will ever act on that knowledge. I have it on good authority that McTiernan was indeed approached by MGM to direct a Bond film on at least one occasion (he turned them down - maybe he has no desire whatsoever to do a Bond, and I admit once again that this discussion is purely academic), and, as we've been discussing, MGM also approached Tony Scott. It seems that the EON folks have wielded their power of veto on people like Scott, but there may come a time when MGM top brass have far more clout than EON in deciding on directors (think back to the post-LICENCE TO KILL rolling of heads, which legend has it was on MGM's insistence). In preparation for that time, maybe someone like McTiernan should be "groomed" as a candidate acceptable to "the fan community" in much the same way as Brosnan was groomed as 007 years before he assumed the role.

[crashdrive]

To the best of my knowledge, EON has never offered a Bond film to Mick Jackson. But I'm sure he was on their shortlist.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
Fine you want to only discuss the "realistic" hires but please don't tell me because they're more realistic they're necessarily better, they're not.

I never said Spottiswoode is a better choice than McTiernan. The problem is that McTiernan doesn't seem to be a realistic choice. A director of his stature demands more creative freedom than EON is prepared to offer him. But many people just don't seem to realise this. This is not a matter of who is the best choice, but instead; who is the best realistic choice? And I don't think McTiernan is as realistic as directors like Amiel, Hopkins, Donaldson & Baird. I just wish people would look past the big names and see what lesser known Commonwealth directors are capable of. Bond is Britains last multi million export product. Why get an American director if you have more than enough talented Commonwealth filmmakers? There is talent out there. People just have to look deeper. Than they would not look upon a director like Spottiswoode as just the 'Stop-or-my-Mom-will-Shoot-guy'. I mean, take Campbell for example. The guy received 6 votes. But what has he done before 'GoldenEye'? I think a director like Amiel, Hopkins and Donaldson have a lot more potential than someone like Campbell.

[kevrichardson]

Look i am sick of this notion tha these guys like McTiernan most have total artistic control of a film . CrashDrive "RollerBall" was a massive flop . Why inthe hel is McTiernan on any of these discussion groups . Has he ever been on any short list that you klnow of . Donaldson falls in the same column as any other . Like Mick Jackson just a name on a list . I would love for John Boorman to directed a Bond . Why Work with Connery on Zardoz (1974) . yet i know it "aint" going to happen . Yet Mick Jackson seem more realiztic . Framkly a entire period of polling from the fans on a Director for Bond 21 is wasted on McTiernan .

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Before Goldeneye, Campbell did No Escape which I liked very much, some Homicide episodes and the brilliant BBC TV mini series Edge of Darkness. And considering that Bond in 1994 was thought to be a dead series by many, the budget was a mere $60m and the leading man was also working for relative peanuts, EON wasn't in the postion to get a director with a much better resume than Campbell, they couldn't afford one. They were fortunate that he was the right man for the job at the right price. But they're hardly in the same position now. Now it's more preference for control than outside limits on choices.

Even so I think Campbell was a more obvious choice than say Spottiswood, especially since after the success of GE the producers could afford a more established big film director. With TWINE the emphasis was on drama over action so Apted made sense since he's a respected dramatic director, but a director who was less overwhelmed by the Bond process and action might have made TWINE an even better film.

Which is probably what lead them to choose the more established and expensive Tamahori (who was semi hot from Along came a Spider and greatly admired for Once Were Warriors) who I thought did a very good job with DAD. Some thought he was too independent thinking, imposed too much of his style on DAD but I think that's what gives the film a significant part of it's style, energy and momentum.

Campbell, Apted & Tamahori show even a non A-List director can affect the tone and tenor of a film, which might be why EON is loathe to give the reigns to an A list director like ::cover your eyes Kevin:: John McTeirnan who might impose even more of his will upon a Bond film. But I think that it would do Bond a world of good to take that next step, especially now when the series is hot again and they can afford to pay more and chance a bit more. Bond has restablished a core fan base, he's popular, and with Brosnan firmly established they're playing with house money. They're not going to have an opportunity like this again until or if the next Bond actor becomes equally established. And I think it's a chance they should not only take with the directing but with the writing.

As for whether McTeirnan is too big to do Bond, well his name wasn't mentioned in the commercial for Basic I just saw, just the actors. I guess they didn't want to promote it as "from the director of Rolerball". (oh and he didn't have final cut over that, ditto The 13th Warrior) Anyway, he said when he was promoting TCA that he'd love to do a Bond with Pierce but that EON didn't seem to want to hire an American. So if it's a matter of nationality more than control, well to me that's just silly and myopic.

But if EON doesn't want to go A-list, I'd prefer Campbell or Tamahori returned. I liked the energy and look they brought their respective Bonds. If they're going for new again then Donaldson or Caton Jones (loved Roy Roy). No one else on that list greatly appeals to me, especially Baird who I think is a hack.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
Even so I think Campbell was a more obvious choice than say Spottiswood, especially since after the success of GE the producers could afford a more established big film director.

What makes you think EON will change course on 'Bond 21'? You may not think it's logical EON would go to a cheaper and less established director, but that's the way EON have always worked. I don't agree EON picked Lee Tamahori because he was more established. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt he was more expensive than his predecessors. Apted is in many ways a more established director than Tamahori. After the succes of 'Once Were Warriors', Tamahori was able to make films in the US. Those flicks didn't really cause any excitement ('Mullholland Falls' & 'The Edge'). He even agree to direct an episode of the television show 'The Sopranos'. Then 'Along Came a Spider' came along. A movie where he was basically a gun-for-hire. A Bond film definately wasn't a step down for him. Just like Campbell, Spottiswoode & Apted, Tamahori fitted the EON profile perfectly. And I don't sense a change in the air. As Loomis mentioned earlier, EON had their window of opportunity with 'GoldenEye' & 'Die Another Day'. 'Bond 21' will be just-another-Bond-film. Why hire an established expensive director like McTiernan if you can hire cheaper directors and still break boxoffice records with every movie? Face it, the Bond franchise doesn't need someone like McTiernan.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
So if it's a matter of nationality more than control, well to me that's just silly and myopic.

I really think EON wants Bond to stay as British as possible. It's a matter of pride. There are more than enough Bond knock-offs in America. Why get an American director if there is so much talent in the Commonwealth? Is it really worth it to neglect the legacy of Broccoli just to hire an American to direct a Bond film? Personally, I think Bond has survived because of it's traditions, not despite. And I very much like them to honor those traditions.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
No one else on that list greatly appeals to me, especially Baird who I think is a hack.

I won't debate your views on Baird, since I also don't think he's one of the strongest names on this list, but I don't understand why directors like Stephen Hopkins, Phillip Noyce and Jon Amiel don't appeal to you. I happen to think those directors have delivered many terrific films. I think Hopkins' 'The Ghost and the Darkness' is a stylish old fashioned adventure film with great acting and terrific suspense setpieces. Recently he also directed the Gene Hackman/ Morgan Freeman film 'Under Suspicion' and one of the most critically acclaimed television shows of the last ten years '24'. Amiel was responsible for two of the best shows on British televions 'The Singing Detective' & 'The Storyteller'. Although the script needed some work, I think Amiel directed 'Entrapment' to its maximum potential. 'Copy Cat' is also an underrated thriller. I don't think I need to tell you how amazing a director Noyce is, so I'll leave it at that.

[crashdrive]

I haven't given any attention to two potential Bond director, for the simple reason I find the thought of these two directors directing a Bond film to be... well... undescribeable. But I can't help but think these two directors could be filmmakers EON is looking at right now. If that is the case, I rather have them hire Americans than two hacks.

Danny Cannon ('The Young Americans', 'Judge Dredd' & 'C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation') & Paul W.S. Anderson. ('Shopping', 'Event Horizon' & 'Resident Evil')

[Loomis]

I'm not sure that Tamahori was regarded as just another anonymous hack before Bond. Here's Harry Knowles announcing his hiring for DIE ANOTHER DAY:

"Hey folks, Harry here with some good franchise news for a change!
Strong director Lee Tamahori is apparently being signed to direct the 20th installment of the James Bond series ... Lee Tamahori is only as good as his source material and lack of studio intervention can allow him to be. Unfettered by bungling suits and bean counters, Tamahori has turned out ONCE WERE WARRIORS and THE EDGE... but the bungling of an idiotic bunch of black socks MULHOLLAND FALLS failed miserably. And then when he took over ALONG CAME A SPIDER late in the game with a script he couldn't really touch... well, he made what worked brilliantly... but the ham-handed, terribly written ending was... unfortunately rancid source material. ... Brosnan has really taken a hand in the shaping of the Bond Franchise (especially this one we hear), and wants this Bond to be the most realistic and surprising, in which case Tamahori is an excellent choice for director. ... Now, I've often wanted a director like Wong Kar Wai or Ringo Lam to have a shot at BOND, and fortunately this time... we have a director that understands violence and takes it seriously. Who understands the coldness involved with it and the rage that can drive it. Lee Tamahori may very well be the best director yet attached to direct a Bond film... period. Hopefully the studio and the Broccoli Family will support Tamahori in his decisions, and the directions he wants to take the film. Because he can really get the film and the character on the exact right track it needs to be on. Because Tamahori has been victimized by Hollywood Studios too often. And lastly, because we deserve a truly great Bond film!"

Okay, the above is an example of a film geek writing for other film geeks, and I won't claim that Tamahori was the sort of name "the man on the street" would have known or been excited by. But Knowles' remarks suggest a director who was at least reasonably hot (hotter than, say, Paul Anderson or Danny Cannon, although that's admittedly not saying much). BTW, wasn't "The Sopranos" a prestigious directing gig? I'm not saying that DIE ANOTHER DAY was a step down for Tamahori, but I don't believe he was just another schmo at the time. If he hadn't done DAD, he'd have landed another big budget, mainstream Hollywood film without too many problems. I agree that Apted was in some ways a much more established director and a bigger name, though.

Originally posted by crashdrive

The problem is that McTiernan doesn't seem to be a realistic choice. A director of his stature demands more creative freedom than EON is prepared to offer him. But many people just don't seem to realise this. This is not a matter of who is the best choice, but instead; who is the best realistic choice? And I don't think McTiernan is as realistic as directors like Amiel, Hopkins, Donaldson & Baird.

I'm sure that Phillip Noyce wouldn't wish to direct a Bond film after the critical success of THE QUIET AMERICAN and RABBIT PROOF FENCE (which you also concede, crashdrive), and I still think that (regardless of the fact that he was a replacement for Phil Alden Robinson) THIRTEEN DAYS may have caused Roger Donaldson's stature to rise to the point that he would demand more creative freedom than EON would permit. Michael Caton-Jones also strikes me as the kind of director who doesn't like to pushed around too much, although if it is the case that he dropped out of LAWS OF ATTRACTION because of conflicts with Brosnan, then there's obviously no way he'll be asked to do a Brosnan Bond.

So Amiel, Hopkins and Baird seem to be three of the frontrunners at this point, and of those three I'll wager that Hopkins is the likeliest candidate, on the strength of his work on the hit TV series "24".

In fact, I'll go further and suggest that, round about July this year, the name Stephen Hopkins may rapidly become a familiar one to all users of this site and others like it.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
I agree that Apted was in some ways a much more established director and a bigger name, though.

The point I was trying to make was that Tamahori isn't a more established director than Apted. So EON were not broaden their horizon by hiring Tamahori. I doubt they will with the next Bond since Bond 21 will be just-another-Bond-film.

Originally posted by Loomis
Noyce wouldn't wish to direct a Bond film... ...Donaldson's stature to rise to the point that he would demand more creative freedom... ...no way he'll be asked to do a Brosnan Bond.

And yet, still you debate that McTiernan may not be impossible. One thing is for sure, Noyce, Donaldson and Caton-Jones are more likely to get the job than McTiernan. I agree Noyce probably isn't one of the top contenders. Same with Caton-jones, although don't forget Brosnan didn't get along with Spottiswoode and Tamahori either. I do think Donaldson is a very realistic possibility. I see no proof in his resume he would demand more creative freedom EON is prepared to offer him. A director like Tamahori seemed much more the 'auteur' type than Donaldson. Don't forget that 'Thirteen Days' bombed (no pun intended) at the b.o. and 'The Recruit' is nowhere near as successfull as Tamahori's 'Along Came a Spider'.

Originally posted by Loomis
So Amiel, Hopkins and Baird seem to be three of the frontrunners at this point

I agree. Donaldson should be included though. I'd put my money on him. But maybe I really have no idea what I'm talking about. That's what this guy seems to think at Keeping the British End Up. It's a fascinating read

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

....... Tamahori isn't a more established director than Apted. So EON were not broaden their horizon by hiring Tamahori. I doubt they will with the next Bond since Bond 21 will be just-another-Bond-film.

That a rather broad sweeping statement . Campbell , Spottieswoode , Apted ,Tamahori have all directed mainsteam film that well at the box-office . Each one would given the assignment of helming a Bond . Career was in a holding pattern . once finished with the Bond . each re-emerge as A-list director .

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

The point I was trying to make was that Tamahori isn't a more established director than Apted. So EON were not broaden their horizon by hiring Tamahori. I doubt they will with the next Bond since Bond 21 will be just-another-Bond-film.

In that case, you could say that EON were broadening their horizons in hiring Tamahori insofar as Tamahori (despite being over 50) was a relatively new filmmaker on his way up. A much more "hip" choice than Apted, for want of a better word. You yourself, crashdrive, concede that Tamahori seemed something of an "auteur" type (although I know you were comparing him to Donaldson), and Harry Knowles seemed to be suggesting the same thing. Interesting that Tamahori was attached to a film that ended up being directed by McTiernan (BASIC).

Originally posted by crashdrive

And yet, still you debate that McTiernan may not be impossible. One thing is for sure, Noyce, Donaldson and Caton-Jones are more likely to get the job than McTiernan.

I'm not so certain. Don't forget that Brosnan champions McTiernan, and Brosnan seems to have an awful lot of clout, which he may wish to exert more aggressively as his tenure as Bond comes to an end. Picture the scene: BOND 21 is a success, as is usual with Bond, and The Powers That Be ask Brosnan to do another. Brosnan knows he's getting on and doesn't want to be a laughing stock like Moore was in A VIEW TO A KILL, so he replies: "Okay, but only if it's quality. I want a really great director for BOND 22." Besides, you concede that Noyce and Caton-Jones are not among the top candidates.

Originally posted by crashdrive

I do think Donaldson is a very realistic possibility. I see no proof in his resume he would demand more creative freedom EON is prepared to offer him. A director like Tamahori seemed much more the 'auteur' type than Donaldson. Don't forget that 'Thirteen Days' bombed (no pun intended) at the b.o. and 'The Recruit' is nowhere near as successfull as Tamahori's 'Along Came a Spider'.

THIRTEEN DAYS may have bombed, but some of the most respected directors in cinema history had miserable grosses to show for their critically-acclaimed careers. Pre-THIRTEEN DAYS I'd have agreed with you, crashdrive, that Donaldson was a shoe-in for a Bond film. Now, though, I have great trouble believing that a director whose name was so recently attached to a film of such high quality as THIRTEEN DAYS wouldn't consider Bond a little beneath him. I may, of course, be entirely wrong.

Originally posted by crashdrive

But maybe I really have no idea what I'm talking about. That's what this guy seems to think at Keeping the British End Up. It's a fascinating read

Wow, I had no idea this discussion was going on elsewhere. I'll check it out.

BTW, just noticed that Campbell has now taken the lead from McTiernan.

[kevrichardson]

Loomis . I found you statement about Brosnan clout interesting . Since so here feels that he has none ! Even as All of his Bond have been money makers . He never has gotten to work with a director of his choice . He constantly mention names . Yet only to be rebuffed . What would change between then and now . Especially since as you point out by the time of Bond 22 . He may not be able to do another . With the spectre of Moore /AVTAK in the background . In all honesty Michael Caton-Jones and Martin Campbell , plus 1 or 2 other seem more realiztic than McTiernan or Noyce or even Donaldson . Noyce is out of the question based on the recent films that he directed ( Quite American especially ) . McTiernan would just not fit in . It would a " John McTiernan film " , not a EON production . Donaldson last films have been flops . Caton-Jones has directed large scale budget films ( "Rob-Roy" , plus taut action films like "The Jackel" ) . Martin Campbell is availble based on some poor career moves and might not cost to much .

[Loomis]

Originally posted by kevrichardson

In all honesty Michael Caton-Jones and Martin Campbell , plus 1 or 2 other seem more realiztic than McTiernan or Noyce or even Donaldson .  

I agree entirely with that statement, kevrichardson.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
You yourself, crashdrive, concede that Tamahori seemed something of an "auteur" type (although I know you were comparing him to Donaldson)

I concur Tamahori was more a "hip" choice than Apted, but don't forget Campbell was also an up-and-coming director (although he did not have as many interesting credits as Tamahori). But I don't think Tamahori really is an auteur filmmaker. His films lack personal style (same goes for Roger Donaldson, responsible for both 'Thirteen Days' & 'Cocktail'(!)). Tamahori is a typical example of a director whose film (in his case 'Once Were Warriors') was bigger than he is and was never able to make something that was just as good or even better.

Originally posted by Loomis
Besides, you concede that Noyce and Caton-Jones are not among the top candidates.

Ok, but at least Noyce and Caton-Jones are candidates. Brosnan wants A-list directors like Tim Burton, Ang Lee, John McTiernan etc. but there doesn't seem to be any proof EON is looking over the atlantic for a possible director. And untill they do, I'd much rather discuss realistic candidates as opposed to fan favorites.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Ok, but at least Noyce and Caton-Jones are candidates. Brosnan wants A-list directors like Tim Burton, Ang Lee, John McTiernan etc. but there doesn't seem to be any proof EON is looking over the atlantic for a possible director. And untill they do, I'd much rather discuss realistic candidates as opposed to fan favorites.

The choice of Director for Bond 21 will depend entirly on the type of script . Assuming all media reports are correct , it will be another "DAD" type of will . (side note we should start a thread on the question - Is "DAD" the prototype Bond film for the new millinneum . The "GoldFinger model seem to be out . just a thought ) . Back on track if it's a "DAD" . Then we can narrow down the list of people who would fell comfort to EON and Brosnan . At that point certain people listed here a automaitcally removed . Brosnan "wet dream" of Ang Lee ( to busy with the "Hulk") , Tim Burton ( frankly i would lose all interest in Bond at that point) . McTiernan name on the list takes up valuable space . And votes away from those who have a real shot . I understand that this is a website for Bond "Fanatics" . Yet a unrealiztic beauty contest poll does not even work in political election . It the guy would has the real chance of winning that counts . some people here need not be here.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I concur Tamahori was more a "hip" choice than Apted, but don't forget Campbell was also an up-and-coming director (although he did not have as many interesting credits as Tamahori). But I don't think Tamahori really is an auteur filmmaker. His films lack personal style (same goes for Roger Donaldson, responsible for both 'Thirteen Days' & 'Cocktail'(!)). Tamahori is a typical example of a director whose film (in his case 'Once Were Warriors') was bigger than he is and was never able to make something that was just as good or even better.

Tamahori may or may not be an "auteur" (he probably isn't). Same goes for McTiernan (as I've discussed above, there are signs that McTiernan may be turning into a hired gun). Campbell may have been an up-and-coming director, but I can't imagine Harry Knowles going beserk with excitement over Campbell, Spottiswoode or Apted - Tamahori was a MUCH hipper name, and EON may have been testing the waters by hiring him. After all, if they are really as obsessive about control as we often speculate, wouldn't they have been better off hiring some really tired old hack who'd be a total and utter yes-man rather than someone like Tamahori? Heck, I'm sure John Glen wouldn't have turned down the work!

Originally posted by crashdrive

Ok, but at least Noyce and Caton-Jones are candidates. Brosnan wants A-list directors like Tim Burton, Ang Lee, John McTiernan etc. but there doesn't seem to be any proof EON is looking over the atlantic for a possible director. And untill they do, I'd much rather discuss realistic candidates as opposed to fan favorites.  

Burton and Lee are obviously ridiculous suggestions. I too would always rather discuss "realistic" candidates, and I think my comments on this and other threads bear that out. I have no time for suggestions like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Michael Mann or Steven Spielberg, but I believe McTiernan can be considered at least a "borderline-realistic" candidate, in pretty much the same way as Noyce.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
In all honesty Michael Caton-Jones and Martin Campbell , plus 1 or 2 other seem more realiztic than McTiernan or Noyce or even Donaldson .

I don't agree. I think Donaldson is the most realistic candidate of this group. Campbell already declined an offer to direct a Bond film and is an A-list director now, Caton Jones declined 'GoldenEye' and had creative differences with Brosnan over 'Laws of Attraction'. McTiernan probably would not like to work with MGM again after 'Rollerball' and EON does not seem to be interested in an American filmmaker. Noyce probably thinks he's an auteur now after 'The Quiet American' & 'Rabbit Proof Fence'.

Donaldson has shown no 'Auteur-esque' tendencies. He's a seasoned professional who gets the job done. He doesn't prefer a specific genre or style (his films range from 'Thirteen Days' to 'Cocktail' to 'Species' to 'Dante's Peak') and he is definately not too successfull to direct a Bond film.

[kevrichardson]

Yes i agree with you on the "tired old hack" statement . Plus John Glen could use the work . Just what constitutes a :Hip-Director" ? I feel that Michael Apted gets a bad rap for "TWINE" . When it is at least Brosnan most complex performance as Bond . Michael Apted was Barbara Broccoli's idea ! He was hired to present a more Human Bond . And frankly did a good job . Givne the material he had to work with . Once again we are back at the root of the problem with Brosnan's Bond . A willing actor , working with good -solid directors . Given trash from mediocre screenwriters . Even it people got the wish , and a McTiernan directed . He cant' turn chicken **** in to chicken salad . If that's all he got to work with .

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by crashdrive

That's exactly what I mean. Who would have thought the director of 'Turner and Hooch' could deliver a good Bond film? The fans certainly wouldn't. But fortunately EON would. With vision I mean, to see past the usual suspects (for example 'Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot') and look deeper. Then fans would find Spottiswoode directed wonderfull films like 'Under Fire' starring Nick Nolte, Gene Hackman and Ed Harris. The same goes for the other directors I've listed. A director like McTiernan is an obvious choice. Of course you would prefer someone like him over Baird. But a lot of fans just aren't able to look deeper. And I really wish they would. It would make the discussion much more interesting and realisitc.

Originally posted by crashdrive

Don't take this personal, because I know you are definately an exception, but most Bond fans don't know what they want. Nobody would have voted for someone like Martin Campbell or Lee Tamahori before 'GoldenEye' and 'Die Another Day' respectively. Bond fans don't have vision. They only want people they have seen direct a Bond film or a Bond-esque film (like say 'The Thomas Crown Affair') and cheer for them. I have a feeling EON knows this, so they just ignore what the fans want, because in the end, they know what the fans want without them realising it.

As i say before in this thread.I look further as i choose an directer.
Dificult,Comedy,Action,tragedy,Story's,realistic and the movie's i see of the directers.
My choose for Martin Campbell on number one is indeed a litle bit what i have seen what he deed for Goldeneye,The Mask of Zorro and Vertical Limit.
I have the feeling that you did the same with Roger Donaldson with Thirteen Days and Dante's Peak
But is that zo very than ?

Originally posted by crashdrive
To the best of my knowledge, EON has never offered a Bond film to Mick Jackson. But I'm sure he was on their shortlist.

I never said Spottiswoode is a better choice than McTiernan. The problem is that McTiernan doesn't seem to be a realistic choice. A director of his stature demands more creative freedom than EON is prepared to offer him. But many people just don't seem to realise this. This is not a matter of who is the best choice, but instead; who is the best realistic choice? And I don't think McTiernan is as realistic as directors like Amiel, Hopkins, Donaldson & Baird. I just wish people would look past the big names and see what lesser known Commonwealth directors are capable of. Bond is Britains last multi million export product. Why get an American director if you have more than enough talented Commonwealth filmmakers? There is talent out there. People just have to look deeper. Than they would not look upon a director like Spottiswoode as just the 'Stop-or-my-Mom-will-Shoot-guy'. I mean, take Campbell for example. The guy received 6 votes. But what has he done before 'GoldenEye'? I think a director like Amiel, Hopkins and Donaldson have a lot more potential than someone like Campbell.

Read my Post in this thread (11 and 12 March 2003) again about Amiel, Hopkins and Donaldson and understanding that Hopkins mabey is not an good choose for direct an Bond movie.
As i must choose for Lee Tamahori or Hopkins i vote for Lee.

This is stil my top 11:
1. Martin Campbell
2. Vic Armstrong
3. Jon Amiel
4. Phillip Noyce
5. John McTiernan
6. Roger Donaldson
7. Stuart Baird
8. Mimi Leder
9. Michael Caton-Jones
10. Lee Tama Hori
11. Stephen Hopkins

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
I believe McTiernan can be considered at least a "borderline-realistic" candidate, in pretty much the same way as Noyce.

That's where our paths go difference directions. I don't feel McTiernan is a "borderline-realistic" candidate. McTiernan said himself EON don't hire American directors. There doesn't seem tp be any proof (from the p.o.v. of EON) they would be willing to offer a Bond film to someone like McTiernan. Noyce however would be a director EON would hire. The only problem is that Noyce probably wouldn't agree to direct a Bond film. Same goes for Caton-Jones. I considered these filmmakers as "borderline-realistic". But a director like Donaldson, and also Hopkins, Amiel, Baird and Howitt, seem to me like they fit EON's profile perfectly and willing to direct a Bond film. If Donaldson had plans to become an auteur filmmaker, I doubt he would agree to direct the action spy suspense film 'The Recruit' after the historical drama 'Thirteen Days'.