328 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

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.  

We'll have to agree to disagree on McTiernan. When I refer to him as "borderline-realistic", what I mean is that the chances of his doing a Bond film are slight, but not so slight that the possibility of his doing a Bond film should be dismissed entirely. Clearly, Hopkins, Amiel, Baird, etc. are far more likely candidates than McTiernan. On the other hand, McTiernan is far more likely than Cameron, Spielberg, etc. Obviously, so is Michael Winner, and that doesn't mean that Winner is in the frame for Bond, but when you consider that (a) Brosnan is said to want McTiernan, ( Brosnan has clout that may well grow, © McTiernan has indicated that he'd like to make a Bond film (with Brosnan), (d) McTiernan WAS approached at least once for Bond (albeit by MGM, not EON), (e) McTiernan may be turning into a director-for-hire, and (f) McTiernan is a firm "fan favourite", then I don't consider it unreasonable to keep McTiernan somewhere in the background as a "borderline-realistic" option.

Originally posted by crashdrive

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'.  

"Auteur" doesn't automatically mean "art house". Look at Tony Scott or John Woo. Those guys make action spy suspense films.

[kevrichardson]

CrashDrive "Thirteen Day" was another Kevin Costner box office nightmare . "The Recruit" has been recruited to video after a equally horrible run at the box-office . Frankly i doubt that EON/DANJAQ and quitely as it's kept MGM would entrust a bid-budget Bond to some one with a series of box-office failures. Then it that you outlook . A strong contenter is real Vic Armstrong . Since he work for EON for over 35 year somme odd years . And at least has a proven tract records as a Action Director . Donaldson is finish by result from the box-office . Tamahori's "A Long Came A Spider" did better than Donaldson's last .

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

I really believe as I've said in a previous threat that Armstrong needs to direct other films, and no the lamentable The Joshua Tree is not enough in order for EON to consider him as a director. He's does great 2nd Unit/Action work but he hasn't proved he can work with actors or that he can oversea an entire film from pre to post production on any scale even approaching a Bond film. And the sheer scale of a Bond film can be overwhelming, just ask Spottiswood or Apted who both admitted they were often overwhelmed and they were experienced directors.

As for Donaldson's The Recuit, I don't know what it was made for but it couldn't posssbly have a blockbuster budget, it's made about $51m at the U.S. B.O and will make a couple million more before it's U.S. run ends. It should probably make the same or more abroad, similar to Caton Jones' The Jackal that made $54m in the U.S. Caton Jones' recent City By The Sea made $22m in the US (less than Donaldson's Thirteen Days which made around $30m in the US) and even his acclaimed Rob Roy made only $31 in the US. Really quickly looking at that list the only three films (aside from Tamahori and Campbell's) from the last 5 years stand out as real earners, Deep Impact, TCA & Entrapment. Basically all these directors have had their duds, small films and middling earners, especially recently, more than solid hits or blockbusters, otherwise they wouldn't be on this list.

As for the insistence on not having American directors, I'd give it more weight of they were just British directors they wanted and used not also directors from former Comonwealths. Sorry but Campbell and Tamahori aren't any more British than McTeirnan is. The style and resume of a director should be far more important that his/her nationality. Many British directors like Guy Ritchie would be completly wrong. And considering Broccoli and Wilson are both American they should know more than anyone that an American could still do Bond justice.

[kevrichardson]

Americans are persona non grata in so far as directing a Bond . Those are just the facts of life . Vic Armstrong is in my humble opinion getting the shaft ! Good enough to oversee/create/direct every aspect of the 2nd unit . Which plays a large role than the work of the first . The last Bond that had a truely important first unit chair was "FRWL" . I must repeat myself from a earilier thread . That kind of think would have prevented Peter Hunt and John Glen . Who both had impressive directorial debuts . "OHMSS" and "FYEO" are considered classic Bonds .
Roger Spottieswoode and Michael Apted were overwhelmed . Okay but so were the directors of Gone With The Wind . That's why the producers call the shots . NO matter who is there Broccoli / Wilson will be in control . A Bond film director is more of a manager of a vast entreprise . With second and third units (special effect ) shot at the same time . Any one go get a little overwhelmed .

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

I don't think Armstrong is getting the shaft. If he wants to direct then he should direct and hasn't been doing that. There's no reason he couldn't do a film between Bonds to gain the experience. Hunt was an editor on the Bond films he had experience putting a film together and seeing the film as a whole, it's far different from being a 2nd Unit/Action director.

No matter how big the action is the 2nd Unit Director isn't more important than the Director. There wasn't an aspect of the film Tamahori didn't have his finger on the pulse of, everything had to be done and coordinated under his supervision. The units must work together even when they're working seperately and they all work under the Director. Yes Bond is a producers medium but that doesn't mean the Director is merely a hired hand who does administrative work and hands outs tasks to those under him. Tamahori says he wasn't overwhelmed, just challenged, ditto Campbell.

Apted left too much of the 2nd Unit work to Armstrong, to the point where many feel the action and the drama scenes in TWINE seem almost like parallel films that they don't completely mesh. If he'd been more involved with the 2nd Unit work the film would flow better IMO. Again, I really like TWINE and I think Apted handled the drama wonderfully, and I even like most of the action, but as the Director he's responsible for tying it all together and he didn't b/c he wasn't comfortable with action scenes. Spottiswood on the other hand was overwhelmed because of the production schedule being a horror, and that would have overwhelmed almost any director, but by many accounts he didn't make it any easier with his temperment and methods and had much of the crew and cast revolting under him.

It takes a certain mindset to be a director of a project this big, to know what to hold tight on, to know what to delegate, and to fit it all under one "vision" while still working with very hands on producers. It's like being a General, you may work for the President (PM, fill in your gov't head of choice) but you still command all the troops under you, and while you may delegate you still have to have control of the campaign.

[kevrichardson]

Challenged and Overwhelmed are 2 different things . Spottiswoode is a lost cause . It's his lost not ours . "TND" is a good "John Woo" style film something different from the porducers of James Bond . I still fail to realize the resistance to Vic Armstrong . Peter Hunt never directed large sclae film until "OHMSS" . I like "TWINE" so any comments regarding that film will not work with me . It was the most seroius Bond film in a long time . Apted admited that he was not a Action-Adventure Director . So a lot of the Action sequences were in Armstrong' s Hands . What was wrong with that . Michael Adtep was hired to concenrate on the drama between Bond /Electra King /Renard . Many of the problems with "TWINE" are from the screenwriters . Not the director . If any thing it's a example of how the total control of the EON people ( Broccoli -WIlson ) . Can have a adverse affect on a picture . You last statement about Presidents PM's and General is funny . Because even if a President /Pm accepts responibility for failure . The Generals are all way held accountble and fired . This may explain why no one returns . Any way here is my list of possilble Bond Directors who are getting the SHAFT for different reasons

John Boorman - Got the best Bond like performance out of Brosnan (simliar to Peter Hunt with Roger Moore in "Gold" 1974) Plus the age thing is just damn bull**** . Christ sake Hitchcock was a effect director well into his later years . All this Bonds are too much due to the big-budgets . look guys that a recent thing

Vic Armstrong - Why simply because Broccoli /Saltzman rewarded loyality in Peter Hunt and got a great underrated Bond picture . That's a cult classic .

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Again I love TWINE but it would have better with a director not afraid of the action scenes. As they are a couple exist as if they're just dropped in between scenes of the story and if you edited them out, like the Caviar scenes it wouldn't hurt the flow of the film one iota. That's a failing. Some say the same about the Ice chase scenes in DAD but I think they added to what was happenning in the story, they fit the tone of whats around them and if you cut them out some reworking would have needed to be done. They don't exist in their own vacuum like the Caviar scenes does. And the editing of some of the action shows that Apted just didn't appreciate the nuance of makes a great action scene work. IE: he blunted some of the brilliant work on The Thames and the ski chase.

As to why no director returns, only Cambell was recently asked and he just wasn't up for another Bond film right after GE. Bond films aren't even like most other action films. They shoot for 6-7 months with months of pre and post production. They're a huge chunks of time out of Director's life and they're also physically exhausting, not just for the lead actor who plays Bond but for the Director and much of the crew. That's the only reason age comes into question. The days are unbelievably long, the shoot is grueling. Tamahori joked he didn't have time in his schedule to go to the bathroom. It's something that's more likely to wear on a man of 70 more than a man of 50. But age shouldn't be a bar, I agree, it all depends on the man. David Lean complained that when he finally became good at his job no one would give him the chane to do it any morebecause of his age. Boorman when he was promoting ToP said the same thing, that as he's become older he's become better but with age comes more barriers to getting real work. And that to me is a crime because it's a squandering of talent by the industry. But then it's an indusry that likes to chew people up and spit them out when they get to a certain age, period.

Again with Vic, he doesn't have the kind of experience that Hunt had as an editor He just doesn't. But he could get it by working on other films, and if he wants the big chair for Bond it's what he should do.

[kevrichardson]

MBE - we seem to agree on a lot of points . The David Lean comment was funny , but sadly true . Just what would happen to Speilberg if not foe "Dreamworks" . All of this leads back to the same unanswered question . Who and what for Bond 21 . Unlike the McTiernan group . I had given up on John Boorman quite so time ago . The other who seem more realistic (translation) availible some are list others are not . I refuse too entertain Mimi Leder ( god only knows why she included )

Michael Caton-Jones ( he left the Brosnan comedy film )
Mick Jackson ( The age factor again in his case)
Martin Campbell ( career is in limbo as far as i am concerned . Last two films after "Mark of Zorro" . Which he got based on "GoldenEYE" . Where not that great in terms of Box-office )

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
We'll have to agree to disagree on McTiernan.

Of course there is a chance McTiernan could direct a Bond film. If EON decides to hire Americans, I'm sure McTiernan would be on their list. But untill I read some kind of proof EON are looking to broaden their horizons, I won't consider John McTiernan a candidate. Why make an exception for McTiernan? There are many American directors who would fit EON's profile. I don't have the time or the interest to start looking for examples. Untill EON changes their criteria, I'm sticking with Commonwealth directors.

Originally posted by Loomis
"Auteur" doesn't automatically mean "art house".

But auteur does mean a distinct personal style. And since there are hardly any simularities between 'Thirteen Days' and 'The Recruit', I don't see why one would consider Donaldson to be an auteur. He's a hired-gun.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
I'd give it more weight of they were just British directors they wanted and used not also directors from former Comonwealths.

Bond has been played by an Australian actor, but that doesn't mean we should be looking at American actors because of this. Look, I know what you are getting at, but that's just not the way EON seems to think. They want to honor traditions by hiring Commonwealth filmmakers. Personally, I don't see why this is such an issue. The last four Bond films turned out to be terrific. I doubt anyone would have had faith in Martin Campbell, yet now he's the fans top choice. I think EON should definately stay on this route. I doubt they would hire a director who just isn't right for it (like Ritchie).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Of course there is a chance McTiernan could direct a Bond film. If EON decides to hire Americans, I'm sure McTiernan would be on their list. But untill I read some kind of proof EON are looking to broaden their horizons, I won't consider John McTiernan a candidate. Why make an exception for McTiernan? There are many American directors who would fit EON's profile. I don't have the time or the interest to start looking for examples. Untill EON changes their criteria, I'm sticking with Commonwealth directors.  

Why make an exception for McTiernan? I've given my reasons already: (a) Brosnan is said to want McTiernan, ( Brosnan has clout that may well grow, © McTiernan has indicated that he'd like to make a Bond film (with Brosnan), (d) McTiernan WAS approached at least once for Bond (albeit by MGM, not EON), (e) McTiernan may be turning into a director-for-hire, and (f) McTiernan is a firm "fan favourite". I'm therefore far more prepared to entertain the idea of McTiernan making a Bond movie than I am the idea of James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino or Steven Spielberg directing a Bond movie. Okay, so those directors would clearly be absurd suggestions. Marginally (I repeat, marginally) more plausible names might include David Fincher, Michael Mann and Steven Soderbergh. Trouble is, none of them fits the bill in the way that, for the reasons I've outlined, McTiernan might.

You write that "There are many American directors who would fit EON's profile." To be honest, I'm finding it hard to think of a single one. I don't say they don't exist, but what I do say is that no one springs to mind immediately. Ah, you reply, that's because directors who fit EON's profile are by definition anonymous hired guns and the kind of names that never spring to mind. Perhaps. If EON decided to drop its no-Americans policy, then perhaps The Powers That Be would be looking at all manner of American hacks and journeymen, without giving a second thought to luminaries like McTiernan. Then again, with enough jobbing directors from the UK and the Commonwealth to pick from, it's my guess that the no-Americans rule would remain in place unless there was a particular American they wanted. Which brings us to McTiernan....

Anyhow, I've already conceded numerous times that McTiernan is not a frontrunner for Bond. I also concede that there is no evidence that EON is preparing to break with precedent and hire an American director. Nonetheless, I don't see where the harm is in declaring that, in an ideal world, I would wish to see McTiernan direct a Bond film. Freedom of expression, dammit!

Originally posted by crashdrive

But auteur does mean a distinct personal style. And since there are hardly any simularities between 'Thirteen Days' and 'The Recruit', I don't see why one would consider Donaldson to be an auteur. He's a hired-gun.

I'm not sure that Donaldson is entirely without personal style. It's likely that someone, somewhere, is writing a paper arguing that the guy is an auteur of sorts, although that's not really relevant. I'm not sure that Noyce is an auteur, either. But "auteur" is just a word (and a French word at that). To put it bluntly, what I feel is that - with films like THIRTEEN DAYS, THE QUIET AMERICAN and RABBIT PROOF FENCE under their belts - those two are too good for Bond.

There are hired guns and there are hired guns. Donaldson is a considerably more talented filmmaker than Danny Cannon (so's my aunt, come to that:D), and it's my guess that signing him up for a Bond film would really require some wooing. Now, I know that both Apted and Spottiswoode had their days in the sun as "quality" directors, but the likes of COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER and UNDER FIRE were released many years before the Bond series came knocking at their doors. Frankly, Apted and Spottiswoode would seem to have really needed Bond at the time.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
Nonetheless, I don't see where the harm is in declaring that, in an ideal world, I would wish to see McTiernan direct a Bond film. Freedom of expression, dammit!

Ok, well in that case I'd like to vote for my first choice to direct a Bond film; Anthony Minghella. Let's ask Zencat if he could add this name to the poll. No? Why not? Because he is an auteur? Maybe EON will change their criteria an get an Academy Award winner to direct a Bond film? I don't see how this is any less plausible than getting an American.

I'm not against freedom of expression, but maybe we should distinguish two totally different subjects; who should direct a Bond film neglecting EON's policy and who is the best choice of EON's candidates.

Originally posted by Loomis
With films like THIRTEEN DAYS, THE QUIET AMERICAN and RABBIT PROOF FENCE under their belts - those two are too good for Bond.

We agree that Noyce isn't a very likely candidate. On to Donaldson. There is nothing in his work that would suggest auteur. He is a hired gun. Always have been. He got lucky with 'Thirteen Days'. I doubt 'The Recruit' will launch him into stardom. You think the trailer of his next film will say 'From the director of The Recruit'? Had his resume featured more films like 'Thirteen Days' I might reconsider. But his filmography is all over the place. A Bond film would definately be an asset for him. Don't forget we are still talking about the director of such classics like 'Cocktail', 'Species' & the Alec Baldwin/ Kim Basinger remake of 'The Getaway'. I don't think Donaldson is above Bond.

[kevrichardson]

Question . Why does the term "Hired Gun" seem like a coce-name for hack ?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Ok, well in that case I'd like to vote for my first choice to direct a Bond film; Anthony Minghella. Let's ask Zencat if he could add this name to the poll. No? Why not? Because he is an auteur? Maybe EON will change their criteria an get an Academy Award winner to direct a Bond film? I don't see how this is any less plausible than getting an American.

I'm not against freedom of expression, but maybe we should distinguish two totally different subjects; who should direct a Bond film neglecting EON's policy and who is the best choice of EON's candidates.  

Hey, I wouldn't be complaining if zencat had put Minghella on the list. This poll is for us to choose who SHOULD direct BOND 21 (in other words, if it were up to us), and not who we feel we'd be smart to put our money on at a betting shop going by EON's criteria.

I fail to see why you're so vehemently opposed to my championing of McTiernan. ESPECIALLY WHEN I'VE POINTED OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT HE'S NOT THE LIKELIEST OF CANDIDATES! (Sorry to "shout" in capitals, crashdrive; I'm not having a go at you, but I do think I've made the point often enough that McTiernan, while a relatively unlikely candidate, is someone I'd like to see do a Bond film, and that I don't think that the chances of his doing a Bond film are totally nonexistent. His name is on zencat's list. I didn't ask zencat to include him. Am I supposed to not vote for the director I want out of some sense of loyalty to the hallowed EON formula? Goodness, it's not as though EON will actually be using the results of this poll to come to a decision on whom to hire.)

Originally posted by crashdrive

I don't think Donaldson is above Bond.  

Well, okay. That's not my opinion, as you know, but then I've already conceded that I might be wrong. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

On to Donaldson...... But his filmography is all over the place. A Bond film would definately be an asset for him. Don't forget we are still talking about the director of such classics like 'Cocktail', 'Species' & the Alec Baldwin/ Kim Basinger remake of 'The Getaway'. I don't think Donaldson is above Bond.

CrashDrive you can't be serious about Roger Donaldson . Classics like :"The Getaway" , "CockTail" .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Question . Why does the term "Hired Gun" seem like a coce-name for hack ?

A hired gun means a director who is brought onboard a project by a producer, instead of a director who develops a project and then tries to sell it to a producer. The latter we call an auteur. A good example of a director who started as a hired-gun, but later became a auteur is Curtis Hanson, who started with films like 'The Hands That Rock The Cradle' & 'The River Wild' and now initiated films like 'L.A. Confidential' and 'Wonderboys'. It's too easy to dismiss hired-guns as hacks. Roger Donaldson is an example of a director who also is a hired-gun, but still is a damn fine director. Don't forget practically all of the Bond films have been directed by hired guns.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
 CrashDrive you can't be serious about Roger Donaldson . Classics like :"The Getaway" , "CockTail" .

Haha I wasn't. I was trying to make a point Donaldson definately isn't good enough to direct a Bond film. And I think I've made it.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Haha I wasn't. I was trying to make a point Donaldson definately isn't good enough to direct a Bond film. And I think I've made it.

CrashDrive you can't be serious . After all the trouble that you put us through regarding Roger Donaldson . Now this . At least i was civil enough to admit that John Boorman . Through great would never director a Bond even if god can off Mt Sinai . I was under the impression that you are a champion of Donaldson .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
CrashDrive you can't be serious .  

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that I was trying to make a point that Donaldson isn't too good for Bond. In other words, Donaldson is definately a possibility and perhaps even the most likely choice at this stage.

[TheSaint]

I voted for Vic. Noyce really doesn't belong in this poll after the tameness
that was Paramount's Saint movie. Yeesh! Wouldn't mind seeing Campbell return.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
This poll is for us to choose who SHOULD direct BOND 21 and not who we feel we'd be smart to put our money on at a betting shop going by EON's criteria.

Then I think we should remove candidates like Amiel, Hopkins, Caton-Jones, Donaldson & Baird and replace them with filmmakers like (Out the top of my head) Stephen Sommers, Gore Verbinski, Brett Ratner, Jonathan Mostow, Sam Mendes, Doug Liman, Rob Cohen, M Night Shymalan, Sam Raimi, Phil Alden Robinson, Tony Scott, Ridley Scott, Dominic Sena, Antoine Fuqua, Stephen Norrington, Peter Weir, Brian Singer, John Boorman, Stephen Herek, Lawrence Kasdan etc.
We now have a poll consisting of five realistic candidates, four borderline realistic candidates, two directors who don't fit into EON's criteria and no less than three abstain options.
The reason why McTiernan received so many votes is because he's the most famous director of the bunch. Had we created a poll where he was amongst directors like the ones I mentioned earlier, I doubt McTiernan would be the obvious choice (although he certainly would be one of the top choices).
We agree about the fact that McTiernan is definately not one of the likeliest candidates. What we don't agree on is whether or not he should even be on the list in the place. You say yes because the poll says we should vote on the director we would like to see direct a Bond film. I say no because he will take away both votes and attention from directors who are much more likely. Of course you got a point; the poll indeed says "Who should", but what's the point of adding directors like Amiel, Hopkins and Baird?

Originally posted by Loomis
His name is on zencat's list. I didn't ask zencat to include him.

If I'm not mistaking you did ask Zencat about John McTiernan, made an argument why he may be a possibility, asked why he wasn't included and Mimi Leder was, after which Zencat added him to the list.

I was really interested who fans would have picked if they were looking at the same list EON is probably looking at right now. But with additions like McTiernan, people will not take a second look at the lesser known directors and cast their vote on the most famous director. Which is a shame, since, eventhough it's not impossible he could get the job, he's nowhere near as likely as candidates like Jon Amiel, Stuart Baird, Stephen Hopkins, Roger Donaldson, Michael Caton-Jones and even directors like Peter Howitt, Mick Jackson & Antonia Bird.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

If I'm not mistaking you did ask Zencat about John McTiernan, made an argument why he may be a possibility, asked why he wasn't included and Mimi Leder was, after which Zencat added him to the list.

I'm not going to discuss McTiernan any more (whatever I wrote, I'm sure you'd reply "he's not a realistic candidate", to which I'd respond "yes, but I think he's borderline-realistic and I like him", and we'd just keep on firing the same arguments back and forth), but I would like to point out that I did NOT ask zencat to include him on the list. I asked zencat whether he had left McTiernan out on purpose, commenting that McT would probably have won the poll if he'd been included. That is not the same as asking him to put McTiernan on the list. I didn't expect him to change the poll, but he did, and it was his own idea to do so. It was you, crashdrive, who asked for a name to be added (Amiel), and zencat complied with your request, but in my case I was merely commenting on a director's absence and not asking for his inclusion.

Originally posted by crashdrive

Which is a shame, since, eventhough it's not impossible he could get the job, he's nowhere near as likely as candidates like Jon Amiel, Stuart Baird, Stephen Hopkins, Roger Donaldson, Michael Caton-Jones and even directors like Peter Howitt, Mick Jackson & Antonia Bird.  

That's your opinion, crashdrive, and as you know I agree with you to a very large extent, but it's not cold, hard fact. Why, for example, would the Bond people want to recruit Peter Howitt of all people? And if - I repeat, if - there happened to be a situation in which Howitt and McTiernan were both lobbying for the job, what do you think the outcome would be? "Sorry, John, we're going with Peter. Queen and country and all that."

Originally posted by crashdrive

I was really interested who fans would have picked if they were looking at the same list EON is probably looking at right now.  

The thing is, as I've pointed out umpteen times, most people are only interested in playing "what if?" with famous names. Amiel, Bird, Caton-Jones and the like are unknown quantities to most fans, so what would it matter who they'd pick? It would be rather like my being asked to pick my favourite European novel of 2003 from a selection in languages I was unable to read.

As I recall, crashdrive, you put up a "realistic" list of directors as a sort of poll a while back, and very, very few people were interested. Those who were tended to pick the more famous names (surprise!), Donaldson and Noyce. The list didn't exactly spark a lively debate on the relative merits of Amiel and Bird, resulting instead in the same kind of multi-page argument on who should have been included on the list and who shouldn't that we're having here.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
I would like to point out that I did NOT ask zencat to include him on the list.

You are indeed right. I apologize.

Originally posted by Loomis
Why, for example, would the Bond people want to recruit Peter Howitt of all people?

I think Peter Howitt is a very imaginative filmmaker. 'Sliding Doors' (also written by Howitt) in it's genre is fairly unique. He directed the action thriller 'AntiTrust' for MGM, a movie that lacked a well-written script (Howitt did not write it), but, thanks to Howitt, was still enjoyable. 'Johnny English' is as close to an official Bond spoof as you can get since it was written by current Bond scribes Purvis and Wade. And apparantely Brosnan likes him or else he would not have replaced Caton-Jones to direct Brosnans pet project 'Laws of Attraction' co-starring Academy Award nominee Julianne Moore.

Originally posted by Loomis
you put up a "realistic" list of directors as a sort of poll a while back, and very, very few people were interested.

13 different people replied to my "realistic list". In comparison, 15 different people replied to this particular list. Not a big difference I would say. Had my thread contained a poll, I'm sure more than twice as many people would have voted.

What's amazing about the thread Pick Your Bond 21 Director is that people really started to think. A lot of messages started with; "My first choice would be ...., but since EON prefers a more ... director, I'd like to see ... direct". And that's exactly what I wanted to achieve. In my thread one of the most likely candidates Jon Amiel was in the top three most popular candidates. In this thread, thusfar he has not received one single vote. You may ask; "but what's the point of a poll if you already have a thread like that?" The answer is simple. Take this thread for example. 15 different people replied, yet more than double voted. If you have a poll, a lot of people are more willing to give their opinions, since they don't have to write a long message to explain why they want a certain filmmaker.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

You may ask; "but what's the point of a poll if you already have a thread like that?" The answer is simple. Take this thread for example. 15 different people replied, yet more than double voted. If you have a poll, a lot of people are more willing to give their opinions, since they don't have to write a long message to explain why they want a certain filmmaker.  

That's a good point, although there's obviously no guarding against people making mindless mouse clicks to select a candidate at random just for the heck of it.

You're quite right, though: we ought to be discussing realistic candidates. At least we've made a start in doing so.

As for Donaldson, I'd like to retract my suggestions that he's "too good" for Bond. He's not really in the same league as Noyce. Previously, I was thinking of great movies like NO WAY OUT and THIRTEEN DAYS as "typical Donaldson". I've just checked out reviews of THE RECRUIT, which by and large are not good. Obviously, one doesn't have to boast a filmography containing nothing but duds to be considered as a Bond director, but COCKTAIL, THE GETAWAY, SPECIES and DANTE'S PEAK suggest that Donaldson is indeed a hired gun and not an "auteur" of any kind. Defnitely a much likelier candidate than a certain American director whose name I will no longer mention on this thread, and by no means the sort of filmmaker one might think would look down on things like Bond films. Basically, I now believe I've overestimated Donaldson largely on the basis of THIRTEEN DAYS.

crashdrive, what do you think of the possibility (given that it has started to look like the film will go into pre-production this August) that the director of BOND 21 may already have been hired?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
That's a good point, although there's obviously no guarding against people making mindless mouse clicks to select a candidate at random just for the heck of it.

Oh absolutely, but if you have a list of directors you don't recoginze within seconds, you are basically forcing people to use their mind before clicking.

Originally posted by Loomis
You're quite right, though: we ought to be discussing realistic candidates. At least we've made a start in doing so.

I'm really glad you agree with me. Now don't get me wrong. I will definately not ask Zencat to close this poll and start a new one. I still think it's great to see a poll consisting mostly out of of well thought-out and realistic candidates. And there is always the possibility I'm wrong or that EON will change their criteria. I have been wrong in the past. Before 'Spider-Man' began production, I made predicitions who will play the lead and who will direct. I was wrong about Tobey Maguire, because I figured he was too old to play a teenager. I thought Sony were going to get a younger more unknown actor who could age alongside the franchise. So it's very possible I am wrong about EON's criteria.

Note: I did predict Sam Raimi though

Originally posted by Loomis
As for Donaldson, I'd like to retract my suggestions that he's "too good" for Bond.

Sure glad we got that cleared up.

Originally posted by Loomis
crashdrive, what do you think of the possibility (given that it has started to look like the film will go into pre-production this August) that the director of BOND 21 may already have been hired?

I think it's possible MGM/EON may have already offered the job to someone. But it all depends on whether or not 'Bond 21' will indeed start production August 2003. I'd like to see more proof of this. It almost sounds too good to be true.

What are your views on Peter Howitt after reading my arguments from my previous post?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

What are your views on Peter Howitt after reading my arguments from my previous post?

He's in with a chance, and I'm sure The Powers That Be will watch how his career develops over the next decade or so (or next couple of films). But I don't see Howitt being offered Bond right now, at least not while there are directors like Baird, Caton-Jones, Donaldson and Hopkins around. It would seem that Howitt doesn't yet have enough experience, although he may one day be a very obvious choice to do a Bond film.

[kevrichardson]

I like the mental combat of this thread . Yet we have jumped from .Those who stand a chance today . To Direct Bond 21 , which as far as i am concerned is all we should discuss . To future Bond directors and the progress of their careers . I doubt seriously that EON is that far ahead of the game . Given the problems it faces today in finding a script quick enough . Yet along the same established lines as "Die Another Day" . Since MGM what another one ! And the pressing problem of what comes next as a replacement for Brosnan in the future . Assumning he can be persuaded to return for Bond 22 . The additional names listed our of no important . Since many of the Directors are in the early stages of careers . Or have worked on one project that may have been a breakthrough in terms of box-office and critical success . Yet Hollywood /the Film Industry is filled with "One Hit Wonders" . I feel that EON looks at a directors total out put over the course of a career. Not at the fact that they are today's Media Darling .

[Loomis]

crashdrive, how would you rate the chances of Danny Boyle (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Boyle,+Danny) and Roger Michell (http://us.imdb.com/N...?Michell, Roger)?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
crashdrive, how would you rate the chances of Danny Boyle (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Boyle,+Danny) and Roger Michell (http://us.imdb.com/N...?Michell, Roger)?

Boyle doesn't appear to be a gun-for-hire. Roger Michell however is much more interesting. Shame you didn't mention him earlier. He seems like a very good and realistic candidate. I wouldn't put him next to Amiel, Hopkins, Donaldson & Baird just yet, but he seems a more likely candidate than Noyce and Bird.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
which as far as i am concerned is all we should discuss .

Quite right Kev. Instead, let's recap;

Lee Tamahori is a possibility, but not a very likely one. Apparantly Tamahori made a couple of negative comments about EON. This could damage his chances. Still, despite clashing with Tamahori on the set, Brosnan wants him according to the following report. Click here. After helming a movie that grossed more than $400 million worldwide, is Tamahori still cheap enough for EON to hire him?

Martin Campbell's schedule is free. Since he's directing television series, a Bond film would not be a step down for him. He was offered 'TND', but declined. Bear in mind though that EON hasn't hired a second time Bond director for twenty years.

Roger Donaldson seems like an ideal Bond director. A seasoned professional who shows no sign of auteurish tendencies. Directed Brosnan in his first non-Bond film after 'GoldenEye': 'Dante's Peak' and his new film is the spy action thriller 'The Recruit'. One of the most likely candidates

Phillip Noyce could have been persuaded to direct a Bond film a couple of years ago, but he may not want to direct a Bond film anymore after the succes of his two very personal films 'Rabbit Proof Fence' & 'The Quiet American'.

Mimi Leder has the right age and resume to direct a Bond film, but unfortunately not the right place of birth. EON prefers Commonwealth filmmakers, so this could put her out of the running. But she is one of Zencat's buds, so maybe we shouldn't dismiss her just yet.

Stuart Baird was offered 'Die Another Day'. Click here for the report. Only directed three features, so I doubt he would be EON's first choice. Still he's also one of the more realistic candidates.

Michael Caton-Jones was both offered 'GoldenEye' and 'Laws of Attraction' produced by and starring Pierce Brosnan (now to be directed by Peter Howitt), but declined. Could be too strong headed to work under EON's regime. A possibility, but again not one of the top candidates.

Stephen Hopkins was also offered 'Die Another Day'. Click here for the report. Directed the hugely popular '24' and so far isn't too expensive for EON.

Vic Armstrong would probably be a top contender back in the day when Cubby was in charge, who rewared loyalty with promotion. But now that MGM's influence has grown, I doubt they would allow Armstrong to direct. Bear in mind he is not getting any younger and has only directed one feature film; the straight-to-video 'The Joshua Tree' starring Dolph Lundgren.

Jon Amiel again seems like a perfect Bond direct. Was brought on board by Sean Connery to direct the very Bondian 'Entrapment'. Also directed the Bond spoof 'The Man Who Knew Too Little' starring Bill Murray. Fits EON's criteria perfectly.

John McTiernan has said that EON declined to hire him, despite the support of Brosnan. Will be a top candidate if EON changes their criteria, but at the moment does not fit the bill.

None of the above I think we can get remove this option.

I don't care just as long as they don't use CGI there is more to a good Bond film than the absence of CGI. But I definately agree EON should not repeat the amount of CGI they used in 'Die Another Day' in future Bond films.

This poll is irrelevant. Eon will choose someone completely unexpected as they always do let's see whether or not EON can still surprise people after this poll. I have a feeling CBN members will not be fooled anymore. Time will tell.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Still, despite clashed on the set, Brosnan wants Tamahori back.  

Does he? I didn't know that. Where did you find that out from, crashdrive? I doubt you'd be putting much stock in a Brosnan interview comment along the lines of "Lee's a lovely guy, it was a great pleasure working with him, and I hope we get the chance to collaborate again one day", so I'm guessing that you're basing the claim that Brosnan wants Tamahori back on something more concrete and credible. BTW, your "click here" links don't seem to be working.

Although I feel that GOLDENEYE is in many ways a better film than DIE ANOTHER DAY (although I really like DAD), I'd rather see Tamahori return to the series than Campbell, since I think Tamahori is a superior director. IMO, Campbell "got lucky" with GOLDENEYE in much the same way as the usually mediocre Donaldson somehow managed to get it right with NO WAY OUT and THIRTEEN DAYS.