328 replies to this topic

[kevrichardson]

Here CrashDrive i will list some of the one's who have a chance . And i will only discuss them from here on in . If i can give up on John Boorman . Them people should remove those who would never be considered in the first place .

Lee Tamahori - Yes directed biggest Bond of all time since "Thunderball" . But problems with Brosnan on the set migh have created too much bad blood . Plus he insulted EON with his comments . PLus i doubt the hardcore fan will want him back because of the CGI .

Martin Campbell - Loomis wrote he got "lucky" with "GoldenEye" . That may be true . Hard to say . Just timing . Advantage to him is prior Bond film and price . Career has tanked somewhat since "Mark of Zorro" .

Phillip Noyce - Simply no !! A comparation wil be make with the "Jack Ryan Thrillers" . Doubt EON/Danjaq need the headache .Plus since "Quite American "may cost too much .

Mimi Leder - This was a waste of space .

Stuart Baird - Maybe on a short list at EON .

Michael Caton-Jones - Just because he left the Brosnan project . Does not mean that he would not be hired to helm Bond 21 . In fact that might be the reason why . Pre-production , then actually production of a Bond consumes a long period out of a Director's life .

Vic Armstrong - Sentimental favorite of mine . Why ? Becuase as you said Cubby Broccoli rewarded loyality . In mynjudegemnt a "Peter Hunt "clone . Which is a good thing . Still i understand the post about his "lack of Directorial experince " . Since "The Joshua Tree" was weird .

Jon Amiel - Out side of Catherine Zeat-Jones . Did not care for "Entrapment" .

John McTiernan - Dream Canididate of many . Would overwhelm a Bond production . There are enough thread about the Americaniztion of James Bond . This would complete the process .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
IMO, Campbell "got lucky" with GE in much the same way as the usually mediocre Donaldson somehow managed to get it right with NO WAY OUT and THIRTEEN DAYS.

I agree Donaldsons films sometimes have the tendency to be mediocre (I do think 'No Way Out', 'Thirteen Days', 'The Bounty' & 'Sleeping Dogs' were excellent films), but so far he has not delivered a film that was quite as bad as films like 'Last Action Hero', 'Medicine Man', 'The 13th Warrior' & 'Rollerball' (imho). A man is only as good as his material so they say. There is not a doubt in my mind Donaldson could deliver a terrific Bond film if the script is well-written. Interesting, one day you feel Donaldson is too good to direct a Bond film and now you think he got lucky with two of his films.
And I'd prefer Campbell over Tamahori. Maybe Tamahori is the better director, but that might just be the reason why he felt it was necessary to put a stamp on 'Die Another Day' (usless sex scene, ott martial arts & CGI). 'GoldenEye' was well put together. You never felt Campbell was trying to push the envelop. He sticked to the formula and made a damn fine Bond film. And that's what a Bond director should do.

I fixed the links and added one to the report where I read Brosnan wants Tamahori back. Can't say whether or not its genuine.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Michael Caton-Jones - Just because he left the Brosnan project . Does not mean that he would not be hired to helm Bond 21 . In fact that might be the reason why .

A theory I was considering aswell. I don't think it makes sense though. Why would he even agree to direct the film if he knew that it would mean he couldn't do Bond? Don't forget he also declined an offer to direct 'GoldenEye'. It would make more sense if Caton-Jones considers himself to be an auteur. If I glance over his resume, I'd not be surprised. In an interview with Total Film, he said that his motto is; 'Pain's temporary, but film's forever'. I have a distinct feeling this guy is not open for EON's suggestions. This guy does it his way. Hence the creative differences with Brosnan on 'Laws'. Don't get me wrong, I still think he's a candidate (i'm sure he's on EONs list), but a director like Caton-Jones needs some persuading to do a Bond film.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Interesting, one day you feel Donaldson is too good to direct a Bond film and now you think he got lucky with two of his films.

The Donaldson of NO WAY OUT and THIRTEEN DAYS is too good for Bond. The Donaldson of THE RECRUIT isn't. As you point out, a director is only as good as his material. He's also only as good as his collaborators. That is why I believe McTiernan to be one of the most talented filmmakers of our time in spite of his having directed duds like ROLLERBALL.

[kevrichardson]

"Laws of Attraction" does not strike me as a "autuer type of film" . Look lets establish one important thing about "GoldenEye" . Prior to the films release . Bond was DEAD !! Six years since "License To Kill" . Every one involved with "GE" . Had nothing to lose , in fact it re-established James Bond . Help the careers of Brosnan ( career was reduced to character parts in films ) . It clearly help Martin Campbell get "Mark of Zorro" . And set the stage for "Tomorrow Never Dies" ( which is another underrated Bond film ) . So Michael Caton-Jones was offered "GoldenEye" was he the original canididate before Campbell . CrashDrive do you know all the directors EON had approached about the assignment .

[kevrichardson]

CrashDrive! Just how many people are involved in this thread ?

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Just to clear something up, there's nothing to say Caton-Jones had creative differences with Brosnan on LOA and not one of the other 10 or so producers of the film. LOA is not a strict IDT prodcution but because it's being financed outside MGM there are at least two other production companies involved in it who hold the purse strings.

As for Brosnan and Tamahori, both said that report in Movieline was blown way out of proportion; Tamahori specifically was rather pissed about it. They had a disagreement after the first 2 weeks of shooting and after that worked very well together for the next 6 months. Brosnan often compares working with Tamahori to working with Campbell and he has had nothing but great things to say about Campbell. So I'm not surprised he wants Tamahori back. He'd probably also like a little bit of consistancy.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
"Laws of Attraction" does not strike me as a "autuer type of film" . CrashDrive do you know all the directors EON had approached about the assignment .

I used to consider Caton-Jones to a the top contender because he agreed to be a gun-for-hire on "Laws". But the fact that he declined to direct someone else's show is proof he does consider himself to be an auteur. He may not be a M. Night Shymalan or a David Fincher, but he does demand a certain amount of artistic freedom. And that's something EON may not be prepared to give him. Only if EON's vision coincides with what Caton-Jones wants to do with the picture, he may yet agree to direct 'Bond 21' or a future Bond film.

And unfortunately, no I do not know who was approached for 'GE' or the other Brosnan Bonds with the exception of Michael Caton-Jones ('GE'), Peter Medak ('TND'), Stuart Baird & Stephen Hopkins ('DAD'). But I'd be more than interested who else was approached to direct a Bond film in the past. Anyone know more?

[kevrichardson]

Excellent MBE . Brosnan does need some CONSISTANCY . He had 4 Diferent directors . That can be very hard on a person . Blaim EON .

[kevrichardson]

The term GUN-FOR-HIRE . I rather insulting .I know i wrote this before . A lot of great Directors started out a GUN-FOR-HIRE . Especially in the early days of film (1920-1960 ) . and maybe beyond that timeframe. Peter Madek ? Who in gods name is he ? Look not to belabor the point . Here are my favorites . Vic Armstrong , no one has made a case against him . Other than lack of actually directorial experience . again look at Peter Hunt and John Glen . Beth had great support for their directorial debuts . Each film is considered a classic James Bond . But i guess those days are gone , when EON was a extended family . Not the piggybank of MGM . So realistically Armstrong is out . Michael Caton-Jones and MIck Jackson . Who i failed to include .

[Loomis]

Question for crashdrive: given that The Powers That Be would appear to have a no-auteurs role and only want directors who will follow the rules and not give a damn about "personal vision" and all the rest of it, does it actually matter who will ultimately be chosen to direct BOND 21?

BTW, I've read that John Woo was offered GOLDENEYE and turned it down. Ted Kotcheff and John Landis were apparently also approached for the film that became GOLDENEYE. Note those guys' nationalities.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
Does it actually matter who will ultimately be chosen to direct BOND 21?

I definately think so. The reason why EON does not want an auteur filmmaker is because they don't want to "shift too far away from their marketplace". Another reason is that auteur filmmakers cost a lot more that 'guns-for-hire'. You've said it perfectly yourself; why get an expensive director if you can get a cheaper director and still gross $400 million +? I think the last four films have been terrific despite the absence of auteur filmmakers.

Originally posted by Loomis
I've read that John Woo was offered GOLDENEYE and turned it down. Ted Kotcheff and John Landis were apparently also approached for the film that became GOLDENEYE. Note those guys' nationalities.

Where did you read John Woo was offered 'GoldenEye' and declined? According to an interview with Brosnan; "John Woo would have loved to have done one". Maybe Woo offered himself to EON and they turned him down.
As for Kotcheff and Landis, this was reported by The London Daily Express. How is their credibility? Since I'm not from the UK, I wouldn't know. They were offered the never realised third Dalton film 'Property of a Lady'. The Bond series had suffered tremendous setbacks not seen since 'OHMSS' and like the post-Connery period, Broccoli looked over the atlantic for help get the series back into shape. At this time however, the series has never been stronger.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Where did you read John Woo was offered 'GoldenEye' and declined?  

Damn, I was really hoping you wouldn't ask me that. The fact is, I'm not sure where I read it. I could have sworn I read it in "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson, but I've just been checking my copy and can't find any references to Woo and GOLDENEYE. I may have read it somewhere on this site at some point. One thing's for sure, though, I did read it (as opposed to imagine it).

As to whether the Express is reliable, I don't believe it's any more or less reliable than any other newspaper - for film news, at any rate. Even movie mags (whose writers ought, after all, to know better) print nonsense as news. For example, Empire seems to have announced ROCKY VI every six months for the past dozen years.

Here's another question: given that The Powers That Be would seem to want control over directors at all times, why do they nowadays go to the trouble of finding a new one for each film? Wouldn't they be better off keeping someone who'd amount to an in-house director like they used to with John Glen? (Although I don't believe Glen was ever contracted for more than one film at a time.) After all, TPTB have nice and cosy relationships with a number of "Bond family veterans" who seem to get hired for every film (Vic Armstrong, Peter Lamont, etc.). Wouldn't it be so much easier for them to build a similar relationship with a director once again?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
One thing's for sure, though, I did read it (as opposed to imagine it).

I never said you did

Originally posted by Loomis
Wouldn't it be so much easier for them to build a similar relationship with a director once again?

I guess that's where MGM steps in. I have a feeling they blame John Glen for the failure of 'Licence to Kill'. They probably insist on a 'real' movie director. I'd imagine Brosnan not liking the idea of an in-house director either. And why go through all the trouble finding a new one every movie? Because the success of a Bond movie apparantly does wonders for ones pricetag. I also think Barbara and Michael like the idea that a new director can make every movie seem fresh again (since it was Barbara's idea to get Apted for 'TWINE').

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I never said you did

Oh, I know, it's just that personally I always find it really annoying whenever someone says "I read somewhere that...." and is then unable to say exactly where they read it.

As for Bond doing wonders for a director's asking price, I read in Glen's autobiography that he found himself virtually unemployable after Bond. He writes that people assumed he'd be unable to direct anything other than a Bond or Bondian film. Then again, perhaps his chances in the marketplace were hurt by his having stayed in the Bond-directing job too long, not to mention his having made LICENCE TO KILL as his final Bond film.

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by crashdrive
And unfortunately, no I do not know who was approached for 'GE' or the other Brosnan Bonds with the exception of Michael Caton-Jones ('GE'), Peter Medak ('TND'), Stuart Baird & Stephen Hopkins ('DAD'). But I'd be more than interested who else was approached to direct a Bond film in the past. Anyone know more?

Mabey it is an remour,but i heard that there ask Ang Lee (Directer of The Hulk,this year in the cinema) for Twine and for Dad to.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by M_Balje

Mabey it is an remour,but i heard that there ask Ang Lee (Directer of The Hulk,this year in the cinema) for Twine and for Dad to.

Not a rumor . Brosnan has once made some noise in a interview . That he would like Ang Lee to direct a Bond . But i would not happen .

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Loomis
I've read that John Woo was offered GOLDENEYE and turned it down.

The version I saw was that Woo was approached for TWINE, but EON wouldn't give him the same degree of creative control Cruise was offering him to do MI:2. Blowed if I can remember which site it was posted on.(Not to say he wasn't in the frame for 'GoldenEye' also.)

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Roebuck

The version I saw was that Woo was approached for TWINE, but EON wouldn't give him the same degree of creative control Cruise was offering him to do MI:2. Blowed if I can remember which site it was posted on.(Not to say he wasn't in the frame for 'GoldenEye' also.)

Hiring John Woo would go against established EON policy of British/ Commonwealth directors only . Plus in my opinion he would fall into the John McTiernan category . He would overwhelm any Bond Production .

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
 John Woo would go against the EON policy of  British/ Commonwealth directors .  Plus in my opinion he would fall into the John McTiernan catogory . He would overwhelm any Bond Production .

I've always categorised Woo as one of those 'style over substance' guys, all slo-mo and white doves. I'd like less of that in Bond 21 than was apparent in DAD.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Roebuck

I've always categorised Woo as one of those 'style over substance' guys, all slo-mo and white doves. I'd like less of that in Bond 21 than was apparent in DAD.

Slow-motion and CGI is here to stay . Expect to see more of it in Bond 21 . Gone are the days of human stunts .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
 Slow-motion and CGI is here to stay . Expect to see more of it in Bond 21 .  Gone are the days of human stunts .

I seriously doubt this. EON knows a lot of fans will tune out if the franchise will go that direction. I know I will. I think the next Bond will be more like the first hour of 'Die Another Day' and less of the second hour.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I seriously doubt this. EON knows a lot of fans will tune out if the franchise will go that direction. I know I will. I think the next Bond will be more like the first hour of 'Die Another Day' and less of the second hour.

The Bond films are made for general audiences, not "fans", and it seems that DIE ANOTHER DAY has been a blockbuster, the biggest-grossing Bond film ever by some accounts. I don't know if slo-mo is here to stay (it seems merely a rather pointless directorial flourish in DAD, and the next director will probably try to avoid copying "Tamahori trademarks"), but I imagine that CGI is.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I seriously doubt this. EON knows a lot of fans will tune out if the franchise will go that direction. I know I will. I think the next Bond will be more like the first hour of 'Die Another Day' and less of the second hour.

A great myth surrounds the Broccolis ( Barbara and Michael) regarding James Bond . They may have control of the character yet MGM controls the finances . People discount the influnce that MGM has . I am of the firm belief that Bond 21 is in the early stages of Pre-production . As we post , serious discussion are held on the screenplay , locations , casting decisions and finally who will direct . The hardcore fans who make up a small percentage of the Bond box-office gross receipts . Really don't matter when it's the person who loves films like "LOTR" or the recent batch of "Star Wars" films . With all the recent advances in digital filmmaking , it is these fans that MGM/EON will go after . I am not saying that the important traditional human stunt man willl disappear from Bond . Just in a less riskier form i.e no more free fall fight out of airplanes like "Moonraker" . Just look at the gross international box -office for "DAD" . This is part of Barbara Broccoli's modernization of Bond .

[Loomis]

I agree, kevrichardson, and I don't see the basis for a statement like "I think the next Bond will be more like the first hour of 'Die Another Day' and less of the second hour".

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Loomis
I agree, kevrichardson, and I don't see the basis for a statement like "I think the next Bond will be more like the first hour of 'Die Another Day' and less of the second hour".

Thanks Loomis . CrashDrive arguement is rather hollow . Since any removal of CGI would back fire ! That is what today's film audience wants CGI special effects .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
CrashDrive arguement is rather hollow.

To be honest, I don't believe this discussion belongs in this thread, so I did not explain myself. I'd be more than happy to continue this discussion, but not in this thread. Try the following threads on for size; Bring Bond back to Earth, Next Bond to go back to basics, What do you want to happen in Bond 21? & CGI in Bond 21. Basically I agree with Bryce (003)'s comments in the latter thread.

I really hope we'll learn soon who will direct Bond 21. Not just to find out whether or not our predicitions have been correct, but also, so that we can finally put the spotlight on one director and predict what the tone of the film will be based on the directors previous work (or do you feel this isn't an issue for EON?). Of course we could do that now. What do you say?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I really hope we'll learn soon who will direct Bond 21. Not just to find out whether or not our predicitions have been correct, but also, so that we can finally put the spotlight on one director and predict what the tone of the film will be based on the directors previous work (or do you feel this isn't an issue for EON?). Of course we could do that now. What do you say?

I agree with kevrichardson that the rumours that BOND 21 will go into pre-production this August seem credible. In that case, I'm sure we'll know the director's name very soon, with an announcement in July or thereabouts. And I reckon they'll get Stephen Hopkins.

As for predictions based on previous work, I'm sure it would be tricky to make them, especially as EON tends to pick "hired guns" whose style is fairly anonymous, keeping them on a short leash. Even if Campbell or Tamahori were to be lured back, I'd imagine it would be damn near impossible to correctly guess what BOND 21 would be like (especially as an announcement of the director's name is likely to come WAY in advance of reliable information regarding the plot). I doubt that anyone accurately predicted the tone of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS based on John Glen's work on A VIEW TO A KILL.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Loomis

Even if Campbell or Tamahori were to be lured back, I'd imagine it would be damn near impossible to correctly guess what BOND 21 would be like (especially as an announcement of the director's name is likely to come WAY in advance of reliable information regarding the plot). I doubt that anyone accurately predicted the tone of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS based on John Glen's work on A VIEW TO A KILL.

Very nice point Loomis .

[Glen Barrington]

Originally posted by zencat
Actually, I forgot about McTiernan. But I don't see him working with MGM again after Rollerball. I think Mimi Leder is an interesting choice. A woman who has proven she can direct large scale actions movies... Besides, she's my bud.

And as for Sommers -- why not let him write and direct? I know Eon will never do this, but maybe this is exactly the kind of bold move they should make.

If Stephen Sommers had been on the poll, I would have voted for him. He has shown he can handle huge scale action films, and I am certain he would bring something unique to the table. And he doesn't skimp on CGI (in today's market, we all know there has to be some) like the last film did. maybe EON wouldn't give a guy like him "carte blanche" on the writing part, but I think he would go all out to make an fantastic film for the series. I also like Mimi Leder-she 's come an awful long way from ER on TV. (The best thing about her "Deep Impact" was Morgan Freeman). Phillip Noyce would also be an intriguing choice. Like his style.