It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'm not against fresh talent and would be quite happy with Demange. I'm against complete nobodies.
Sorry, but what on earth do you know about directing? SJ Clarkson has directed top end international TV. In so many ways, especially with TV's tight shooting and post-production schedules, a top end TV director is very well equipped for a feature film which also has a tight schedule (Bond 25) - plus all the other stuff I've explained.
We're speaking about making a Bond movie. A big budget film with a super tight schedule that carries mammoth pressure. I don't see someone with zero experience in this kind of production a good fit for a movie like this. Campbell is an excellent action director, Marc Forster isn't an action director but he wasn't a newcomer in the Hollywood business. Mendes is an A-list director who made excellent awarded pictures.
We went from people like Villeneuve (extraordinary filmaker) and Boyle (super experienced Academy Award winning filmaker) to Clarkson who? Pretty disappointing. Demange would be better on paper, but he's still "new" in this kind of business. I try to stay optimistic but the truth is there's little reason to be optimistic.
Seeking for some fresh talent is an intriguing idea, but making a Bond film is probably the hardest job for a director. You have both tons of pressure (compared only to Star Wars films and a few others) and the tightest schedule for a movie this size. It's not like making a regular blockbuster.
Repeating that she's a "nobody" will not make it so, dear boy.
I won't bother to argue much more with you, @PanchitoPistoles, as your comments are entirely ridiculous. You judge a director by wearing glasses, and looking at their credits, she has equal if not more experience than Demange. Not saying I'm against Demange getting the gig – just putting it there.
Completely agree. If any of the names mentioned can deliver something else in execution than Mendes for example (who couldn't even make a decent car chase, IMO), then good – just get said name going and make a film that makes the deadline, and that hopefully brings us an something exciting.
:))
Some of the best feature film directors have started in TV. And TV, now, is just as cinematic, if not more so, than many feature films. Watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Handmaid's Tale, and the list goes on and on - every episode is written, produced, acted, and directed as if it was a feature film. Wake up. This is 2018.
Joss Whedon, Alan Taylor, Edgar Wright, Mimi Leder, Robert Altman, and an unknown fella called Steven Spielberg. All cut their teeth on a variety of TV productions for years before transitioning over into the big leagues. I'm fairly sure three or four of those names made quite a splash with their debut and sophomore features.
That Columbo episode (Murder by the Book) comes to mind re. Spielberg.
Come on... The Avengers was a smash but still looks like a big budget TV movie (for example, Age of Ultron was far more cinematic speaking about direction). Taylor is crap. Wright directed a small budget film. Altman (lol) didn't directed an A-list Hollywood production. Spielberg is a genius and with Lucas invented the modern summer blockbuster.
We're talking about making a smashing Bond movie, not some Marvel, Terminator, Fast & Furious etc etc crap here. We all know how is difficult delivering a Bond movie, given all the expectations, the mammoth pressure and the super tight schedule.
I'm just saying that I don't see a profile like Clarkson the best fit for this job. I'm no producer, I'm just a junior architect and a movie maniac, but I really can't get excited about the idea of Bond movie directed by Clarkson.
IF she gets the job, I'll be her best supporter. But on paper going from Villeneuve or Boyle to Clarkson remains a long shot.
Frank Darabont (TV), Sam Mendes (only theatre), Mike Nicholes (TV), Sidney Lumet (TV), John Frankenheimer, and that is just off the top of my head without even trying.
TV directors cross to studio pictures all the time. Fact.
From DAD to CR...
From SJ Clarkson's Bond 25 to Christopher Nolan's Bond 26....
Yeah, the universally lauded ‘Welcome to Collinwood’ and ‘You Me and Dupree’.
Excuse me Sir, but I'm no troll.
Now it's not even permitted to share some perplexity about Clarkson? After tons of exhausting OFF TOPIC complaints, frustration and toxicity about "Spectre ruined my life", "Craig and Barbara ruined the franchise", "How I miss the good old times" in a topic titled B25 Production Diary?
Good to know.
Good point!
You asked for a list of high-profile directors who made the transition to high-profile film, and that is what you received. There are many more, I'm sure. Maybe @ColonelSun would be better suited to give examples above my Film Studies BA level.
"Spielberg was a genius" - yes he sure is. He's made some stinkers, too. Does him being a "genius" mean that nobody else could ever end up as good as him? That other directors who start in humble beginnings are not worthy? If that's what you're saying, then I'm not too sure you understand what directing actually entails. A lot of what you just said there is simply personal opinion in the face of factual answers to your question. Yeah, The Avengers was a bit stagey in parts. It also was universally loved and made huge money.
Bond is not the only one with massive fan expectation, studio pressure, and tight timetables. In fact, despite the Boyle events, Bond is still down the pecking order in that regard. All those franchises you mentioned may or may not be to your liking, but they have been directorial nightmares for many. The thing that sets Bond apart from the pack is its content, which is unique to any other series. The process by which it is made, especially in the last couple of entries, is no more or less challenging than any other franchise.
There seems to be some serious ignorance going on here regarding TV directing, as if it's not as challenging as directing a low to mid-budget feature. Clueless is the only way I can describe that line of thinking, honestly.
Yeah, Boyle to Clarkson is quite a leap. Not in quality, though. Just in name recognition. And to be quite honest, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Bond is bigger than the actor, and it is also bigger than the director. As long as they have a clear vision, they'll do fine.
And that goes for any possible candidate.
It's a fact of life. But goin from regular TV productions to directing a film this size? We're not talking about independent art house movies or relatively small budget comedy or drama directorial debuts. It's also true that behind the Bond franchise there's a granitic production company, but I'm still perplexed about this whole idea. Simply because I want 25 to be another GREAT Bond movie and Clarkson doesn't have any real feature film credentials.
Campbell too.
They're both men, so it doesn't count.
Everything in the above post by Panchito seems completely rational to me. Don't hire a director, female or not, unless they know what they're doing.
Firstly, it's not rational at all when he hasn't seen any of the work by the person to make such a judgement. I don't care if it's predominantly television or not.
Secondly, if that's reason enough for a director to be written off by him, especially these days in the era of big budget television, then he's got exactly zero clue of what he's talking about when it comes to directing. That's the reason why his posts are causing so much hassle.
The point is, these TV directors do know what the are doing. How on earth would they be directing top end TV? Directing top TV is a harder gig to get than many feature films.
Well, to be honest I asked for "impressing big budget movies" but it's okay. Ah, you forgot JJ Abrams with M:I-3. :)
BTW my point is that yes, going from Boyle to someone like Clarkson is a HUGE leap but going from TV business to a film this size it's an even longer shot. That's why I'm worried and why I find her name pretty disappointing.
Right now I just don't think someone with just mid-budget TV background could deliver a Bond movie for the ages.
But now don't tell me that directing good TV features (like Collateral) is harder than directing an artistically and commercially successful 200 million $ Bond movie. It's obviously really different.