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
Maybe. But most likely not. A two-million dollar film compared against a fifty-million dollar film? Sure. But when you get into one hundred-million dollars and above , I don’t think that many, if any, could distinguish one film from the other purely from that vantage point.
A lack of money can spur creativeness but it’s not guaranteed. Budgets shouldn’t be used by audiences as a barometer for creativity or quality. There’s a romanticized idea about ingenuity filling the budget gap. That can happen but, typically, we’re talking about films that already have scale. Ridley Scott may have had to sacrifice an idea or two when making Alien—as an example—or compromise on a sequence that would have cost too much, but Alien already had a sizable budget for its time. We’re talking hundreds of thousands saved as opposed to millions of dollars already spent.
That's not what I am saying. In fact, I predict that quite the opposite will happen. With the help of AI, everyone will be able to create 100% professional looking and sounding movies, and that will cause an explosion in the number of movies produced each year.
So I'm not predicting the end of cinema, I'm just predicting the end of Hollywood and movie studios.
I'm doubtful as to how interested Nolan ever was in Bond at this point in his career. I know there are stories of him demanding specific things from EON, but this may or may not be true, and he's obviously been busy with promoting Oppenheimer, and of course whatever he's working on now. But who knows, I could be wrong and perhaps it's his dream to direct a Bond movie (but honestly, I'd like to think he wouldn't lose much sleep over not doing so).
Not saying I put my trust in those articles, but I'm cautiously interested in Berger as a director.
I know it's twenty years old and maybe he'd bring something fresh to Bond, but equally he's done his Batman movies and I'd be surprised if he wants to return to do another fairly straight IP adventure movie after two decades of picking his own projects.
Same here. EON needs a break from the art house directors for a couple of movies.
Bond directors are usually 'drama' directors, at least in the way we've usually seen. Lewis Gilbert certainly was. His output was relatively varied in terms of genre, but even Alfie was a comedy drama, and his films were very much character driven pieces/drama. Same for Terence Young - again, he had a slight mix of genres in his filmography, and had even done comedies, but his films generally skewed towards dramas. Sam Mendes is very similar in terms of his prior Bond filmography with a black comedy drama (American Beauty), a war film (Jarhead), a gangster film (Road to Perdition), and even a romantic comedy-drama (Away We Go) under his belt before Bond. Guy Hamilton is pretty much the same with his pre-Bond filmography skewing more towards dramas of some kind. Same for Marc Forster. And Cary Fukunaga. And Michael Apted.
The outliers are John Glen and Peter Hunt who made their debuts with Bond after being editors/second unit directors on those films (not a common pathway today, and very unlikely). I suppose the likes of Martin Campbell and Lee Tamahori were more directors of thrillers prior to Bond, but even then nothing as broad/action orientated as Guy Ritchie. Campbell even started out doing sex comedies, and Tamahori did Once Were Warriors which is a pretty heavy going, low budget New Zealand drama. I suspect there's a reason EON seem to go for directors with a mixture of genre under their belt, albeit ones skewing towards character dramas and ones that are mid to higher budget.
Who’s arthouse versus commercial seems like a fluid spectrum. Guy Ritchie’s first film only cost $1.4 million. Sam Mendes’ most recent film cost $100 million. Pound for pound, I’d much rather have the director of 1917 or True Detective: Season 1 than the director of Aladdin or Ghostbusters: Answer the Call.
In fact, I’d choose EON’s lineup of directors from both the Brosnan and Craig eras over anyone who’s directed a Star Wars film in the last twenty-five years or most Marvel films. Putting aside opinions on any particular Bond film, I find it so odd that some lament the hiring of really skilled or world renowned artists for this franchise. Obviously, quality is not guaranteed, but ten-out-of-ten times I’d “go to war” with a Mendes or Corey Fukunaga over someone like Paul Feig. Maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way, but I can’t imagine demanding McDonald’s when wagyu is on the menu.
Arthouse is stuff like David Lynch's very early career, Bela Tarr etc. Terrence Malick's recent films are relatively close to arthouse cinema nowadays, albeit very well funded ones. It's nothing like the filmographies of any Bond director though. You can't be an arthouse director in the traditional sense and do Bond. You need some record of being able to make well constructed genre films with drama in it (and on a relatively wide budget/scale).
J.J Abrams directing Bond: somehow, Mr. Big survived.
Well said @007HallY and agreed.
Imagine if in that JJ Abrams directed Bond movie the jetpack from TB was revisited...
Henchman 1: He flies now?!
Henchman 2: He flies now...
I admit that I’ve used the term “arthouse” incorrectly in the past out of naivety but I think people use those words when perhaps they mean to use “prestigious”, but I get what you’re saying. I think the closest the series has gotten to recruiting an “art house” director would’ve been Marc Forster, and he even brings some of those sensibilities to QOS. I don’t really think anyone could describe the likes of Martin Campbell and Cary Fukanaga though as being “prestigious” or “arthouse.”
I never said arthouse, I said drama. But remember: Sam and Cary have both made some stinkers, too.
My point is the names being bandied about now, all make films with a large amount of malaise and characters who are depressed. i don't want that in a Bond film.
I would do 50 cart-wheels if Lewis Gilbert was alive today and could direct Bond 26. I would say he was more of a comedy director but we can differ. I think the differences between the dramas of Lewis Gilbert and Terrence Young is that they were more accessible. The amount of despair in films you see today is unbelievable while in the old days there was more of a plethora of emotions they made you feel which balanced it out.
I want a director who can bring a lightness of touch and a sense of fun back to the series. Is that too much to ask? I think the FYEO template could be a good compromise if not.
All things being equal, if every director has their stinkers, then why not go after the ones that come with top-tier talent to pair?
Your taste is your taste, but if hiring someone like Paul Feig means that we get a Paul Feig-like movie, then I will be in a depressed malaise.
Hollywood hires directors because they are the most talented storytellers they can find to make their movies. If there were more talented people out there they would find them and hire them, its on their interest to do so. Having roughly the same tools at our disposal as Tarantino isn't going to turn me, you or anyone else into the next Tarantino. You seem to be confusing having access to the tools as the same thing as having the talent to create something other people will want to see. Giving every amateur cook a michelin star kitchen to work in will not turn them into the next Gordan Ramsey.
I think its more likely that AI tools are going to make directors in hollywood more in demand than ever, not less. In a world where there's mountains and mountains of slop, peoples brains are going to put extra priority to the creative voice of a proper director with a vision, and a lot of rest will just become noise. The value of art comes down to what the people watching want to see, and will always be a subjective thing.
I mean think about it, imagine thinking you could sit in your pj's and program a performance as good as Daniel day Lewis in There Will Be Blood, and just pluck it out of thin air. I wouldn't know where to start!
Gilbert’s pre-Bond filmography definitely leaned more drama. I don’t think he could have done Alfie (which is a very dark and sad film in the form of a comedy) had he not had a background in making more character based films.
It really depends. Having seen a few American/British melodramas from the 50s I wouldn’t say they’re exactly subtle in terms of emotion. Many were ridiculous and are probably more so when viewed by viewers today. Many are classics. Just depends on the film. But I’d say acting nowadays on the whole generally feels a bit more natural for various reasons.
I think Mendes and Fukunaga had a light touch. You get a number of good, even quite classically Bondian gags in SF (‘he’s keen to get on’, ‘health and safety check, carry on’, Bond adjusting his cuffs after jumping on the train, the Komodo dragon fight etc). SP goes even further with things like Bond landing on the couch after the explosion, the gags during the Italy car chase. NTTD has some pretty zany comedy in places - the latter part of the Cuba sequence being the major example. I really don’t think there’s a lack of lightness in Bond nowadays. They’re just within films that have a heavier splash of darkness to them. It’s worth asking though - would an alternative director make a Bond film with a consistent lighthearted tone? I don’t personally think so, at least if the script leans into that darkness anyway. They’re not hiring a director to craft their own Bond movie. Even if Nolan was hired he’d likely have to develop a script based on what EON want, and it was the same with Boyle and Fukunaga.
Agreed. I think it's more important for Bond that a director demonstrates an ability to balance or blend tones rather than simply being skilled in one genre or type of film. Mendes, for example, had American Beauty which has some pretty absurd moments of black comedy mixed in with more dramatic scenes. It's about knowing how to convey those beats in the context of a full work/story.
It's why I'm (very) cautiously interested in Edward Berger for Bond 26. Something like Patrick Melrose is dark, but it actually has a lot of humour within it which makes the drama more impactful. Even All Quiet on The Western Front needs scenes of lighter reprieve to make its battle scenes more horrifying. I'd need to see his latest films which seem to be in the realm of being thrillers though, and I don't think he's ever done an outright comedy in the way Gilbert did with Alfie, or Forster did with Stranger Than Fiction... not that that in itself necessarily matters (considering my feelings about Forster's direction on QOS).
Damn, I just woke up!
Lol. I would gladly bungee jump into that. If only. If only.
Yeah. But I think the difference is, Nolan is a Bond fan like Sam Mendes, David Arnold, Martin Campbell, etc. People like that do their thing, but don't forget what material they are tackling. We can see that Fukunaga's Bond knowledge isn't that huge. Look how the film turned out. Fukunaga did his thing, but didn't do Bond's thing. I don't mean Bond's death. I mean the film not feeling like a Bond film.
For example, a director who understands Bond would have had Bond crash the car in Cuba in a more spectacular way, instead of Paloma. I enjoy Paloma for sure, But that's a Bond thing she did. Now, not that I'm vehemently clamouring for Nolan to direct Bond 26. But if it turns out to be him, I have no reason to be worried. Plus, can Nolan do worse than NTTD? I don't think so.
I agree with Fukunaga not having that genuine sense of movie Bond outlandishness (although he did well with the more lighthearted scenes. It's more zany and stylised than the tongue in cheek heightened reality of Bond I prefer though). But I don't think you necessarily need to be a huge Bond fan to understand how to make one either. Incidentally I'm pretty sure Fukunaga would claim he's a Bond film fan. Actually I think it can be the case where the inverse is true - perhaps someone really attached to Bond would be more likely to make odd decisions. If the rumours about Nolan wanting to make a period piece Fleming adaptation are true (we don't know one way or the other) then that would be an example. Bond films are always meant to be contemporary and modern. They're meant to reinvent themselves in some way. Someone with a more fundamentalist approach to adapting Fleming might not agree, even if it's the precedent of the films. Similarly, perhaps a director who's a big fan of movie Bond might be too close to that image of the series/character to really go in a different direction needed to craft a future film.
I think it's pretty close to certainty Nolan won't be the next Bond director anyway. I just don't see much in his films which suggests to me he'd be a good fit for Bond, nor that he'd really want to work on one in practice.
I remember thinking Patrick Melrose was good. Deutschland '83 I'm a big fan of, but for a spy drama it did tend to mine the situation for black humour. I wonder, if Berger has caught the collective eye of Eon, which of his films or shows first put him on their radar? If it was Deutschland '83, is it that mix of violence and big overarching threat mixed with that jet-black humour?
I think it's more to do with all the attention 'All Quiet on the Western Front' got, and his newest film 'Conclave' with Ralph Fiennes is garnering!
You know I actually thought the same thing about that sequence in Cuba, that it should have been Bond commandeering the car and driving it, it wasn't enough him just coming out and shooting a few bad guys!
Not seen Deutschland '83, but I had seen Patrick Melrose a while ago and only recently realised that Berger directed it. I'm actually not a big fan of Cumberbatch, but I thought he was great in that. In a weird way he was kind of Bondian at times with his womanising, dark wit, the way he carried himself at points etc. The humour is very dark, but very much there. It's a stylish show as well even with the subject matter.
I don't know if the rumours about Berger being considered are true, but without seeing Patrick Melrose I don't think it's something many can quite understand simply based on his films alone. He's also a really interesting guy from an interview I saw posted on here with some insightful stuff to say. I'm very interested in seeing his next two films.