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 agree too with recent comments in that he may just be too big for Bond now. As has been mentioned, he has to bring a certain reverence for the franchise...then I think he can temper his recent ambition and give us a smart, toned down thriller, which would be unexpected for him and good for Bond. He definitely has the skills, but he could be his own worst enemy. Definitely a wild card.
The impact of him getting it would be huge, in terms of marketing, though.
I get the impression Nolan is one of us, which makes things difficult. If you're hardcore the weight of expectation is a massive psychological burden. You can be as professional as you want, but it's a subconscious thing. I get the impression Mendes is more of a casual fan.
After we've all seen Spectre I think we'll all have a much better clue as to where the franchise is headed.
However, If Nolan only directs and DOESN'T write it I'm fine, though the only downside is Hans Zimmer. His work does not impress me anymore and comes off as the same score just slightly altered.
Or if you know the difference between "your" and "you're".
Yep. I see now. Thanks.
What I fear with Nolan taking over Bond, is just that, he will take over Bond and feel he must produce a complete re-imagining of Bond, to make it his Bond. He would never be happy with just doing a continuation of the Craig era Bond. He's been there with his dark Batman arc.
I also thought his last Batman and Interstellar were underwhelming. It's also worth noting that Nolan's last Batman made less than SF WW, and Interstellar at $680m made far less. So EON isn't going to be looking to Nolan to hit Bond 25 out of the BO park, if that is their main interest. If SP does well, they can more likely get to that BO level again with Mendes and Craig, if they are getable for Bond 25.
If Nolan can make that long bore a 675 million USD hit he can make a 1.5 billion Bond movie in his sleep.
Keep in mind though that TDKR had that horrific theatre shooting in the US on day 1 one of release. Although we'll never be able to quantify the impact, I'm quite sure it did have a substantial effect (at least on the casual fans) who may have stayed away due to fear for their safety, and due to some subconscious morbid association with the film and death. It only fell short of TDK in the US, but bested it substantially in foreign markets (in total).
I think if Nolan gets Bond, it will easily best SF in box office terms. His name is free marketing in a big way.
I also think that Interstellar was melodramatic and bloated, but regardless, its worldwide gross of $675m is testament to Nolan's box office clout, despite the film's length & flaws.
I agree with you. I personally would like a focus on the product rather than the box office. That's what makes CR so good among the recent Bond films....it really was a throw back in so many ways, including the stripped down (less is more) pretitles that was debated on another thread today.
Having said that, Bond films have to make money, and I personally think someone like Nolan is good for Bond because he does focus on the product and his vision (he seems to beat to his own creative tune... I don't think anyone can accuse it of being uncreative whatever one may think of it), but because he is also a popular director, he can still pull in the crowds.
Mendes looks to be another one, since he did SF, who can do this, so I'm open to him returning, should he want to, as well.
Yes, yes and yes.
I just don't find Nolan to be very creative. I find his work predetermined and labored. His films don't breathe.
Mendes, on the other hand, is an artist. I just watched American Beauty for the first time in years and it still holds up (Newman's score does as well).
I'll admit that I don't know much about Mendes outside of SF & have not seen American Beauty.
Nolan is definitely an auteur and that is potentially problematic for Bond.
However, I've found all his films to be creative personally. I admit that the recent ones were quite bloated though. I respect his ability to tell a relatively detailed & original story in the confines of 2.5 odd hours. At least for me, he's done that with BB, TDK, TDKR, Inception, Prestige & Interstellar.
I don't like some of his female casting choices, and I'd prefer if he varied his acting picks a little from film to film, but he and David Fincher are the relatively successful ones (commercially speaking) out there that I like at the moment.
Compare Nolan to J.J. Abrams, who picked Lawrence Kasdan (who has obviously proved himself on his own) as his co-screenwriter on the new Star Wars movie. Sometimes listening to diverse voices is a good thing.
I think he did masterful work with Batman while still remaining true to the literary universe, so he can temper it when need be.
I'm pretty sure he will be mindful of the Bond legacy, which he obviously respects, while bringing something new to the table.
However we cut it, SF owes a hell of a lot to TDK imho.
I strongly disagree. I don't give a damn about the BO of films that I love, and a Bond's past BO is meaningless to me. I thought CR was 10 times the film that SF was while it made half the money that SF did. Doesn't change my view an inch. Once the film is in the past, then BO really doesn't matter to me at all. BUT, during this current arc of recent films, I think BO is important, for good and for ill because it directly impacts what kind of Bond we are going to get. If SP doesn't do well, if the press nicks it as a failure, EON will lose critical clout when they negotiate for their next studio, hire their next Bond and want to pay top dollar to get good directors like Mendes and co-stars like Waltz.
As much as I disagree with some of EON's choices, at least they have Bond in their bones and care deeply about the franchise both artistically and financially, and know ever inch of decision making for every Bond going back decades. If the BO fails, EON could lose major decision making control of the franchise, and Lord help us if a studio gains control of this franchise. It could only get far worse. Look at the insanity with MGM and they only have a secondary role. As much as we all bitch about EON's artistic decisions, having a studio hold most of that power and not EON, could bring on some really ratty artistic choices.
I'm not sure I want to see him direct Bond in fact I'm getting more convinced I would like if he didn't and someone else was given a crack at it, Thomas Alfredsen, Morten Tyldum or possibly Paul McGuigan.
Agreed. Someone wrote a great post many weeks ago noting there isn't a creative idea in film that hasn't already been done. New films are just recycling old ideas and plots, some more creatively than others. Dalton's Bond was darker and more realistic long before Nolan's Batman or Damon's Bourne. So all this "Bond is copying us" bs is kind of phony. They all copy each other. Some just copy better and smarter than others.
Precisely, and from my perspective, SF was rather obvious in some cases with its copying (TDK was only 4 years earlier after all), while the entire Batman trilogy was rather good at what it cribbed from classic Bond (it seemed very fresh at the time to me at least) as was Bourne.......both seemed influenced by classic Bond.
I see some parallels here with Nolan. All together I think Nolan's homage to Bond in Inception is good enough to let him make at least one Bond movie. Here's an interesting article by the way:
whatculture.com/film/10-reasons-why-chris-nolan-should-stay-away-from-james-bond.php
I don't think they're all very strong arguments, except for:
1. Nolan should get a bit more naughty with the Bond girls, his movies don't involve a lot of 'sex'.
2. Forget Zimmerman for once and let David Arnold compose again, please!
3. Have a bit more open mind when it comes to the people he works with, especially in terms of casting.
On another note, when J.J. Abrams was mentioned I thought he would be a good choice as well. Well, as long as he leaves his 'lens flares' at home.
I agree with points 1 and 3 wholeheartedly but not 2. While I'd drop Zimmer for variety's sake, I'm done with Arnold (recently doing my Bondathon and OMG was he bad during the Brozz era).
I agree with the basic premise though. Nolan has definitely earned Bond. Freeman's Lucius Fox and Bale's Bat are as close as we'll ever get to seeing a rival Q & James Bond on the big screen (quality humour and all)....ever....imho (and that includes Benji & Hunt or Chloe & Jack).
I thought the TND score was brilliant and Casino Royale really adopted that dual-thematic strategy from Barry (most notable in OHMSS and TLD), with You know my name and Vesper's theme.
I agree with your comments.
I just think he had his shot and in the end, after 5 kicks at the can, it was a case of too little too late, just like Brosnan.
I'm very harsh when it comes to the creative arena though. I expect original work (I dislike derivative pastiche) and I expect consistency. That's one reason why I'm not so hard on Newman or any of the other one off composers (they all tried to be unique and different). With Arnold I just saw inferior 'fan boy' for the most part. If Newman doesn't kick it up for SP though, no one will be harsher on him than me.
I agree though that Arnold did a very good job on CR (although it was derivative of Barry) and on QoS. I liked TND in places, but I thought the Bond theme was overused there personally, and the techno aspects brought that score down for me. Just my opinion though.