What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

11516182021106

Comments

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Eh...Ron Howard is as middle of the road as it gets. Great for the Brosnan era. But we can do much better these days.

    Quite. No edge, little flair. Hire a director with cojones.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Alfonso Cuaron!
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Has anyone mentioned Kevin Macdonald yet? I've only seen Last King of Scotland and can't comment on the rest of his library, but that film had balls and stuck out when I was trying to think of recent drama/thrillers that stuck out at me.
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    How about Joe Carnahan. I think that could work.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Eh...Ron Howard is as middle of the road as it gets. Great for the Brosnan era. But we can do much better these days.

    Quite. No edge, little flair. Hire a director with cojones.
    Rush has superb pacing, and so does Angels and Demons. They were both beautiful to look at too. He knows how to do characterization while moving the pace along. Given the variety of projects he has tackled, Bond should be an absolute breeze for him. Won't happen though, because he's not British.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Ron Howard for Bond? The man's made some good films, but I think he'd do a terrible job with Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Tarantino.
    Case closed.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Tarantino.
    Case closed.

    Objection.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Tarantino.
    Case closed.

    Objection.
    Overruled.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 6,304
    Time for a female director to shake up the series: Barbra Streisand.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,718
    Some people are saying Bond 25 will be Craig's YOLT. And I see Lewis Gilbert is still alive, so... ;)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @AceHole, I'd be pretty upset if Blomkamp was hired. The man only has a few sci-fi movies under his belt, most of which are quite mediocre. I wouldn't trust him helming a large scale spy action movie.

    So you don't want a fresh young director with visual flair and a penchant for character driven action then?

    The fact that he doesn't have a large repertoire is of no consequence. It's exactly this thinking that is holding the series back. We want 'established' directors, and all they do is turn Bond into the sort of film they have always made.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Eh...Ron Howard is as middle of the road as it gets. Great for the Brosnan era. But we can do much better these days.

    Quite. No edge, little flair. Hire a director with cojones.
    Rush has superb pacing, and so does Angels and Demons. They were both beautiful to look at too. He knows how to do characterization while moving the pace along. Given the variety of projects he has tackled, Bond should be an absolute breeze for him. Won't happen though, because he's not British.

    Rush was fantastic. Watching it I was actually thinking how in some respects it resembled a Bond movie. Dashing, heavy drinking British hero with a way with the ladies, humourless Euro villain, fast cars, great female leads, explosions.

    I remember thinking how the whole cast (apart from Hemsworth) could be directly transposed to a Bond movie and how well it would work.

    Brilliant movie if any one hasn't seen it yet.
  • Posts: 1,296
    And am I stupid or was Natalie Dormer in it too? Hello, knock knock, Bond Girl who is it?
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Tarantino.
    Case closed.

    Objection.
    Overruled.

    Thrown out of court on technicality - Tarantino is not a member of the DGA and thus won't be hired by any major studio.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Tarantino.
    Case closed.

    Objection.
    Overruled.

    Thrown out of court on technicality - Tarantino is not a member of the DGA and thus won't be hired by any major studio.
    Wasn't he already rejected by Bab's before Craig's casting? I thought Brosnan wanted him and Babs was against the idea from the get-go. I read that somewhere but can't recall where.
  • Posts: 11,425
    She says Tarrantino never approached EON directly. It was Harvey Weinstein who told her that Tarantino was keen to do Casino Royale, and it was before they'd announced they were going to do CR after DAD.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    She says Tarrantino never approached EON directly. It was Harvey Weinstein who told her that Tarantino was keen to do Casino Royale, and it was before they'd announced they were going to do CR after DAD.
    Oh, ok. Thanks. So they could have still gone with him if they wanted, but chose to use Campbell again.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    She says Tarrantino never approached EON directly. It was Harvey Weinstein who told her that Tarantino was keen to do Casino Royale, and it was before they'd announced they were going to do CR after DAD.
    Oh, ok. Thanks. So they could have still gone with him if they wanted, but chose to use Campbell again.

    I don't think EON would want Tarantino. I think it would have been fascinating to see a Tarantino Bond movie, if he'd not gone too OTT/camp.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    She says Tarrantino never approached EON directly. It was Harvey Weinstein who told her that Tarantino was keen to do Casino Royale, and it was before they'd announced they were going to do CR after DAD.

    I suspect we'll never know exactly what went on, but Tarantino does like to brag and talk about all kinds of projects he never ends up making, e.g. Modesty Blaise with Uma.

    But really, doesn't the fact that Tarantino wanted Brosnan (who would have been 51-52 at the time) in CR suggest that this was not the right approach at all?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    But really, doesn't the fact that Tarantino wanted Brosnan (who would have been 51-52 at the time) in CR suggest that this was not the right approach at all?
    Very true. Possibly the vision he had (if it was communicated) was too jarring for EON..
  • Posts: 11,425
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    She says Tarrantino never approached EON directly. It was Harvey Weinstein who told her that Tarantino was keen to do Casino Royale, and it was before they'd announced they were going to do CR after DAD.

    I suspect we'll never know exactly what went on, but Tarantino does like to brag and talk about all kinds of projects he never ends up making, e.g. Modesty Blaise with Uma.

    But really, doesn't the fact that Tarantino wanted Brosnan (who would have been 51-52 at the time) in CR suggest that this was not the right approach at all?

    Like you say, who knows what was and was not discussed. Tarantino never actually spoke to Babs or MGW, so the 'conversation' didn't get very far. Tarantino probably assumed that to have any chance of EON agreeing he'd have to accept the existing Bond. You don't just waltz in and say you want to direct and recast the lead actor all in one go...

    Funny thing is, I definitely think Brosnan suits a Tarantino film more than Craig. I actually think Tarantino could have got Brosnan to deliver his own proper, definitive interpretation of Bond, rather than the wet drippy version he gave us.

    Brosnan has shown in other roles that he has the ability to deliver decent performances when well directed. Problem is his Bond had no identity.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Harvey Keitel as Mr White of course.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Anthony Russo and Joseph V. Russo (Captain America: The Winter Soldier )
  • For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film
  • Posts: 486
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film

    Spielberg endorsing the Mendes\Craig combo and hoping it continues whilst this forum has its own Mendes backlash.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film
    Wow, having read that my respect for Spielberg just dropped immensely.




    While I pretty much dislike the colours and lighting in both SF and SP, I find it pretty ironic that none other trailer than H8ful 8 was shown previously to SP. That oddly reminds me of how I found my breath again when after a row of very fast-cut films I watched Inglorious Basterds.
    So I´m almost tempted to wish for Tarantino. But experience shows that I find his films on the whole incongruent. And incongruence is the last thing I need after SP.
    The second last thing, after a huge chunk of scenes bathed in sunlight.



    dalton wrote: »
    Ron Howard for Bond? The man's made some good films, but I think he'd do a terrible job with Bond.
    Ron Howard is always solid, you know what you get. But he´s never beyond solid, so he has to stay away from Bond.



    Michael Mann would be the best choice IMO to redeem the franchise after SF and SP.
    Perhaps Denis Villeneuve also, Sicario is the best thriller in a long while. But beside him being busy with the Blade Runner sequel, I´m afraid he would overcomplicate the plot. Both Prisoners and Sicario are told much to complicatedly for Bond. What we need is a clear storytelling that´s fast enough to keep the audience from thinking about the inevitable plot holes in every Bond film.



    Didn´t George Miller say he wants a small project with no special effects? Give him a 100mill budget and let him make the next Bond film :-).
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    I would like the Coen brothers to direct a Bond film.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Yeah, ok, I would go.

    Question is, would they be able to keep themselves from loading the script with subtext?

    I probably would go anyway.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film
    Wow, having read that my respect for Spielberg just dropped immensely.




    While I pretty much dislike the colours and lighting in both SF and SP, I find it pretty ironic that none other trailer than H8ful 8 was shown previously to SP. That oddly reminds me of how I found my breath again when after a row of very fast-cut films I watched Inglorious Basterds.
    So I´m almost tempted to wish for Tarantino. But experience shows that I find his films on the whole incongruent. And incongruence is the last thing I need after SP.
    The second last thing, after a huge chunk of scenes bathed in sunlight.



    dalton wrote: »
    Ron Howard for Bond? The man's made some good films, but I think he'd do a terrible job with Bond.
    Ron Howard is always solid, you know what you get. But he´s never beyond solid, so he has to stay away from Bond.



    Michael Mann would be the best choice IMO to redeem the franchise after SF and SP.
    Perhaps Denis Villeneuve also, Sicario is the best thriller in a long while. But beside him being busy with the Blade Runner sequel, I´m afraid he would overcomplicate the plot. Both Prisoners and Sicario are told much to complicatedly for Bond. What we need is a clear storytelling that´s fast enough to keep the audience from thinking about the inevitable plot holes in every Bond film.



    Didn´t George Miller say he wants a small project with no special effects? Give him a 100mill budget and let him make the next Bond film :-).

    Nnnoooo. His films are shallow with no characterisation.....We would have another DAD.
Sign In or Register to comment.