What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

12728303233106

Comments

  • Posts: 1,985
    Milovy wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    You all think theres any chance Steven Soderbergh could direct Bond 25?
    Considering the fact that Soderbergh is a Bond fan and has had talks with EON before, the fact Craig is working with Soderbergh right now, and the fact that Craig has helped recruit talent for his films before (Forster, Mendes, Bardem, maybe more)... I would say Soderbergh is the safest bet for Bond 25. If you like betting, that is. ;)

    Fingers crossed!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd be ok with Soderbergh. A film by him would be slick and stylish and it would have excellent characterizations. I'd like to see that.
    A Bond film with the spirit of the Ocean's style humour is definitely something the series should see a bit. Then again, The Man from UNCLE had an imitation of it. I still would love that, though.
    I prefer they get a more action oriented director since we've had Mendes for 2 films.
    Most definitely agreed!
  • Posts: 676
    @QuantumOrganization I think I remember reading that Craig helped get Forster on board. Only thing I could find on Google:
    The clincher for Forster was talking things over with Daniel Craig, the man who should be praised for bringing the first hint of nastiness to Bond, and blamed for causing an unhealthy upswing in the wearing of Speedos. "Daniel and I are very much in sync; he's a highly intelligent and sensitive actor. His achievement has been to humanise Bond, so that he could be one of us - not a hero, but an antihero with a dark side. Meeting him made me want to jump in, take the risk.'"

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/oct/24/quantum-of-solace
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd be ok with Soderbergh. A film by him would be slick and stylish and it would have excellent characterizations. I'd like to see that.
    I think Soderbergh also fits into the "journeyman" mold you mentioned on the last page. He doesn't waste money or time on a shoot. He's kinda like Young or Campbell, who do only the essential set-ups and are economical and efficient in their coverage. More of a meat-and-potatoes approach, not overly artsy like QoS or Spectre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    I think Soderbergh also fits into the "journeyman" mold you mentioned on the last page. He doesn't waste money or time on a shoot. He's kinda like Young or Campbell, who do only the essential set-ups and are economical and efficient in their coverage. More of a meat-and-potatoes approach, not overly artsy like QoS or Spectre.
    That's a good point actually, and would be most welcome after what we've had for the past decade. I had always assumed that if Craig returned, it could only be Mendes again. You have shown me that there is indeed another possibility.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139

    The TND PTS and bike chase, and the TWINE boat chase is superior to anything in CR.

    latest?cb=20160319215259
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    doubleoego wrote: »

    The TND PTS and bike chase, and the TWINE boat chase is superior to anything in CR.

    latest?cb=20160319215259

    WHAT ARE U TAAAAAAALKING ABOUT
    The tomorrow never dies bike chase is cool and the pts is also great but I kind of hate the action in twine and that sequence in Madagascar is one of the best in the whole series along with that amazing car crash and stair fight these films can't even be compared
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited February 2017 Posts: 10,592
    The aforementioned scenes are certainly on par with much of the CR action. Mind you, that's not a bad thing at all.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The tomorrow never dies bike chase is cool and the pts is also great but I kind of hate the action in twine and that sequence in Madagascar is one of the best in the whole series along with that amazing car crash and stair fight these films can't even be compared
    Fully agreed.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »

    The TND PTS and bike chase, and the TWINE boat chase is superior to anything in CR.

    latest?cb=20160319215259

    WHAT ARE U TAAAAAAALKING ABOUT
    The tomorrow never dies bike chase is cool and the pts is also great but I kind of hate the action in twine and that sequence in Madagascar is one of the best in the whole series along with that amazing car crash and stair fight these films can't even be compared

    The action in CR takes a cow herd sized dump all over what TND and TWINE had to offer. That's what I'm talking about
    ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »

    The TND PTS and bike chase, and the TWINE boat chase is superior to anything in CR.

    latest?cb=20160319215259

    WHAT ARE U TAAAAAAALKING ABOUT
    The tomorrow never dies bike chase is cool and the pts is also great but I kind of hate the action in twine and that sequence in Madagascar is one of the best in the whole series along with that amazing car crash and stair fight these films can't even be compared

    The action in CR takes a cow herd sized dump all over what TND and TWINE had to offer. That's what I'm talking about
    ;)

    This is pretty obvious to me as well.
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 234
    Not sure if he's been mentioned - but would be interested to see what Alex Garland (Ex-Machina/Dredd) might bring to the table.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    Oh, how convenient - shooting at Bond when he is behind bullet proof glass in a bulldozer (also, why is it bulletproof, exactly?)... Regardless, Mollaka still could have shot Bond before that, or even after that, since he shoots two innocent construction workers.

    For the second answer: How is it calculated? That's my question. I know he took a chance - a pretty big chance that could have ended horribly as you pointed out (and referencing SP won't help... That has enough problems as it is), with no thought given to it whatsoever (a problem that plagues many of Craig's action sequences).
    Don't you think you're overdissecting this somewhat? It's an action film, and certain tolerance must be given in order to allow for spectacle, tension and entertainment.

    I recall you holding up TND as being great. I've always wondered why the 2nd pilot didn't splatter over the underside of the other plane when he was ejected from the seat in Bond's. Also, how did Bond know that the banner would hold when jumped off the building in Vietnam/Thailand? How did he conveniently find an Avis location in which to park his BMW after it flew off the parking garage?

    We can always poke holes in action sequences if we want to. The trick is to keep it tense, which as I've said, Campbell was a master at doing, unlike Apted.

    Regarding the drywall incident: I honestly don't know how he figured that out. He's Bond, a trained agent, and I'm sadly not.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    Oh, how convenient - shooting at Bond when he is behind bullet proof glass in a bulldozer (also, why is it bulletproof, exactly?)... Regardless, Mollaka still could have shot Bond before that, or even after that, since he shoots two innocent construction workers.

    For the second answer: How is it calculated? That's my question. I know he took a chance - a pretty big chance that could have ended horribly as you pointed out (and referencing SP won't help... That has enough problems as it is), with no thought given to it whatsoever (a problem that plagues many of Craig's action sequences).
    Don't you think you're overdissecting this somewhat? It's an action film, and certain tolerance must be given in order to allow for spectacle, tension and entertainment.

    I recall you holding up TND as being great. I've always wondered why the 2nd pilot didn't splatter over the underside of the other plane when he was ejected from the seat in Bond's. Also, how did Bond know that the banner would hold when jumped off the building in Vietnam/Thailand? How did he conveniently find an Avis location in which to park his BMW after it flew off the parking garage?

    We can always poke holes in action sequences if we want to. The trick is to keep it tense, which as I've said, Campbell was a master at doing, unlike Apted.

    Regarding the drywall incident: I honestly don't know how he figured that out. He's Bond, a trained agent, and I'm sadly not.
    The helicopter that try's to mow Bond down is one of the most unrealistic things in the whole series.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The helicopter that try's to mow Bond down is one of the most unrealistic things in the whole series.
    I agree. That was an awfully directed sequence. Nice idea, but very badly executed by the directorial team. No tension whatsoever.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondjames wrote: »
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    Oh, how convenient - shooting at Bond when he is behind bullet proof glass in a bulldozer (also, why is it bulletproof, exactly?)... Regardless, Mollaka still could have shot Bond before that, or even after that, since he shoots two innocent construction workers.

    For the second answer: How is it calculated? That's my question. I know he took a chance - a pretty big chance that could have ended horribly as you pointed out (and referencing SP won't help... That has enough problems as it is), with no thought given to it whatsoever (a problem that plagues many of Craig's action sequences).

    Are you a fan of skyfall?
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    The recent mentions of Steven Soderbergh in this thread is making me more interested in the idea of him coming on board. Given DC's ability to recruit other directors and actors to the series, I think its a genuine possibility for Bond 25.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    NSGW wrote: »
    The recent mentions of Steven Soderbergh in this thread is making me more interested in the idea of him coming on board. Given DC's ability to recruit other directors and actors to the series, I think its a genuine possibility for Bond 25.

    I think he'd make a great film, but the only problem is that he's an American.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    A Soderbergh Bond film would likely be light hearted and fun, with a lot of style. Out of Sight remains one of my favourite films & the Oceans entries are all fun.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    edited February 2017 Posts: 299
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think he'd make a great film, but the only problem is that he's an American.

    Does that actually bother you? I don't see why Bond directors should be limited to being English. It would be preferable to have an English director as Bond represents British culture etc. but I dont see much reason to limit your options if an American (or any other nationality) director has a great track record and potential to make a great Bond entry. When it comes to making entertaining, high-quality action blockbusters, there aren't that many English directors these days that come to mind, the UK film industry is very small compared to other nations.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @NSGW, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but some fans would say that a lot of the magic would be lost if an American were allowed to direct.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Satorious wrote: »
    Not sure if he's been mentioned - but would be interested to see what Alex Garland (Ex-Machina/Dredd) might bring to the table.

    @Satorious, you're right, sir. Both films you reference tell me the man can do clever drama and cool action. There's Bond potential there.

  • edited February 2017 Posts: 628
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @NSGW, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but some fans would say that a lot of the magic would be lost if an American were allowed to direct.

    This always seemed strange to me considering that the Broccoli family is American and many of the Bond films were either written or co-written by Richard Maibaum, an American.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @NSGW, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but some fans would say that a lot of the magic would be lost if an American were allowed to direct.

    This always seemed strange to me considering that the Broccoli family is American and the first thirteen Bond films were either written or co-written by Richard Maibaum, an American.

    Those aren t proper Bond films, then.
  • Posts: 628
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @NSGW, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but some fans would say that a lot of the magic would be lost if an American were allowed to direct.

    This always seemed strange to me considering that the Broccoli family is American and the first thirteen Bond films were either written or co-written by Richard Maibaum, an American.

    Those aren t proper Bond films, then.

    LOL.
  • Posts: 9,860
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Apted returning with a stronger script by say Mcquarrie and the 5th Craig film could surpass even Casino Royale.

    btchplz.gif

    You were expecting us to agree double should we ever agree the universe will explode although I believe it was you who said the Macgyver reboot would fail still going strong in March curious when this "failing" will start
  • For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.

    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?

    I actually never about that with CR, but now that you mention it I wince at the thought of Bond smashing headfirst into a stud and knocking himself out cold—or worse—with a bloody head.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    I actually did think about this though when I saw SP. Each time he smashed the wall I kept thinking, geez shouldn't you take a second to check for the stud first? Your hand is going to be messed up if you punch through the wrong place.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Marc Forster is German, just saying.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    Oh, how convenient - shooting at Bond when he is behind bullet proof glass in a bulldozer (also, why is it bulletproof, exactly?)... Regardless, Mollaka still could have shot Bond before that, or even after that, since he shoots two innocent construction workers.

    For the second answer: How is it calculated? That's my question. I know he took a chance - a pretty big chance that could have ended horribly as you pointed out (and referencing SP won't help... That has enough problems as it is), with no thought given to it whatsoever (a problem that plagues many of Craig's action sequences).
    Don't you think you're overdissecting this somewhat? It's an action film, and certain tolerance must be given in order to allow for spectacle, tension and entertainment.

    I recall you holding up TND as being great. I've always wondered why the 2nd pilot didn't splatter over the underside of the other plane when he was ejected from the seat in Bond's. Also, how did Bond know that the banner would hold when jumped off the building in Vietnam/Thailand? How did he conveniently find an Avis location in which to park his BMW after it flew off the parking garage?

    We can always poke holes in action sequences if we want to. The trick is to keep it tense, which as I've said, Campbell was a master at doing, unlike Apted.

    Regarding the drywall incident: I honestly don't know how he figured that out. He's Bond, a trained agent, and I'm sadly not.

    I'm not talking about TND, but your shooting down of a film that I enjoy demonstrates you can't answer my questions. Like CR all you want, but you can't deny that the film doesn't flow as it should. It's contrived.

    Since you mention it, the difference between the pilot splattering over the plane and Mollaka not shooting Bond isn't comparable. For one, whether the pilot went through the plane, or under it, it would have aided in Bond's escape. Secondly, it doesn't interrupt the flow of the sequence, whereas Mollaka having the ability to kill Bond, but conveniently doesn't, shatters any credibility of tension. Thirdly, for ratings - that amount of blood has never been in a Bond film.

    Regarding the banner, considering the large ropes used to hold it up, he could deduce that it could support body weight. He's essentially using the ropes, and not the the banner itself. The banner simply broke the fall. Unlike this 'trained agent' (which by the way, at this point, is Bond even that in CR?) who goes in head first without thinking. There is no facility to judge whether a wall has a stud behind it without actually physically checking first. Never mind the stud - what if something was on the other side of the wall?

    The avis thing is a gag in a film that is about as serious a Bond film should be. If a film is going to be as pretentious as CR, there needs to be the focus, flow and logic to support it.
    You can't dispute the fact that Casino Royale is one of the most realistic Bond movies and that Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the worst in that regard.

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited February 2017 Posts: 1,187
    bondjames wrote: »
    The helicopter that try's to mow Bond down is one of the most unrealistic things in the whole series.
    I agree. That was an awfully directed sequence. Nice idea, but very badly executed by the directorial team. No tension whatsoever.

    And I suppose a man throwing a bowler hat to kill people, or a man who falls from the sky and survives, or an ejector seat in a car, or a lair inside a volcano, or Bond having perfect accuracy after the very faculties that would support that were tortured, etc. are all perfectly realistic.

    Still, no answers about my original questions, so I'm still left wondering. Shame.

    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For all the CR supporters: Please, tell me, why doesn't Mollaka shoot Bond prior to jumping on the crane? He clearly has a loaded gun, as demonstrated when he shoots TWO innocent bystanders.
    I don't remember the scene all that well because it has been a few years, but I think he does try to shoot him at the first chance he gets - when Bond is in the crane truck coming towards him. If I'm not mistaken, he misses and runs out of bullets.
    Also, how does Bond know that he's going to run through a mere plaster wall? How does he know there aren't any wooden studs behind it?
    He took a calculated chance and it paid off. Same kind of chance that he took when he punched through the wall at L'Americaine (could have ruined his hands if he had hit something).

    Oh, how convenient - shooting at Bond when he is behind bullet proof glass in a bulldozer (also, why is it bulletproof, exactly?)... Regardless, Mollaka still could have shot Bond before that, or even after that, since he shoots two innocent construction workers.

    For the second answer: How is it calculated? That's my question. I know he took a chance - a pretty big chance that could have ended horribly as you pointed out (and referencing SP won't help... That has enough problems as it is), with no thought given to it whatsoever (a problem that plagues many of Craig's action sequences).
    Don't you think you're overdissecting this somewhat? It's an action film, and certain tolerance must be given in order to allow for spectacle, tension and entertainment.

    I recall you holding up TND as being great. I've always wondered why the 2nd pilot didn't splatter over the underside of the other plane when he was ejected from the seat in Bond's. Also, how did Bond know that the banner would hold when jumped off the building in Vietnam/Thailand? How did he conveniently find an Avis location in which to park his BMW after it flew off the parking garage?

    We can always poke holes in action sequences if we want to. The trick is to keep it tense, which as I've said, Campbell was a master at doing, unlike Apted.

    Regarding the drywall incident: I honestly don't know how he figured that out. He's Bond, a trained agent, and I'm sadly not.

    I'm not talking about TND, but your shooting down of a film that I enjoy demonstrates you can't answer my questions. Like CR all you want, but you can't deny that the film doesn't flow as it should. It's contrived.

    Since you mention it, the difference between the pilot splattering over the plane and Mollaka not shooting Bond isn't comparable. For one, whether the pilot went through the plane, or under it, it would have aided in Bond's escape. Secondly, it doesn't interrupt the flow of the sequence, whereas Mollaka having the ability to kill Bond, but conveniently doesn't, shatters any credibility of tension. Thirdly, for ratings - that amount of blood has never been in a Bond film.

    Regarding the banner, considering the large ropes used to hold it up, he could deduce that it could support body weight. He's essentially using the ropes, and not the the banner itself. The banner simply broke the fall. Unlike this 'trained agent' (which by the way, at this point, is Bond even that in CR?) who goes in head first without thinking. There is no facility to judge whether a wall has a stud behind it without actually physically checking first. Never mind the stud - what if something was on the other side of the wall?

    The avis thing is a gag in a film that is about as serious a Bond film should be. If a film is going to be as pretentious as CR, there needs to be the focus, flow and logic to support it.
    You can't dispute the fact that Casino Royale is one of the most realistic Bond movies and that Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the worst in that regard.

    I can dispute it - I don't find CR remotely realistic. That's not usually a problem, but it's not the question I'm asking. If Mollaka is getting very little thought about killing people, he would have turned and killed Bond on the spot. Simple. But it wouldn't have happened because there would be no movie to watch. Likewise, the love story is all too rushed and contrived to be realistic. Also, why is Bond breaking into M's apartment? And why is she okay with it? Why can't Bond find out what he needs to know at MI6? Is it supposed to show Bond being a 'realistic' spy?
    That's not what i said. I said Casino Royale is one of the most realistic BOND films. You can't dispute that TND is less realistic than CR.

Sign In or Register to comment.