› ›

What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

1…2829313334…106

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    QuantumOrganization wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    QuantumOrganization 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.

    QuantumOrganization wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang 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.
    MrKissKissBangBang 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).

    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.

    Please find where I said TND is more realistic than CR.

    We're doing this tit-for-tat conversation because no has offered up a plausible explanation for my questions, so I'm done here.

    Time to get back on topic methinks.
    I'm really not an expert on drywall. All I know is Mollaka jumps through an opening just below the ceiling. It would make sense that there are no studs just below that, which is where Bond smashed through the wall. Keep in mind that the narrative at this point was designed to showcase young (and new) Bond's impetuousness, quick thinking and bravery. It succeeded in my view.

    Regarding not shooting Bond, as I've mentioned, Mollaka did try. Bond was chasing him in a bulldozer. In such an instance, it probably made sense to run instead after his first attempts at shooting him failed. When Mollaka shot the two guards, they were in his side view with weapons as I recall, and not underneath or behind him. He is a parkour expert and probably thought he could get away from Bond by going 'up'. That was a mistake.

    As I've said, it's been a while since I've watched the film, but I don't recall anyone trying to poke holes in this scene before. It remains one of the best action scenes that I've seen in a Bond film. Our discussion has made me curious to revisit the film and see if I look at it differently now on account of your pointed criticisms.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    MrKissKissBangBang 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.

    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?
    Not to specifically convince you on those items, but this short video might provide some measure of comfort. Solace, even.

    youtu.be/t1WSD_cnRbA

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Steve McQueen of 12 Years a Slave
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,408
    Getafix wrote: »
    Steve McQueen of 12 Years a Slave

    I would love Steve McQueen to direct one of these films. The only problem is that McQueen is an “artist” and his style is very intimate and emotional. For those wanting a fun and exciting Bond film with all the action bonafides, you wouldn’t get it with McQueen.

    You most certainly would get an interesting and exciting name who will put their own individual slant on the material. But for those fed up of the Sam Mendes school of thought – McQueen would be that times by 10. Naval-gazing is his business. Having said that, I would be kinda excited to see him at the helm. His next film, “Widows” sounds like a genre heist film – so clearly he doesn’t want to be confined to the arthouse world.

    I’d encourage his appointment.

    eye-moma011.jpg?w=640&h=415&crop=1

    Another interesting choice for me would be Tom Ford. Ford already has standing in the Bond world – but he has shown himself to be an accomplished director. I think “A Single Man” is a brilliant film, I was less keen on “Nocturnal Animals”, but he was able to show that he can do genre pulp even if that film reared into soap-opera schmaltziness. However, there were tinges of Hitchcock and David Lynch there to redeem it for me. Plus the movie would be populated with gorgeous people with equally gorgeous cinematography.

    He’d get the style of Bond’s world better than any contender mentioned.

    tom-ford-fashion-designer.jpg?w=1100&quality=85

    Personally, a name that isn’t in the conversation enough is Edgar Wright. Personally, like many, I feel that Bond needs to get a bit more “fun”. The self-serious Christopher Nolan approach has begun to wear a little thin. I want a film that has a little more wit and fun. Spectre tried it out, but Mendes wanted to keep things dour simultaneously. So what we are left with is a pretty messy and uneven film.

    I think Wright would make a film that stays true to all the relevant genre tropes, that’s genuinely funny and with great action. He’d be perfect for Bond. However, not for the Craig era. He’d need a new Bond. Personally, (though I’m really not keen on him) I can see a Tom Hiddleston type (v English and proper) in a Wright Bond film. Something not disimmilar to seeing Colin Firth in Kingsman (which is a film I hated), but you get my drift.

    New “Kong” photos are selling me to Hiddles though…

    kongskullisland0016-1024x428.jpg

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Personally, a name that isn’t in the conversation enough is Edgar Wright. Personally, like many, I feel that Bond needs to get a bit more “fun”. The self-serious Christopher Nolan approach has begun to wear a little thin. I want a film that has a little more wit and fun. Spectre tried it out, but Mendes wanted to keep things dour simultaneously. So what we are left with is a pretty messy and uneven film.

    I think Wright would make a film that stays true to all the relevant genre tropes, that’s genuinely funny and with great action. He’d be perfect for Bond. However, not for the Craig era. He’d need a new Bond. Personally, (though I’m really not keen on him) I can see a Tom Hiddleston type (v English and proper) in a Wright Bond film. Something not disimmilar to seeing Colin Firth in Kingsman (which is a film I hated), but you get my drift.
    +1. When Craig eventually decides to move on, I look forward to a lighter touch. I don't know much about Wright though and will check out his films.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Tom Ford - Hadnt even occured. It would look amazing and the storytelling and characters would be at the fore.

    I actually don't think your description of Steve McQueen is fair though. 12 Years a Slave isn't navel gazing. As you say it looks like he's open to doing genre movies . I bet he'd love to direct Bond.

    Edgar Wright is a bit like Guy Ritchie for me. Not averse to either of them but they'd need to radically modify their tricksy styles of direction.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I've always liked Ron Howard. I realize he'll never get it, but his thrillers have always impressed me and he keeps it interesting and workmanlike. He has range too. Rush was great, as are the Dan Brown films. Same goes for Apollo 13, Ransom, Frost & Nixon etc.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,511
    Rupert Wyatt. Directer of Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and i whant he take the writers of that movie with him.

    The humor/dark humor and ceaser chacter development wil be perfect match with Daniel Craig Bond. Problem be is that the writers working on Mulan and Avatar 3 on the moment.

    But stil i like to see what Rupert Wyatt can do and mabey with Hossein Amini and Steven Knight as writers.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    Ron Howard for Bond?! Yikes!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    Ron Howard for Bond?! Yikes!
    It will never happen of course, but yes I think he could do it if asked. As I said earlier, I've enjoyed many films of his in many genres. He always has character depth with his films but also has great visual style.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I've always liked Ron Howard. I realize he'll never get it, but his thrillers have always impressed me and he keeps it interesting and workmanlike. He has range too. Rush was great, as are the Dan Brown films. Same goes for Apollo 13, Ransom, Frost & Nixon etc.

    I also thought Rush was excellent. Great cast too. Could see most of them in a Bond film. Daniel Bruhl as villain. Olivia Wilde as a Tilly Masterson character and Alexandra Maria Lara as a Tatiana Romanova.

    Have a lot of time for Howard's trad story telling too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I've always liked Ron Howard. I realize he'll never get it, but his thrillers have always impressed me and he keeps it interesting and workmanlike. He has range too. Rush was great, as are the Dan Brown films. Same goes for Apollo 13, Ransom, Frost & Nixon etc.

    I also thought Rush was excellent. Great cast too. Could see most of them in a Bond film. Daniel Bruhl as villain. Olivia Wilde as a Tilly Masterson character and Alexandra Maria Lara as a Tatiana Romanova.
    Exactly. Very atmospheric as well.

    Angels & Demons remains one of my all time favourites. That CERN scene during the opening has Bond written all over it. Every time I watch the film, I wish that was in an EON entry. Perfect mix of sci-fi and old fashioned suspense.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 628
    Getafix wrote: »
    Edgar Wright is a bit like Guy Ritchie for me. Not averse to either of them but they'd need to radically modify their tricksy styles of direction.

    Ritchie seems to be much more amenable than Wright.

    Wright is similar to Guillermo Del Toro in that he has trouble working within the studio system and always wants total creative control. The ANT-MAN debacle (where Wright walked away from Marvel Studios when the producers requested some minor changes to the script) is well-known in the industry and I can't see EON being all that keen to work with him.

  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,408
    I feel a name who isn’t getting nearly enough attention is Cary Joji Fukunaga.

    cary-koji-fukunaga.jpg

    I’m sorta bored of the “No Americans” rule – I get it when it comes to casting the Bond role – but there are a lot of great American filmmakers I’d like to see take the lead; eg, Fincher, Soderburgh, etc.

    Plus for anyone in doubt, Fukunaga directed the very British story of Jane Eyre and made a visually arresting drama. His work in Beasts of No Nation was magnificent. But what really sells me is the first season of True Detective. This guy understands tone and atmosphere. Also he bought an arty sensibility to fundamentally pulpy/genre material (something that would make him appealing to EON).

    He also knows how to shoot action as well – anyone who saw his tracking shot in True Detective will know how engrossing and breathtakingly brutal that sequence is. Not to mention the high-artistry.



    He’s even voiced his interest in directing Bond before.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    Well said, the first season of TD is one of my favourite seasons of television ever. Fukunaga would be a very interesting choice.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    100% agree that the idiotic rule about directors having to be from the commonwealth is total cr*p. It's frankly meant the series has missed out on some of the best directing talent throughout its history.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote: »
    100% agree that the idiotic rule about directors having to be from the commonwealth is total cr*p. It's frankly meant the series has missed out on some of the best directing talent throughout its history.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a stupid ass decision to adhere to.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    bondjames wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    Ron Howard for Bond?! Yikes!
    He always has character depth with his films but also has great visual style.

    Can't argue with that.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    Getafix wrote: »
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) has been my #1 choice for a long time; his films always have a deep sense of character, atmosphere and are very stylish (working with Seamus McGarvey often helps this).

    I quite enjoyed Hanna.

    However, I do sometimes wonder whether too much emphasis is being put on the importance of 'character'. It strikes me that one of the most important things for a Bond director is the ability to tell a story simply and clearly (sounds easy but isn't), and to integrate action seemlessly with the plot. A sense of humour also helps.

    I think Kenneth Brannagh should be given a crack. His Thor was highly entertaining. It had clearly defined and entertaining characters, but it wasn't a 'character study'.

    There's an underrated simplicity to the best Bond films. Everything is really quite stripped back. I think Brannagh would be able to bring some of that tight, entertaining style back to Bond.

    Branagh's a fantastic director (not without his missteps) and an admitted big fan of the Bond films - he'd be an excellent choice.

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) has been my #1 choice for a long time; his films always have a deep sense of character, atmosphere and are very stylish (working with Seamus McGarvey often helps this).

    I quite enjoyed Hanna.

    However, I do sometimes wonder whether too much emphasis is being put on the importance of 'character'. It strikes me that one of the most important things for a Bond director is the ability to tell a story simply and clearly (sounds easy but isn't), and to integrate action seemlessly with the plot. A sense of humour also helps.

    I think Kenneth Brannagh should be given a crack. His Thor was highly entertaining. It had clearly defined and entertaining characters, but it wasn't a 'character study'.

    There's an underrated simplicity to the best Bond films. Everything is really quite stripped back. I think Brannagh would be able to bring some of that tight, entertaining style back to Bond.

    Branagh's a fantastic director (not without his missteps) and an admitted big fan of the Bond films - he'd be an excellent choice.

    +1 he's making a film right now called murder on the orient express don't know if he'll be free for bond 25 but definitely in the future, how about a Christopher Nolan James Bond trilogy
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I am open to Nolan but really Mendes has done Nolan already. SF is basically Mendes doing 'a Nolan'. I still think a one off Nolan would be good. Couldn't stomach a trilogy. Wasn't a huge fan of his Dark Night trilogy - became monotonous and highly pretentious after a while. Prefer his more stripped back throllers
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I wouldn t mind James Mangold. He can get to write it as well.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I wouldn t mind James Mangold. He can get to write it as well.
    He could be an interesting choice. I just saw Logan and he can handle both action and the quitter stuff as well.

  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I wouldn t mind James Mangold. He can get to write it as well.
    Having just seen Logan I'm 100% on board with Mangold.

  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) has been my #1 choice for a long time; his films always have a deep sense of character, atmosphere and are very stylish (working with Seamus McGarvey often helps this).

    I quite enjoyed Hanna.

    However, I do sometimes wonder whether too much emphasis is being put on the importance of 'character'. It strikes me that one of the most important things for a Bond director is the ability to tell a story simply and clearly (sounds easy but isn't), and to integrate action seemlessly with the plot. A sense of humour also helps.

    I think Kenneth Brannagh should be given a crack. His Thor was highly entertaining. It had clearly defined and entertaining characters, but it wasn't a 'character study'.

    There's an underrated simplicity to the best Bond films. Everything is really quite stripped back. I think Brannagh would be able to bring some of that tight, entertaining style back to Bond.

    Branagh's a fantastic director (not without his missteps) and an admitted big fan of the Bond films - he'd be an excellent choice.
    Branagh is indeed fantastic and quite underrated as it seems. He knows how to make films look like grand spectacle.

    While his Jack Ryan film was decent enough but entirely forgettable, I distinctly remember thinking that Branagh could pull of a great Bond film in that style with a bigger budget.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Is Ken a chum of Dan's? That seems to be the most important criteria these days
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I disliked the Jack Ryan film immensely, so I'm afraid I can't advocate for Branagh.

    I think Alex Garland would be an interesting choice. Ex-Machina is a very atmospheric and impressive film, visually.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 628
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think Alex Garland would be an interesting choice. Ex-Machina is a very atmospheric and impressive film, visually.

    I've never seen EX MACHINA, but I love Garland's screenplays for 28 DAYS LATER, SUNSHINE, and DREDD. Garland would bring a unique touch to the storytelling, at the very least.

    Speaking of DREDD, I wouldn't mind seeing the director of that film, Pete Travis, have a go at the Bond series.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    Yeah - Jack Ryan wasn't very good (bad script, looks nice visually though).... But Henry V, Hamlet? Masterpieces. He can direct the hell out a good story.

    Ex Machina was absolutely amazing - he'd be a good choice.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    Yeah - Jack Ryan wasn't very good (bad script, looks nice visually though).... But Henry V, Hamlet? Masterpieces. He can direct the hell out a good story.

    Ex Machina was absolutely amazing - he'd be a good choice.

    Ex machina is a good film but not very bond so...... how does that prove him as a director for a bond film
Sign In or Register to comment.