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
Well, the "best" is not the right word. I mean.. they didn't hire Spielberg after all.
I don’t think Spielberg was ever available to them (not with the budgets they worked with in the 80s anyway). And you can argue Spielberg might not be the best (or most suitable) director to helm a Bond film.
So I suppose I mean the best director for the film (and even dependent on the specific Bond film they want to make that answer can differ).
Riders of the lost ark was cheaper than For your eyes only.
Anyway, these producers are very conservative.
Hmm, interesting.
It's not about the budget overall but simply where they chose to spend the money they had. You have to understand this was just after Heaven's Gate (a notorious and very expensive flop) and from what I understand a particularly bad time financially anyway for United Artists. They couldn't even afford any of the previous Bond directors, and it's why Glen was promoted. Likely he was more reliable just on a practical level than Spielberg or any of these other directors anyway, so it's not a stupid thing to have done. It doesn't seem an overly conservative decision either as Glen was a first time director, albeit one with a lot of experience in second unit and editing work. Just seems like a practical risk given the circumstances.
I suppose Spielberg could have been hired within a '76-80 timeframe but even then I don't know whether he would have been available, if he was experienced enough to have handled something like TSWLM, or if he was a reliable choice.
But "appropriate" doesn't mean the best.
And Spielberg...yes, he could make that movie. Was it a risk? well that's why the producers are/were conservative. They didn't want to take that risk.
A Spielberg Bond film might well have meant we didn't get Raiders, at least in the form we know it now, and I wouldn't have wanted that, so I'm not sure it's such a great loss.
Ok… out of curiosity then how would you define who ‘the best director’ is for a Bond film? Because it’s not necessarily the most critically acclaimed or the biggest name, or even the up and comer with one hugely successful film under their belt. There’s more to it than that, and most of it we don’t know. That’s all I’m saying.
Same for how producers approach certain decisions. You can argue everything they do is a risk, and it's certainly not a case where EON have never taken them. But other times sometimes a risk is simply not worth taking or not the best option, even with the most ambitious of producers. It's just about weighing up those decisions. I'm not even sure if Spielberg would have been available for TSWLM, and he had a film out the same year as MR. Sometimes it's a case where schedules don't fit, and waiting for even a desired director would cause problems. If that's not the case there may have been other factors as to why Spielberg wasn't picked (if he was considered - I really don't know one way or the other). It may not have been worth flying out an American director to work on a British production (in terms of practicality, cost, how well he'd be able to work on this specific production etc). Maybe he just wasn't the most suited to these specific films in the producer's eyes due to his level of experience or the previous films he'd made, which makes absolute sense. If anything it's easier to understand why Lewis Gilbert was hired for TSWLM and MR. As I said beyond that point even if they wanted him they obviously had to make certain financial choices due to the circumstances.
Basically all I'm saying is deciding who the best director is or saying the producers are always 'conservative' in their decisions isn't as black and white as you're making out.
Makes sense. I suspect there was more to it in Cubby's eyes, but it was obviously not a risk he thought worth making. And yes, it's very much for the better we got Raiders I think.
July 2026, that's a couple months shy of 5 years since NTTD. Makes sense.
I know it's not black and white. It's my point after all. It's not the best available. Maybe they want a guy who won't give them problems.
... or maybe that hypothetical director who won't 'give them problems' (whatever that means) is the best available director for that particular Bond film... Again, how would any of us know?
I've said it once, I'll say it again, for those speculating that Nolan or Villeneuve will direct the next Bond film, should prepare themselves for disappointment.
Whilst Villeneuve was approached to helm NTTD, his schedule prohibited it, and will likely do so again.
As to a Bond film coming in 2025, 2026...I'm not sure where these dates are coming from. Thin air.
EON have been rather clear on the status of Bond 26. All of these dates are just wishful thinking for now.
By the way that’s not me trying to have a go, just explains some of these posts. I’m sure I’ve done similar. I think the best practice is to wait for something definitive to be announced before getting excited though.
I like Edgar Wright because he has that thing that underrated director Guy Hamilton had, of setting up and paying off the audience. Everything in Goldfinger is structure and paced to be constantly paying off the audience, and efficiently setting up things in the background that will come back a few scenes later. When you look at a film like Hot Fuzz, it's basically the same philosophy. Everything in that film is foreshadowed and timed to perfection, and that's what we need to see a return to with modern bond films. That's the missing puzzle peice, at least IMO. But you won't get that with dramatists or the types of directors they've been hiring since Casino, who are all cut from a similar clothe. Keep hiring the same people, don't be shocked when they give you the same results, that's just how business works. Films need to evolve, and that means CHANGING the way you do things, taking on different philosophies and new approaches. It seems to me like we need some boldness again in the series, and don't be afraid to lean into pure escapism. Its not expensive or difficult to pull off, you just need to look for people with the right sensibilities.
This has led some to think he might be directing B26, any thoughts?
Look at his imdbpro page. Titles are all there. None are left untitled.
Huh, must've been an error then.
Someone saw the same thing you did, a few pages back.
They went on the Pro version and posted it.
The free version on IMDb isn't as up to date.
The untitled project is a book that was optioned last Friday, that has attached Villeneuve as director.
To date, it doesn't have a cast, release dates, or a film script, and, as was reported when the news broke, it will be the film Villeneuve tackles AFTER D3: Messiah.
But, remember, @TheSkyfallen06 , he said he wants to make one film BEFORE D3... We are all waiting to see what that is, 😂.
@SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , this “secret project” on the free IMDb has been identified on IMDbpro— it’s the book that was optioned last Friday. It’s not Bond.
But, this project is to be shot AFTER D 3: Messiah… go back a page or so. It was discussed yesterday.
No, It is not an error.
Simply that on IMDb Pro it has the name of the title.
;)
Thanks @Informe_James_Bond …!
Correct @talos7
Lining up ducks, and hot streaks dont last forever, plus, in the film industry, most projects die in development hell. Seriously, in any given year, there are more projects stuck in development than get made. Take a look at the IMDbpro pages of producers. They could have 12, 15 or 20 projects in development (knowing that only three or four of them will cross the finish line!).
We are most certainly guaranteed D3. That’s a no brainer.
But the others may have millions spent on them in development and die two or three or five years later.
It’s the nature of the business.
Agreed, sir…