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
That's not really true at all.
Yes, Scorsese is a daft idea, may as well have suggested Hitchcock. And I don't know if not going with his suggestions is the same as ignoring them, either.
McTiernan is a very solid suggestion: on the basis of Thomas Crown he'd have likely produced something classier and more Bond-like than TWINE or DAD. I think it's fair to say he was variable though, and made his last film around that time anyway.
I just don't see this idea that they treated Brosnan badly by employing him to star in four of their global blockbusters and paying him millions.
Apparently it was more that they wanted Apted but MGM didn't, and they made the Brocs look at Brett Ratner, but they weren't convinced they wanted someone at that level. Apted said that they came back to him but he was committed to another project by then.
Scorsese and Lee aren't Bond material for me too. But I can't imagine them going that outlandish like Tamahori. The only bad thing would have happened is, a Scorsese and Lee Bond film would have felt not Bond... especially Scorsese's...or maybe they should have adapted DAF novel for Scorsese to suit him.
But someone like McTiernan. First of all, he's a top action director, plus a good director. If he directed DAD, it would have felt more visceral.
Oh, I didn't know that part of them coming back for Apted @mtm I think Brett Ratner would have been a terrible choice, though...thank goodness for Tamahori then B-)
Yes. McTiernan is top-notch.
Yeah, I think it happens to even the best directors. Campbell who's one of the greatest Bond directors had his lows too. Even Hitchcock...his The Man Who Knew Too Much felt too long and lacked punch, compared to his other films.
Most directors have hits and misses. Sometimes for trying to stretch creatively, sometimes for things beyond their control. A Bond movie is a beast in many ways. There are traditions and tropes that the producers will only allow for so much tweaking. I don't think we will see the day of an R rated Bond movie for one example.
Then there is the "Bond family" which brings with it a set group of behind the camera talent. While not as strong as back in the Harry and Cubby days it still exists. A recent example is the whole affair with Christopher Nolan as he would want to bring in his own writer, which I believe is his brother, and the thinking is EON wants control on the script writers.
You end up with a shallow pool to draw directors from. Pierce was involved and had a voice, however that voice only went to far. Pierce was the loyal solider when it came to doing the job. Even with the results of DAD both creatively and commercially he wanted to return. The producers decided to "go in a different direction" and he was shown the door. It's a reminder that the fun of making films is a business. Sometimes a dirty one.
While I was reading earlier about MGM pushing for Ratner for B20, there was an interesting quote from an MGM official about how they're fairly happy to go with Eon on their more unknown director choices because they trust the Eon machine and producers to effectively back up the directors and make sure the end result is a quality film.