› ›

Another WORLD FAMOUS, OSCAR HEAVY director for Bond 24 is necessary

Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
edited March 2013 in SPECTRE Posts: 11,119
I just read the news about Sam Mendes not returning as director. Quite bad if you ask me. They -Barbara and Michael- could have offered Sam millions more for a Bond 24 release in 2015 or 2016. It also means that other crewmembers, like Thomas Newman, Roger Deakins and many others are less likely to join. Which would be a bloody shame.

BUT, I already have a fantastic idea: All options are open now to bring Christopher Nolan onboard as Bond 24 director. He would be thrilled to do one...or two! I suggest EON Productions starts negotiations with Christopher Noland ASAP.

Moreover, Christopher Nolan is a tremendous famous name and it could assure another high quality, Oscar worthy, 1 Billion Dollar Bond film. Plus Nolan is a huge Bond fan himself. And a release date of November 2014 seems a bit more credible now. So bring him in!

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Nolan is fast at work on his next writing/directing project "Interstellar".. so he is likely out of the running...
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    Any reason why this cannot be discussed here?
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/459/bond-24-directors-you-consider.-this-can-be-directors-second-unit-director-or-director-of-photogry./p1

    Can't see any real difference in the two. Anyone enlighten me?
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    WHY do we need another "GREAT" director, I want a decent action director that can deliver a smooth and thrilling 007 movie.

    This Oscar talk and SF being snubbed kind of took a lot away from what I actually prefer, watching a decent actioner of one of my favorite movie hero's.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I quote from 'The James Bond Archives'. It was quite a bit of typing, but perhaps you now understand why I'd like a similar production approach for Bond 24. And most importantly, it shows how 'big names' not only are good marketing, but they inspire an entire team creatively. And it also shows that extra production time is more often a blessing than a curse. That's what Bond 24 needs as well if you ask me:
    Author Paul Duncan wrote:
    Paul Duncan:
    "After the box-office success of 'Quantum Of Solace' at the end of 2008, screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, together with Peter Morgan, worked on a treatment titled 'Once Upon A Spy' that was delivered November 2, 2009. The story revolved around a past indiscretion of 'M' in Russia that could ruin the reputation of MI6. It was at this point in 2009 that Sam Mendes, who won the Academy Award for his debut film 'American Beauty' in 1999, agreed to direct 'Bond 23'."

    Paul Duncan:
    "At the end of 2009, MGM Studios found itself on the verge of bankruptcy, and was in financially precarious position throughout 2010, which prevented Bond 23 from going into production."
    Sam Mendes:
    "I had more time with the script than I would otherwise have had. In the end it was a blessing."

    Paul Duncan:
    "Purvis and Wade submitted the first full draft script on November 18, 2010, titled 'Nothing Is Forever'. Many of the elements and characters are in place. Bond meets a rather shabby and tubby Quartermaster at an East End Café. The villain, originally called "Javier Bardem" in anticipation of casting the actor, was now called Raoul Sousa....."

    Michael G. Wilson:
    "Sam attracts great actors and they want to work with him."
    Paul Duncan:
    "As anticipated in the first script of 2010, Javier Bardem was cast as Raoul Silva....."
    Rory Kinnear:
    "That day around the read-through table were myself, Albert Finney, Ralph Fiennes, Dame Judi Dench, Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, and I thought, "Yes, I'll probably always remember that lineup."
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2013 Posts: 4,043
    Why does Eon need an other Oscar winning director?

    Look at Skyfall's boxoffice to see your answer, I'm not saying that the next guy should be awards heavy but anyone asking this question needs to look at the reception this film received, whether you didn't like the script, the plot hole or just hated it full stop the film made a chunk of dough, do you really think they want to go back to the same grosses as CR & QOS after that?

    No Bond 24 probably won't do a billion but it needs to be talking in the 800-900 mill to be consider a success, anything short of that will be considered a failure.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Shardlake wrote:
    Why does Eon need an other Oscar winning director?

    Look at Skyfall's boxoffice to see your answer, I'm not saying that the next guy should be awards heavy but anyone asking this question needs to look at the reception this film received, whether you didn't like the script, the plot hole or just hated it full stop the film made a chunk of dough, do you really think they want to go back to the same grosses as CR & QOS after that?

    No Bond 24 probably won't do a billion but it needs to be talking in the 800-900 mill to be consider a success, anything short of that will be considered a failure.

    Yes, but can you please read my quote from Paul Duncan above? You cannot just 'snip' with your fingers and create a 1.1 Billion Dollar Bond. Everything needs to be in the right place. And when Sam Mendes said 'yes' to Bond 24, suddenly an entire chain of events started rolling. Michael G. Wilson even said that Mendes' name is a magnet for other big stars.

    So I think it's perfectly logical reasoning to ask another world famous, Oscar heavyweight for Bond 24.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'll take the best Bond film I've seen, grossing £300m over one that's not but grosses £1bn. A lot of this chat is about maintaining commercial momentum. As a fan of the films, I just want a good one. If it grosses £700m I don't care. It doesn't need an Oscar darling at the helm either. It just needs to be damn good. Simple.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    RC7 wrote:
    I'll take the best Bond film I've seen, grossing £300m over one that's not but grosses £1bn. A lot of this chat is about maintaining commercial momentum. As a fan of the films, I just want a good one. If it grosses £700m I don't care. It doesn't need an Oscar darling at the helm either. It just needs to be damn good. Simple.

    Exactly! Some people are simply riding the wave of the revenue agenda and even then their argument is flawed. Joss Whedon made the biggest money making film of 2012 and the man doesn't have a single Oscar to his name. He simply made a good movie with beloved characters. Half the Harry Potter movies are in the top 20 grossing films of all time, one of them sitting comfortably at the number 4 position and look at who the directors were, they're largely not house hold names. Bond is like Potter and like these Marvel characters who've been around for 50 years. With great actors involved, an interesting story and well executed directing, that's all Bond needs. Bond's in a great place right now, critically, commercially and culturally, sure, it helps and adds more weight to get Oscar winning directors but it's far from essential. Hell, Bond is likely a contributing factor why some of these movie makers today got into the business in the first place.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    RC7 wrote:
    I'll take the best Bond film I've seen, grossing £300m over one that's not but grosses £1bn. A lot of this chat is about maintaining commercial momentum. As a fan of the films, I just want a good one. If it grosses £700m I don't care. It doesn't need an Oscar darling at the helm either. It just needs to be damn good. Simple.

    These films aren't made for fans they are made for the masses and EON will not sacrifice this to please a bunch of fan boys who account for a very small percentage of the take of these film, they've never been made for a niche market you just happen to like some of them more than others, what you and I think is damn good is irrelevant.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I guess no one read the remarks from Paul Duncan. It is NOT only for money purposes/marketing purposes that I'm routing for another famous Oscar-heavy director. Another important reason is the fact that it has a profound creative inspirational effect on other cast- and crewmembers. Please read what Rory Kinnear and Michael Wilson said guys :-S .
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I'll take the best Bond film I've seen, grossing £300m over one that's not but grosses £1bn. A lot of this chat is about maintaining commercial momentum. As a fan of the films, I just want a good one. If it grosses £700m I don't care. It doesn't need an Oscar darling at the helm either. It just needs to be damn good. Simple.

    These films aren't made for fans they are made for the masses and EON will not sacrifice this to please a bunch of fan boys who account for a very small percentage of the take of these film, they've never been made for a niche market you just happen to like some of them more than others, what you and I think is damn good is irrelevant.

    I don't really get your point. Batman Begins made £300m and is arguably the best in a trilogy that made over £2bn. This isn't about 'pleasing fanboys', it's about creating a good film first and a commercial success second.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I don't think anyone wants some nobody director but Mendes' involvement has left a lasting legacy as to where Bond can go. Get the right people in place (They do NOT have to be of Oscar alumni/pedigree) and Voila! you get a great film, which in turn puts bums in seats and let the money roll in.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited March 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Shardlake wrote:
    No Bond 24 probably won't do a billion but it needs to be talking in the 800-900 mill to be consider a success, anything short of that will be considered a failure.

    In the incredible side effect category it means we have :
    "The dollar is back at its year 2000 level" => "Bond 24 is a failure"

    :)

    PS : Who "knew" Martin Campbell before GE ? "Escape from Absolom" was not quite a critical success. I was a fan already at that time, I can tell you it baffled many fans to choose him. And in the end, the franchise owes him a lot...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    I don't think anyone wants some nobody director but Mendes' involvement has left a lasting legacy as to where Bond can go. Get the right people in place (They do NOT have to be of Oscar alumni/pedigree) and Voila! you get a great film, which in turn puts bums in seats and let the money roll in.

    I do agree to a certain extend with you here. Sam Mendes has left the Bond franchise indeed with a certain legacy. Still, if I look to the creative process and pre-production of 'Skyfall', one cannot deny that big director names actually inspire. Look to what Michael Wilson and Rory Kinnear said.

    Also, if you say that directors do NOT have to be Oscar alumni/pedigree, then I say: 'Directors could very well be big Oscar heavy names....they aren't hurting the franchise'.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    The man does direct one movie and suddenly he left a legacy???

    I think some folks are going overboard giving labels for a one of director....
  • baronsamedi76baronsamedi76
    Posts: 174
    How about Brad Bird? I though he did a great job on Ghost Protocol. Which in my opinion is the best in the MI series, although I do enjoy the first installment as well.
    His ability to use only the actors and not stunt doubles is something that is essential for Bond in this day and age.
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    Posts: 421
    MODS: PLEASE CLOSE THIS UNNECESSARY THREAD

    Already duplicating posts in two other threads.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SaintMark wrote:
    The man does direct one movie and suddenly he left a legacy???

    I think some folks are going overboard giving labels for a one of director....

    Well, to be fair he has. He made the latest Bond film a BO smash hit that no one saw coming (apart from @Gustav and his crystal ball) and restore critical acclaim to the series and brought with him top tier talent, in which we know fir sure some are returning. He's left Bond in the best possible shape the series could be in and now it's a matter of maintenance and/or doing better.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    The man does direct one movie and suddenly he left a legacy???

    I think some folks are going overboard giving labels for a one of director....

    Well, to be fair he has. He made the latest Bond film a BO smash hit that no one saw coming (apart from @Gustav and his crystal ball) and restore critical acclaim to the series and brought with him top tier talent, in which we know fir sure some are returning. He's left Bond in the best possible shape the series could be in and now it's a matter of maintenance and/or doing better.

    Tata, thank you @DoubleOEgo :-). Completely agree with you. The Bond franchise has never been in such perfect shape since the 1960's (Goldfinger, Thunderball). That 1.115 Billion Dollar gross wordwide in itself creates a legacy that now needs to be maintained.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    No need for two of these...continue in the thread as linked at the top of this page.
This discussion has been closed.