›

uk bookie favors Guy Ritchie for next Bond movie

2»

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    macdrummer wrote:
    No Tarantino fans..?

    Seriously when I saw this list I thought someone was extracting the you-know-what ...
    Is Lucas on this..?
    I'm sure he could fit in a Bond movie before he does the next Star Wars project!!
    Hopefully all just press speculation in light of Mendes turning it down.

    If not ...
    maybe we could have Cameron with Bond going from planet to planet ..chasing villans through the cosmos...

    Lucas has ruined Star Wars and Indy. He doesn't come within an inch of Bond, not in this life. Cameron is doing Avatar for at least ten years from this point, so strike him off (wouldn't care to see a film by him anyway). As for Ritchie, I hope he handles Bond's character better than Holmes for our sakes.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    No to Richie, his Sherlock Holmes were OK but Moffatt & Gattis pretty much made them redundant and felt much more like the literary character as opposed to some Indianna Jones type action adventure effort. As for the rest of his C.V, I was one of those few that could ever understand the raves he got, Lock Stock was poor man's Tarantino with terrible acting, I actually preferred Snatch but it was nothing special.

    A better idea would be Paul Mcguigan, he made those episodes he directed of Sherlock cinematic and put Mockney Cockney's efforts in the shade, the thing I love about Sherlock is we get 3 full length films per each series that put most of what is on the big screen to shame.

    Mcguigan has also a cinematic pedigree and he's bound to want Arnold back for those missing him.

    As for Tarantino I'm a big fan but not for Bond, his films have too much of an identity that screams his style and no I don't believe he could tame it for EON. The only way he could have done CR would have been being divorced entirely from the original series and done a NSNA, perish the thought.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    No Thanks, would be a travesty if Richie did Bond. I actually don't mind some of his movies. Though Bond in bullet time slow mo, would not work for me at all.
  • KanangaKananga
    Posts: 367
    Will he give Bond a pet dagg?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Shardlake wrote:
    No to Richie, his Sherlock Holmes were OK but Moffatt & Gattis pretty much made them redundant and felt much more like the literary character as opposed to some Indianna Jones type action adventure effort. As for the rest of his C.V, I was one of those few that could ever understand the raves he got, Lock Stock was poor man's Tarantino with terrible acting, I actually preferred Snatch but it was nothing special.

    A better idea would be Paul Mcguigan, he made those episodes he directed of Sherlock cinematic and put Mockney Cockney's efforts in the shade, the thing I love about Sherlock is we get 3 full length films per each series that put most of what is on the big screen to shame.

    Mcguigan has also a cinematic pedigree and he's bound to want Arnold back for those missing him.

    As for Tarantino I'm a big fan but not for Bond, his films have too much of an identity that screams his style and no I don't believe he could tame it for EON. The only way he could have done CR would have been being divorced entirely from the original series and done a NSNA, perish the thought.

    Have to say I agree entirely with your comments (although I do love Lock Stock and Snatch - and the guy who plays Brick Top as the new Blofeld anyone?)

    I havent actually got round to seeing the Guy Ritchie Holmes films yet but from the trailers they seem rather divorced from the books and I get the impression they are Holmes as viewed through a Roger Moore Bond film prism.

    I've already said on a 'get rid of P&W' thread that I would be very happy to see the Sherlock team taking over writing and directing duties. I think Moffat and Gatiss would introduce just enough camp whilst sticking faithfully to the core values of the character to give the series a more old style Bondian feel whilst retaining the Flemingesque touches. Lest it be forgotten as everyone clamours to get on the 'realistic' bandwagon of the Craig era that Flemings tales were full of bizarre and fantastical elements that were hardly plucked from every day reality.

    As for the William Hill list for next director - well they say the bookies are always right but I find their list pretty ludicrous to be honest.

    I really doubt Ritchie is on EONs radar - particularly now Babs has got a taste of the Oscars. She will want someone a bit more 'arty' than that as I think she considers SFs success to vinidcate her decision to try and make Bond films a bit more upmarket.

    As for the rest if you want to bet on Scorsese, Spielberg or Eastwood come to BetWizard instead. I've just started up in the betting game and I'll offer you treble the odds of any bookie on those three gentlemen.

    I suppose we should be happy that 'Bond Director' is nowadays a job that is newsworthy and perhaps the days of journeymen like Glen, Spottiswoode and Tamahori are over.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    A *yes* to Ritchie here.
  • ultraboxultrabox
    Posts: 194
    I would love Ritchie but I would be concerned about his use of slomo. As long as he keeps the series in perspective and not do his own thing - I'm not saying he can't put small spins of his own style in, just keep in mind it's a Bond movie first and a Ritchie movie second - I'm sure he'd turn out a solid outing.
  • macdrummermacdrummer
    Posts: 57
    That is what I love about forums...Everybody has an opinion that is just as valid.
    Unfortunately the reality is Barbara and Michael G have their own ideas, and I rather doubt they will ask for our opinions.So we have to trust their judgement.
    After all if we hadn't trusted Barbara's we may never have had Craig.Always fun to speculate though.Especially when the press release statements like this.Bond's stock..profile has never been higher, so I would have thought there would be many directors out there trying out for this ..
    I can't help thinking what Lewis Gilbert apparently was told by Cubby when he called him the second time, after offering him the the job on YOLT.
    "You have to do this.Everybody really wants to see what a mess you are going to make of it!"

    In EON still ...we trust.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    Nah I don't want a mockney bond....it will be given to brannah
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    CHARISMATIC Scottish actor, Ewan McGregor, has emerged as the bookies' favourite to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, just ahead of fellow Scot, Dougray Scott, at 9/2. Bookmakers, William Hill, put the Scottish duo ahead of another long-term favourite, Jude Law. Also in the frame, according to the bookies, are King Arthur stars, Clive Owen (6/1) and Ioan Gruffudd (8/1), as well as Irish star, Colin Farrell.

    No, this isn't a new bookies' favourites but a list from 2005 and just demonstrates how dreadfully wrong they can be.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    In 2005, who was the bookies's favourite to play Bond? Rupert Everett, Jude Law, Robbie Williams? My advice: don't bet on it.

    And if it was true... No. The only good thing I could see coming from it is Jared Harris as Blofeld: I liked his approach on Moriarty. But Ritchie as a Bond director I am very sceptical.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    bondsum wrote:
    CHARISMATIC Scottish actor, Ewan McGregor, has emerged as the bookies' favourite to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, just ahead of fellow Scot, Dougray Scott, at 9/2. Bookmakers, William Hill, put the Scottish duo ahead of another long-term favourite, Jude Law. Also in the frame, according to the bookies, are King Arthur stars, Clive Owen (6/1) and Ioan Gruffudd (8/1), as well as Irish star, Colin Farrell.

    No, this isn't a new bookies' favourites but a list from 2005 and just demonstrates how dreadfully wrong they can be.

    I do hope that you bet AGAINST those bookies... ;-)

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I think they could do worse than Ritchie but I cannot imagine Craig agreeing to him. I think as long as Ritchie was banned from doing the slomo fight scenes he'd do a decent job, but as others have said, Babs (and Craig) are firmly on the arthouse track now when it comes to directors. Non Oscar winners need not apply.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    Don't know why but I just can't see this as a good match up somehow. I do like most of his films btw.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    What about Danny Boyle? He has had some interaction with DC?
  • CharlesDreyfusCharlesDreyfus
    Posts: 55
    Ehhh. I love his first couple of films, but he strikes me as a guy who's better left to his own devices. His style is so distinctive that when he has to work within the parameters of an established property, things just don't gel (similar to Sam Raimi, and his completely bland interpretation of OZ). Ritchie's Holmes movies felt totally generic to me - Downey was basically playing Jack Sparrow, and the obligatory slo-mo didn't have anything to do with the period or the story. He's way more talented than Tamahori, but I think his Bond film would be very similar to DAD. Some people are better off staying indie.
Sign In or Register to comment.