Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?
Www.empireonline.com
^ 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
I suppose on a brighter note this news indicates a 2014 release date for Bond 24. Now EON listen closely, please please please please hire Joe Wright!
He will be busy as well: http://www.slashfilm.com/joe-wright-to-direct-neil-gaimans-the-ocean-at-the-end-of-the-lane/
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. So bring him in!
It's nothing totally concrete though it seems, just one of the many films he's currently developing.
Wright has always spoken about his desire to make a Bond film, he even once said he was jealous Mendes was doing 'the next one' back when SF was being developed. He makes brilliantly visual movies, with dazzling cinematography by Seamus McGarvey (rivalling the work of Mendes and Deakins), made a great action film in Hanna and the list goes on. Please EON, he seems to be to be the natural heir to Mendes' throne.
And no Nolan. I've grown tired of the guy after TDKR and all the endless fanboy love, I most definitely advocate the backlash.
Indeed. It's plain and simple for me now, as the Christopher Nolan films ('Inception', 'The Dark Knight') already served as a template for director Sam Mendes and 'Skyfall':
BRING. IN. CHRISTOPHER. NOLAN. PERIOD. now Sam Mendes confirmed he will not be directing Bond 24.
Nolan could continue the legacy that 'Skyfall' created. His name could attach another high-ranking Oscar worthy crew to Bond 24 (Perhaps cinematographer Wally Pfister??). And I do believe Bond 24 should be of similar or perhaps better quality than 'Skyfall'.
Also, from a sheer marketing point of view, it makes another 1 Billion Dollar Bond film more realistic.
#1. I have little doubt that this decision was purely money based.. EON have always offered the director the right to return, but they usually decline - both Martin Campbell and Marc Forster did so as well... it doesn't matter how much they could've offered Mendes, if he doesn't want to do it, then he's not going to do it..
#2. I do not.. repeat DO NOT want to wait until 2015 or 2016 for a new Bond movie - no more 3 or 4 year gaps please... and i'm sure many other fans feel the same way, regardless of who is directing.
now speaking of Nolan...
he's fast at work on his next writing/directing project "Interstellar".. so he is likely out of the running...
I doubt he'll do it. Nolan is the sort of director who 'writes his own ticket', he produces, writes and directs his own films and has a safe comfortable studio network at Warner that I doubt he would leave just to simply helm a Bond film. Furthermore, the prods are famously tight-fisted. Nolan as a filmmaker demands percentage points of the gross, something the prods have never done in over 50 years and I doubt they will change the habit of a lifetime. Nolan has become too big for Bond, plus with Inception and TDKR he has become indulgant and his films have become slightly bloated messes, however I do think that TDK is the closest thing to a modern masterpiece I've ever seen.
I say if not Wright, go with David Fincher or maybe let Ralph Fiennes have a go.
Nothing has been confirmed yet. It's not even mentioned on IMDB, and usually they start attaching names to movie crews when first articles like these come out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/10/christopher-nolan-next-film-interstellar
Makes Tom Hooper's comments a bit more interesting now
hmmm....
http://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-rewriting-interstellar-movie/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/christopher-nolan-interstellar_n_2444314.html
http://collider.com/christopher-nolan-interstellar-script/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/christopher-nolan-talks-direct-interstellar-410616
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni45134018/
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/chris-nolan-will-rewrite-interstellar-script
nothing confirmed??... almost all these reports are newer than the Guardian one you posted.. and everything i've searched INCLUDING IMDB - because I have IMDBPro account, says Nolan is rewriting the script and "is in talks" to direct - but if he's going as far to rewrite the script, i dare say it's a 99% conclusion that he is going to direct it... the only thing he has written and not directed is the upcoming Man Of Steel.
Sam Mendes succeeded to completely reboot the franchise when so many had failed or only partially succeeded. He's proved to be this generation's Terence Young and I certainly hope he'll come back and do another.
That said, the show must go on and the Nolanites are quick to make their case and what a strong case it is albeit the obvious is not always the solution.
Maybe Steven Soderburgh could be worth a shot. He's done some great movies (Traffic for one) and although Haywire fell short it had some interesting stuff in it. Furthermore, before Clooney backed out he was going to do The Man From Uncle so he is interested in the genre.
I think with 'Skyfall' a Bond director never got so much creative freedom, carte-blanche, before. Yes, it's not to the extend Chris Nolan is enjoying, but the whole production process of 'Skyfall' has been kind of unique, kind of 'liberal' within the franchise. Some examples:
--> The screenplay of 'Skyfall' was tailored around actor Javier Bardem. With him in mind they wrote the screenplay. It worked, Javier wanted to join
--> Daniel Craig basically suggested director Sam Mendes, so the current Bond producers are way more willing to take into account other people's (both crew and actor) suggestions. That's different from Cubby's original approach.
--> High-profile crewmembers (Oscar heavy, world famous) do work for Bond now as well. Both Barbara and Michael do know now that attaching big names to Bond 24 will likely result in another '1 Billion Dollar Bond'.
--> 'Skyfall's success triggered a new clausule in the contract of every cast- and crewmember. Not only Craig, but also director Sam Mendes was entitled to an extra bonus, because Bond reached more than 900 Million worldwide. This has never happened before since Barbara and Michael came the sole Bond producers. This bonus clausule could proof a worthy negotiation point in hiring a Bond director.
--> Because of all this, a percentage points of the gross might be open for negotiation as well. If I were Barbara and Michael, I would look into it.
If, just IF Christopher Nolan is not available due to officially confirmed work on 'Interstellar' (I would still try and 'kidnap' him!), then another big Oscar-heavy, world famous director needs to be attracted to the production of Bond 24. Fellow British directors Danny Boyle ('127 Hours', 'Sunshine'), Paul Greengrass ('The Bourne Ultimatum', 'United 93'), Tom Hooper ('The Damned United', 'The King's Speech') or Guy Ritchie ('Snatch', 'Sherlock Holmes') perhaps? Or Brad Bird ('Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol'), David Fincher ('The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo') or J.J. Abrahms.
Anyway, after relatively famous director Marc Forster and Oscar heavy-weight Sam Mendes, I think the logical search motto for Bond 24 would be: 'Another Big Name Director'.
I think his method of not using a second unit will limit his chances of getting a stab at Bond.
But on the other side of the spectrum, it's always exciting hearing rumors about who might direct the next one so bring it on!
And Nolan is quality but kind of old hat now, plus he demands a percentage.
Never really sure why you need a name director with cachet, a journeyman makes more sense, someone who can do more than one and makes Bond and the characters and the script the star, not his personal vision. But the producers see it differently. A director who can do a narrative, a second unit man who can do action.
Frankly I don't know if the vision behind SF was even that great, I mean what was Mendes' imput. If it was brainstorming the plot, well I'm not a fan of it anyhow, but if so shouldn't the plot be done by the screenwriter? It seems in the old days Harry and Cubby oversaw the plot mostly to kind of proof it; now the producers step aside except to veto things. So it falls to the director to shoulder it all - but not get any extra pay for it.
Mendes had some input in the script when working with Logan, who was rewriting the Purvis and Wade treatment... but all decisions on the direction of the story are made by EON first.. they hatch out ideas, and let the writers do their thing with it.. then they either approve it, or send it back to be reworked..
Also, one forgets that Barbara and Michael were very eager to hire Sam Mendes for Bond 23. They already had an option on Sam, and he wanted. But then the bankruptcy crisis within MGM came up and everything was put on hold. scriptwriter Peter Morgan left (his idea was used for 'Skyfall' though) and there was a risk Sam Mendes would sign up for another project as well. Still, Barbara and Michael sticked with Sam, even moving up the premiere to a later date.
And yes, Barbara and Michael are different type of directors compared to Harry and Cubby. For today's blockbusters 'big actor/crew names' are not necessarily a must for a good movie, but they sure do help promote/market the film better: Names can be the best free marketing instrument for a blockbuster movie. Look what happened to Christopher Nolan's image. WB is basically tailoring the movie around his creative ideas.
That's how it work nowadays. This is not 1980 anymore. If Bond wants to stay big, the Bond producers need to stick to bigger names for marketing purposes.
I wouldn't be so fast there actually. EON are famous for their control but the common theme that seems to emerge from interviews with all the directors who have worked with Babs and MGW is that they give a lot of control over the creative issues to the directors - it's their film - and the prods deal with the studio.
SF is 100% a Sam Mendes film; Bond dealing with his own mortality, going to his childhood home to face the villain and his demons, M being the female lead, the thematic strength of the film, etc. It was all Mendes. Film is a directors medium at the end of the day.
His loss will be undeniably felt in Bond 24. The issue I have is that a new director will be sought and their vision of what a 'Bond movie' should contain will radically change the already planned out story Logan has for Bond 24. Look at QOS, there was a whole other story before Forster got involved and changed it to fit his own vision and the producers let him because they trusted him enough to deliver a good film. I think they need to hire a director now so they have as long as possible to develop the story, Mendes had 2 years to work on the SF script, Campbell had over a year working on CR compared to the 5 months Forster had to work on QOS.
His career was fine before Skyfall. He is doing theatre now and then more theatre after it - you don't think he would be hired to do it if he hadn't done a Bond movie? ;)
And he obviously loves Bond, and is friends with Daniel. Besides, there was no way to know beforehand that the film would be such a massive success both critically and at the box office, and if it hadn't been, he'd have just damaged his career.
Are you sure? I don't remember seeing that mentioned anywhere except here by you. They wrote the character for him, yes (and then later with him), but the whole thing tailored around him? Surely not. That sounds crazy and risky - how can you write it all around an actor who'd only have a supporting role anyway, and that you don't yet have signed on? If he says no you'd need to write a whole new script, and waste lots of time and money.
Completely agree with you here. That's why I was mentioning Chris Nolan's name so much. It is a fact that Sam Mendes was inspired by his Dark Knight-franchise. And as it worked, especially financially, I think Nolan is still the most logical choice for me....also for continuation purposes after 'Skyfall' revived the Bond franchise again.
Perhaps Barbara and Michael can already opt for Christopher Nolan, offering him Bond 24, and then wait for a fall 2016 premiere? In the meanwhile he can work for 'Interstellar'. What do you think?
As for possible contenders - well as Logan is already attached and writing the script that rules out Nolan who's a long shot anyway as he demands too much control. And to be fair TDKR showed signs of him disappearing up his own arse a bit.
Joe Wright would be a great shout and I would also be pretty happy with Matthew Vaughn, Danny Boyle or Tom Hooper.
After the failed Forster experiment I would be dubious about someone non British or at least non Commonwealth.
And certainly no Americans please.
Oh and lefty Socialist Worker salesman Paul Greengrass can most definitely get f****d after his slating of Bond in the past.
i'm not sure what you mean by moving the premiere to later date, because of Mendes - elaborate?..
all i know is, is the film was originally slated for a November 2011 release.. but because of the MGM bankruptcy and eventual restructuring, they were forced to push it back to October of 2012.. there was even rumblings of pushing it back to 2013 had the situation at MGM not cleared up the way it did.
Yes, it is mentioned in this fantastic Bond encyclopedia. The crew confirmed it in the chapter about 'Skyfall'