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
I think the same for the likes of Nolan today.
My thinking is I’d rather have a Bond film from Lee Tamhori, than a Nolan movie with James Bond.
If that makes sense.
I think a 70’s/early 80’s, Raiders era Spielberg directed Bond would have been incredible.
But then it did work in a big way with Mendes. As you say, hit and miss.
I think Spielberg could’ve directed a great Bond movie.
But is it a Bond movie, or a Spielberg movie?
For what it's worth I see Mendes as slightly different from Nolan or Wright. Mendes is a heavy hitter for sure with some big films under his belt, but I wouldn't say he's a director whose films are marketed off of his name alone. Maybe there's an element of 'from the director of Skyfall and American Beauty', but I don't think people saw, say, 1917 predominantly because he was the director, but instead because of the concept, the big star names involved etc. Whereas Wright and Nolan have some very distinctive stylistic and story features Mendes is more chameleonic. You wouldn't necessarily think that the same director who made American Beauty also directed 1917, Road to Perdition or even Skyfall. He's also a director who mostly works from other people's scripts as opposed to writing his own or having a heavy hand in the stories.
In that sense while Mendes was more of a big name than previous Bond directors, I do think all of this worked in his favour and was probably considered when he got the job. He had a solid background with drama and action, and was certainly experienced enough to do the script they had justice without overpowering it with any heavy handed 'auteur' quirks. It also came at a point when the franchise probably needed that more confident, but steady hand in the director's chair after what happened with Marc Forster and QOS.
Well with Indy, although he had tremendous input, wasn’t he executing Lucas’ vision?
Ooh okay, I get what you're saying that a general moviegoing audience will go and see 'the new Nolan film' because of his eye-catching and observable style (and I think that makes him a comparative rarity as I can't think of many others like that; Tarantino, maybe Guy Richie?) but I think to slightly more engaged cinemagoers he's definitely a name: he's certainly won more directing Oscars than Nolan.
I think of that very small pool of big big name directors that a general filmgoer watching blockbusters will have heard of and will be attracted by for their participation alone, Eon are unlikely to be looking at them.
Yeah, it's a a relatively small pool of directors who can market a film off their name and general 'style'. I don't mind established, more big name directors doing a Bond film, but it has to be the right fit. Like I said I think Mendes was better suited to the franchise for the reasons I listed than Danny Boyle, who again had problems which seemed to stem from him having to relinquish a degree of control over the film.
At the end of the day EON just need to find the right director who they can work with and will be able to do the story they want to tell justice. Perhaps Nolan is the man to do that, perhaps not.
That's how I feel about Nolan now. After The Batman triology and then Interstellar, the man could do no wrong, and I thought he would be perfect for Bond.
But as others here have said, Tenet really tarnished his image as the perfect film maker. That was his Spielberg-1941 moment.
I thought Dunkirk was a good film, but not particularly memorable. If he is chosen to do the next Bond film though, he can't do any worse than every director we have had since Campbell left the scene after CR.
I don't rate any of the directors we have had since CR (yes, including Mendes). QoS was a bit of a mess - too pretentious, intercut with Bourne shaky cam, SF was very dark, gloomy and slow paced, SP was abysmal and NTTD - well, the less said about that, the better.
Really the script will dictate the direction. Decent script means we will most likely get a decent film, whoever is at the helm, as Bond is a franchise and the director's always have a constrained frame to work within.
Forster in particular made a fan favourite in QOS, not all fans, but a film that has split many of the longtime fan base.
Similarly so has CJF.
Given the right script and a strong story many directors could handle a Bond film.
A STRONG. Story with a good script will go a long way towards that. Take CR and GE. Both debut films, both potentially the best films for many years. Despite the popularity of SF or QOS.
I agree. I'd be more than happy if Campbell returned to do a third.
In recent videos he looks fit , vital and sharp.
…But still think it’s going to be Nolan.
I don't see Nolan, it's unlikely, the same for Wright, aside from availability, it also depends on the tone of the next Bond film, and the outcome of the previous Bond film.
Probably there's a possibility that they would hire Fukunaga to direct another Bond film, NTTD after all did great in the box office and met fairly good reviews from critics.
The Bond Franchise has always been rehiring directors, like John Glen, or Sam Mendes.
Some directors didn't continued because either the Producers are heading to a different direction (Tamahori despite of the box office success of DAD, got some bad critical reviews, so they opted for a new tone, the same for Peter Hunt after OHMSS), or the Box office aren't that successful (Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted aren't able to continue due their directed Bond films not performing well in the box office, same for John Glen with LTK), or the unavailability, I think this is the reason why Hamilton didn't came back to direct Thunderball, despite of Goldfinger being a successful Bond film, the same for Terrence Young not coming back after Thunderball.
So with No Time To Die, given that it performed very well in the box office, got good critical reviews and the Producers (Barbara, I think still wanting to continue the tone of the Craig Era, as she said in an interview, " would be more in touch with his feelings", and the reinvention), I think it's possible that they would hire Fukunaga again for Bond 26.
As much as I don't want Fukunaga to come back (not a fan of NTTD), but it's the most possible situation.
Or if not Fukunaga, probably another small time, indie film director, the possible contender I see is Chinonye Chukwu (she's the director of the film, Till, she's involved with Barbara in making that film, so there's a possibility that she would hire her to direct the next Bond film, given also the diversity thing).
The Cinematographer would likely to be Larkin Sieple (the cinematographer of Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, and Top Gun: Maverick, so he's probably the most possible choice to do the Cinematography of Bond 26).
Fukunaga won’t come back due to legal issues.
And don't forget an awesome second unit...
Campbell and Arnold returning would be a dream come true. :x
Absolutely, and composer. Lol.
I guess my point is that a great script is vital.
Yes, that's why there's a possibility that Chinonye Chukwu, the director of Till could possibly be a contender to direct Bond 26, given that she also worked with Barbara in that film too, and yes, she (Barbara) supports Feminism, and diversity (when it comes to other race).