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
Some call this an assembly line approach, but that approach actually produced better movies than what we've been seeing recently. None of Glenn's movies ever had such an atrocious third act as Spectre or were as poorly-acted as Die Another Day, two movies which were helmed by highly-regarded, award-winning directors (though obviously Tamahori fell off after DAD).
Getting the right directors to make Bond movies is more important than getting critically-lauded directors. With the former you get reliable results, with the latter it's wildly hit-and-miss, with more misses than hits, IMO.
I mean, I don’t know how much creative control Nolan expected one way or the other. But it’s not a case of simply hiring a writer/director and saying ‘do what you want’. Very rarely does that happen.
The in house way of doing things was definitely a thing, especially in British studios. It doesn’t exist in that form anymore unfortunately (ie. you don’t go from being a runner to a camera assistant, then to an editor, and then get promoted to a director, as someone like Hunt, Glen, or the great David Lean did. They’re very different and specialised career paths nowadays).
But do keep in mind it wasn’t as simple as just promoting the editor to director in those days. For all intents and purposes Lewis Gilbert was a critically acclaimed director who had done character dramas. Honestly, he’s not that far away from a Mendes in this sense. Same for Terrence Young. Glen being hired was more a budget issue, and honestly there’s a case to be made he wasn’t the best director for some of his films. Hamilton wasn’t an in-house director for EON either and had done a number of dramas. Hunt was simply a well established (and actually quite excellent) editor who lobbied hard to direct and was actually passed for YOLT in favour of Gilbert who was more critically lauded and experienced.
Having said that, I believe at the start of a new era it's crucially important to bed an actor into the role correctly, and win the audience on side. Even Roger Moore didn't start out in his full eyebrow arching pomp. Bond 26 will be a transition film, like Goldeneye or The Living Daylights, and I think it will draw on classic bond in essence but not copy the tone. So, for instance the atmosphere of Bond following Jaws and Kalba, the energy of so many great chases, the majesty of Draxs Amazon lair, the quirky flair of LALD and so on. And THAT is the one thing I TRUST with Villeneuve. Look how he treated Bladerunner, and so respectful to Scott's world, despite having his own story to tell. I haven't read Dune, but I can tell this is an artist with great respect for the source, and it comes through on screen. If Villeneuve is anything like the fan is claims to be, then he understands the essence of Bond, and I have faith he can replicate it wholly, and not this odd contrast of old and new styles that dramatist directors of the Craig era managed.
They hired who to do what??
Butterworth worked a few polishes, and I don’t think it was for the humour??
Are you talking about Mendes?? He started in theatre, but by the time SF rolled around he was an award winning film director.
Perhaps you’re referring to PWB who was brought on to work characters and brought back again to work on and sell the “science ” of nanobot to a worldwide audience??
Where did you pluck this “fact” from @Mendes4Lyfe ???? I’m curious since this is the first I’m hearing about hiring a playwright to add more humour and playfulness into Bond (and what humour that PWB naturally brings, did end up scoring points, 😂)….
EDIT: a good read for you @Mendes4Lyfe :
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/phoebe-waller-bridge-shaped-no-time-to-die-plot-1234667662/
Compare that to the reception OHMSS got in its time. Or the state of the Bond franchise after Glen’s run. In-house directors didn’t equal success. Hell, even supposedly ‘workman-like’ directors like Apted or Spottiswood helmed relatively disappointing films (at least critically and to a lesser extent financially).
They could go for a Campbell who had a history of directing thrillers, but honestly for every Campbell is a Tamahori. Critically respected directors with a variety filled filmography and character focused films is actually more the norm for Bond than some fans think.
There's nothing wrong with hiring dramatist directors but if your goal is to add more humour and make the films more fun its probably not the right way to go.
Nothing to do with it (or at least it’s dependent on the specific individual director and/or writers. Not whether they’d previously done character dramas. In fact all the directors I mentioned - Gilbert, Mendes, Young etc - had some experience with comedy).
Well it didn't work, so I guess it could be a coincidence, but I'm assuming they're related.
But they also provide nuance (which I'm sure isn't in Mendes's comfort zone from what I've seen here)
I think the goal is to give some creative spark.
Indeed, the humor found in Craig’s era was more nuanced than it had been perhaps since the early 60s. It was actually a highlight for me going back through Craig’s era again.
What didn’t work? Getting Young or Gilbert - directors who specialised in character based films - to direct?
Like I said, the norm for Bond directors isn’t actually big names, or action directors, or even in house or workman like ones. It’s what we’re describing as ‘dramatists’.
I think John Glen is the closest of all the Bond directors that could be described as the “workman” due to how he was able to help ensure every Bond film of the 80’s was released on time.
If you mean before goldfinger then yeah, that's kinda the issue. I not talking about dry one liners, "he was on his way to a funeral" I'm talking about comedy driving the scene, like Bond and Anya trying to escape Jaws as he's ripping the truck to shreds.
Dramatists are simply not temprementally predisposed to silliness and frivolity or they wouldn't be dramatists. I mean sometimes it can work, I like punch-drunk love and school of rock, but most of the time no. Even then I don't want a Bond film that resembles either of those movies.
When has a Bond film ever resembled either of these two films??????
What you’re describing with those examples is (kind of) an evolution of the film Bond and its humour… sort of.
They haven't I'm just saying that's what you get when dramatists do comedy, weird esoteric stuff. Bond should be broad, accessible and crowdpleasing ideally.
@007HallY , you have the patience of a saint... But the goalposts will keep being shifted.
Your points are clear and consise, and I fear, that's the problem.
Good luck in this endeavor to share ideas and conversation...
For example, screenwriter, producer, and director, Craig Mazin was mostly known for comedies like Scary Movie 3, The Hangover Part 2 and Identity Thief, but then come 2019, he created, wrote and produced Chernobyl and then eventually The Last Of Us.
No-one would have believed it, if someone told them the writer of The Hangover Part 2 was going to be the one to explore the events of Chernobyl for HBO. Anything can happen.
Exactly my point. Why would we evolve the humour by taking it back to 1962? that's just nonsensical. The bond humour, I would say, evolved from the early 60's until moonraker and then it stagnated like still water, we should be moving forward not back.
Mazin is a giant. He and John August had a great little screenwriting blog going for ages (maybe still do). Their stories peel back the layers of what happens on films and to scripts, and how writers have been treated. They were always entertaining and educational... And yes, Mazin came from broad comedy to nuanced sci-fi drama in TLOU, and Chernobyl was brilliance...
BTW, another comical writer (but his scripts are more mainstream thrillers, and sci-fi, like Avatar), is Josh Friedman. He used to have a great website about his adventures in screenwriting. I believe his first film was CHAIN REACTION, and when he finally saw the finished film, he insisted that the only things of his original script that he noticed was the line, "it's over Johnny", or some such thing, and the names of the characters!! The rest of his work was given the page one re-write treatment. BUT, he still got credit, got his pay, and although I don't think he sold another feature script for a decade, it did get him gigs on TV, and so on...
And yes I've heard of Friedman! I'm not an Avatar fan personally, fell asleep with 3D glasses on during the first film, but anyway, Is he the guy who turned Snowpiercer into a television series?
Not sure if I’d want to go back to some of the more self referential humour of post MR Bond (Tarzan whistles etc). That said I do think OP had a cool blending of humour and darkness in the form of the clown costume climax. That and I certainly can’t imagine anything like the ‘you died scratching my halls’ pre-Craig. So I don’t think it’s fair to say Bond humour stopped changing past MR.
I’m with you @Denbigh — I’m not an Avatar fan. I saw the first, and left it at that.
But yes, he turned Snowpiercer into a series, and he was on writing duties for Black Dhalia and War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes; tv series also include Crossbones, the Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Foundation.
Huh. That's actually a neat example, because technically humour IS driving the scene, despite how uncomfortable the scenario.
But essentially the humour progressed quite rapidly from 1962 and 1979, and then slowed to a crawl. That's why, say the casino scene in Skyfall when Bond jumps on the crocodile thing (sorry, I don't watch Skyfall often) and says "put it all on red" people roll their eyes, but then they say "let's go back to the early connery humour :D " which is an even older stage in the evolution, as you yourself stated. It's illogical IMO. If we want to evolve the humour in bond films, we need to move forward from the point where it started to stagnate, which I'd argue was the late 70's.
(On another note, I'd love for the self referential humour to return to some extent. I don't need a double taking pigeon or slide whistle, but a little note playing when Bond smiles, and music as the ripped up truck meanders along in the desert was fantasy bond at its finest, I would revel in something like that again.)
Thinking about it, maybe we should be considering Shakman for a future Bond gig after FF?
Very true on all counts (especially Kirby, 😂 )…!