What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

13334363839106

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Recently they have been letting it be known that the would be interested in doing a Star Wars film.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Thank you for using your brain unlike @DaltonCraig007.

    Hold on now, @QuantumOrganization, that is entirely uncalled for. @DaltonCraig007 is a veteran member whose opinion is highly valued.

    You stated that the Russos could do a good Bond film--and I agree by the way--and that they could stay within the 2 hour frame (though I'm not sure why that should have to be the case). DaltonCraig007 then pointed out that Civil War (and Winter Soldier too for that matter) went over 120 minutes by at least a quarter of an hour. And that's half of their directing resume if you don't count the coda to Ant-Man. Their next Avengers films aren't likely to stay below 120 minutes either. So instead of not using his brain, DaltonCraig007 made a very fair point.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thank you for using your brain unlike @DaltonCraig007.

    Hold on now, @QuantumOrganization, that is entirely uncalled for. @DaltonCraig007 is a veteran member whose opinion is highly valued.

    You stated that the Russos could do a good Bond film--and I agree by the way--and that they could stay within the 2 hour frame (though I'm not sure why that should have to be the case). DaltonCraig007 then pointed out that Civil War (and Winter Soldier too for that matter) went over 120 minutes by at least a quarter of an hour. And that's half of their directing resume if you don't count the coda to Ant-Man. Their next Avengers films aren't likely to stay below 120 minutes either. So instead of not using his brain, DaltonCraig007 made a very fair point.
    I see. @DaltonCraig007 has always been a close friend of mine on this forum, so I should treat him as such.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    And your point is?
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    edited July 2017 Posts: 306
    The director of Johnny English (which was written by Purvis & Wade), or the director of Johnny English Reborn.
  • Posts: 1,661
    If Dunkirk does good box office I think it will make Chris Nolan a hot favourite for director. My feeling is if Nolan never does a Bond film then many film fans - not just hardcore Bond fans - will probably regard it as a missed opportunity. I'd rather see an imperfect Chris Nolan Bond film than EON hiring someone less creative, with less ideas. I don't know how many previous Bond directors were major Bond fans but Chris Nolan is a major Bond fan. He'd treat the source material with respect and even if the end product turns out bad, well, it's unlikely to be as bad as Bond CGI snow surfing! :P

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    If Dunkirk does good box office I think it will make Chris Nolan a hot favourite for director. My feeling is if Nolan never does a Bond film then many film fans - not just hardcore Bond fans - will probably regard it as a missed opportunity. I'd rather see an imperfect Chris Nolan Bond film than EON hiring someone less creative, with less ideas. I don't know how many previous Bond directors were major Bond fans but Chris Nolan is a major Bond fan. He'd treat the source material with respect and even if the end product turns out bad, well, it's unlikely to be as bad as Bond CGI snow surfing! :P

    I agree, this is his time. If Dunkirk kills it at the box office expect EON to give the go ahead and move forward. I think summer 2020 is the earliest we can expect such a film to materialize, as Nolan is a fan of Summers release dates and 5 full years feels too long to wait. When you think about it, it makes sense that Bond 25 is helmed by an English director of Nolan's stature. The timing just feels right.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Matthew Vaughn
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Dunkirk is called "one of the best war films ever made" and also "Nolan's best film to date", so I guess Nolan is indeed hotter than hot right now.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 5,767
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    If Dunkirk does good box office I think it will make Chris Nolan a hot favourite for director. My feeling is if Nolan never does a Bond film then many film fans - not just hardcore Bond fans - will probably regard it as a missed opportunity. I'd rather see an imperfect Chris Nolan Bond film than EON hiring someone less creative, with less ideas. I don't know how many previous Bond directors were major Bond fans but Chris Nolan is a major Bond fan. He'd treat the source material with respect and even if the end product turns out bad, well, it's unlikely to be as bad as Bond CGI snow surfing! :P
    Mendes called himself a big Bond fan.

    Seriously. Look at any Nolan film. Everything looks as if it were slightly underexposed. I don´t mind Nolan doing that, if that´s his thing. But there´s no way he would change that on a Bond film, and that alone should rule him out. Beside him being the most overrated director of our times. He can get all the praise in the world for Dunkirk, that won´t make him anywhere near suitable for helming a Bond film.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I disagree with 006. Everything isn't luck and fate. It's timing.

    If EoN wants Nolan, the time to get him is now. Not after he does one more film.

    If they let it go this time around, they may miss the boat.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Let´s let that boat pass.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    I disagree with 006. Everything isn't luck and fate. It's timing.

    If EoN wants Nolan, the time to get him is now. Not after he does one more film.

    If they let it go this time around, they may miss the boat.

    I 100% agree, there's no time like the present. Nolan would only be interested in establishing his own Bond, so there's only maybe 3 opportunities left to get him to direct a film in this series. It would be such just the shot in the arm that's needed at the moment. Just the announcement alone that Nolan is directing would be enough to reenergize the fandom and start the hype machine back up. They probably going to take an extended break anyway, so why not come back with something truly special?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe , you'd sacrifice Turner for Hardy with Nolan at the helm?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Nolan and Fassbender, that would be the dream ticket.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    I'm still of the mindset that Alex Garland would be a terrific pick, especially if it's one film, before a reboot with Nolan.

    Yes, Garland mostly traffics in Sci-fi, but he conceived a brilliant Bond-like villain in Nathan Bateman in Ex Machina, and his "lair" was very Bond-like, as well.

    His latest film is out soon, and it appears his slate is clean after that.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Garland would be an excellent choice.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe , you'd sacrifice Turner for Hardy with Nolan at the helm?

    Yes. Hardy isn't the best choice, but he also isn't a bad choice. Plus, he's English and so is Nolan. Two big +'s in my book.

    My ultimate dream film remains a Campbell and Turner partnership, but Nolan/Hardy is still brilliant. I would have no complaints about that.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    I disagree with 006. Everything isn't luck and fate. It's timing.

    If EoN wants Nolan, the time to get him is now. Not after he does one more film.

    If they let it go this time around, they may miss the boat.

    I 100% agree, there's no time like the present. Nolan would only be interested in establishing his own Bond, so there's only maybe 3 opportunities left to get him to direct a film in this series. It would be such just the shot in the arm that's needed at the moment. Just the announcement alone that Nolan is directing would be enough to reenergize the fandom and start the hype machine back up. They probably going to take an extended break anyway, so why not come back with something truly special?
    Reenergize the fandom? SF and SP were seen by a lot of people, so there has to have been some fandom. I for my part would certainly be severely disturbed in my fandom should Nolan be announced ever.

  • Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm still of the mindset that Alex Garland would be a terrific pick, especially if it's one film, before a reboot with Nolan.

    Yes, Garland mostly traffics in Sci-fi, but he conceived a brilliant Bond-like villain in Nathan Bateman in Ex Machina, and his "lair" was very Bond-like, as well.

    His latest film is out soon, and it appears his slate is clean after that.

    Would be happy to see Garland write or direct or both.
    Nolan and Fassbender, that would be the dream ticket.

    Yep
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Nolan and Fassbender, that would be the dream ticket.

    This would be an exciting duo!
  • Posts: 3,274
    Denis Villeneuve.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    talos7 wrote: »
    Nolan and Fassbender, that would be the dream ticket.

    This would be an exciting duo!

    I'd be more than okay with this being the lineup.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Russo Brothers would make a great 2 hour bond thriller caper.

    Terrible idea. Might as well let Michael Bay throw his hat in the ring as well. I'd almost rather have Tamahori back than let a Marvel director get his CGI stained hands on Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Russo Brothers would make a great 2 hour bond thriller caper.

    Terrible idea. Might as well let Michael Bay throw his hat in the ring as well. I'd almost rather have Tamahori back than let a Marvel director get his CGI stained hands on Bond.

    Mirrors my thoughts to a T.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Denis Villeneuve.

    Yes, also would be a wise choice

  • Posts: 2,081
    Getafix wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    @bondjames, yeah, thought so, and of course it's always a personal opinion. I think Theron looks gorgeous and fit. I like it when women don't look like they might be daughters of the men they're presumably "romantically" (or some such thing) involved with. If the men don't look all that "youthful" then the women shouldn't, either.

    It has always been a common view in Hollywood that men are fine as romantic or action leads pretty much all their lives (or at least well into their 60s) while women are seen past their prime after 35/40 (then they can be mothers and supportive wives). One just needs to look at the casting choices made and how often the women have to be considerably younger (or at the very least look considerably younger, by 15-20+ years) than the men. Personally I find it creepy and frequently unpleasant to watch. (I loved MMFR for many reasons, one big one was not having to stomach the usual movie crap regarding women)

    Well said. Maud Adams in OP was one my favourite matches for Rog. They seem to have genuine chemistry. She appears older than the average 'Bond girl' and plays a character who is clearly supposed to be worldly. They need more of that.

    I agree on Maud Adams in OP, liked her at the time and still do. And I agree they need more of that.
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Tuulia, just to clarify my thinking on this, I'm not averse in principle to the concept of an older woman with a younger man, or vice versa. Like fine wine, there is a lot that can be appreciated in someone who has had time to mature, and that can be captured on screen with a competent director.

    However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my opinion can shift depending on the specific woman. As I noted in my prior post, I can see a decline in Theron (not physically, but facially) which makes me less inclined to want her as a main Bond girl. Bellucci was a stunner in her prime, but she too didn't look that great to me (even though her performance was very good) in SP. Having said that, her role (that of widow and secondary character) in SP was perfectly fine, and her age was not an issue because of the way the character was written. Moreover, both Bellucci and Theron are both quite age appropriate for Craig (even though Theron is too tall for him), so if he's back for B25 and they go with her, I wouldn't be upset. He doesn't look that great either tbh.

    I'm not sure about the common view in Hollywood about older men with younger women, but I'm sure you can appreciate that as a man I am perhaps biased towards that view myself. As long as the woman is mature enough as a person, I don't have a problem with younger girls (or older ones for that matter, as long as they meet my lowly personal standards). It's all good.

    Not really. I've never gotten it. Why would women need to be half the age of the men to be considered attractive enough? Obviously what and who anyone finds attractive is always a personal opinion, in itself, but I don't get the demand for huge age differences that many men seem to have. It has been and continues to be very common in movies, so you have the Hollywood view right there. I actually don't understand why men want to see that, and I can rarely take such pairings in movies seriously, it just seems to be there to please the male audiences (and producers, studio heads, directors, in some cases maybe also actors if they're so inclined and powerful enough).
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd prefer someone who isn't a big name and won't be driven by ego.

    Well, nothing wrong with a big name. Ego is another thing entirely, people with small names can have terrible egos just as well, and people with big names can be very humble and collaborative.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Tuulia, just to clarify my thinking on this, I'm not averse in principle to the concept of an older woman with a younger man, or vice versa. Like fine wine, there is a lot that can be appreciated in someone who has had time to mature, and that can be captured on screen with a competent director.

    However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my opinion can shift depending on the specific woman. As I noted in my prior post, I can see a decline in Theron (not physically, but facially) which makes me less inclined to want her as a main Bond girl. Bellucci was a stunner in her prime, but she too didn't look that great to me (even though her performance was very good) in SP. Having said that, her role (that of widow and secondary character) in SP was perfectly fine, and her age was not an issue because of the way the character was written. Moreover, both Bellucci and Theron are both quite age appropriate for Craig (even though Theron is too tall for him), so if he's back for B25 and they go with her, I wouldn't be upset. He doesn't look that great either tbh.

    I'm not sure about the common view in Hollywood about older men with younger women, but I'm sure you can appreciate that as a man I am perhaps biased towards that view myself. As long as the woman is mature enough as a person, I don't have a problem with younger girls (or older ones for that matter, as long as they meet my lowly personal standards). It's all good.

    Not really. I've never gotten it. Why would women need to be half the age of the men to be considered attractive enough? Obviously what and who anyone finds attractive is always a personal opinion, in itself, but I don't get the demand for huge age differences that many men seem to have. It has been and continues to be very common in movies, so you have the Hollywood view right there. I actually don't understand why men want to see that, and I can rarely take such pairings in movies seriously, it just seems to be there to please the male audiences (and producers, studio heads, directors, in some cases maybe also actors if they're so inclined and powerful enough).
    Yes, I'm sure it's there to please the male audiences. However, female youth has always been in demand, since time immemorial. James Stewart or Cary Grant with Eva Marie Saint or Grace Kelly comes to mind. Why? Well, perhaps because men are attracted to physical beauty, and youthful women are more of a guarantee of that. I'm sure there's also some Freudian element to it (the possibility of bearing children and what not).

    It's the same reason why most male heroes these days tend to 'bulk up' when they're cast in major roles. Bale did it for BB. Craig did it for CR. Affleck did it for BvS. Is it because of some cave like historic fantasy of women for a Fabio'esque hero to whisk them away and protect them? Who knows? There certainly seems to be less interest in the 'lean' male hero these days, and perhaps that is to pander to female preferences? More and more young actors are sporting unshaven (cave like?) looks and are seen in their underwear on magazine covers. Why is this? Surely it's for women because it does nothing for me.

    All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    So big names are bad? Like, Hitchcock bad?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Tuulia, just to clarify my thinking on this, I'm not averse in principle to the concept of an older woman with a younger man, or vice versa. Like fine wine, there is a lot that can be appreciated in someone who has had time to mature, and that can be captured on screen with a competent director.

    However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my opinion can shift depending on the specific woman. As I noted in my prior post, I can see a decline in Theron (not physically, but facially) which makes me less inclined to want her as a main Bond girl. Bellucci was a stunner in her prime, but she too didn't look that great to me (even though her performance was very good) in SP. Having said that, her role (that of widow and secondary character) in SP was perfectly fine, and her age was not an issue because of the way the character was written. Moreover, both Bellucci and Theron are both quite age appropriate for Craig (even though Theron is too tall for him), so if he's back for B25 and they go with her, I wouldn't be upset. He doesn't look that great either tbh.

    I'm not sure about the common view in Hollywood about older men with younger women, but I'm sure you can appreciate that as a man I am perhaps biased towards that view myself. As long as the woman is mature enough as a person, I don't have a problem with younger girls (or older ones for that matter, as long as they meet my lowly personal standards). It's all good.

    Not really. I've never gotten it. Why would women need to be half the age of the men to be considered attractive enough? Obviously what and who anyone finds attractive is always a personal opinion, in itself, but I don't get the demand for huge age differences that many men seem to have. It has been and continues to be very common in movies, so you have the Hollywood view right there. I actually don't understand why men want to see that, and I can rarely take such pairings in movies seriously, it just seems to be there to please the male audiences (and producers, studio heads, directors, in some cases maybe also actors if they're so inclined and powerful enough).
    Yes, I'm sure it's there to please the male audiences. However, female youth has always been in demand, since time immemorial. James Stewart or Cary Grant with Eva Marie Saint or Grace Kelly comes to mind. Why? Well, perhaps because men are attracted to physical beauty, and youthful women are more of a guarantee of that. I'm sure there's also some Freudian element to it (the possibility of bearing children and what not).

    It's the same reason why most male heroes these days tend to 'bulk up' when they're cast in major roles. Bale did it for BB. Craig did it for CR. Affleck did it for BvS. Is it because of some cave like historic fantasy of women for a Fabio'esque hero to whisk them away and protect them? Who knows? There certainly seems to be less interest in the 'lean' male hero these days, and perhaps that is to pander to female preferences? More and more young actors are sporting unshaven (cave like?) looks and are seen in their underwear on magazine covers. Why is this? Surely it's for women because it does nothing for me.

    All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.

    There's some truth to that. But aside from a cultural ideal, I am sure that Stewart and Grant, and even Connery, for that matter, would have had bigger physiques if they had the technology and knowledge then that we do now. Almost anyone can get ripped, in almost no time, if working with a dietician and personal trainer.
Sign In or Register to comment.