What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

1606163656684

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Don't know if this has been shared here, but Park Chan-Wook would like to do a Bond film. This is a transcript of a video he did with Deadline.
    In no small part he wants to do a Bond, because a Moore film (he isn't sure which one. Possibly Moonraker) is what made him start thinking about making his own films. He also cites Bond as a tool for escapism at a time when every few people were allowed to leave South Korea.
    Criptically, he also says
    "But I’m not sure if the people watching it would have as much fun as I would making the film"
    So maybe not that great of a choice after all ^^
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    Directors and their wishlists...
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,568
    Don't know if this has been shared here, but Park Chan-Wook would like to do a Bond film. This is a transcript of a video he did with Deadline.
    In no small part he wants to do a Bond, because a Moore film (he isn't sure which one. Possibly Moonraker) is what made him start thinking about making his own films. He also cites Bond as a tool for escapism at a time when every few people were allowed to leave South Korea.
    Criptically, he also says
    "But I’m not sure if the people watching it would have as much fun as I would making the film"
    So maybe not that great of a choice after all ^^

    I mean, we'd certainly get something different from a director like Chan-Wook than we've had previously. I can imagine him making a Bond film with that sense of 'theatricality' and escapism - the elaborate, even slightly surreal concepts, actions sequences, characters and set pieces, but mixed with story ideas that are actually quite interesting and well thought out.

    I can see what some people mean by him being more 'anti-establishment' than a Bond film requires, but I think this depends on how this is honed in the script. Ideally I think a modern Bond film is best taking the route that the first three Craig eras films took - that's to say it's fine depicting MI6 as having morally questionable practices/characters within it, and characters like Bond/M can even point this out - but Bond's sense of higher duty and doing the right thing is always towards protecting his Country. I don't think we'd get an 'anti-establishment' Bond film from Chan-Wook, but something closer to The Batman - that's to say the main character will come to fully realise the corruption within the 'system' he is trying to protect, and perhaps even in the flaws in his own way of working and change by the end, all while ultimately trying to make said system better rather than destroying it.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 173
    Are people reading the article about Chan-wook? I'm not sure why everyone (on this board and others) are coming away from the interview with the impression that he would make a dark, gritty political thriller about corruption. He literally talks about the Moore films and escapism and adventures and exotic locations and traps and crazy gadgets. It sounds like he'd be more into making a fun Bond film.

    There is no way they are not at least having a conversation with this guy, right? Someone as talented and imaginative as Chan-wook has said that he's been storyboarding and kicking around ideas in his head for Bond films ever since he was in elementary school? It would be a shame if they didn't at least sit down with him and just ask what some of his ideas are.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,217
    Are people reading the article about Chan-wook? I'm not sure why everyone (on this board and others) are coming away from the interview with the impression that he would make a dark, gritty political thriller about corruption. He literally talks about the Moore films and escapism and adventures and exotic locations and traps and crazy gadgets. It sounds like he'd be more into making a fun Bond film.

    There is no way they are not at least having a conversation with this guy, right? Someone as talented and imaginative as Chan-wook has said that he's been storyboarding and kicking around ideas in his head for Bond films ever since he was in elementary school? It would be a shame if they didn't at least sit down with him and just ask what some of his ideas are.

    It's a huge loss on their part if they don't choose to entertain the prospect and have a meeting with him. I'd love to see his talented hand directing a Bond film.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,003
    For those of us unfamiliar with Chan-wook’s films… what are the best ones?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,217
    For those of us unfamiliar with Chan-wook’s films… what are the best ones?

    My favorites are Oldboy and The Handmaiden. The former has one of the coolest one take fight scenes I've seen in a full and delivers one hell of an ending.

    I remember thinking Stoker was super underrated when I saw it on release but it's been so long since that my memory could be tricking me. I need to rewatch it.

    His new film, Decision to Leave, is one I'm itching to check out whenever it gets a proper release here in the U.S.
  • How about another titan of SK cinema… Interesting that Bong Joon-ho, Denis Villeneuve, and Guillermo del Toro all did cast and crew interviews for NTTD. Perhaps names to put on the shortlist.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2022 Posts: 7,517
    Denis Villeneuve interviewing Cary Fukunaga was an interesting watch.

    I'd still like to see a Bond film by Villeneuve, even if it wouldn't stray that far from the Craig era.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,568
    Don't think we'll see a Bond film directed by del Toro, but I like the idea of a Bond director with experience in the Horror genre, particularly Gothic Horror. It might give us a more fantastical and even 'fun' film while still ultimately having those darker, more human elements within the story.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,181
    I think with NTTD, Eon missed a great opportunity to make a one-off Bond film with horror elements. Not in a macabre kind of way, but something truly suspenseful and chilling. At least that was what its trailers were telling us.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 969
    I think with NTTD, Eon missed a great opportunity to make a one-off Bond film with horror elements. Not in a macabre kind of way, but something truly suspenseful and chilling. At least that was what its trailers were telling us.
    Agreed, i'd too like to see a Bond film with a touch of horror in it, and i quite think i know who could be the best man for the job.
    4XVKMLUOYRFN3HZ4RSSJHKTP5Y.jpg
    Sam Raimi.

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited October 2022 Posts: 4,389
    On this moment i think i prefer Spanish directer Juan Antonio Bayona above Sam Raimi, the directer of El orfanato aka The Orphanage (2007) who is produced by Guillermo del Toro.

    From Chan-wook i only have seen Stoker, who has very good piano play and have actor i whant as Bond villian for some time.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    I would avoid blockbuster directors who have become comfortable with CGI and generic stylistic choices. Nolan is still distinctive enough, but even a Nolan bond film could feel predictable at this point. (Maybe not to the general public).

    I think the criteria should be, good with low budget, experience with action and stylistic synergy (elegant, witty, endearing and suspenseful) and no overuse of camera movements (unless it's Ritchie, Edgar Wright or Sapochnik).

    I’d much rather the producers and director are on the same page with a strong vision than pulling at two different ends with a mediocre one. I don’t know if a conversation is enough to gauge that potential. I would let them shoot a test scene just like the actors. Otherwise you end up with another Mendes or Fukanaga trying to make the best of it.

    Bond has a lot of genre competition and always finds itself right in the middle without fully embracing either cartoonishness or realism. But there is still a lot of unexplored territory in that area and opportunity to keep the tone consistent throughout the film.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    I think what Todd Philips did with the Joker was interesting. The feeling he captured after Phoenix killed Deniro was one of the most source material adherent moment I have ever witnessed. (Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Guy Ritchie’s and Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes, First seasons of Game of Thrones, Jackson's Lord of the Rings among others).

    Casino Royale captured the Bond feeling in a similar fashion.

  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,568
    I think with NTTD, Eon missed a great opportunity to make a one-off Bond film with horror elements. Not in a macabre kind of way, but something truly suspenseful and chilling. At least that was what its trailers were telling us.
    Agreed, i'd too like to see a Bond film with a touch of horror in it, and i quite think i know who could be the best man for the job.
    4XVKMLUOYRFN3HZ4RSSJHKTP5Y.jpg
    Sam Raimi.

    Raimi is a good example of what I was getting at - a director known for starting in low budget horror (or certainly genre) films who brought that experience to his later work in big franchise films.

    As for NTTD, I'd argue it has the most Horror elements out of any Bond film. The beginning with Safin feels like it could be in a slasher film and even has a jump scare. The Cuba sequence also has the moment where the whole of SPECTRE is 'nanobotted'' in a rather gruesome way. It's not always tonally consistent, and I'm sure a future Bond film could integrate such ideas/themes in a better way, but it's there.

    Anyway, going from this logic, a few hypothetical names to add:

    Hollywood-Insider-Jennifer-Kent-Director.png

    Jennifer Kent - The Babadook (2014), The Nightingale (2018)

    I'm a big fan of both her films, and both showed her ability to explore interesting character ideas in the context of genre films. She also has a keen eye and a strong sense of visual storytelling. I can certainly see her bringing all this to a Bond film.

    img-ana-lily-amirpour_160245758418.jpg

    Ana Lily Amirpour - A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014), The Bad Batch (2016)

    Another director I really like, and like Kent Amirpour also has a good grasp of visual storytelling (and certainly sound design). As strange and perhaps disjointed as The Bad Batch was, I found it interesting with a lot of genuine tension.

    1538042181334_0620x0435_0x0x0x0_1573334917813.jpg

    Peter Strickland - The Duke of Burgundy (2014), In Fabric (2018)

    The guy just makes really solid films. He'd be a left of field choice, and he's definitely a director with some quirky ideas (In Fabric is a horror film about about a haunted dress to give you an idea). But still, I think such an out of the box decision for Bond 26 might pay off with the right story.

    Other mentions - Ben Wheatley (I like Kill List a lot but haven't been all that fond of his films since High Rise... still though, I'd be surprised if he hadn't been considered at one point) and Alex Garland (again, not too keen on some of his later work, but I've seen his name mentioned a few times as a potential Bond writer/director and to be honest I can see it working).
  • Some great ideas here, Alex Garland would be something I could see happening. Especially if they want to incorporate a sci-fiesque element like Heracles in NTTD, I think he’d probably do a better job with that kind of thing.

    I agree on infusing some horror elements too. I can’t remember the last time a Bond film had me gripping my arm rests or holding my breath but we could use some of that thriller intensity. I’d say that may be my biggest disappointment with the Craig era. As exciting as the action was, I think the series has lacked a bit in intensity. I want to come out of the cinema after Bond 26 with clammy hands and sweaty pits.

  • Posts: 2,568
    Some great ideas here, Alex Garland would be something I could see happening. Especially if they want to incorporate a sci-fiesque element like Heracles in NTTD, I think he’d probably do a better job with that kind of thing.

    I agree on infusing some horror elements too. I can’t remember the last time a Bond film had me gripping my arm rests or holding my breath but we could use some of that thriller intensity. I’d say that may be my biggest disappointment with the Craig era. As exciting as the action was, I think the series has lacked a bit in intensity. I want to come out of the cinema after Bond 26 with clammy hands and sweaty pits.

    I mean, who knows at this point - perhaps the producers will be willing to push the boat further after the relative success of NTTD and go further with those horror and sci fi elements. If history tells us anything it's that the next new actor's Bond film always contains traces of the previous ones tenure, all while making it unique and fresh in other ways.

    I really don't know at this point who the producers will go with, but for me I'd say the best bet is directors who have experience with genre films such as horror and perhaps sci fi (or at least thrillers). Ideally they'd consider those who have made films on what can tentatively be considered a 'lower budget' too.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,870
    Christoper Nolan has been in a pattern recently of releasing a new film every 3 years, usually in the 3rd weekend of July.

    2014 - interstellar
    2017 - dunkirk
    2020 - tenet
    2023 - oppenhiemer

    if this trend continues then its a sign he plans to release his next film during July of 2026 which coincidentally is about 5.5 years after the release of Bond 25. Babs said in her recent interviews that they haven't even begun working on a new script yet since they are planning out a whole new direction for the character, which they will begin "next year". So, assuming that they took a year off after the release of Bond 25, and it takes 2 years to reinvent the character and write a script, then probably another year to cast him, then a year and change on the production, that brings us right in line with the July 2026 date that we can expect our next nolan project. I only mention it because nolan obviously has a lot of respect for the franchise, and has stated interest in the past to direct his own bond film one day, but only when he is "needed" i.e. when there is a new bond, which will be the case.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    In my opinion Barbara is waiting because she wants Villeneuve or Nolan, who will be free at the end of next year. In both cases I will be happy.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,003
    Agreed. I’m fairly certain they’re going for Nolan to reboot Bond 26. Villeneuve probably isn’t far behind. I would prefer the latter.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,384
    Does Villeneuve have a sense of humor, though? I like the guy and his work, but I'm not sure I'd pick him over the Englishman born and raised in Bond.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,181
    Nolan is looking to make himself popular again with Oppenheimer....and when that happens, his name would pop up again for James Bond & Bond 26.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 2,568
    As tempting as Nolan or Villeneuve sound, I really think the producers are at risk of another Danny Boyle situation if they decide to go with either of them. From what I can tell both of these directors have had a lot of creative control and more or less free reign on all of their later films. Making a Bond film seems much more collaborative from the director's perspective, and often the key story decisions have to be mulled over by the producers and the various screenwriters before the director even has their say. If the director doesn't gel with these other parties and they can't work together then they'll simply be dropped.

    That aside, I'm not sure if either would be the right fit for Bond. Villeneuve is a bit too cerebral (I'd argue boring), and Nolan has a tendency to get wrapped up in his ideas (which again can be boring). There are many more interesting, but lesser known directors who I think could be better for the franchise.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    007HallY wrote: »
    As tempting as Nolan or Villeneuve sound, I really think the producers are at risk of another Danny Boyle situation if they decide to go with either of them. From what I can tell both of these directors have had a lot of creative control and more or less free reign on all of their later films. Making a Bond film seems much more collaborative from the director's perspective, and often the key story decisions have to be mulled over by the producers and the various screenwriters before the director even has their say. If the director doesn't gel with these other parties and they can't work together then they'll simply be dropped.

    That aside, I'm not sure if either would be the right fit for Bond. Villeneuve is a bit too cerebral (I'd argue boring), and Nolan has a tendency to get wrapped up in his ideas (which again can be boring). There are many more interesting, but lesser known directors who I think could be better for the franchise.

    The producers weren't traumatized by the Boyle experience and are still looking for bold directors, otherwise they wouldn't have hired a guy like Fukunaga after Boyle.
  • Posts: 2,568
    Stark wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As tempting as Nolan or Villeneuve sound, I really think the producers are at risk of another Danny Boyle situation if they decide to go with either of them. From what I can tell both of these directors have had a lot of creative control and more or less free reign on all of their later films. Making a Bond film seems much more collaborative from the director's perspective, and often the key story decisions have to be mulled over by the producers and the various screenwriters before the director even has their say. If the director doesn't gel with these other parties and they can't work together then they'll simply be dropped.

    That aside, I'm not sure if either would be the right fit for Bond. Villeneuve is a bit too cerebral (I'd argue boring), and Nolan has a tendency to get wrapped up in his ideas (which again can be boring). There are many more interesting, but lesser known directors who I think could be better for the franchise.

    The producers weren't traumatized by the Boyle experience and are still looking for bold directors, otherwise they wouldn't have hired a guy like Fukunaga after Boyle.

    It's not about simply being a bold director. It's about a) how well the director's ideas are developing in the time frame required, b) how well the director is able to collaborate with the producers and screenwriters/gel with what they want from this particular Bond film and c) whether they can deliver all this in what is broadly a solid film.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2022 Posts: 2,860
    One of the things that surprised me when the SP emails were leaked was the extent to which the studio execs had input into the script - not just rubberstamping it, but suggesting ideas, asking for things to be emphasized or removed, trying to merge characters, sending several drafts back for re-writes, etc. A director of Mendes's standing seemed to have no sway; at least, he was barely mentioned in any of it. I don't know anything about the way the film business really works, so I don't know if that's standard or if the execs took a more pro-active role because SP was a troubled production. But it does make me wonder how much someone like Nolan would be willing to have such hands-on input into 'his' film?
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 2,568
    Venutius wrote: »
    One of the things that surprised me when the SP emails were leaked was the extent to which the studio execs had input into the script - not just rubberstamping it, but suggesting ideas, asking for things to be emphasized or removed, trying to merge characters, sending several drafts back for re-writes, etc. A director of Mendes's standing seemed to have no sway; at least, he was barely mentioned in any of it. I don't know anything about the way the film business really works, so I don't know if that's standard or if the execs took a more pro-active role because SP was a troubled production. But it does make me wonder how much someone like Nolan would be willing to have such hands-on input into 'his' film?

    It depends on the director and the film in question. In theory the director is there to adapt the script for the screen, so their main job is to interpret each scene and work with the actors for the purposes of performance and blocking. Beyond this they do communicate and work with people like the cinematographer, costume designer, set designer etc in order to nail what they want from these various departments. They'll do the same in post-production with the editors, sound designer etc. But their main job is to adapt the script and pull the various departments in the required direction.

    They might have a hand in the writing process and suggest ideas, but much of the time directors are signed on only after a script has been written. Obviously there are directors who write their own scripts but this is actually relatively rare in the grand scheme of things. Nolan is an example of this, and of course his films tend to be produced by him and his wife, so he has a lot of creative control over his own work. The way Bond films tend to work is that the producers are the ones who actually to come up with the broad creative direction of the film and will hire screenwriters and crew accordingly to work within the parameters they set up. It's not necessarily the way all producers work on all films (some will give the director more creative control over story and hire them before the script is finalised depending on the project/the producer) but it's how the Bond films work. So it's understandable that BB and MGW gave revisions and notes on the SP script. It's their job in this context.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    007HallY wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As tempting as Nolan or Villeneuve sound, I really think the producers are at risk of another Danny Boyle situation if they decide to go with either of them. From what I can tell both of these directors have had a lot of creative control and more or less free reign on all of their later films. Making a Bond film seems much more collaborative from the director's perspective, and often the key story decisions have to be mulled over by the producers and the various screenwriters before the director even has their say. If the director doesn't gel with these other parties and they can't work together then they'll simply be dropped.

    That aside, I'm not sure if either would be the right fit for Bond. Villeneuve is a bit too cerebral (I'd argue boring), and Nolan has a tendency to get wrapped up in his ideas (which again can be boring). There are many more interesting, but lesser known directors who I think could be better for the franchise.

    The producers weren't traumatized by the Boyle experience and are still looking for bold directors, otherwise they wouldn't have hired a guy like Fukunaga after Boyle.

    It's not about simply being a bold director. It's about a) how well the director's ideas are developing in the time frame required, b) how well the director is able to collaborate with the producers and screenwriters/gel with what they want from this particular Bond film and c) whether they can deliver all this in what is broadly a solid film.

    I agree with your "b" and that's why Nolan has little chance... but Villeneuve has the perfect profile I think, he always delegates the script of his films to many people and has already worked with demanding producers (notably Ridley Scott on Blade Runner 2049).
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,384
    Stark wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As tempting as Nolan or Villeneuve sound, I really think the producers are at risk of another Danny Boyle situation if they decide to go with either of them. From what I can tell both of these directors have had a lot of creative control and more or less free reign on all of their later films. Making a Bond film seems much more collaborative from the director's perspective, and often the key story decisions have to be mulled over by the producers and the various screenwriters before the director even has their say. If the director doesn't gel with these other parties and they can't work together then they'll simply be dropped.

    That aside, I'm not sure if either would be the right fit for Bond. Villeneuve is a bit too cerebral (I'd argue boring), and Nolan has a tendency to get wrapped up in his ideas (which again can be boring). There are many more interesting, but lesser known directors who I think could be better for the franchise.

    The producers weren't traumatized by the Boyle experience and are still looking for bold directors, otherwise they wouldn't have hired a guy like Fukunaga after Boyle.

    It's not about simply being a bold director. It's about a) how well the director's ideas are developing in the time frame required, b) how well the director is able to collaborate with the producers and screenwriters/gel with what they want from this particular Bond film and c) whether they can deliver all this in what is broadly a solid film.

    I agree with your "b" and that's why Nolan has little chance... but Villeneuve has the perfect profile I think, he always delegates the script of his films to many people and has already worked with demanding producers (notably Ridley Scott on Blade Runner 2049).

    Villeneuve will not deliver a "fun" nor "funny" Bond. That may not be what they're looking for, but I don't think it's in him. It'd be supremely heady humor at best, and not often.
Sign In or Register to comment.