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
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 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.
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.
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.
I'd still like to see a Bond film by Villeneuve, even if it wouldn't stray that far from the Craig era.
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.
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.
Casino Royale captured the Bond feeling in a similar fashion.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.