What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

1818284868795

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,363
    Apart from getting the script ready, finding the director and Bond 7 himself, I'm starting to think if the cause of the delay could be how they're going to launch Bond 7 because of how they ended NTTD. Sometimes, things are done without thinking about its impact tomorrow. EON would always find a way, though. I just feel they could be contemplating at the moment or maybe they've got past the contemplating stage already.
  • edited February 8 Posts: 2,880
    I disagree, I think the difference between Bond and the likes of Batman and Spider-Man are that Comic Books have had a long history of exploring alternate timelines/universes, in fact it’s a trope of Comic Books, and their film adaptations. I don’t think audiences have a hard time recognizing that Robert Pattinson’s Batman is in a different continuity entirely to Christian Bale’s Batman.

    I feel different about the Bond series mainly down to the fact that there was somewhat of a backlash to Craig’s era being a reboot when announced, the backlash itself to Craig’s Bond dying (where many online pundits threw their arms in the air proclaiming Bond is dead and therefore so is the series), and the lengths some people will go to try and make a coherent timeline for the Bond series. Do I think ALL audience members are going to have this trouble? No, but to someone who isn’t as immersed in the knowledge of the series/character as much as they are Marvel/DC, having a marketing campaign that heavily emphasizes the fact that it’s a new beginning with a new 007 will help ease that problem I think.

    Well, I’d say that a large portion of those watching Batman/Spiderman films aren’t actually comic book fans. Similar to how a large chunk of people watching Bond aren’t Bond fans. Up until recently I’m not sure if any of them knew strictly speaking what alternate universes or multi-verses were (only because they’re things hammered into more recent films). But they understood the concept of a reboot, and no one seemed to have a problem seeing this in light of Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, or the Garfield Spider-Man films.

    Was there a backlash to the Craig era being a reboot? I was younger and not on Bond sites, but I don’t remember there being any backlash (in fact it was kind of welcomed. Some people I noticed thought it was more a ‘Bond going back to his first mission’ thing - so more a prequel rather than a reboot if they even thought about it that much, but after Batman Begins I think most people understood what it was doing). I dunno if that’s a case of there being a difference between what a minority discuss online and what the majority think when they see this film.

    As for marketing, I think all they can do is simply advertise the film they’ve made in a way that puts it in the best light and sells it. They won’t want audiences to dwell on the previous Bond but rather feel excited for the new one. I don’t think in that sense we’ll get any ‘you were expecting someone else’ lines in a trailer, or ‘new beginnings’ type taglines. If anything I get the sense reminding general audiences of the end of NTTD will confuse them. The film itself could have a sort of ‘year 2’ Bond as 007 type premise (which is likely/would be a way of getting rid of this ‘problem’ if there is indeed one) and that’d obviously be reflected in the marketing, but apart from that it’s just about getting people interested in this new film.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    There was actually a huge backlash on Garfield's reboot, and it was one of the reasons that Sony agreed to let Marvel co-drive the franchise for a while (and Marvel decided to skip another origin story and introduce the new Peter Parker in the third Captain America film).
  • edited February 8 Posts: 689
    Maybe they are waiting for all those kids who have never seen a James Bond movie to grow up.
  • Posts: 2,880
    There was actually a huge backlash on Garfield's reboot, and it was one of the reasons that Sony agreed to let Marvel co-drive the franchise for a while (and Marvel decided to skip another origin story and introduce the new Peter Parker in the third Captain America film).

    I don’t remember a huge backlash towards The Amazing Spider-Man either really (not a Spiderman fan though, and that may well be another minority on the internet vs the majority of audiences thing). Spiderman 3 I remember being a sort of DAD type dip for the franchise (not a failure, just a dip in perceived quality/critical reception) so it was kinda welcomed. The first one did relatively well actually. I didn’t like it much personally though. From what I can tell it was a bit lacklustre for most audiences, but I remember plenty liking it. It was the second one that underperformed and didn’t meet audience/critical expectations , but that wasn’t a flop either really. Marvel at that point were really starting up their universe anyway.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    007HallY wrote: »
    There was actually a huge backlash on Garfield's reboot, and it was one of the reasons that Sony agreed to let Marvel co-drive the franchise for a while (and Marvel decided to skip another origin story and introduce the new Peter Parker in the third Captain America film).

    I don’t remember a huge backlash towards The Amazing Spider-Man either really (not a Spiderman fan though, and that may well be another minority on the internet vs the majority of audiences thing). Spiderman 3 I remember being a sort of DAD type dip for the franchise (not a failure, just a dip in perceived quality/critical reception) so it was kinda welcomed. The first one did relatively well actually. I didn’t like it much personally though. From what I can tell it was a bit lacklustre for most audiences, but I remember plenty liking it. It was the second one that underperformed and didn’t meet audience/critical expectations , but that wasn’t a flop either really. Marvel at that point were really starting up their universe anyway.
    It might just have been the sites that I was looking at at the time, but generally the issue was that Sony went straight from cancelling the Rami/Maguire series to announcing a reboot. There was much complaining about getting an origin story yet again - the studio tried to justify it by presenting the origin differently, an alternate-universe if you will, and there was an obvious struggle to present alternatives to iconic scenes which didn't seem to go down too well. I remember because I didn't have a problem with seeing the origin again, especially if they did away with the organic webshooters, and I liked Garfield much more for Spider-Man than Maguire.

    Normally with a reboot there is a sizable gap between versions which seems to help the public adjust, and I suspect that Eon is very much aware of this and has always planned to leave a big gap after NTTD. Killing Bond, then bringing in a new version two years later was never going to work, imo.
  • edited February 8 Posts: 2,880
    007HallY wrote: »
    There was actually a huge backlash on Garfield's reboot, and it was one of the reasons that Sony agreed to let Marvel co-drive the franchise for a while (and Marvel decided to skip another origin story and introduce the new Peter Parker in the third Captain America film).

    I don’t remember a huge backlash towards The Amazing Spider-Man either really (not a Spiderman fan though, and that may well be another minority on the internet vs the majority of audiences thing). Spiderman 3 I remember being a sort of DAD type dip for the franchise (not a failure, just a dip in perceived quality/critical reception) so it was kinda welcomed. The first one did relatively well actually. I didn’t like it much personally though. From what I can tell it was a bit lacklustre for most audiences, but I remember plenty liking it. It was the second one that underperformed and didn’t meet audience/critical expectations , but that wasn’t a flop either really. Marvel at that point were really starting up their universe anyway.
    It might just have been the sites that I was looking at at the time, but generally the issue was that Sony went straight from cancelling the Rami/Maguire series to announcing a reboot. There was much complaining about getting an origin story yet again - the studio tried to justify it by presenting the origin differently, an alternate-universe if you will, and there was an obvious struggle to present alternatives to iconic scenes which didn't seem to go down too well. I remember because I didn't have a problem with seeing the origin again, especially if they did away with the organic webshooters, and I liked Garfield much more for Spider-Man than Maguire.

    Normally with a reboot there is a sizable gap between versions which seems to help the public adjust, and I suspect that Eon is very much aware of this and has always planned to leave a big gap after NTTD. Killing Bond, then bringing in a new version two years later was never going to work, imo.

    I kind of remember some people not liking the origin story being told again (I’m not a fan of it, especially after we’ve seen these things in the past - it’s one of the reasons I find The Batman a refreshing film as it begins at an interesting point in the character’s career). And I guess it was on the tail end of when these reboots were coming out. I remember Man of Steel not making much of a splash either. Still, I know people who rated TAS quite highly.

    But I agree, it’s probably not a good idea to start up a franchise again so soon after a definitive ending. The gap between Bond 26 and NTTD will help in that sense.
  • Posts: 9,767
    Takashi Yamazaki


    Thats right the guy who did Godzilla minus one i dont care there is a language barrier i still put him at the top of my list
  • Posts: 6,677
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Takashi Yamazaki


    Thats right the guy who did Godzilla minus one i dont care there is a language barrier i still put him at the top of my list

    Would be very excited if Yamazaki did Bond, with his team, of course.
  • So Sam Mendes will be very busy in the next 3 years so it looks like he won't be the director of Bond 26.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited March 1 Posts: 4,440
    Repeat the name of John Madden. Avaible.

    https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0006960/

    I fiinaly watched The Debt from 2010. It was lighter tone then expect to be, more Living Daylights a bit CR and QOS. I consider him earlier based on trailer and trailer of Miss Sloane and he made drama/comedy/culture films too . Miss Sloane was more difficult movie, but that can help i think. It mean time he directed a movie based on Operation Mincemeat based on operation idea of Fleming. I suggest as title before together with alternate American title (The Man Who Never Whas).

    Martin Campbell and Marc Forster but making more movies and like Campbell experience in tv work also. And he is English. And i stil think Jane Goldman (The Debt, James Bond Supports International Women's Day short, X-men First Class) should be consider as one writers if he direct Bond movie and Peter Straughan (The Debt, The Snow Man, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 2011)) too.
  • edited March 13 Posts: 303
    Variety website has reported Christopher Nolan got around 100 million dollars for Oppenheimer. If that figure is accurate I can't imagine Eon wanting Nolan. Be far better to hire a cheaper director. Use the saved cash on the budget.

    https://variety.com/2024/film/news/christopher-nolan-oppenheimer-pay-1235938430/
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    So it also looks like Nolan wouldn't need the money.

  • Posts: 331
    So it also looks like Nolan wouldn't need the money.

    He didn't need the money after Tenet either.
  • Posts: 689
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Variety website has reported Christopher Nolan got around 100 million dollars for Oppenheimer. If that figure is accurate I can't imagine Eon wanting Nolan. Be far better to hire a cheaper director. Use the saved cash on the budget.

    https://variety.com/2024/film/news/christopher-nolan-oppenheimer-pay-1235938430/


    Yeah, he is too expensive.
  • Posts: 2,880
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.
  • Posts: 689
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.
  • Posts: 2,880
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.

    Yes. Which EON could offer him if they wanted him to direct (or indeed a similar director of his prestige/pay grade).
  • Posts: 689
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.

    Yes. Which EON could offer him if they wanted him to direct (or indeed a similar director of his prestige/pay grade).

    They may not want to pay that either. It's like a new partner.
  • edited March 13 Posts: 2,880
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.

    Yes. Which EON could offer him if they wanted him to direct (or indeed a similar director of his prestige/pay grade).

    They may not want to pay that either. It's like a new partner.

    I really don’t know what EON are willing to pay for someone like Nolan. But like I said if they wanted him they’d try to get him.

    Also, people here need to realise that his salary as a director hasn’t now gone up to £100 million. That’d be insane. He got that final pay check through both his initial pay, but predominantly through the film’s earnings. It’s not unusual for directors who reach that level of success to do something smaller or a film that may well earn them less financial gain next time. If anything he’s got more freedom to do what he wants (not necessarily Bond, mind, but definitely his own projects).
  • Informe_James_BondInforme_James_Bond Dominican Republic
    Posts: 77
    I'm going to post this here and go slowly.

    Shutterstock-14350855a.jpg

    Capturan-Nolan.jpg

    SSSSHHHHH
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    The photos are obviously going to excite speculation, but we know they're socially acquainted and she's got to speak to somebody! Dark Horizons is speculating he's thinking of going back to his The Prisoner feature film idea that he was working on some years ago before the plug got pulled on it. Really he is in a position to make whatever he wants now, just how bad does he want Bond?

    Out of interest, how many of you, if you were given the chance to write and direct any film you wanted (and for the purposes of this hypothetical situation, let's say you have these skills), would choose to make a Bond film rather than create your own character and franchise? Which would be more tempting? Your own creation, sink or swim, or an entry in a series guaranteed to be seen by hundreds of millions for many decades to come, even if the film doesn't work liked you hoped it would?
  • Informe_James_BondInforme_James_Bond Dominican Republic
    Posts: 77
    I think that the situation is set and the pieces are in place for him to be the director. Why?

    First, because he has previously expressed interest in doing it. Also because a few years ago he said he would do it when the character needs a reinvention. And we are currently at that point even Barbara herself also used that same word "reinvention". He is available, although he must have several projects on schedule, he can select one of his own or do what he has always wanted to do (a Bond movie). And he is with Universal Pictures and I think that they have the distribution of Bond 26 too. It's definitely now or never.

    The pic doesn't tell us anything concrete, but they are together and they are talking.

    ;)
  • edited March 13 Posts: 2,880
    Indeed, the photos are meaningless. BB talks to and knows so many people in the film/TV industry, and even if she likes them as people she'll know full well who she'd rather have helming or staring in her films.
    Out of interest, how many of you, if you were given the chance to write and direct any film you wanted (and for the purposes of this hypothetical situation, let's say you have these skills), would choose to make a Bond film rather than create your own character and franchise? Which would be more tempting? Your own creation, sink or swim, or an entry in a series guaranteed to be seen by hundreds of millions for many decades to come, even if the film doesn't work liked you hoped it would?

    Hypothetically (let's say I was a renowned director who had this choice/had met with EON and knew roughly what they wanted from their next Bond film) it would ultimately depend on how interesting I found the potential of that Bond film vs what my ideas for a franchise or original film were. While a different context, I imagine it's not too unlike weighing up which job offer to take, which is I'm sure a situation many people have been in here. You have to weigh up the long term benefits, the financial side, how it would work schedule-wise, whether you could bring your best to that job, whether you'd be content in that job etc.

    I mean, many actors/directors have turned down very successful movies because they opted to do something else or their schedules didn't align. Many of them would even say they didn't lose out and that those successful movies maybe even benefited from having alternative choices. Ultimately even if it's a dream job for some people, it's still a job for directors. So I'd likely go into it with that mentality.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,427
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.

    Yes. Which EON could offer him if they wanted him to direct (or indeed a similar director of his prestige/pay grade).

    They may not want to pay that either. It's like a new partner.

    From the story: "That figure represents a combination of salary, backend compensation, box-office escalators and a bonus for his twin Academy Awards."

    Nolan would need his Bond film to generate a billion at the box office, and win at least two Academy Awards, to expect anything close to a $100 million payday again.
  • edited March 13 Posts: 689
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As others have said it’s not about the money. If they wanted to hire him and sweeten the deal they could give him a share of the box office gross (so think along the lines of Jack Nicholson’s deal for Batman 89). But at this point it could just be a case where he’s not quite the right fit, they have others they’d like to consider, or they’re not quite ready to approach directors yet and Nolan has moved onto other projects.

    A share of box office gross is money too.

    Yes. Which EON could offer him if they wanted him to direct (or indeed a similar director of his prestige/pay grade).

    They may not want to pay that either. It's like a new partner.

    From the story: "That figure represents a combination of salary, backend compensation, box-office escalators and a bonus for his twin Academy Awards."

    Nolan would need his Bond film to generate a billion at the box office, and win at least two Academy Awards, to expect anything close to a $100 million payday again.

    The reason for hiring Nolan is to have another billion Bond movie. ;)

    So they would have to pay a lot.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,363
    Yeah, I think a Nolan Bond film is almost certain to make a Billion. He's got a very strong fan following. He's a star director who gets fans excited than his own actors. Once he announces a film, it grabs attention. I feel like Nolan is now like EON. His films, once released, become events.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,105
    Yeah, I think a Nolan Bond film is almost certain to make a Billion. He's got a very strong fan following. He's a star director who gets fans excited than his own actors. Once he announces a film, it grabs attention. I feel like Nolan is now like EON. His films, once released, become events.

    Yes I would like him to direct. Hopefully his brother will help him write. I just hope the less Craig people that come back, the better. Both sides of the camera.
  • Posts: 484
    Even people who dislike Nolan have to admit that if Nolan were hired to write and direct, the hype would be insane.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,363
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Yeah, I think a Nolan Bond film is almost certain to make a Billion. He's got a very strong fan following. He's a star director who gets fans excited than his own actors. Once he announces a film, it grabs attention. I feel like Nolan is now like EON. His films, once released, become events.

    Yes I would like him to direct. Hopefully his brother will help him write. I just hope the less Craig people that come back, the better. Both sides of the camera.

    Yeah.
Sign In or Register to comment.