Where does Bond go after Craig?

1515516518520521524

Comments

  • Posts: 511
    If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my question is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

    Why do you have your job and not a different job?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    Here you are @Colonel_Venus you can use this.

    7sjo534a6caq.gif

    It about as accurate as some of your other predictions.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited April 1 Posts: 565
    Maybe EON don't want Nolan. -> entirely possible, but it would be exceedingly unreasonable

    Why is it unreasonable to think Nolan is not the best person to direct a Bond film?
    Maybe EON and Nolan have discussed things behind closed doors, and neither could come to an agreement. -> sure, it's possible, and in this case I would be siding with Nolan. He has a much better track record than EON does and I do believe he has a better understanding of Bond than they do

    That's a strange attitude given Eon made all the films that helped make you a Bond fan. So presumably at one point they had a better understanding of how to make a Bond film and lost it somewhere along the way. What is it that has been lost and when did this happen? And what makes you think Nolan could do better?
    Maybe EON haven't even started writing a script for Bond 26. -> that would be alarming considering the last Bond film premiered over 2 years ago and was completely finished 4 years ago.

    Why? That's not a huge gap. They'll be ready when they're ready. Eon are under no obligation to churn them out at the rate they did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 486
    Eon are under no obligation to churn them out at the rate they did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

    EON has no obligation to do anything. They have no obligation to make another Bond film again. If Barbara Broccoli wanted to, she could announce today that the Bond franchise is finished and that they aren't making another Bond film ever again.

    I bet the "EON has no obligation to do X" crowd would very quickly start singing a very different tune then.
  • Posts: 1,708
    'Barbara wants the fantasy of Bond to return, where the action is there but the larger-than-life bad guys are in the mix.

    'Villains like Jaws or Oddjob are something she would like to see again if they remake an older Bond film.'

    As for the hunt for the film's next director, Barbara is said to have set her sights on French Canadian director Villeneuve, who is behind the juggernaut that is Dune Part 1 and 2.

    'Barbara Broccoli is very eager for Denis to direct the next Bond,' the source continued.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    Eon are under no obligation to churn them out at the rate they did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

    EON has no obligation to do anything. They have no obligation to make another Bond film again. If Barbara Broccoli wanted to, she could announce today that the Bond franchise is finished and that they aren't making another Bond film ever again.

    I bet the "EON has no obligation to do X" crowd would very quickly start singing a very different tune then.

    I’m pretty sure no Bond fan would want that.
    But I’d be willing to bet the ‘Veruca Salt style Bond fan would make more noise than anyone.
  • Posts: 1,708
    Earlier this week, DailyMail.com reported that she is not considering anyone else to play Bond besides the Kick Ass actor, with insiders claiming costume fittings are already underway.

    'It is all in the details and agents and lawyers are going through all the red tape and how many movies Aaron will sign up for,' an insider said.

    'It is currently looking to be a three-picture deal with the option of a fourth.

    'They have done all the fittings, they have the haircut they have in mind for him, and he's already in tremendous shape.

    'Barbara Broccoli and the rest of the producers are going to make a huge deal out of the announcement.'
  • Posts: 1,708
    If any of this is true..............what film could they be considering remaking?
  • Posts: 1,708
    Well there is this as well..................'They all want this to be one of the biggest announcements ever and are looking to start filming sometime next year to get a movie out in theaters by 2026,' they said.
  • Posts: 1,708
    And no this is not an April Fools joke.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    @delfloria please don’t multipost like that.
    Thank you
  • Posts: 707
    If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my question is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

    Nolan is very expensive.
  • Posts: 665
    Chris Nolan would be a no brainer but EON are scared of giving him too much creative control. Similar to Spielberg in the 70s when he wanted to direct Spy.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,553
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,090
    It may just be that Villeneuve is more willing to compromise and work on a vision together with EON.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 6,677
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...

    Lucidity! Please repost on every future page, my good friend.

    PS: fansplain is a very good neologism ;) Love it. Will use it.
  • Posts: 707
    delfloria wrote: »
    If any of this is true..............what film could they be considering remaking?

    Bring back Goldfinger.
  • Posts: 893
    Rather than Villeneuve or Nolan, how would you feel if Eon decided to favour someone like Christopher McQuarrie when the latter was chosen to direct Mission: Impossible 5? By that I mean someone who is mostly known as a screenwriter, with limited directing experience, but who could helm the series for the next few movies, like a TV series showrunner.
  • Posts: 1,708
    Benny wrote: »
    @delfloria please don’t multipost like that.
    Thank you

    My apologies, it's just that I kept finding new information.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,553
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...

    Lucidity! Please repost on every future page, my good friend.

    PS: fansplain is a very good neologism ;) Love it. Will use it.

    Thanks, @Univex. It has been on my mind for some time. A lot of fansplaining going on these days, about why [insert empty fan speculation sold as hard movie science].
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 728
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...

    Thank you, now I'm upset I didn't get a David Lean Bond epic followed by a Terry Gilliam Bond crazy fantasy. Could I get Jenny Agutter as a Bond Girl and Peter O'Toole as a mastermind, too?
  • Posts: 707
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...

    Lucidity! Please repost on every future page, my good friend.

    PS: fansplain is a very good neologism ;) Love it. Will use it.

    Thanks, @Univex. It has been on my mind for some time. A lot of fansplaining going on these days, about why [insert empty fan speculation sold as hard movie science].

    It could be worse. fans defending Eon all the time.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 1 Posts: 23,553
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus
    We can fansplain all we want why Nolan would be perfect and whatnot, but the intricate machines that are EON and Hollywood are difficult to get a grasp on. Nolan is but one fish in the pond -- a big fish, no doubt about it, but just one. If there's any good reason why he doesn't want to be locked down by EON, or why EON doesn't consider it fruitful to sign him up, then that's it.

    EON never worked with Nicolas Roeg, Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Richie, Ken Russell, Terry Gilliam, David Lean, or Ridley Scott. And these are merely British directors. What about Friedkin, Cameron, Spielberg, McTiernan, Zemeckis, and so on? All of these have had "their moment(s)" in film history when it would have made sense, going by the logic I've read in this thread, to hire them. So why didn't that happen, then? Why not "just" hire them? Simple enough, no? "You! You're hired." So why didn't any of these big names end up making a Bond film?

    Perhaps EON didn't want them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these guys didn't want to, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someone else made them a better offer (see Spielberg.)

    These runaway speculations and this overzealous future-telling aren't bringing us any closer to seeing your wishes fulfilled. Can't we just wait and see what actually happens? It's okay to express hopes and wishes, but some of this has become obsessive lately...

    Lucidity! Please repost on every future page, my good friend.

    PS: fansplain is a very good neologism ;) Love it. Will use it.

    Thanks, @Univex. It has been on my mind for some time. A lot of fansplaining going on these days, about why [insert empty fan speculation sold as hard movie science].

    It could be worse. fans defending Eon all the time.

    Ah, the famous Deke Rivers post. Two sentences, if you're lucky, intended to annoy people, with few actual contributions to the ongoing discussion.

    Sigh.

    I'll bite. Since I've been around here for, let's see now, oh over 18 years longer than you have, let me assure you that not a single member here defends EON "all the time." However, there's criticism and there's criticism. Some people act as if they own EON, as if they could run EON so much better from behind their keyboards than the people who have actually been in the business for decades, and as if EON absolutely wants to disappoint us. Some here insist on telling EON where to go next, on behalf of "us" all. Some, in fact, advocate inviting EON to a table discussion so that we, in our infinite wisdom as fans, could help them make the greatest Bond film ever, since we agree on everything. Countering such utterly pathetic and irrational behaviour is not about defending EON, it's about defending common sense.
  • Posts: 707
    Some people act like James Bond fans, that's all.

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    I’m hopeful we’re all James Bond fans @DEKE_RIVERS
    At least at this forum. Or else the non Bond fans are a bit like Stacey Sutton at Zorins horse sale.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 486
    @DarthDimi if you don't see why Nolan is like a hundred times more suited to direct Bond than Guy Richie, Ken Russell, McTiernan or Zemeckis ever have been, I really don't know what to tell you.
    If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my question is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

    Nolan is very expensive.
    Amazon has a lot of money. Seriously, I never ever want to hear the argument again that Nolan is too expensive to make a Bond film. That argument has already been destroyed, torn down, demolished, wrecked, shattered like a dozen times.
    It could be worse. fans defending Eon all the time.
    The lengths some fans go to defend EON no matter what they do really is baffling. Seems like Stockholm syndrome.
  • Posts: 707
    If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my question is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

    Nolan is very expensive.
    Amazon has a lot of money. Seriously, I never ever want to hear the argument again that Nolan is too expensive to make a Bond film. That argument has already been destroyed, torn to shreds, eliminated like a dozen times.

    It's not the money you have, it's the money you want to spend.




  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    Nolan is very expensive, he’s just won an Oscar on the back of a very successful film, that he and his wife wrote and produced.
    It’s true that Amazon have very deep pockets. But they’re also a business. Why hire Nolan when they can get director X for a fraction of the price?
    When has the argument been destroyed and torn to shreds?
    Are we talking legitimately or in your opinion?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 1 Posts: 23,553
    @DarthDimi if you don't see why Nolan is like a hundred times more suited to direct Bond than Guy Richie, Ken Russell, McTiernan or Zemeckis ever have been, I really don't know what to tell you.

    Would you have considered Martin Campbell suited to direct Bond before GE? Remember that up until then, he had mostly made nudie cuties, cheap dramas and some low-rent action flicks.

    Would you have considered Sam Mendes suited to direct Bond before SF? Another director of drama films, crime thrillers and comedies.

    Bond directors aren't always people whose resume screams spy flicks. Now, lest we understand one another, I'm a huge Chris Nolan fan. Haven't missed a single one of his films since Memento; saw most of them twice or even thrice in theatres. If Nolan makes the next Bond film, I'll definitely be happy. The one thing I've been saying for months now, however, is that I don't see why we absolutely need Nolan (or Villeneuve) for the series to survive. That's a compulsive behaviour I don't understand. Could he do it? Hell yes. Is he the only one? Hell no.
    The lengths some fans go to defend EON no matter what they do really is baffling. Seems like Stockholm syndrome.

    No, you're missing the point. Some fans dream stuff up, then sell that as hard fact, then turn obsessive over it and will stop at nothing to dismiss every other scenario as less good. Other fans subsequently try to point out that we know nothing at this point, that all of this is speculation in thin air, and that what the future holds may not even be known to the big chiefs themselves. And because said fans try to invite some clarity back into a discussion that's getting awfully lost in tunnel vision, they're accused of "defending EON", which makes zero sense.

    Let me ask you: what will you do if Bond 26 is made without Nolan? Will you spend the following months arms crossed, assuring us that the next film will be worse than bad, and slowly work towards a self-fulfilling prophecy? We have seen that, you know. (Even from people who spent months moaning about a Bond film without having seen it.)
    Some people act like James Bond fans, that's all.

    Hm. Interesting thesis. I wonder what it means. Please enlighten this forum.
Sign In or Register to comment.