What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

1161719212285

Comments

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Villeneuve, Mann or Campbell. I don't see any other viables.
  • Posts: 5,767
    suavejmf wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film
    Wow, having read that my respect for Spielberg just dropped immensely.




    While I pretty much dislike the colours and lighting in both SF and SP, I find it pretty ironic that none other trailer than H8ful 8 was shown previously to SP. That oddly reminds me of how I found my breath again when after a row of very fast-cut films I watched Inglorious Basterds.
    So I´m almost tempted to wish for Tarantino. But experience shows that I find his films on the whole incongruent. And incongruence is the last thing I need after SP.
    The second last thing, after a huge chunk of scenes bathed in sunlight.



    dalton wrote: »
    Ron Howard for Bond? The man's made some good films, but I think he'd do a terrible job with Bond.
    Ron Howard is always solid, you know what you get. But he´s never beyond solid, so he has to stay away from Bond.



    Michael Mann would be the best choice IMO to redeem the franchise after SF and SP.
    Perhaps Denis Villeneuve also, Sicario is the best thriller in a long while. But beside him being busy with the Blade Runner sequel, I´m afraid he would overcomplicate the plot. Both Prisoners and Sicario are told much to complicatedly for Bond. What we need is a clear storytelling that´s fast enough to keep the audience from thinking about the inevitable plot holes in every Bond film.



    Didn´t George Miller say he wants a small project with no special effects? Give him a 100mill budget and let him make the next Bond film :-).

    Nnnoooo. His films are shallow with no characterisation.....We would have another DAD.
    Who is "His"?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Villeneuve, Mann or Campbell. I don't see any other viables.
    Amazing choices.....I shiver to think what brilliance we'd get. Fincher (although they probably can't afford him) would be great too.
  • I wouldn´t mind Martin Campbell again to be honest.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,425
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    For those still hoping for Spielberg, time to officially cross him off the list. Straight from the horse's mouth:

    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/134061841111/why-spielberg-would-now-turn-down-a-bond-film

    That just means Spielberg is being polite. You don't butt in and say you want to direct the next one when there's an established director already potentially set up to helm B25.

    I think if EON really wanted Spielberg they could still get him, but I don't think EON do want him.

    Spielberg's comments contradict what Babs said recently. She said Spielberg was still practically unknown or unproven or something when Cubby rejected him, but after Jaws that was hardly the case.

    What a shame they didn't approach Spielberg in the 90s. It made have saved the whole Brosnan era.

    Ron Howard would be interesting. RUSH is a little bit like a Bond film in many respects. And Ron likes to tell a proper story, which is something that has bean missing from Bond for a long time.

    I think Ken Branagh as well would be worth a shot.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Kenneth Branagh any day!
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    Kenneth Branagh - he could be a great choice. Love a lot of his work as a director.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Thor convinced me that he might be a contender for Bond.

    I thought he handled that perfectly. Not saying I want Bond to be like Thor, just that I think Brannagh knows how to take a different and appropriate approach with each film.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.

    I agree. I'm just observing that when you bring in Oscar winning directors then they often come with this kind of baggage.

    Mendes would be a better Bond director IMO if he didn't insist on 'family issues' playing a part in every film.

    Funny thing is that what he thinks adds thematic depth and interest I think comes across as really clunky, awkward film making. SP was a better film for having less of that nonsense that dragged down SF.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.

    I agree. I'm just observing that when you bring in Oscar winning directors then they often come with this kind of baggage.

    Mendes would be a better Bond director IMO if he didn't insist on 'family issues' playing a part in every film.

    Funny thing is that what he thinks adds thematic depth and interest I think comes across as really clunky, awkward film making. SP was a better film for having less of that nonsense that dragged down SF.

    That's actually a good diagnosis. Nolan also suffers from this, he could be a truly excellent filmmaker, but he has to tone down the 'clunkiness' of his thematic material.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I seem to be alone in finding the use of Tennyson in SF amongst the most awkward and embarrassing sequences ever committed to celluloid. It's almost the quintessence of pretentious, stupid student filmmaking.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    I seem to be alone in finding the use of Tennyson in SF amongst the most awkward and embarrassing sequences ever committed to celluloid. It's almost the quintessence of pretentious, stupid student filmmaking.

    Whisper it, but yes, it was too forced.
    Some filmmakers think that story-heft, or 'gravitas', is something you can inject (read: shoehorn) into a film. But you can't. It has to be part of the weave, it has to flow naturally from the narrative of the story.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'm not thrilled about Branagh as a Bond director. I didn't really care for his Jack Ryan movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I'm not thrilled about Branagh as a Bond director. I didn't really care for his Jack Ryan movie.

    Yes but he's directed other stuff that is better.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think Mendes needs to see out the Craig tenure with a final film. After that I'm keen on Yann Demange doing a stripped back entry that has the vibe of an early Fleming novel.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    I think Mendes needs to see out the Craig tenure with a final film. After that I'm keen on Yann Demange doing a stripped back entry that has the vibe of an early Fleming novel.

    In balance I'm inclined to agree. I am not a big Mendes fan (as I've said several times, he is hopeless at action scenes) but l did enjoy SP and it makes sense that he ends Craig's tenure. Better writing though please Sam for the next one!
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I think Mendes needs to see out the Craig tenure with a final film. After that I'm keen on Yann Demange doing a stripped back entry that has the vibe of an early Fleming novel.

    In balance I'm inclined to agree. I am not a big Mendes fan (as I've said several times, he is hopeless at action scenes) but l did enjoy SP and it makes sense that he ends Craig's tenure. Better writing though please Sam for the next one!

    Meh... I'd be glad to have someone fresh take over.
    Give DC that which no other long term Bond has been given: a solid send-off. A tight, focused spy-adventure written by someone other than P&W, with less baggage.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.
    IMO Forster handled those aspects much more fluently. For instance Mendes picked up the idea of having backgrounds having symbolic character, but in his films it became too obvious.
    I happen to like QoS´ editing style. I understand a lot of people don´t. Still, I think a Bond film is better off faster than slower. I get a dragging feeling during both SF and SP.



    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down.
    Well formulated.



    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.

    I agree. I'm just observing that when you bring in Oscar winning directors then they often come with this kind of baggage.

    Mendes would be a better Bond director IMO if he didn't insist on 'family issues' playing a part in every film.

    Funny thing is that what he thinks adds thematic depth and interest I think comes across as really clunky, awkward film making. SP was a better film for having less of that nonsense that dragged down SF.

    That's actually a good diagnosis. Nolan also suffers from this, he could be a truly excellent filmmaker, but he has to tone down the 'clunkiness' of his thematic material.
    I´m not so sure about Nolan having the potential to be truly excellent, but I agree on the clunkiness.


    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I think Mendes needs to see out the Craig tenure with a final film. After that I'm keen on Yann Demange doing a stripped back entry that has the vibe of an early Fleming novel.

    In balance I'm inclined to agree. I am not a big Mendes fan (as I've said several times, he is hopeless at action scenes) but l did enjoy SP and it makes sense that he ends Craig's tenure. Better writing though please Sam for the next one!

    Meh... I'd be glad to have someone fresh take over.
    Give DC that which no other long term Bond has been given: a solid send-off. A tight, focused spy-adventure written by someone other than P&W, with less baggage.
    Meh, Bond is not a tv series, he doesn´t need a send-off. Keep the end open. The end of any of the old Bond films was a message of life-embracing optimism: James Bond will return! Talk about unobtrusive yet very effective subtext, there you are.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.
    IMO Forster handled those aspects much more fluently. For instance Mendes picked up the idea of having backgrounds having symbolic character, but in his films it became too obvious.
    I happen to like QoS´ editing style. I understand a lot of people don´t. Still, I think a Bond film is better off faster than slower. I get a dragging feeling during both SF and SP.



    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down.
    Well formulated.



    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)

    You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.

    Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.

    I might... but I don't.
    Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.

    I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.

    The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.

    I agree. I'm just observing that when you bring in Oscar winning directors then they often come with this kind of baggage.

    Mendes would be a better Bond director IMO if he didn't insist on 'family issues' playing a part in every film.

    Funny thing is that what he thinks adds thematic depth and interest I think comes across as really clunky, awkward film making. SP was a better film for having less of that nonsense that dragged down SF.

    That's actually a good diagnosis. Nolan also suffers from this, he could be a truly excellent filmmaker, but he has to tone down the 'clunkiness' of his thematic material.
    I´m not so sure about Nolan having the potential to be truly excellent, but I agree on the clunkiness.


    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I think Mendes needs to see out the Craig tenure with a final film. After that I'm keen on Yann Demange doing a stripped back entry that has the vibe of an early Fleming novel.

    In balance I'm inclined to agree. I am not a big Mendes fan (as I've said several times, he is hopeless at action scenes) but l did enjoy SP and it makes sense that he ends Craig's tenure. Better writing though please Sam for the next one!

    Meh... I'd be glad to have someone fresh take over.
    Give DC that which no other long term Bond has been given: a solid send-off. A tight, focused spy-adventure written by someone other than P&W, with less baggage.
    Meh, Bond is not a tv series, he doesn´t need a send-off. Keep the end open. The end of any of the old Bond films was a message of life-embracing optimism: James Bond will return! Talk about unobtrusive yet very effective subtext, there you are.

    Ok I think you misunderstood me - I meant DC needs a really good final entry, a film that is not dragged down by overly heavy themes or artistic licence nor resorts to banal pastiche. It can be done, both CR and SP show this potential despite their flaws.

    No other long term Bond has had a truly strong last film, tbh...
  • Posts: 9,738
    Let me see Jack Ryan and then I will comment on whether he can direct or not.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Let me see Jack Ryan and then I will comment on whether he can direct or not.

    Apparently it's rubbish
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Let me see Jack Ryan and then I will comment on whether he can direct or not.

    Apparently it's rubbish
    Horrible. Truly. A shame to a great franchise.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Robert Zemeckis.
  • Posts: 5,767
    AceHole wrote: »
    Ok I think you misunderstood me - I meant DC needs a really good final entry, a film that is not dragged down by overly heavy themes or artistic licence nor resorts to banal pastiche. It can be done, both CR and SP show this potential despite their flaws.

    No other long term Bond has had a truly strong last film, tbh...
    Oh, ok, I´m all with you there, @AceHole. Sorry for misunderstanding.




    Getafix wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Let me see Jack Ryan and then I will comment on whether he can direct or not.

    Apparently it's rubbish
    The film is not rubbish, but also by far not Branagh´s best work, so it would be if not rubbish at least not the best idea to watch exactly that film in order to judge Branagh´s capability as a film director.


    Robert Zemeckis.
    And what would qualify him? Apart from one or two or three great pieces of entertainment he did 30 years ago?

  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Kenneth Branagh any day!

    You you, I never thought of that, but it's not half bad of an idea. If the next instalment is going to tackle the whole Bond/Blofeld relationship, Branagh could actually make that interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.