Who should direct Bond 24 (and beyond)?

That's what I thought. It seems pretty redundant otherwise... He doesn't owe anything to the franchise.

Yep. It seems too generous.

And why put forth ideas of your own when some other bloke is going to come around and possibly muck it up?

Precisely. And you know, I'll be happy to welcome him back. While Skyfall is a great film, it just would be good to have a recurring director again, if only for one film.

Perhaps Mendes won't actually direct BOND 24 (although I certainly wouldn't mind if he did) but will instead have some sort of "executive producer" or "creative consultant" credit on the project, as I understand will be the case with Christopher Nolan on future Batman films (and maybe also George Lucas on future STAR WARS outings).

It may be the case that Mendes fancies having some input on BOND 24 without having to commit a huge amount of time and energy as its director.

Where this would leave the actual director, I don't know - it would leave him or her somewhat subservient to Mendes, presumably (then again, one could argue that a Bond director is in any case automatically subservient to the vision and control of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson).

However, it might well make sense for Mendes to direct BONDs 24 and 25, as I gather that John Logan is writing them and that they'll (loosely) constitute a two-part story as well as forming a sort of trilogy with SKYFALL (the BOND/M/MONEYPENNY/Q BEGINS trilogy, if you will).

" they'll (loosely) constitute a two-part story as well as forming a sort of trilogy with SKYFALL (the BOND/M/MONEYPENNY/Q BEGINS trilogy, if you will)."

From whence do you gather this?

Craig shot down that two-part story idea in an interview. But then again, EON did shy away from people asking if Eve was Moneypenny. Guess we'll find out when EON says so.

It's Christopher Nolan. Announcement to be made in late February of 2013.

Best to embrace it now. It's inevitable. It's the only way SONY/EON can top SKYFALL, and trust me, they'll be aiming for the $100 million dollar opening in the U.S. for 2014/2015. There's no way that EON and SONY go out and hire an unknown director for BOND-24. They've tasted the sweet nectar of a film that came respectably close to earning $1 billion dollars. The 4th Bond film in Connery and Moore's era was each their highest grossing, and so it will be with Craig, but they'll need a big name director to help push them over that billion dollar/Oscar-eluding cliff. They can't just go out and hire Herb Finklestein for the next film. It'll be a name director with some cache and clout.

It's Christopher Nolan. Only Nolan.

P.S. Watch and see this post get spread around the Internet like wildfire and get posted as insider information to AICN, Dark Horizons, Den of Geek, etc....even if I have to do it!

When Michael Apted direct the third Narnia movie there told him what the 4th movie going to be. This not sugest Michael Apted mabey return. So in my opnion of course Mendes know what Bond 24/Bond 25 must going to look like and mabey this also count for Marc Forster already and Martin Campbell. That Logan knows more should be as Christopher Columbus know earlier then us that a line from Harry Potter in COS be a hint to the 7th book.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

It's Christopher Nolan. Announcement to be made in late February of 2013.

Best to embrace it now. It's inevitable. It's the only way SONY/EON can top SKYFALL, and trust me, they'll be aiming for the $100 million dollar opening in the U.S. for 2014/2015. There's no way that EON and SONY go out and hire an unknown director for BOND-24. They've tasted the sweet nectar of a film that came respectably close to earning $1 billion dollars. The 4th Bond film in Connery and Moore's era was each their highest grossing, and so it will be with Craig, but they'll need a big name director to help push them over that billion dollar/Oscar-eluding cliff. They can't just go out and hire Herb Finklestein for the next film. It'll be a name director with some cache and clout.

It's Christopher Nolan. Only Nolan.

P.S. Watch and see this post get spread around the Internet like wildfire and get posted as insider information to AICN, Dark Horizons, Den of Geek, etc....even if I have to do it!

Time to bite into the cyanide capsule in my back left molar.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Time to bite into the cyanide capsule in my back left molar.

The problem with that anecdote, and it's been bugging me since I saw SKYFALL, is that there are so many jokes one could make about cyanide-filled back molars and British dental care, that I literally cannot figure out which joke to choose.

I saw something a few months ago...can't remember what...might've been a tv show or a movie like THE NAKED GUN....but someone was trying to positively identify a body and they said they couldn't go on dental records because the victim was British. I almost pissed my pants laughing so hard.

In any event, Nolan will do a wonderful job on THE DEATH COLLECTOR. No reason to stick your head in an oven or bite into a cyanide pill.

Nolan is coming. Embrace the inevitability.

At this point, a Mendes-helmed BOND 24 is more likely than a Nolan-helmed BOND 24.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

" they'll (loosely) constitute a two-part story as well as forming a sort of trilogy with SKYFALL (the BOND/M/MONEYPENNY/Q BEGINS trilogy, if you will)."

From whence do you gather this?

I thought it was reported very recently that BONDs 24 and 25 (both to be penned by Logan) would share a storyline in some way (a la CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, presumably). And, assuming that M, Moneypenny and Q will all feature in BONDs 24 and 25, one could construe SKYFALL and its two successors as a sort of "THE NEW REGIME AT MI6 BEGINS" trilogy.

Harmsway wrote:

At this point, a Mendes-helmed BOND 24 is more likely than a Nolan-helmed BOND 24.

Not to mention vastly more desirable.

And why would Eon lash out top dollar for Nolan (who I presume is rather more expensive than Mendes) instead of (if it's possible to do so) getting back Mendes, with whom they already have a relationship?

People would constantly compare a Nolan Bond film to his Batman efforts, a comparison that I imagine Eon needs like a hole in the head. Nolan wouldn't guarantee a hit for BOND 24. It's a guaranteed hit anyway (or as near as these things get to being guaranteed). You don't need a famous director for a hit Bond film (Mendes is probably not a household name).

Besides, hiring Nolan would cause all manner of confusion during production. "I thought you told me to get Nolan on the phone." "No, not Nolan - Logan!"

Loomis wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

" they'll (loosely) constitute a two-part story as well as forming a sort of trilogy with SKYFALL (the BOND/M/MONEYPENNY/Q BEGINS trilogy, if you will)."

From whence do you gather this?

I thought it was reported very recently that BONDs 24 and 25 (both to be penned by Logan) would share a storyline in some way (a la CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, presumably). And, assuming that M, Moneypenny and Q will all feature in BONDs 24 and 25, one could construe SKYFALL and its two successors as a sort of "THE NEW REGIME AT MI6 BEGINS" trilogy.

Craig denied about them being a two-parter.

I see. I was under the impression that Craig had denied that it would be one film split in two, a la BREAKING DAWN PARTs 1 and 2 or KILL BILL VOL.s 1 and 2, not that he'd denied that they would share story elements. However, I stand corrected.

Loomis wrote:

I see. I was under the impression that Craig had denied that it would be one film split in two, a la BREAKING DAWN PARTs 1 and 2 or KILL BILL VOL.s 1 and 2, not that he'd denied that they would share story elements. However, I stand corrected.

No, you're right. That's all he denied. He did not deny that BOND 24 or 25 would share story elements.

Okay. I know it isn't on the cards, but I actually wouldn't mind a Bond film split in two, a la BREAKING DAWN, THE DEATHLY HALLOWS or whatever, especially if it were directed by someone like Mendes. It could be a truly epic and absorbing affair, with subplots expanded and characterisation fleshed out across a huge canvas.

Of course, it could also be a bloated, self-indulgent bore that might as well have been a single film, but in sufficiently skilled directorial hands a four-hour Bond adventure spread across PARTs 1 and 2 could be fascinating.

I think SKYFALL could have worked as a two-part film.

The first part could have started with a little context to the Istanbul mission, showing why MI6 felt there was a danger in the first place, if not what was at stake. It then could have followed some of MI6's early attempts to locate Patrice, before the trail grows cold (explaining how Bond knows the shrapnel in his shoulder could lead them to Patrice). Once he is in Shanghai, he could have investigated the man Patrice assassinates before going to the casino; this would allow him to establish more of a connection between M and Silva (my theory being that Patrice's target was connected to Silva's incarceration). The first part of the film would end with Silva being caught and taken to London.

The second part could then start with an assignment in the 1990s, showing why Silva was M's favourite agent at the time. We could then cut to Bond on a completely unrelated assignment, insinuating that the world thinks the threat posed by Silva is long since over. Silva is either held in isolation or taken to Belmont, while Q works on decrpyting his computers. Rather than cracking the code through his own genius, a time-sensitive function of the code allows him access; this, in turn, facilitates Silva's escape. Bond believes that Silva is going after M at the inquiry, and Bodn races over to it, but Silva never shows, and his interruption happens in such a way that the government holds it up as proof of M's inability to run MI6. Silva could also stage a second attack of some kind, making it look like he is not going after the agency at all. This prompts the government to fire M. Bond is not so sure, and decides to discreetly protect her from Silva. True enough, Silva arrives at her home and tries to kill her, only for Bond to intervene. Now that he has proof Silva is trying to kill M and that the second attack was a distraction, he flees to Skyfall Lodge, and the film would continue the same way as it does.

No, it doesn't need to be elongated.

Well I felt that there were parts the film skimped on - like the target of the assassination and his obvious connection to Silva (after all, the two people that served the most tangible connection to him were there) - and when you've got a cast like Craig, Dench, Fiennes, Bardem and Marlohe, you use them.

Also, there was the way M revealed Silva's real name as if it were some earth-shattering revelation, but there was no context to it. It felt jarring.

FieldsMan wrote:

No, it doesn't need to be elongated.

The only part that I'm in complete agreement with regarding Monkey's plot outline is the idea that the world of MI6 would be interesting to look at beyond just what happens with 007. I've liked the expanded roles for M in the Dench era, and I like the way Q was used in this film. Even the backstory of Moneypenny having once been a field agent feels realistic enough to make it interesting. I'd like to see other 00's on a mission, or maybe Bond is on mission with another 00-agent and, for once, he/she does not betray Bond and try to kill him.

I do like seeing the inner workings of the British political system, so for that I cannot fault SKYFALL or Dench's M. It reminded me, at times, of an extra-long episode of SPOOKS.

Or maybe in the next reboot we could do something really, truly unique and tell the story from the villain's perspective, with 007 being in a supporting role for that film.

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=10676&t=mi6&s=news

Chatting to BBC Radio 4′s Front Row, the director who helmed "Slumdog Millionaire" and directed the opening ceremony of this year's London Summer Olympics says that he wouldn't suit a Bond film.

“Certain people can handle that and I love watching those kinds of films, but I’m much better with a smaller amount of money and trying to make it go a long way.”

That said, Sam Mendes' experience and film choices to date have been on a much less grand scale than a Bond outing, and the "American Beauty" director still managed to helm himself a popular and financially successful 007 adventure.

Christ, no one would be worse than Danny Boyle.

Brett Ratner would.

Nolan is now busy: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118064459/

Get Mendes back on the horn.