Director Christopher Nolan keen to direct Bond at some point

Control wrote:

Tits or locked.

Yeah.

What he said.

Control wrote:

Jackson or Spielberg would be interesting.

They're both Bond fans (Jackson has commented on how much he admires OHMSS).

Control wrote:

I've always wanted to see that "James Bond vs. Velociraptors" concept come to life.

Ala SERPENT'S TOOTH?

Control wrote:

Jackson or Spielberg would be interesting.

Their salary maybe more than what EON and Sony will pay.

I can't see it ever happening and wouldn't really want it to, either.

I'm sure Harms and Sykes are on the VON TRIER FOR BOND 24 train, though. ;)

Peter Jackson would surely bring to screen Dr. No's giant squid... played by Andy Serkis, no doubt.

From Harmsway's list, I think Ritchie or Yates would work.

Martin McDonagh is another good potential (although I'm not a fan of The Guard). Matthew Vaughn would also be a safer choice.

Harmsway wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Can someone post a list of the "blockbuster directors" in Hollywood right now.? There's got to be someone better.

J.J. Abrams
Michael Bay
Brad Bird
James Cameron
Jon Favreau
Ron Howard
Peter Jackson
Brett Ratner
Guy Ritchie
Steven Spielberg
Gore Verbinski
David Yates

Spielberg would have been great for the 1970s/1980s. CRYSTAL SKULL however indicates he might not be thrilled about the protagonist using his licence to kill, so he's probably better off with hi TINTIN vehicles. Brad Bird would be nice, he's got the gist when it comes to action/adventure pictures. I doubt Bird would get the gig, unless EON finally breaks their rule and willing to hire an American director.

He can team up with Fincher, Whedon and Tarantino in order to cause the Internet to blow up.

Control wrote:

I'm sure Harms and Sykes are on the VON TRIER FOR BOND 24 train, though. ;)

So is Bond going to get castrated in this one?

For Bond 24 or 25.

J.J. Abrams - NO
Michael Bay- NO
Brad Bird - Maybe although I wasn't quite impressed with MI4 as everyone else.
James Cameron - No
Jon Favreau - No
Ron Howard - Definitely not
Peter Jackson - I thought he was making TINTIN?
Brett Ratner - :lol:
Guy Ritchie - NO
Steven Spielberg - Won't happen
Gore Verbinski - NO
David Yates - Possible but I have to see his non- Potter work.

I said it before at MI6 and I will say it again.

Florent-Emilio Siri

bondfan06 wrote:

For Bond 24 or 25.

J.J. Abrams - NO
Michael Bay- NO
Brad Bird - Maybe although I wasn't quite impressed with MI4 as everyone else.
James Cameron - No
Jon Favreau - No
Ron Howard - Definitely not
Peter Jackson - I thought he was making TINTIN?
Brett Ratner -
Guy Ritchie - NO
Steven Spielberg - Won't happen
Gore Verbinski - NO
David Yates - Possible but I have to see his non- Potter work.

tbh I would think Nolan would be a better choice than any of these save perhaps Spielberg (and even that depends which Spielberg turns up on the day - as noted Cystal Skull was a very lazy and uninspired effort).

But the big problem with most of these (Nolan included) is how much of themselves they bring to the party, imo Bond's identity is somewhat under siege atm those elements that make him unique are being driven into the background amid PC worries and conflicting agenda's so these directors simply adding yet another agenda of their own to the mix is not imo a good thing. For myself its better to give the job to someone fresh, someone who hasn't got the luxury of a previous blockbuster to coast on, probably someone I've never heard of.

Harmsway wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Can someone post a list of the "blockbuster directors" in Hollywood right now.? There's got to be someone better.

J.J. Abrams
Michael Bay
Brad Bird
James Cameron
Jon Favreau
Ron Howard
Peter Jackson
Brett Ratner
Guy Ritchie
Steven Spielberg
Gore Verbinski
David Yates

Well, I take the Spielberger and Brad Bird over Chris Nolan any day. Couldn't give a toss about the others. David Yates has got to be the most boring and anonymous British director since Alan Parker.

All this talk might not even matter. If Skyfall does well, it seems like it would be Sam Mendes' job to lose.

If Skyfall does well both financially and critically, Mendes can direct Bond 24 and Bond 25.

it only makes sense!

Look what happened with CR and QoS!

CR with Martin Campbell = Good

QoS without Martin Campbell = SUCKS

Jack Wade wrote:

All this talk might not even matter. If Skyfall does well, it seems like it would be Sam Mendes' job to lose.

Besides Roger Spottiswoode, EON has asked every director since Martin Campbell to come back for a second consecutive go but they always declined. Sam Mendes would be the first two break cycle that if he were to return, so who knows. I guess we'll see how the stars align.

They asked Apted back? TAMAHORI?!!!!!!!

Yeah, Apted declined because he found the experience of shooting a Bond film overwhelming. Come to think of it, I think Tamahori was interested in returning before EON decided to take the series in a new direction.

Triviachamp wrote:

Control wrote:

I'm sure Harms and Sykes are on the VON TRIER FOR BOND 24 train, though. ;)

So is Bond going to get castrated in this one?

I thought that already happened.

Control wrote:

Triviachamp wrote:

Control wrote:

I'm sure Harms and Sykes are on the VON TRIER FOR BOND 24 train, though. ;)

So is Bond going to get castrated in this one?

I thought that already happened.

And what about the female genital mutiliation?

Makeshift Python wrote:

Yeah, Apted declined because he found the experience of shooting a Bond film overwhelming. Come to think of it, I think Tamahori was interested in returning before EON decided to take the series in a new direction.

I. e., Eon came to its senses.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Yeah, Apted declined because he found the experience of shooting a Bond film overwhelming. Come to think of it, I think Tamahori was interested in returning before EON decided to take the series in a new direction.

I. e., Eon came to its senses.

ie, EON regained consicuousness.

The backlash to DAD was pretty severe.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Yeah, Apted declined because he found the experience of shooting a Bond film overwhelming. Come to think of it, I think Tamahori was interested in returning before EON decided to take the series in a new direction.

I. e., Eon came to its senses.

ie, EON regained consicuousness.

The backlash to DAD was pretty severe.

Superficially I'd agree but its puzzling in the context of what might be termed meaningful facts and figures.

To its release DAD was the most financially successful Bond yet (without inflationary adjustments with it is the 5th highest in the series), it is difficult to feel DAD in isolation was the real reason for the change. Even the Bourne influence is relative, Bond worldwide BO easily overwhelms 'Identity' (Supremacy being a year away). Indeed Boxofficemojo.com suggests the US domestic, adjusted for inflation, still places DAD over Casino Royale.

Is the fanboi and critical backlash really able to shout above the message of hard cash?

lachesis wrote:

Is the fanboi and critical backlash really able to shout above the message of hard cash?

Babs has admitted that they've screwed up before, and I think MGW said that, post-DAD, they realised that they had gone too far. Since there was no easy way to bring the franchise back down to earth, they decided to bite the bullet and reboot the franchise with a new Bond.

So yes, I like to think that fan reactions registered with them. Maybe they didn't "listen" in the sense that they went out and polled all the Bond fans to see what worked and what didn't, but even EON was willing to accept that things had been getting out of hand for a while.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Is the fanboi and critical backlash really able to shout above the message of hard cash?

Babs has admitted that they've screwed up before, and I think MGW said that, post-DAD, they realised that they had gone too far. Since there was no easy way to bring the franchise back down to earth, they decided to bite the bullet and reboot the franchise with a new Bond.

So yes, I like to think that fan reactions registered with them. Maybe they didn't "listen" in the sense that they went out and polled all the Bond fans to see what worked and what didn't, but even EON was willing to accept that things had been getting out of hand for a while.

I agree with this. And if PM is correct, there is reason for hoping that Bond will never fly completely off the rails--in one direction or the other.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Is the fanboi and critical backlash really able to shout above the message of hard cash?

Babs has admitted that they've screwed up before, and I think MGW said that, post-DAD, they realised that they had gone too far. Since there was no easy way to bring the franchise back down to earth, they decided to bite the bullet and reboot the franchise with a new Bond.

So yes, I like to think that fan reactions registered with them. Maybe they didn't "listen" in the sense that they went out and polled all the Bond fans to see what worked and what didn't, but even EON was willing to accept that things had been getting out of hand for a while.

Making money will always be first priority.

I think the Bond producers looked first to Batman, before Bourne, to see how much money rebooting a series could earn them. It seems like BATMAN BEGINS launched a line of "dark and gritty" reboots and they registered well with fans. For some reason, fans seem to think ultra-violent characters and down-to-earth storylines (within unreal, fictional universes) make films better.

EON made it seem like they were going to do this with James Bond in CASINO ROYALE, but that truly wasn't the case. James Bond still bounced around sinking houses and dodged bullets like it was going out of style, as he did in the Brosnan era. Nothing had changed except for slapping the word "reboot" onto the entire series, subtracting Brosnan and adding Craig, and telling fans that Bond was now more "Fleming-esque". Things would have turned out a lot better if EON had trashed Purvis and Wade. I have no idea why they're keeping those shitheads around, but I also suspect it has to do with money. After all, they penned shitty, yet successful, James Bond flicks in the past. If the cash train ain't broke, then don't fix it, right?

With SKYFALL, it seems like Mendes and EON are going to truly reboot this franchise, for better or for worse. I'm no fan of Mendes, by any means, but it seems like he knows the character of James Bond well (and has even indicated that he's read the source material, too) and realizes that the past two films took things a little too seriously. I hope to see him balance the fictional elements of Bond with the more serious elements of Bond's universe. I also hope they take some snippets and plot ideas from Fleming's left over material.