Christopher Nolan approached to direct Bond 24 - Baz Bamigboye

Quote :

Christopher Nolan has been approached to direct the next 007 movie.

It’s early days, but informal talks have begun between Nolan, his representatives and the powers behind the James Bond pictures, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G .Wilson.

Nolan, who made the Batman trilogy Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises — and had time for Inception in between — would be a cool choice after Sam Mendes decided not to shoot Bond 24.

Following the amazing box-office and critical success of Skyfall, Mendes was close to saying ‘yes’ to the next instalment, but had to withdraw because of his theatre commitments Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and King Lear with Simon Russell Beale at the National Theatre.

Also, a lot of unconfirmed chatter has started about Mendes running the National Theatre once Sir Nicholas Hytner steps down in March 2015 after a glorious decade at the helm of the theatrical powerhouse on the South Bank.

There are all sorts of reasons why Nolan might not want to do the next Bond film, though he is known to be an admirer of Bond star Daniel Craig.

For starters, he’s in pre-production of his own next big film, Interstellar, with Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain, and he might prefer not to go straight from one huge production into another.

But as one of my Bond experts commented: ‘It does no harm for Broccoli and Wilson to talk with Nolan, even if nothing happens this time round.’

Mendes told me that there would be at least a year to 18 months of pre-production preparation and then six months of filming involved in Bond 24, and the producers want to shoot the follow-up soon after.

That would be a heavy workload for anyone.

But it would be fascinating to see a film-maker of Nolan’s standing build on what Mendes and the 007 gang has already done with Bond.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2325894/Dark-Knight-rise-James-Bond-Christopher-Nolan-approached-direct-007-film.html

It's the Mail, a pinch of salt is recommended. But we'll see.

Sure, but it is Baz Bamigboye. Practically all of his SKYFALL predictions turned out to be true.

Am guessing it's likely not a development you're exactly chuffed with.

No kidding.

But then there were fears that Mendes was going to turn in a pretentious 'artsy' Bond, which proved unfounded.

Quite right, but even then I knew that Mendes was a bloke with a sense of humour, not a stone cold robot like Nolan.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

But then there were fears that Mendes was going to turn in a pretentious 'artsy' Bond, which proved unfounded.

Did they?

No surprise. He's the most obvious choice, for better or worse.

Loomis wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

But then there were fears that Mendes was going to turn in a pretentious 'artsy' Bond, which proved unfounded.

Did they?

In my opinion, yes.

What with last year's THE DARK BOND RISES---- sorry, I mean SKYFALL, it seems we've already had a Nolan Bond film. Indeed, ever since BATMAN BEGINS helped to pave the way for CASINO ROYALE, Nolan has overshadowed the Craig era just as much as Bourne.

Nolan might not be too bad a choice (Tom Hardy as Blofeld, perhaps?), and perhaps he'd insist on BOND 24 being shot on film, a move that I'd applaud. But I'd rather that Eon found the new Martin Campbell (or hired Campbell himself).

The irony is that SF outdid the Nolan Batman films. I don't mind if Bond goes back to film, but I don't see much of a difference anymore after the way Deakins handled digital in a way that looks better than many contemporary films shot on celluloid.

Loomis wrote:

I'd rather that Eon found the new Martin Campbell (or hired Campbell himself).

I'd prefer EON hold off using Campbell until they need him. And hopefully, they'll never need him again. That's not a criticism of Campbell by any means - I just feel that his strength lies in turning out a good film when it is needed the most. GOLDENEYE came after a six-year hiatus, introduced a new Bond, and put him in a world that had drastically changed since his last outing (what with the Soviet Union having collapsed). And CASINO ROYALE came after a four-year break, also introduced a new Bond, and was following in the wake of the franchise's low point, at a time when a bad film could have killed the franchise off.

I just don't think that Campbell's talent in that field should be abused by having him do regular films.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I just feel that his strength lies in turning out a good film when it is needed the most.

I feel that a good old-fashioned - and fun - James Bond film is what's very sorely needed at this point. Mind you, I'm practically a lone voice round these parts when it comes to SKYFALL, which I find a joyless, bloated bore with very little charm or excitement.

And you think that the man who modernised Bond twice is the right person to make an "old-fashioned" Bond film?

I thought Campbell had stated more than once that directing 2 Bond films had been quite enough for him?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And you think that the man who modernised Bond twice is the right person to make an "old-fashioned" Bond film?

But I wouldn't agree that Campbell "modernised" Bond (if he did, then one could make the same claim of everyone who directed a Bond film since the classic Connery era). He helped to refresh the series with ingredients that had been in place for decades, cooking to a very old recipe. His value lies in his understanding of what makes a good Bond film work and not in any particular skills in modernisation. Indeed, both GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE have a somewhat dated air (which is no bad thing) - the former has more of a 1980s feel than a 1990s one, while there's a strong 1960s retro flavour to the latter.