Roger Spottiswoode, a primarily British director who has done some Hollywood flicks like The 6th Day and Turner & Hooch.
JAMES BOND director?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
Roger Spottiswoode, a primarily British director who has done some Hollywood flicks like The 6th Day and Turner & Hooch.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I thought Jonathin Pryce (?) matched up well with Brosnan. And it wasn't your typical james bond movie and..I LOVED the song...
Rob
Rob
It'll likely be someone we've never heard of before. They don't tend to use big name directors.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
They should..just once. Would be interesting to see what a big director would do..
Rob
Rob
After his Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, the tabloids had Danny Boyle down for Bond 23. This turned out to be untrue (surprise surprise) but I think he'd made a good 007 movie given a chance.
They should also let Uwe Boll make one, just to see if it's possible to make a worse Bond outing than View to A Kill or Moonraker.
They should also let Uwe Boll make one, just to see if it's possible to make a worse Bond outing than View to A Kill or Moonraker.
The earlier films sort of had the same set of directors (Although John Glen did all the 80s Bonds) or people who had worked on the series previously as editors or producers. I wonder if the films can 'stick' to a director for a couple of films like the older films did. They may not have been the best directors ever, but they made solid, enjoyable Bond films for the most part. The only recurring one we've had lately was Campbell.
One thing Bond shouldn't do is get dramatic directors. The Bond films have always been action/escapist films, with a little bit of drama. However Michael Apted and Marc Foster, while good in their own right given dramatic material, couldn't really properly do action scenes-too many quick cuts and stuff like that.
One thing Bond shouldn't do is get dramatic directors. The Bond films have always been action/escapist films, with a little bit of drama. However Michael Apted and Marc Foster, while good in their own right given dramatic material, couldn't really properly do action scenes-too many quick cuts and stuff like that.
^John Glen and the likes were pretty much hacks, who did little beyond the Bond movies. Campbell came to 007 with a limited cinema resume but the classic tv series Edge of Darkness (which he recently remade as a movie) under his belt. I understand that he was invited back for TND but doesn't like sequels and so didn't return for it (or QOS). He found the invitation to make the first proper movie version of CR irresistible, ditto the chance to give a second 007 his debut and so returned to the franchise for that movie.
I don't agree about not getting dramatic directors. Most of the action on 007 movies has been handled by second unit directors anyway. This wss often the story with many classic Hollywood movies, your Ben Hurs and Longest Days etc. The 'proper' director would do the drama stuff and a second unit director take care of the action. Only recently (by which I mean the last 25 years or so) have the action directors become as important as the dramatic ones.
I take your point about Forster's overly quick cutting, but are you seriously trying to say that people like Michael Bay, Tony Scott etc don't do that sort of thing too?!
I don't agree about not getting dramatic directors. Most of the action on 007 movies has been handled by second unit directors anyway. This wss often the story with many classic Hollywood movies, your Ben Hurs and Longest Days etc. The 'proper' director would do the drama stuff and a second unit director take care of the action. Only recently (by which I mean the last 25 years or so) have the action directors become as important as the dramatic ones.
I take your point about Forster's overly quick cutting, but are you seriously trying to say that people like Michael Bay, Tony Scott etc don't do that sort of thing too?!
I agree. Dan Bradley, who is perhaps one of the busiest and hardest working second unit directors around, has been extremely instrumental in crafting some of the most famous action sequences in movies in recent years. He's worked on the second unit for such films as the Bourne series, the most recent Quantum of Solace, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Spider-Man 3, Superman Returns, The Dukes of Hazzard, Spider-Man 2, Swordfish, and has worked on the stunts for the Bourne films, the Spider-Man films, Crank, and the list continues.
It's important, especially as of late, to have a really good second unit director at your side when you're conceiving and blocking action. That's why you have talented directors who are able to handle the story and characters, and then you have the incredibly instrumental second unit director, who takes care of the action sequences, since modern audiences expect more out of their action, so of course everything needs to be amplified and taken to the next level, and you need someone whose sole responsibility is to handle that task.
The action sequences are a bit hard to understand when you first see them. I'll grant that, but I've seen Quantum of Solace a few times and I think the action works a bit more fluidly than people give it credit for. It's not the best photographed action in recent years, but the car chase at the beginning is very thrilling and the foot case in Italy and then the subsequent sequence with Bond and Mitchel dangling off ropes in that dome-esque structure was well put together with interesting blocking and intriguing visual execution.
I don't think the action was poorly staged in Quantum of Solace, and it had nothing to do with Forster's ineptitude at doing action (especially with Dan Bradley as the second unit director), but it more had to do with the editorial decisions that Forster employed and how we saw those action sequences cut together. Was fast-cutting those sequences the best choice? Possibly not, but it was an artistic choice on Forster's part and it obviously wasn't well-received.
The action in Quantum of Solace is fine. What's missing are the dialogue scenes to hold the plot together. Either Forster was over-compensating for not having done an action movie before, or it was recut by the studio in a way that turned it into a computer game rather than a movie.
"Surrender" by K.D. Lang is much better than what Sheryl Crow came up with.
I liked Daniel Craig, but I wanted either Jason Statham, or Clive Owen to play the part. If Craig gets fed up and leaves, would MGM go with either of these two? Both are bankable, and would guarantee both fans of Bond, and either of these two actors, Statham especially. Or would MGM realise their huge mistake, and beg Brosnan to come back? Sort of a Never Say Never Again situation? Have Martin Campbell direct an official 'final' Bond adventure with Brosnan.
I just can't imagine Jason Statham as 007; it'd be like casting Vin Diesel as Bruce Wayne/ Batman. He's far too working-class and rough edged. And given all the crap that Craig got when cast, how do you think purists would react to a Mockney bald Bond (though Connery did wear a rug for a few movies).
Owen would be better but he's older than Craig and I don't see the latter 'making way for an older man' (as Connery memorably said of being replaced by Moore). I used to think Owen would be a good Bond (after seeing Croupier) but the more I've seen of him, the less I hold to that. He's better as a disshevelled, unlikely hero, as in Children of Men. The slouch, the mumbling - he was recently linked to a revival of Philip Marlowe and I think that's the literary hero turned cinematic franchise he ought to play.
I agree. Plus, Statham plays the same exact role in everything he does: the gruff, angry, kick-ass type. Which is fine, he's obviously carved out a successful niche for himself, but that's not James Bond. That might have been James Bond in Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace (and even then, Craig added more dimension to the role besides being gruff and angry all the time), but the current Bond has evolved past that, with the idea that he would evolve into the more suave, sophisticated James Bond that we've come to know and love. I'd be hard-pressed to see Statham pull that off.
Agreed as well. Owen was on my short list to play Bond for Casino Royale but he has a certain style of acting, almost similar to Statham, that's very narrow. Bond needs to have layers, and that's exactly what Craig brought to the role. I don't think either Statham or Owen have that acting range to bring that complexity to the character that has been required for at least the past two movies.
However, if we're speaking of Craig replacements, even though I loathe the idea, I am partial to Michael Fassbender. He has a certain edge to him, as 300 and Hunger displayed, but he also has that British sort of elegance and properness, as displayed in Inglourious Basterds that's very fitting for Bond. I would say if the producers are going for a Bond more like the Bond of the Roger Moore movies (but not as extreme... maybe closer to Pierce Brosnan) then I think Fassbender would be an excellent choice.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
to hell with that, I want to see the expendables with statham..willis...arnie..Woo...and Rambo!!!
Rob
Rob
