JAMES BOND director?

[RobertScorpio]

With the new James Bond movie in limbo, and if this means a totally new team, who would you like to see direct the series if Daniel Craig returns? I know Sam Mendes is attached (which I think is not a great choice).

Do you think Bond should gravitate towards Bourne's style of story telling? Or stick with the manical bad guys with super lairs trying to do something wicked?

Rob

 

[Kirkman1987]

Bond needs to lighten up a bit in my opinion. Bond at this point is just an imitation of harder edged spy films. I don't think we need a repeat of the Moore era, but I think a little more of the gadgets and laughs are needed. I think the tone of the Connery films was perfect, and what we need to return to.

 

[T'Baio]

Paul Verhoeven.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I hope Sam Mendes remains attached. He's a fantastic director who has done some really fantastic character-driven films (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road) and plus he directed Road to Perdition, also with Daniel Craig, which was really a terrific film.

I like that the producers were going for not your ordinary director, but someone that has a track record of doing dramatic pieces (like Marc Forster for Quantum of Solace). I mean, that's why you have a second unit director. When you pick someone like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or McG, a lot of times you sacrifice good storytelling over flashy visuals and no substance.

If Mendes doesn't remain attached, I'd still like to see the producers try and get a director of the same caliber. The Bond producers are notorious for never picking someone with too much of a vision, since they never wanted someone to overpower the Bond character (which is why Steven Spielberg has never done a Bond picture), so you have to look at the not-so-obvious choices. Jim Sheridan, who directed last year's Brothers, or Lone Scherfig, who directed An Education, would be interesting contenders. I would love to see what Duncan Jones could do with a James Bond film, however unlikely.

As for the story, I think the direction that it was headed is fine. I'd like to see more of a naturalistic approach to the films, without the wildly over-the-top villains and secret lairs. I think venturing too far into Bourne territory is unnecessary. Maybe reintroduce some classic Bond staples, like Q and Moneypenny, to make sure you know it's a James Bond film, but don't go overboard with the implausible gadgetry or decked out sports cars. I think there's a happy balance you can find -- I think as much as I enjoyed it one of the faults was that Quantum of Solace veered just a little bit too much into Bourne territory -- so you still have the feel and essence of a James Bond film without overindulging.

 

[John Picard]

Bond needs to lighten up a bit in my opinion. Bond at this point is just an imitation of harder edged spy films. I don't think we need a repeat of the Moore era, but I think a little more of the gadgets and laughs are needed. I think the tone of the Connery films was perfect, and what we need to return to.

But that's just it -- read the original Bond books and you'll see that he is dark and gritty.

 

[Cicero]

Bond needs to lighten up a bit in my opinion. Bond at this point is just an imitation of harder edged spy films. I don't think we need a repeat of the Moore era, but I think a little more of the gadgets and laughs are needed. I think the tone of the Connery films was perfect, and what we need to return to.

I agree. My first three choices of director, off the top of my head, would be:

1. Steven Spielberg
2. Bryan Singer
3. Alfonso Cuaron

 

[JacksonArcher]

1. Steven Spielberg

Never going to happen, for reasons I listed above.

2. Bryan Singer

I love Bryan Singer, he's one of my favorite directors, but he'd be all wrong for James Bond. His litany of work has proved he works best when he's with material that focuses more on an ensemble and not a singular character (The Usual Suspects, the X-Men films, Valkyrie) so I don't think he would mesh well with Bond. Plus, he always tries to tap into the emotional epicenter of the material he does, whether that be the homosexual/racism analogy of X-Men, or the lonely outsider aspect of the Superman character, so I'd be afraid that he would be searching for depth that just wouldn't be there with the Bond character.

3. Alfonso Cuaron

I was thinking of Cuaron, but again, he's too much of a visionary for the Bond producers. They want someone who they can sort of order around. I doubt they'd be able to order around Spielberg, Singer or Cuaron.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Matthew Vaughn, who has worked to great effect with Daniel Craig before (Layer Cake), has a strong UK identity (Starburst) and who can make a great piece of escapist action fun (Kick-Ass).

 

[JacksonArcher]

Matthew Vaughn, who has worked to great effect with Daniel Craig before (Layer Cake), has a strong UK identity (Starburst) and who can make a great piece of escapist action fun (Kick-Ass).

I should have mentioned him! Damn you. Yes, yes, Matthew Vaughn would be excellent indeed.

(I hate you.)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I hope you said that in your best 'Anakin-with-his-legs-cut-off-in-the-lava' voice. Oh, the passion.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Honestly, after just seeing Sherlock Holmes, I really would like to see Ritchie. Though, I do seem to remember he was on the CR rumor-mill at one time...

 

[Kirkman1987]

Bond needs to lighten up a bit in my opinion. Bond at this point is just an imitation of harder edged spy films. I don't think we need a repeat of the Moore era, but I think a little more of the gadgets and laughs are needed. I think the tone of the Connery films was perfect, and what we need to return to.

But that's just it -- read the original Bond books and you'll see that he is dark and gritty.

I've read a few over the years.

I understand why many fans want Bond to be gritty. The books are certainly in that vein. However, with 20+ movies and multiple interpretations, I think it's perfectly fair to want a Bond that goes back not to the books, but to the lighter tone of some of the previous films. Bond can still be tense, look at From Russia with Love, but Quantum was dry, almost morbidly played straight. Have fun is all I'm saying.

And at this Point Q and Moneypenny and the gadgets should be standard. They have been a key part of the appeal of this series for decades, and were not at all why the series was faltering before Craig (The gadgets were overused a bit I admit)

Hell, I'm willing to bet Q is a more popular character than Bond among most fans.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^I think you'd lose that bet. Some fans, maybe. Most fans? Ummm no. Otherwise, the movies would be billed 'Desmond Llwellyn/ John Cleese is Q in Ian Fleming's Blah Blah Blah.' But they're not. Last I checked, anyway.

 

[JacksonArcher]

^ I hope you said that in your best 'Anakin-with-his-legs-cut-off-in-the-lava' voice. Oh, the passion.

It was more in his Episode II, whiny, petulant voice. So basically in this instance I'm whiny Anakin, but you're smokin' hot Natalie Portman. Some might call that a good trade off.

Guy Richie would be interesting for Bond, if he could tone down some of his visual flairs that he has become known for.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^Dude, I'm totally Obi-Wan, not Padme. If I was Natalie Portman, I wouldn't be here, I'd be naked playing with myself in front of the mirror.

(Too much information?)

 

[JacksonArcher]

^Dude, I'm totally Obi-Wan, not Padme. If I was Natalie Portman, I wouldn't be here, I'd be naked playing with myself in front of the mirror.

(Too much information?)

More like not enough information, if you know what I'm sayin'.

 

[Rii]

Sue me for being conservative if you like, but I'd go with Martin Campbell, director of Goldeneye and Casino Royale.

I recently got around to seeing Quantum of Solace and it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been led to believe. An even rougher gem than Casino Royale, but a worthy entry in the franchise nonetheless. I keep hearing that the film was humourless, which merely confirms a longstanding suspicion of mine: that Americans have no sense of humour.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Martin Campbell does moderately good movies, but for some reason he makes really good James Bond movies. I'm all for him having another go around.

And I would say Quantum of Solace had more humor and wit than Casino Royale.

 

[RobertScorpio]

1. Steven Spielberg

Never going to happen, for reasons I listed above.

2. Bryan Singer

I love Bryan Singer, he's one of my favorite directors, but he'd be all wrong for James Bond. His litany of work has proved he works best when he's with material that focuses more on an ensemble and not a singular character (The Usual Suspects, the X-Men films, Valkyrie) so I don't think he would mesh well with Bond. Plus, he always tries to tap into the emotional epicenter of the material he does, whether that be the homosexual/racism analogy of X-Men, or the lonely outsider aspect of the Superman character, so I'd be afraid that he would be searching for depth that just wouldn't be there with the Bond character.

3. Alfonso Cuaron

I was thinking of Cuaron, but again, he's too much of a visionary for the Bond producers. They want someone who they can sort of order around. I doubt they'd be able to order around Spielberg, Singer or Cuaron.

Well, I think if Broccoli were smart she would let a visionary come along and bring Bong to another level....

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Sue me for being conservative if you like, but I'd go with Martin Campbell, director of Goldeneye and Casino Royale.

I recently got around to seeing Quantum of Solace and it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been led to believe. An even rougher gem than Casino Royale, but a worthy entry in the franchise nonetheless. I keep hearing that the film was humourless, which merely confirms a longstanding suspicion of mine: that Americans have no sense of humour.

Who did TOMORROW NEVER DIES? I thought that was Brosnan's best 007 movie, not Goldeneye