From now on, neither OT nor Nolan Bond will direct. Amazon won't give it to them anyway, they'll bring someone they can more easily direct. It could even be Jonathan Nolan.
The James Bond Film Discussion Thread (With Bonus Lazenby!)
- Thread starter cooleddie74
- Start date
Interestingly I wondered about Tarantino as well. I was wondering, setting aside any extended universe TV show shenanigans, whether Amazon would go with a continuing Bond series, or whether we might get something more akin to the Batman character, where different directors and actors do their own interpretation. So we get a Nolan Bond trilogy, or a Reeves Bond trilogy or a...er...Snyder trilogy 
What would the equivalents be? Nolan would work in either series. Matthew Vaughn? Guy Ritchie?Interestingly I wondered about Tarantino as well. I was wondering, setting aside any extended universe TV show shenanigans, whether Amazon would go with a continuing Bond series, or whether we might get something more akin to the Batman character, where different directors and actors do their own interpretation. So we get a Nolan Bond trilogy, or a Reeves Bond trilogy or a...er...Snyder trilogy
If I were Amazon and were looking for a showrunner or creative director, I’d probably start speaking to the likes of Charlie Higson, Mick Harron, Anthony Horowitz. Anyone got other suggestions?
Roger Moore?
Heck, he was also the one Bond until Craig who didn't have very dark brown or black hair.
I’d have said brown more than blond but yeah, point taken!
The Broccoli family were basically the last representation of old school 20th century film producers who had total creative authority over their films. Not only business savvy, but they had real gut instincts when it came to making hit films. Daniel Craig would have never been considered by anyone else other than Barbara Broccoli and her gut instinct telling her that this was the guy who will make it big as the next James Bond star. No algorithms, no focus groups. Just "you're the guy" and a handshake behind closed doors. Hell, Sean Connery was only considered for Bond after Cubby Broccoli's wife just happened to point him out in a Disney film.
That's the kind of mystique I'll miss, where the big decisions all came down to just one or two people taking a chance. Whoever the new producers for the next Bond film will be will ultimately be answering to those running the company rather than have total autonomy like the Broccolis.
This romanticism of Broccoli (and Saltzman who had left the series 50 years ago) is a little amusing to me. Under other circumstances Barbara and Michael would be the ultimate nepo-babies. Up until ten minutes ago they were what was wrong with the franchise and we needed new blood!
The family made some great films. They made Casino Royale and Goldeneye. They also made No Time to Die. (They also made Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.) Under Cubby's watch we got the double take pigeon. It's a lot of history. The remarkable part is probably that it was never always up or always down.
This might be libel, but other than levels of success how far were Broccoli and Saltzman from the Salkinds? (I mean, they probably didn't have passports in alternate names and I don't think they ever ran off to another country with the master film prints.)
The family made some great films. They made Casino Royale and Goldeneye. They also made No Time to Die. (They also made Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.) Under Cubby's watch we got the double take pigeon. It's a lot of history. The remarkable part is probably that it was never always up or always down.
This might be libel, but other than levels of success how far were Broccoli and Saltzman from the Salkinds? (I mean, they probably didn't have passports in alternate names and I don't think they ever ran off to another country with the master film prints.)
The best thing about a Tarantino Bond film is that he'd only make one. Don't get me wrong, it'd be interesting to see an R rated Bond film with great dialogue, but I think swearing, extreme violence and every character sounding kinda the same would get real boring real quick if it was the default position.
Re @MakeshiftPython's comments yes there was something very different about the Broccoli family and yes they did takes chances, the upside of that was some phenomenal films, the downside was more than a few suboptimal films. There desire to make the Craig era one story meant some clunky plotting, their overreliance on Purvis and Wade as if no other scriptwriter understood Bond (and yes they brought Logan and others in but P&W always seemed their default writers when something wasn't quite working) led to some poor decisions, their obvious burnout when it came to Bond and the fact that we were getting ridiculous gaps between films.
We've had nine films in the last 30 years and frankly only three of them have been classics (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Skyfall). That's my opinion obviously, and it doesn't mean I didn't like the others, there isn't a single Bond film I completely hate, even films like Octopussy or Spectre have their moments, but I do think they should have had a better hit rate than 33.3% of films being bangers, and especially if you're going to spend 3/4/5 years between films then that new film when it shows up needs to be something special.
If you're pumping them out every two years then absolutely they can be a little rough around the edges and that's actually part of the charm, stop trying to make every film Casino Royale, sometimes we just want Tomorrow Never Dies (that's absolutely meant to be a compliment by the way!)
My fear with Amazon is that Tomorrow Never Dies is all we'll get, if that makes sense.
Re @MakeshiftPython's comments yes there was something very different about the Broccoli family and yes they did takes chances, the upside of that was some phenomenal films, the downside was more than a few suboptimal films. There desire to make the Craig era one story meant some clunky plotting, their overreliance on Purvis and Wade as if no other scriptwriter understood Bond (and yes they brought Logan and others in but P&W always seemed their default writers when something wasn't quite working) led to some poor decisions, their obvious burnout when it came to Bond and the fact that we were getting ridiculous gaps between films.
We've had nine films in the last 30 years and frankly only three of them have been classics (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Skyfall). That's my opinion obviously, and it doesn't mean I didn't like the others, there isn't a single Bond film I completely hate, even films like Octopussy or Spectre have their moments, but I do think they should have had a better hit rate than 33.3% of films being bangers, and especially if you're going to spend 3/4/5 years between films then that new film when it shows up needs to be something special.
If you're pumping them out every two years then absolutely they can be a little rough around the edges and that's actually part of the charm, stop trying to make every film Casino Royale, sometimes we just want Tomorrow Never Dies (that's absolutely meant to be a compliment by the way!)
My fear with Amazon is that Tomorrow Never Dies is all we'll get, if that makes sense.
I want to see a new Bond film set in the Sixties. Preferably without green fringing on the actors.
The person in charge is always the villain. See also: Kathleen Kennedy and Alex Kurtzman.
That's my preference as well, but I could also go for a WWII movie about Bond in Naval Intelligence.
Again, I recognize that it's complete fantasy on my part but if Bezos really wants to shake things up and send the message that his Bond will have "prestige," he could do worse than a single, one-off, event film (Tarantino does a period standalone Bond as his final film) before diving into curating the IP.
I would agree, the downside is whether Tarantino would agree, and more importantly whether Amazon would give him a free hand.
Similar threads
