Whos Should Direct?

[Brian Braddock]

Quentin Tarintino

Personally, I've always felt that a good Bond director should (obviously) be good at what he does yet shouldnt have too much of his own distinctive style.

For some reason, the notion of Tarantina Bond film sends a shudder down my spine.

 

[FelixLeiter]

I think Matthew Vaughn would be a good choice and a safe choice. I'd really be disappointed with Quientin Tarintino. I think he'd be more interested on putting his spin on Bond than continuing the established story.

 

[Brian Braddock]

I think Matthew Vaughn would be a good choice and a safe choice. I'd really be disappointed with Quientin Tarintino. I think he'd be more interested on putting his spin on Bond than continuing the established story.

My thoughts too.

 

[darknite17]

Mike Newell who did an excellent job on Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and Harry Potter. Good director Fughedabourrit!

 

[Brian2887]

1. Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin, Wicker Park, Gangster #1)
Best choice. He is an amazing director who knows how to do action, drama, twists, turns, etc. He would be plain perfect.

2. Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake)
He's worked with Craig before, and he is an impressive director. He'd be great.

3. James McTeigue (V for Vendetta)
V is a great movie. This guy knows how to mix drama and action very well.

 

[Threshold]

1. Martin Campbell - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The first Bond director, Terence Young, was the director for DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and THUNDERBALL. If he'd have directed GOLDFINGER, he'd have been the director of the holy trinity of Connery/Bond films. Give Campbell a ton of money to continue his work from Casino Royale!

2. Mike Newell - A wonderfull British director, who helmed DONNIE BRASCO, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, and MONA LISA SMILE before hitting the BIGTIME with HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. Now, more than ever, he's proven that he has the grace, taste, and ability to make a wonderful and classic Bond thriller.

3. Matthew Vaughn - I loved Layer Cake, I'm sure I'll love Stardust, and I'd love to love him directing Daniel Craig in a Bond film. He's obviously been rumored for sequel-directing-duty ever since being one of the contenders for the helm of CASINO ROYALE. He'd be good, complex & unorthodox, but good nonetheless.

4. Quentin Tarantino - Shut him up about his whole "claim to coming up with Casino Royale" by offering the ridiculously loved director the "big seat" at the Bond 22 table. He's a MASSIVE fan and would possibly do it.

5. Shane Meadows - Directed the wonderfully indieesque DEAD MAN'S SHOES and showed a real eye for a gritty, anti-flashy human drama. He seems like the kind of director who starts small and works his way up to getting to play with the big toys in the playchest. I'm not as behind him as the first three, but he'd still be a name I'd be thrilled to have behind the franchise.

 

[paec_djinn]

3. James McTeigue (V for Vendetta)
V is a great movie. This guy knows how to mix drama and action very well.

Definitely a great wildcard choice. He isn't attached to anything at the present moment (which is a shame considering how good V was), and I think if he could helm this film, I'll really be looking forward to it, even more than I was to Casino Royale.

 

[Mr Jide]

Threshold, brilliant post.

 

[Threshold]

Threshold, brilliant post.

Haha, thanks Mr. 7000, I suppose it is a pretty impressive post for one written at 3:00am.

I could totally see Campbell taking the reigns again, but if not... These are some decent directors to choose from. Granted that they'd want to do it, of course.

Just pick someone who will deliver another Bond film that manages to make a classic 007 thriller and a potent character drama. Newell did that in spades with the fourth Harry Potter film. I think he's got my vote.

Spoiler

I always get teary during Goblet of Fire. At the end, after the duel and seeing his parent's ghosts, when Harry is screaming and holding Cedrics. That ALWAYS gets me.

I want that talent involved with Bond. No doubt about it.

Any other ideas?

 

[SlyDark Star]

Dammit it's going to be a repeat of the Brosnan run again without Campbell, why won't he do it? He would get alot of money!

 

[JamesBond007]

Martin Campbell should come back. He did a hell of a job with GoldenEye, he did an even better one with Casino Royale, he should direct the next two

 

[Josh Bond]

How about Joss Whedon? Or Brian Singer?

 

[JackBauer]

Singer might work. he can do action and a good thriller.

Whedon? as much as I like him, he's just wrong for this.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Singer might work. he can do action and a good thriller.

Whedon? as much as I like him, he's just wrong for this.

Damn straight. With Whedons' penchant for strong, kick-ass women; Bond would probably be made 2nd fiddle to a girl (see TND with Michelle Yeoh/Khan and DAD with Halle Berry).

:


As good as he is at doing his own thing - he'd be wrong for this.

 

[Hunter Rider]

http://www.latinoreview.com/news.php?id=2030

Who Will Direct Bond 22?
Date: May 21, 2007

By: El Mayimbe
Source: Latino Review

El Mayimbe here...

The rumor and possible big news that I am trying to confirm is that James Bond 22 is out to Marc Forster to direct. Supposedly Marc Forster, Tony Scott, Alex Proyas, and Jonathan Mostow all met on it for the job of directing the next Bond flick.

Stay tuned as more develops and I should have the script for Bond 22 shortly.

Hasta el proximo capitulo...

...YO SOY EL MAYIMBE!

 

[Everyman]

Tony Scott would be a mistake. Too well known.

 

[Hunter Rider]

They won't go with Scott,they won't want someone who as an actual individual style but i'd love him to do it.

 

[Darth Elektra]

I would love Tony Scott, but I dont see them going with him.

 

[The Trainman]

A script review for 'Bond 22'? Awesome!!

 

[Furious Styles]

Tony Scott would be something awesome. He has a great visual style. However, I think they should go with the director who is best suited to capture the intended feel of Bond 22. If that director is too well known or not, who cares.

 

[Everyman]

Tony Scott would be something awesome. He has a great visual style. However, I think they should go with the director who is best suited to capture the intended feel of Bond 22. If that director is too well known or not, who cares.

Scott has no substance, and it's not like he directed such good movies anyway. As for the importance of being an unknown, Broccoli said to Spielberg that he was producing Bond movies, not SPielberg movies. So yes, it matters. The only renowned (sort of) director to every make a Bond film was Lee tamahori. We have seen the result.

 

[Furious Styles]

Scott has no substance, and it's not like he directed such good movies anyway. As for the importance of being an unknown, Broccoli said to Spielberg that he was producing Bond movies, not SPielberg movies. So yes, it matters. The only renowned (sort of) director to every make a Bond film was Lee tamahori. We have seen the result.

Top Gun, Days Of Thunder, Crimson Tide, Spy Game, although certainly not Oscar Worthy, are considered good films. Enemy of the State, Man on Fire and True Romance are films that have also been reasonably acclaimed. As you have pointed out, Scott's films aren't known for their profound substance, Tony Scott is known for his visual flare. Which has always been a strongpoint in the Bond series.

The fact that Tamahori was a (debatebly) renowned director was not the reason Die Another Day failed. DAD failed because of Wade and Purvis' ridiculous and childish script, along with EON's inane willingness to make the 20th Bond film some sort of 2 hour homage to the rest of the series that bordered on self parody and Tamahori's (and EON's) decision to try and make this Bond the biggest of them all, without any regard for substance or story.

Brocolli's regard for unknown directors has more to do with ego and artistic control than it has to do with maintaining some level of artistic quality. Considering Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark, which absolutely trumps any Bond film from the 80's and most of the rest of the series, I'd say it was Brocolli's stubborness to compromise which lead to his desire for unknown directors. While, Spielberg ruled the movie universe, Brocolli gave us John Glen, who directed many Bond films in the style of a made for TV movie.

Luckily, Brocolli and EON have always had brilliant actors to save the films from the mediocrity of recycled plots and tired action scenes. If Barbara and Michael G. can escape from Cubby's approach to the Bond franchise and learn from their mistakes during Brosnan's tenure and continue their success with Craig and Casino Royale, Bond fans will be in for one hell of a ride.

 

[Everyman]

Top Gun, Days Of Thunder, Crimson Tide, Spy Game, although certainly not Oscar Worthy, are considered good films. Enemy of the State, Man on Fire and True Romance are films that have also been reasonably acclaimed. As you have pointed out, Scott's films aren't known for their profound substance, Tony Scott is known for his visual flare. Which has always been a strongpoint in the Bond series.

The fact that Tamahori was a (debatebly) renowned director was not the reason Die Another Day failed. DAD failed because of Wade and Purvis' ridiculous and childish script, along with EON's inane willingness to make the 20th Bond film some sort of 2 hour homage to the rest of the series that bordered on self parody and Tamahori's (and EON's) decision to try and make this Bond the biggest of them all, without any regard for substance or story.

Brocolli's regard for unknown directors has more to do with ego and artistic control than it has to do with maintaining some level of artistic quality. Considering Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark, which absolutely trumps any Bond film from the 80's and most of the rest of the series, I'd say it was Brocolli's stubborness to compromise which lead to his desire for unknown directors. While, Spielberg ruled the movie universe, Brocolli gave us John Glen, who directed many Bond films in the style of a made for TV movie.

Luckily, Brocolli and EON have always had brilliant actors to save the films from the mediocrity of recycled plots and tired action scenes. If Barbara and Michael G. can escape from Cubby's approach to the Bond franchise and learn from their mistakes during Brosnan's tenure and continue their success with Craig and Casino Royale, Bond fans will be in for one hell of a ride.

Scott directed a few good movies, but not half as many as his admirers think. Top Gun was a catchy mediocre movie, Spy Game had its share of ridiculous elements 9such as characters who were not aging over decades).

Tamahori was part of the reasons why DAD failed. Not the only one, but in the end, it's his movie, his responsibility. He made some very questionable decisions that emphacised the mistakes of the script.

As for Broccoli, he did made the franchise formulaic, yes, but he also managed to maintain the essence of a formula that is now being reestablished with CR: unknown casting, real stunts, exotic locations, sinister villains, atmosphere, etc. If anything, CR is a return to the sources of the franchise, to the early years, not a departure from it.

 

[Everyman]

Top Gun, Days Of Thunder, Crimson Tide, Spy Game, although certainly not Oscar Worthy, are considered good films. Enemy of the State, Man on Fire and True Romance are films that have also been reasonably acclaimed. As you have pointed out, Scott's films aren't known for their profound substance, Tony Scott is known for his visual flare. Which has always been a strongpoint in the Bond series.

The fact that Tamahori was a (debatebly) renowned director was not the reason Die Another Day failed. DAD failed because of Wade and Purvis' ridiculous and childish script, along with EON's inane willingness to make the 20th Bond film some sort of 2 hour homage to the rest of the series that bordered on self parody and Tamahori's (and EON's) decision to try and make this Bond the biggest of them all, without any regard for substance or story.

Brocolli's regard for unknown directors has more to do with ego and artistic control than it has to do with maintaining some level of artistic quality. Considering Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark, which absolutely trumps any Bond film from the 80's and most of the rest of the series, I'd say it was Brocolli's stubborness to compromise which lead to his desire for unknown directors. While, Spielberg ruled the movie universe, Brocolli gave us John Glen, who directed many Bond films in the style of a made for TV movie.

Luckily, Brocolli and EON have always had brilliant actors to save the films from the mediocrity of recycled plots and tired action scenes. If Barbara and Michael G. can escape from Cubby's approach to the Bond franchise and learn from their mistakes during Brosnan's tenure and continue their success with Craig and Casino Royale, Bond fans will be in for one hell of a ride.

Scott directed a few good movies, but not half as many as his admirers think. Top Gun was a catchy mediocre movie, Spy Game had its share of ridiculous elements 9such as characters who were not aging over decades).

Tamahori was part of the reasons why DAD failed. Not the only one, but in the end, it's his movie, his responsibility. He made some very questionable decisions that emphacised the mistakes of the script. You read interviews of him during filming, and it was obvious he was clueless about Bond, he also tought he was better/bigger than the franchise.

As for Broccoli, he did made the franchise formulaic, yes, but he also managed to maintain the essence of a formula that is now being reestablished with CR: unknown casting, real stunts, exotic locations, sinister villains, atmosphere, etc. If anything, CR is a return to the sources of the franchise, to the early years, not a departure from it.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I'd love for Scott to take it,he's an awesome director IMO and will bring a flair to the franchise,rather than cut and paste,Campbell is my first choice to comeback but if they go new Scott would actually make it different and not a retread of what has gone before