Bigelow would be an intriguing choice. She’s an Oscar winning director who handles both character and action well. Plus there would be the publicity coup for EON of having a woman direct a James Bond film.
Did a quick bit of research on Directors being changed for films and found a few examples …….
Gone With The Wind, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and Spartacus. Obviously these all turned out
to be terrible, terrible movies !
Well, Victor Fleming and Stanley Kubrick are otherwise unavailable and Eastwood has said that he doesn't like spy films (he only made the Eiger Sanction to get out of his contract with Universal).
If they want a craftsman action director instead of an auteur who will do what EON tells him to do, Simon West might fit the bill. He made Con Air and Expenables II among other action movies.
Mike Newell is also awailable. He directed Donnie Brasco, a Harry Potter, Prince of Persia, Four weddings and a funeral, several Young Indiana Jones episodes etc.
Yes, but can they actually use the script they've been working on or any part of it? If not, forget all this talk about who's now available, because realistically it's going to be another year. During which, they can go after whichever director they want.
If they can use what they've got, well, it sounds really like the kind of thing they've done with every Bond film of late, inc Brosnan's. Get someone in to do a draft, then change get someone to change it. Often as not with the instructions of the studio bigwigs. It sounds like they didn't get Danny to go along with these changes (usually meaning more stunt scenes and diff third act) so he walked.
If they can use, this they can amend it and get someone else on board quick. Thing is, even as of now, directors tend to be very involved in the plots and locations of these films, unlike in the John Glen days.
I don’t think another John Glen-type churn out would hit the mark.
I personally love the John Glen movies, and they are just entertaining (very entertaining) films, and to me that is the main thing that matters.
One day in the future I am hoping for an era where John Glen-type bond movies will resurface and the audience will be more accepting of films like these, instead of the "personal arc" stuff that they keep churning out.
Yet SPECTRE is as entertaining as any of Glen's output, but look how critical people are of it. With or without the personal arc storylines, our expectations are higher than they were 30-odd years ago.
In your opinion it is. But whatever the film, people are overly-critical of everything these days.
I don’t think another John Glen-type churn out would hit the mark.
I personally love the John Glen movies, and they are just entertaining (very entertaining) films, and to me that is the main thing that matters.
One day in the future I am hoping for an era where John Glen-type bond movies will resurface and the audience will be more accepting of films like these, instead of the "personal arc" stuff that they keep churning out.
IMO, the MCU might be what you're looking for. An interesting cross between assembly line films with light character arc stuff that follows through. )
I don't even mind personal arc stuff, I just don't necessarily look for it in Bond. If you look at my list then SF is high, but I think the personal stuff is overdone in bond overall these days. I like films for many different reasons, whether it has a personal arc or not, but the John Glen bond films really do feel like straight out adventures to me, which I like very much.
The problem with Spectre is they started out making a John Glen-style Bond film, but then ended up folding in the personal arc stuff similar to Skyfall. In the end, it was like watching two films mashed into one. That, to me, is the critical flaw with Spectre and why I detest the film.
Seeing how EON tried to get Villenueve and probably Nolan to direct before Boyle I would think they're only interested in getting high profile names. I think that rules out Martin Campbell, yes he's made two of the best received Bond films but that was a long time ago and he's not exactly been churning out blockbusters since then. Lets be thankful for his two contributions to the franchise and focus on finding a new voice instead of constantly trying to retread the past.
Chris Nolan would be the best choice, perhaps? Chris and his brother, Jonathan, write the screenplay, Chris Nolan directs. Bond would need to be recast. I reckon he'd jump at the chance to direct the new Bond actor. Craig would be paid a generous fee for 'leaving the role'.
The media often mention how much Barbara loves Daniel Craig. If she's completely smitten with the guy it's doubtful she would let him go but at the end of the day it's show business. If Nolan can come on board with a decent screenplay and there's a decent new actor out there - it makes sense to go that route. Bond is bigger than Craig. It can and will continue without him.
The problem with Spectre is they started out making a John Glen-style Bond film, but then ended up folding in the personal arc stuff similar to Skyfall. In the end, it was like watching two films mashed into one. That, to me, is the critical flaw with Spectre and why I detest the film.
Wow, I thought I didn't like it but detest. I am very disappointed by it, particularly as I thought Craig was good in it but detest Is a whole other ball game. I think the negativity that some (not all by any means ) feel about it is fueling our frustration with the current state of play.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Recall, that Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney with the character set intact. None of the heroic trio had died, or become so altered as to become unrecognizable. Maybe, you are right. This might be about disposing of an Intellectual Property. Maybe that explains the delay.
BB/MGW want to do a George? Possibly selling to Disney? Dear oh dear. Just imagine it.
Sorry to be like this, cynical, but I've been watching these movies all my life.
2020 release looking likely. IMHO. Or, even worse, another Quantum muddle.
Just. A. Joke.
What is wrong with just making a movie every 2 or 3 years?
Feel really sorry for production crew professionals probably being left in limbo.
Fans? What are they, anyway, according to BB, MGW, especially DC?
Kill Bond? Kill the franchise, too. No matter how they try and do that. No matter how clever they think they're being with that. It will not fly with the mainstream audience. If that is why Boyle walked, my respect for him just went up.
Look at the current destruction of Star Wars being carried out by producers who think they know better than paying customers. Kill or "reimagine" beloved central characters and watch your box office returns crash and burn.
Recall that OHMSS (death of main character) had, at that time, a historically low box office return for the franchise. I remember walking out of the cinema in 1969 feeling "sad". Not, "hey that was a fun movie!"
They needed to get Connery back for DAF to revive it.
Okay, I'm taking your bait. You're saying Eon is determined to sell up after Bond 25? Sell its share to MGM or another studio? This could result in an American playing Bond.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Okay, I'm taking your bait. You're saying Eon is determined to sell up after Bond 25? Sell its share to MGM or another studio? This could result in an American playing Bond.
It’s been mentioned that Eon are interested in selling up - not sure I’d use the word ‘determined’...that’s why it was interesting to find out how long their latest distribution deal was/is...If it’s only a one film deal...
New owners could do whatever they wanted...but would they want to mess too much...?
Comments
Well, Victor Fleming and Stanley Kubrick are otherwise unavailable and Eastwood has said that he doesn't like spy films (he only made the Eiger Sanction to get out of his contract with Universal).
So, we're back to square one, it would seem.
If they can use what they've got, well, it sounds really like the kind of thing they've done with every Bond film of late, inc Brosnan's. Get someone in to do a draft, then change get someone to change it. Often as not with the instructions of the studio bigwigs. It sounds like they didn't get Danny to go along with these changes (usually meaning more stunt scenes and diff third act) so he walked.
If they can use, this they can amend it and get someone else on board quick. Thing is, even as of now, directors tend to be very involved in the plots and locations of these films, unlike in the John Glen days.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In your opinion it is. But whatever the film, people are overly-critical of everything these days.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I don't even mind personal arc stuff, I just don't necessarily look for it in Bond. If you look at my list then SF is high, but I think the personal stuff is overdone in bond overall these days. I like films for many different reasons, whether it has a personal arc or not, but the John Glen bond films really do feel like straight out adventures to me, which I like very much.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
The media often mention how much Barbara loves Daniel Craig. If she's completely smitten with the guy it's doubtful she would let him go but at the end of the day it's show business. If Nolan can come on board with a decent screenplay and there's a decent new actor out there - it makes sense to go that route. Bond is bigger than Craig. It can and will continue without him.
Wow, I thought I didn't like it but detest. I am very disappointed by it, particularly as I thought Craig was good in it but detest Is a whole other ball game. I think the negativity that some (not all by any means ) feel about it is fueling our frustration with the current state of play.
I find that surprising as I thought that was his radical idea . Really starting not to care much one way or another TBH.
new owner of the rights, a clean slate ?
Recall, that Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney with the character set intact. None of the heroic trio had died, or become so altered as to become unrecognizable. Maybe, you are right. This might be about disposing of an Intellectual Property. Maybe that explains the delay.
BB/MGW want to do a George? Possibly selling to Disney? Dear oh dear. Just imagine it.
Sorry to be like this, cynical, but I've been watching these movies all my life.
2020 release looking likely. IMHO. Or, even worse, another Quantum muddle.
Just. A. Joke.
What is wrong with just making a movie every 2 or 3 years?
Feel really sorry for production crew professionals probably being left in limbo.
Fans? What are they, anyway, according to BB, MGW, especially DC?
Kill Bond? Kill the franchise, too. No matter how they try and do that. No matter how clever they think they're being with that. It will not fly with the mainstream audience. If that is why Boyle walked, my respect for him just went up.
Look at the current destruction of Star Wars being carried out by producers who think they know better than paying customers. Kill or "reimagine" beloved central characters and watch your box office returns crash and burn.
Recall that OHMSS (death of main character) had, at that time, a historically low box office return for the franchise. I remember walking out of the cinema in 1969 feeling "sad". Not, "hey that was a fun movie!"
They needed to get Connery back for DAF to revive it.
I agree. Thank you for the reminder.
Just frustrated at the possibilities 25 might be delayed. It's too early in the morning here, to be rational.
How do they do Bond 26? Is the next Bond just pretending to be Bond? ?:)
The ghost of Bond?
Doesn’t matter...new owners, new actor...and Eon neatly tie up their ownership.
It’s been mentioned that Eon are interested in selling up - not sure I’d use the word ‘determined’...that’s why it was interesting to find out how long their latest distribution deal was/is...If it’s only a one film deal...
New owners could do whatever they wanted...but would they want to mess too much...?
It’s just something I heard over a year ago...
I honestly thought it would have been the other way round. Wow. Definitely a bigger reason for a dispute than a russian villain casting argument.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby