Do you think Craig's Defiance director could do Bond 23?

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

I think Edward Zwick might be a good choice because he has worked with Daniel Craig before and unlike Marc Forster, Zwick doesn't like shakey cam. Edward Zwick said as much in his XM Cinemagic interview when he talked about Defiance.

Dan Same · June 2009

I loathed The Siege. He hasn't done anything which has truly excited me. I enjoyed Glory and The Last Samurai, but that was mostly due to the performances (plus I also have a love for the Samurai which added to my enjoyment of the latter film). I wouldn't be offended if he's picked, but there are plenty of other non-star directors they could hire instead.

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

Dan Same wrote:

I loathed The Siege. He hasn't done anything which has truly excited me. I enjoyed Glory and The Last Samurai, but that was mostly due to the performances (plus I also have a love for the Samurai which added to my enjoyment of the latter film). I wouldn't be offended if he's picked, but there are plenty of other non-star directors they could hire instead.

You didn't say anything about Defiance or Blood Diamond so I take it you haven't seen those films.

thesecretagent · June 2009

I watched Defiance last night and it's a fine film. I wasn't aware Blood Diamond was the same director - that's a good film as well - certainly the only film to make Lionardo Dicaprio look good in my opinion.

Loeffelholz · June 2009

thesecretagent wrote:

I watched Defiance last night and it's a fine film. I wasn't aware Blood Diamond was the same director - that's a good film as well - certainly the only film to make Lionardo Dicaprio look good in my opinion.

Just got Defiance in the mail today; I'm looking forward to watching it. Ed Zwick always turns in a good film, IMO...he strikes me as one of those directors who gets out of the way of the story----which is a good thing. He seems to work exceptionally well in the historical milieu...

Dan Same · June 2009

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

I loathed The Siege. He hasn't done anything which has truly excited me. I enjoyed Glory and The Last Samurai, but that was mostly due to the performances (plus I also have a love for the Samurai which added to my enjoyment of the latter film). I wouldn't be offended if he's picked, but there are plenty of other non-star directors they could hire instead.

You didn't say anything about Defiance or Blood Diamond so I take it you haven't seen those films.

I've seen Blood Diamond (forgot about that one) and I liked it alot. I was actually pretty impressed with his direction on that film, although I still don't think he should be hired; too generic, I'm unconvinced that he can handle action scenes and there are plenty of ther non-star directors out there, many of whom are IMO alot more talented.

As for Defiance, this is one film which I've had no desire to see. Not only do I find Daniel Craig completely unappealing as a lead, but the story doesn't really whet my appetite, and I've heard some really disappointing things about it, including from sources that I trust. I'm sure I'll see it eventually, but there were a few times when I had the opportunity to see it, and I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

Number24 · June 2009

I haven't seen Defiance yet. Perhaps i'll get to see it this sunday when it screens on the local cinema. This is not a very urban place

But Ed Zwick tends to be very conservative and middle-middle-of the-road in his style = boring
He does get extra credit for chosing unconventional places to set his stories (19th century Japan, Sierra Leone, Belarus) but it doesn't compensate for his conservative style and incredibly worthy themes. A critic once wrote that Zwick should find characters as interesting as his themes and settings. I think they should find a more exiting non-americans like Christopher Nolan, Peter Weir, Danny Boyle, Guy Ritchie, Mike Newell, Sam Mendes, Alfonso Cuaron or Fernando Meirilles.

Gassy Man · June 2009

Zwick's best film may be Glory -- after that, he seemed to lose whatever sense of vision that kept him marginally above workman-like in his approach.

That said, I would rather they avoid giving the film to an "arthouse" director like Forster, whose decision to edit the film in an ADHD manner and chop out the more interesting character bits in the name of action marred what should have been a great follow-up to "Casino Royale."

I'd nominate Guillermo del Toro. If you watch Pan's Labyrinth for its directing style and cinematography, it almost looks like a film shot in the 1960s. On top of that, he has a sense of control over the actors and the narrative that most directors today -- who make movies more like TV shows -- seem to completely lack.

00-Agent · June 2009

The only films of his that I have seen are Glory, Blood Diamond, and Defiance. I have to say they are all above average films in my opinion. In all three of these films I find that I got lost in the story and forgot about everything else. A good story deserves most of the credit for that probably but the director deserves some credit too. I'd say he is definitely an above average director and I think he would be a good choice. They definitely could do worse.

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

Dan Same wrote:

There are plenty of ther non-star directors out there, many of whom are IMO alot more talented.

Don't you mean unknown directors? Because "non-star directors" doesn't sound like proper grammar to me.

Anyway I'm not really interested in seeing Ed Zwick take up the mantle of Bond director for the next film. I just threw his name out there because Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli might end up picking him.

The person I actually want for Bond 23 is Batman director Christopher Nolan but he's not going to do it because right now he's busy filming Inception and after that his next movie is the third and possibly final Batman film. (Chris Nolan made a deal with Warner Brothers and the folks at Warner said they'd finance Inception if Nolan agreed to do another Batman film.)

If Nolan walks away from the Batman franchise after doing a third film we might get to see him do Bond 24 or Bond 25 in the near future.

Dan Same · June 2009

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

There are plenty of ther non-star directors out there, many of whom are IMO alot more talented.

Don't you mean unknown directors? Because "non-star directors" doesn't sound like proper grammar to me.

No, I meant non-star. Whether it's proper grammar or not doesn't concern me.

A director may be known, and may be quite famous, but it does not mean that he is a star. I don't want a star-director to drect Bond. For example, I would hate it if Spielberg directed a Bond film. Zwick is a non-star director; he's relatively well known, but he's not a star in any sense of the word.

Regarding Nolan, he's almost as bad at shooting action scenes as Forster. Plus, I also didn't like TDK. I hope he's not hired either.

wahwahkits · June 2009

I really don't mind who directs the next film as long as it isn't Marc Foster after the mess he made of QoS.

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

Dan Same wrote:

No, I meant non-star. Whether it's proper grammar or not doesn't concern me.

Regarding Nolan, he's almost as bad at shooting action scenes as Forster. Plus, I also didn't like TDK. I hope he's not hired either.

Well "non-star" sounds retarded when it's read out loud in my opinion. And as for Nolan I don't care if you think he's a bad action film director, I want to see him make a Bond film someday it doesn't matter to me if you're against it.

Loeffelholz · June 2009

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Well "non-star" sounds retarded when it's read out loud in my opinion.

Well, that's a fascinating insight, Jimmy---I'm not sure about the grammar, but it's a perfectly valid term to describe someone who isn't a star. "Non-athlete" would seem to work quite well in a different context...as would "nonessential," "nonconsequential," "nonsense" and "non sequitur." At any rate, it simply makes it look like you're being argumentative for its own sake...which doesn't reflect particularly well on you...in my opinion. So let's try to keep insults out of the discussion, shall we? Thanks very much.

Meanwhile, I think Eon could do much worse than Zwick for #23---the very fact that he's got such limited support here (like Craig/the reboot just three years ago) makes him intriguing to me!---especially since he strikes me as someone who won't take the "look at my camera angles!" approach

All the same, I doubt they'll go non-British* (or extended Commonwealth) two times in a row...but that said, they'll probably do just that!

* _{Yet another pertinent 'non-'!}

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

Loeffelholz wrote:

Well, that's a fascinating insight, Jimmy---I'm not sure about the grammar, but it's a perfectly valid term to describe someone who isn't a star. "Non-athlete" would seem to work quite well in a different context...as would "nonessential," "nonconsequential," "nonsense" and "non sequitur." At any rate, it simply makes it look like you're being argumentative for its own sake...which doesn't reflect particularly well on you...in my opinion. So let's try to keep insults out of the discussion, shall we? Thanks very much.

Meanwhile, I think Eon could do much worse than Zwick for #23---the very fact that he's got such limited support here (like Craig/the reboot just three years ago) makes him intriguing to me!---especially since he strikes me as someone who won't take the "look at my camera angles!" approach

All the same, I doubt they'll go non-British* (or extended Commonwealth) two times in a row...but that said, they'll probably do just that!

I didn't mean to insinuate that I was insulting Dan Same, I just honestly think the word "non-star" sounds a little retarded.

By the way if Christopher Nolan could somehow manage to film Bond 23 within the next year, do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing Loeffelholz?

Loeffelholz · June 2009

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

I didn't mean to insinuate that I was insulting Dan Same, I just honestly think the word "non-star" sounds a little retarded.

By the way if Christopher Nolan could somehow manage to film Bond 23 within the next year, do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing Loeffelholz?

It wasn't simply an insinuation, and the continued use of the above word is frankly a bit ugly, and borderline offensive in and of itself. One of the great things about AJB is that we endeavour to rise above the vernacular of the unwashed

I'll say nothing further on the subject.

As for Nolan, I'm quite a fan of his Batman films...but one of my few gripes with his style is the 'close-in' way he chooses to frame hand-to-hand action, which poses a problem similar to the way in which Forster shot the car chase in the PTS of QoS---ease of perspective is lost. So if Nolan would advocate shooting Bond that way, I'd not be in favour of it...plus, he's a talented artist, who---like most 'marquee' director names, probably wouldn't willingly accept Eon's yolk round his neck, so I don't expect him to be seriously considered.

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

Loeffelholz wrote:

It wasn't simply an insinuation, and the continued use of the above word is frankly a bit ugly, and borderline offensive in and of itself. One of the great things about AJB is that we endeavour to rise above the vernacular of the unwashed I'll say nothing further on the subject.

Oh I get it, if I say an offensive word the context in which the word said doesn't matter. Okay I got you it won't happen again.

Shatterhand67 · June 2009

How about Spielberg? We all know that the Indiana Jones franchise was basically born out of his desire to direct a James Bond film. Spielberg is already in his 60's so who knows how much longer he's going to work. What do you guys think?

HowardB · June 2009

I'm sure Steven Spielberg would be more than capable of delivering a terrific Bond film....and I have no doubt he's a big Bond fan (check out "Catch Me If You Can" there is a big homage to "Goldfinger" in it and Spielberg said he modeled the film's cinematography and use of Technicolor on "Goldfinger"). The problem would be that Spielberg is used to having complete control over his films and I don't think he would be willing to give that up and certainly EON would not be willing to give anyone that power. Bond directors are hired hands...and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they are talented or at least competant hired hands and given good material to work with. Martin Campbell is a perfect example of a competant professional who was given good material to work with in CR and produced a very, very good Bond film that despite being a "reboot" felt very much like a classic 60's Bond film. I'd have no problem with Campbell returning for Bond 23.

Loeffelholz · June 2009

In addition, I'm 99.999% sure that Spielberg, as a high-power director and studio mogul, gets a guaranteed percentage of the gross of what any of his pictures bring in---a deal-breaker for Eon.

Napoleon Plural · June 2009

Correctamondo.

Moore passed on how much Spielberg would have liked to do Bond back in the day, early 1980s, and was very keen but Broccoli just replied, "Yeah, and you know what percentage he'd want?" And that was that.

Anyway, he's got Indy, he'd rather do another of them to 'make up for' Crystal Skulls methinks.

HowardB · June 2009

Apparently Spielberg is going to do another Indy film...however at this point in his career I don't think money is what would keep him from doing Bond (in the 80's it certainly would have). Spielberg is in that unique position that if he is really passionate about a project, money is probably not an issue. I think it would come down to (from Spielberg's perspective) whether he was really motivated to do a Bond film (it's a great investment of time) and would EON give him enough control.
Zwik, IMO, while not remotely on the level of Spielberg as a Hollywood power broker/name is still used to working with his own production company (he usually is credited as a co-producer) and probably would only be moved to take on a Bond film as a hired hand for a huge some of money. As far as whether he would be a good choice, based upon his body of work, I would think so. Ironically, the big name director who probably be willing to do Bond just for the fun of it is Quentin Tarantino. I know Tarantino is considered by many on the AJB as a bit of a "wild hare" and would not want him anywhere near a Bond film, I just brought up his name as an example of a "name" director who would be willing to do Bond. Whether or not he would be a good fit for that task would certainly be an interesting debate.

JimmyBond0129 · June 2009

It's too bad that Sam Raimi is all tied up with the stupid Spider-Man franchise because I think he might be a good choice for Bond 23 or Bond 24. Besides Nolan, Raimi is the only other superhero film director that I want for a new Bond film.

PPK 7.65mm · August 2009

While Spielberg is a Bond fan, I can't really see directing a film anytime soon as he always has total creative control over the films that he works on, where as the Bond films are a team effort so to speak. Same thing applies to Tarantino and many other big name American film directors which is why Eon tends to hire mostly British directors. Edward Zwick mite work thought I think I will watch more of his films before making that call. Nolan is a good choice and is a pretty big Bond fan, I am sure that with a good editor he would make Bond 23 excellent. Sam Raimi is a pretty good choice too, thought like many Spider-Man fans I felt he let Spider-Man get out of control and put too many ideas into one movie. Also he is really tied up with other projects at this point in time so he is out of the running.

Rick Roberts · August 2009

Here's my choices for Bond 23:

1. Kathryn Bigelow
2. Ed Zwick
3. Werner Herzog
4. Neil Jordan
5. Ridley Scott
6. Steven Soderbergh

That's it for now.

As for Speilberg, like many have said, he would demand alot of money. Secound, after that last Indy film I really rather not see him direct a Bond film. He would want to direct a nostalgia film and George Lucas would given alot of stupid ideas.

Sam Raimi ? Sorry but all his Spidey films stink and his work is spotty at best.

PPK 7.65mm · August 2009

Sorry if confused anybody with my last post. I felt he let Spider-Man 3 get out of control buy atempting to put too many ideas into one movie. Also he is really tied up with other projects at this point in time so he is out of the running. Stephen Sommers is someone who I would like to see direct in the near future. He said that the Bond films were a big influence on the style he used in GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Infact several of the action scenes in that film are homages to past Bond films. I think that with the right script he would be a very good choice for the next director.

Rick Roberts · August 2009

PPK 7.65mm wrote:

Sorry if confused anybody with my last post. I felt he let Spider-Man 3 get out of control buy atempting to put too many ideas into one movie. Also he is really tied up with other projects at this point in time so he is out of the running. Stephen Sommers is someone who I would like to see direct in the near future. He said that the Bond films were a big influence on the style he used in GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Infact several of the action scenes in that film are homages to past Bond films. I think that with the right script he would be a very good choice for the next director.

Oh god that's just as bad as having Micheal Bay.

Dan Same · August 2009

Rick Roberts wrote:

Oh god that's just as bad as having Micheal Bay.

) Sorry, RR, however I have never understood the wrath directed at Bay. I haven't seen either Transformers films, however I loved The Rock, which IMO was among the greatest action films ever made. Now, I don't want him to direct Bond (I don't want a star director working on Bond), but I'll never understand why some critics and film fans regard him as the Cinematic Satan.

Rick Roberts · August 2009

Dan Same wrote:

Rick Roberts wrote:

Oh god that's just as bad as having Micheal Bay.

) Sorry, RR, however I have never understood the wrath directed at Bay. I haven't seen either Transformers films, however I loved The Rock, which IMO was among the greatest action films ever made. Now, I don't want him to direct Bond (I don't want a star director working on Bond), but I'll never understand why some critics and film fans regard him as the Cinematic Satan.

The only reason why The Rock watchable was because Sean Connery and that's it. Bay just blows crap up.

Infernorhythm · August 2009

I'm a huge Ed Zwick fan. Glory, Last Samurai, and Blood Diamond are some of my favorite films, and Defiance was good as well. I just don't really see him as a Bond director. Zwick's style is more befitting of sweeping epics, not the epsionage/action/suspense of Bond.

Dan Same · August 2009

Rick Roberts wrote:

The only reason why The Rock watchable was because Sean Connery and that's it. Bay just blows crap up.

I don't agree. I think The Rock was a brilliant film all around, and not because of Connery. Plus, even if he was a director who just 'bows crap up' that's still alot better than directors of 'torture porn' films. Either way, I don't think he deserves the attacks that he receives on a daily basis.

Do you think Craig's Defiance director could do Bond 23?

Comments