Paul Haggis for Bond 22
Klaus Hergescheimer
Posts: 332MI6 Agent
This is liable to anger a few select folks on here, but I think that Haggis would be a terrific choice to direct the next movie. He displayed a very good conception for who and what Bond is in both a literary and cinematic sense in his polish of the CR script, and this is very important for a director of a Bond flick to have which the best directors (Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Glen, Campbell) have had. He's been a very good contemporary filmmaker, and the contemporary style in which CR was filmed was, IMO, instrumental to its success as a quality picture. It will be important for Bond to continue to be presented with some subversiveness characteristic of cotemporary film to be consistent with the early flicks.
With this said, Paul Haggis is my choice to direct Bond 22. I'm sure a lot of you disagree with me, and that's fine.
With this said, Paul Haggis is my choice to direct Bond 22. I'm sure a lot of you disagree with me, and that's fine.
Comments
I don't that, really...
When you look at the energy that Campbell put into CR and GE both physically and mentally, I believe that you can see a major contribution to those films success. I would put my hat in the ring for Campbells return with perhaps another script polish by Haggis. Also Haggis as an American is less likely to be given the job of directing a Bond given the track record of previous directors.
Haggis didn't direct Traffic; that was Steven Soderbergh.
Haggis did, however, direct Crash. "Crashes" do occur in "Traffic," so it's a forgivable gaffe.
Why can't the producers bring back someone like Michael Apted or have someone new like John Woo? I know that this thread is specifically about Haggis, but what I'm saying is that I am definitely in the 'no' camp.
Good God man! John Woo, I don't think so ... DAD MkII :shudder:
As for Apted, TWINE is a reasonable entry into the series IMO and while the face-to-face acting was good, I think he falls down when it comes to action. However, looking at his currently filming projects, he could do with a high profile film.
And Dan Same, I understand the film displeased you, but can you delve in more on the reasons of not liking it? I would be most interested.
There are some movies for me that simply do not ring true, however well-meaning they may be. "The Contender" was one of them, and "Crash" is another. I didn't believe a single scene -- and not because I don't believe racism exists: on the contrary, it does. It's just a lot more subtle and therefore insidious than any of the situations portrayed in that film.
But then again, Haggis probably figured, "I'd better really spell this out or people will be asking 'was the cop a racist?' You know, like 'did Vesper really love Bond?' ..."
Just teasing, Dan.
As for Apted, he should stick to simplier movies without all the big bangs of a Bond flick. He did a great job with Enigma in 2001 - a movie which worked well without alot of action.
As for Tamahori, Ill defend his directing style. I think many parts of Die another day were very well done, and just because it had its stupid moments doesnt mean that he didnt direct other scenes well. All of Cuba was well filmed, as was the sword fight and all of the London sequences.
While Haggis is now famous for movies like Crash,but he also has a background in suspense/action stuff,too.He's the man who developed and worked on the "Walker,Texas Ranger" TV series throughout most of its run.This kind of experience could prove helpful in helming a Bond movie(and no--I'm not suggesting Haggis would suddenly ask Craig to kick people around like Chuck Norris did).He's also been involved in comedies as well.
Haggis seems to be the kind of director who can readily adjust to a variety of stories without also attempting to impose his own style on them--unlike Woo,for instance, who tends to build everything in his films around his little "touches".