At about 1min 5secs into this video Matt Vaughn says the "Broccolis aren't that keen on me anyway". I wonder if the reports that Vaughn had the Bond gig were actually him discussing the film with EON but their ideas didn't come together. Maybe after the Danny Boyle experience they are more wary.
Interestingly Vaughn also says that 'the director,' meaning Martin Campbell preferred the young Henry Cavill but BB was set on DC because of Layer Cake, which I can understand.
If Oppenheimer does well at the Oscars, the pressure for Nolan to do it will have to be stratospheric. The film is basically nominated in all the major categories except best female actress.
Isn't Nolan less likely to do it if he wins Oscars? I wouldn't have thought an Oscar winner would choose to do the 25th sequel in a franchise as their next project.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My argument is that Nolan's Bond will be so different that he would truly want to do it when Bond is being rebooted and Daniel Craig's exit, which he, DC, himself, has said was done so they could completely reboot the franchise, is such an opportunity, for a director who has said many times his films are heavily influenced by Bond, that he can't ignore that.
The fact that Nolan made Oppenheimer with Universal and that Studio has distribution rights for Bond26, and Warner Bros, which is rumoured to be up for sale, has distribution rights for Bond27, and could be bought by Universal, and then you have Amazon which relatively recently paid to buy MGM and they are going to want to have a return on their investment sooner rather than later.
Whatever anyone thinks of Nolan, e.g. he can't do sensuality, or you're not going to get a Sir Roger Moore style movie, does anyone really think that after Oppenheimer made $900 million, that a Nolan Bond film won't be a billion dollar movie?
If the gross that Oppenheimer made for Universal wasn't argument enough for him to do Bond26 for them, then all the accolades he is getting for Oppenheimer must add to the weight of opinion among Universal and Amazon-MGM and the other investors and co-marketing brands, that Nolan is their guy. If not now, when?
I agree, especially on the "if not now, when?" The main counter-argument to me is that a billion dollar Nolan style Bond movie has already been made, and it's called Skyfall.
It seems to be, given the length of time between each film now and the talent and money that they chuck at it, that billion dollar Bond films are they only way they are (trying) to go now.
Whatever anyone thinks of Nolan, e.g. he can't do sensuality, or you're not going to get a Sir Roger Moore style movie, does anyone really think that after Oppenheimer made $900 million, that a Nolan Bond film won't be a billion dollar movie?
Yes, it's a fair point, I can imagine it doing very well and getting top reviews etc. I just don't think I'd like it! 😅
Spielberg made 1941 between Close Encounters and Raiders of the Lost Arc, so there are no guarantees. But I agree that the chances Nolan's next movie will be a big hit are high.
It would be great if EON could get Villeneuve. While he's finished Dune 2 he has Cleopatra and Randevous with Rama to work on. If he has finished those two in time to make Bond26 I'd say EON is in huge trouble.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,569Chief of Staff
I think I'd still like to see Edgar Wright have a crack. He would be less expensive. There would be less pressure and expectation on him as opposed to Villeneuve or Nolan and I feel it would be less distracting and more about the film than the circus and anticipation that can accompany a huge director.
I think Chris McQuarrie should be considered. He’s been making better Bond films than EON for a while now. Would be interesting to see what he could do with the real thing.
Seconded 100%. That said, I think his future is pretty well linked with Tom Cruise for another decade. He's got a plethora of things planned with Cruise including a non M:I franchise, a musical, and a TROPIC THUNDER spinoff of his Les Grossman character.
I don't think the way forward for the Bond movies is to emulate MI. Bond should reclaim the throne when it comes to the sense of fun and the tier one stunts, but going as far as hiring the MI in-house director is not the solution.
Yes, but where would it end up if the MI director is hired to make Bond movies? Would it end up with Bond movies end up like MI only with a hero who speaks with a British accent wearing a tux?
That indicates McQuarrie has no three-dimensional skills whatsoever, which isn't true. He's a top-notch filmmaker. But I think he's got the Bond itch out of his system.
And Nolan will only want more autonomy after Oppenheimer. He's done with franchises.
I understand Cruise and McQ are working so closely together they have developed a report to such a degree they don't have to talk much to know what the other want. A bit like my father and grandfather had.
I think other directors such as Edgar Wright, Steve McQueen or Christopher Nolan are more likely to give Bond movies their distinctive style in the future.
Comments
Matthew Vaughn ruled himself out of doing a Bond film with comments on this video for Argylle publicity.
At about 1min 5secs into this video Matt Vaughn says the "Broccolis aren't that keen on me anyway". I wonder if the reports that Vaughn had the Bond gig were actually him discussing the film with EON but their ideas didn't come together. Maybe after the Danny Boyle experience they are more wary.
Interestingly Vaughn also says that 'the director,' meaning Martin Campbell preferred the young Henry Cavill but BB was set on DC because of Layer Cake, which I can understand.
If Oppenheimer does well at the Oscars, the pressure for Nolan to do it will have to be stratospheric. The film is basically nominated in all the major categories except best female actress.
Isn't Nolan less likely to do it if he wins Oscars? I wouldn't have thought an Oscar winner would choose to do the 25th sequel in a franchise as their next project.
If asked, I think if he gets as much free reign as he would like, then he'll do it.
The pace EON move at, Bond26 won't be his next project..🙄
I'm still an optimist, so my view is that if a new project shows up on his IMDB page he's not going to make Bond26.
Sad...but true 😕
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My argument is that Nolan's Bond will be so different that he would truly want to do it when Bond is being rebooted and Daniel Craig's exit, which he, DC, himself, has said was done so they could completely reboot the franchise, is such an opportunity, for a director who has said many times his films are heavily influenced by Bond, that he can't ignore that.
The fact that Nolan made Oppenheimer with Universal and that Studio has distribution rights for Bond26, and Warner Bros, which is rumoured to be up for sale, has distribution rights for Bond27, and could be bought by Universal, and then you have Amazon which relatively recently paid to buy MGM and they are going to want to have a return on their investment sooner rather than later.
Whatever anyone thinks of Nolan, e.g. he can't do sensuality, or you're not going to get a Sir Roger Moore style movie, does anyone really think that after Oppenheimer made $900 million, that a Nolan Bond film won't be a billion dollar movie?
If the gross that Oppenheimer made for Universal wasn't argument enough for him to do Bond26 for them, then all the accolades he is getting for Oppenheimer must add to the weight of opinion among Universal and Amazon-MGM and the other investors and co-marketing brands, that Nolan is their guy. If not now, when?
I agree, especially on the "if not now, when?" The main counter-argument to me is that a billion dollar Nolan style Bond movie has already been made, and it's called Skyfall.
It seems to be, given the length of time between each film now and the talent and money that they chuck at it, that billion dollar Bond films are they only way they are (trying) to go now.
I don't think Mendes' Nolan DKR inspiration for Skyfall quite counts as a Nolan film.
I think Mendes' comments about that were more about having a compelling villain like Ledger's Joker than copying Nolan wholesale.
It did make a billion though.
Whatever anyone thinks of Nolan, e.g. he can't do sensuality, or you're not going to get a Sir Roger Moore style movie, does anyone really think that after Oppenheimer made $900 million, that a Nolan Bond film won't be a billion dollar movie?
Yes, it's a fair point, I can imagine it doing very well and getting top reviews etc. I just don't think I'd like it! 😅
Spielberg made 1941 between Close Encounters and Raiders of the Lost Arc, so there are no guarantees. But I agree that the chances Nolan's next movie will be a big hit are high.
I liked 1941! lined up to see it more times than Star Wars
I'd missed this. A few weeks ago, Nolan said Bond26 rumours were "bollocks".
https://deadline.com/2024/01/golden-globes-party-cillian-murphy-christopher-nolan-1235699200/
I think BB will bend heaven and earth to get Denis Villeneuve. He already said it was his dream project, plus Dune 2 looks soooooo good.
It would be great if EON could get Villeneuve. While he's finished Dune 2 he has Cleopatra and Randevous with Rama to work on. If he has finished those two in time to make Bond26 I'd say EON is in huge trouble.
Why do you believe BB will “bend heaven and earth” for Villeneuve?
It isn't going to be Vaughn. After the flopping of ARGYLLE (which I saw and reviewed), he's going to be in director's jail for a while.
Villeneuve has too much on his plate, too many existing commitments. There is also Dune Messiah which will be the third film.
I think I'd still like to see Edgar Wright have a crack. He would be less expensive. There would be less pressure and expectation on him as opposed to Villeneuve or Nolan and I feel it would be less distracting and more about the film than the circus and anticipation that can accompany a huge director.
I think Chris McQuarrie should be considered. He’s been making better Bond films than EON for a while now. Would be interesting to see what he could do with the real thing.
Seconded 100%. That said, I think his future is pretty well linked with Tom Cruise for another decade. He's got a plethora of things planned with Cruise including a non M:I franchise, a musical, and a TROPIC THUNDER spinoff of his Les Grossman character.
Anything can happen, of course.
I don't think the way forward for the Bond movies is to emulate MI. Bond should reclaim the throne when it comes to the sense of fun and the tier one stunts, but going as far as hiring the MI in-house director is not the solution.
I think the end result is what matters. I don’t much care how we get there. Hire a director who gets it.
Yes, but where would it end up if the MI director is hired to make Bond movies? Would it end up with Bond movies end up like MI only with a hero who speaks with a British accent wearing a tux?
That indicates McQuarrie has no three-dimensional skills whatsoever, which isn't true. He's a top-notch filmmaker. But I think he's got the Bond itch out of his system.
And Nolan will only want more autonomy after Oppenheimer. He's done with franchises.
Landing Nolan would print money, though.
I also think McQ would stay loyal to MI and Cruise: doing Bond would be like crossing the floor and I suspect he wouldn’t.
I understand Cruise and McQ are working so closely together they have developed a report to such a degree they don't have to talk much to know what the other want. A bit like my father and grandfather had.
It's a solid creative and business partnership for sure. More power to 'em.
I think other directors such as Edgar Wright, Steve McQueen or Christopher Nolan are more likely to give Bond movies their distinctive style in the future.