I think there's a few people on this forum who identify with wanting a director like Martin Campbell and not the artsy kind we've been getting lately. THAT is the point I'm making.
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
Ultimately, the problem with the majority of the directors chosen by EON this millennium is not that they are too big. As Emtiem points out, several were decidedly “small.” The problem is that they keep choosing “serious” artists. EON’s recent picks are littered with flavor-of-the-week indie types who just aren’t right for Bond. What they need are journeymen who know how to handle the type of breezy, escapist film Bond is meant to be. It’s no coincidence that the two best Bond films of the last 30 years were both directed by the same guy. And he wasn’t a fancy auteur.
The point I'm making is that Campbell was an 'artsy director' in 1995: his -extremely serious- drama series won multiple BAFTAs and everything. I'm sure there's lots of people on this forum who know that too! 😁
Should we have got the guy who directed amazing, heartbreaking, multiple BAFTA/Oscar-nominated kitchen sink drama Alfie to do You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me?
I'm just saying that the definition of 'big name/artsy director' is very vague if we're including everyone who's made anything vaguely well-regarded on film or TV. Frankly on films this size, I'd kind of like to have someone who's proven themselves to be able to handle something like this. You don't have to be aggressive or make up silly strawman statements like saying I 'think Tarantino and Nolan are the only big name directors' in order to prolong a pointless argument or pretend that I'm the only one taking part in the conversation, which is why I ignored it to try and keep this friendly - I tend to think that Mendes is the biggest name that's ever done a Bond, and his films showed a real feeling for the 007 of old and felt fun and glamorous and extremely stylish and lush and he produced the biggest hit Bond film there's been to that point - if we had more of that I'd love it.
For me half the point of the Bonds is that they're a load of old hokum made and starring massively over-qualified people. John Barry, Ken Adam, Sean Connery, Lewis Gilbert etc. - these are huge talents, and having them there made the Bonds what they are.
I guess what you're saying is that they should have the right sensibility for it, but I don't think that's the same as saying they shouldn't be well-regarded or successful or big or artsy, because clearly they can be that as it's worked lots of times before. Someone like Marc Forster I think struggled with it a bit, but I'm not sure there was any sign of that in his previous work. I guess it's just always a bit of a gamble, and perhaps less of a gamble to use someone who's made good films before.
Not just that, but if you look at Campbell's overall CV, you'll see that the Bond films that he delivered are both exactly in his wheelhouse. I first was made aware of him via NO ESCAPE, a 1994 B action film starring Ray Liotta. This was one of those 'much better than it had any right to be' little actioners that developed a following due to the skill behind the camera. If you've never seen it, give it a go. Campbell makes great use of the smallish budget, has some fantastic shot compositions, and has an overall strong command of storytelling. The action scenes all had the right amount of 'oomph' to them and there was a sense of fun to the overall tone. When I heard that THIS guy was going to do the next Bond film, I was excited. I was not surprised that he delivered.
His films since GE have been peaks and valleys. Apart from CR, he also did the wonderful THE MASK OF ZORRO and a few other good ones. He's also had a couple of stinkers, GREEN LANTERN being the most noteworthy. Even his bad films show an overall command of narrative flow and an ability to create that 'oomph' factor that Bond desperately needs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: my absolute #1 top choice for director would be Gareth Evans. He directed THE RAID: REDEMPTION and THE RAID 2 and also was responsible for S1 of GANGS OF LONDON. The man has a great command of action flow while also maintaining a strong narrative throughline. His latest film, HAVOC, is in post production and stars Tom Hardy, Timothy Olyphant, and others. It's one of my most anticipated films and I'm really hoping that it comes out this year.
But we're not talking in hindsight: with the statement that big name/artsy directors should be avoided we're saying that someone who has made well-regarded stuff shouldn't be considered, which would mean Gilbert doesn't get hired in this alternative version of 1967 that follows these rules. I'm just saying that doesn't really work.
And yes, in the years leading up to GoldenEye, on TV Campbell directed Reilly Ace of Spies, which is not a light and breezy jaunt, a drama about the trade unions, the award-winning and grim Edge of Darkness, a drama film about suspicious deaths of teenagers in Yeovil, some weird US TV film about magic, and some episodes of Homicide. I'm not saying he's David Lynch (please stop being reductive and aggressive about everything I say - have a proper conversation. I'm also not going to criticise you for replying so please don't try that again either) but he was pretty 'artsy' as you'd put it. He didn't just do trash and actually went for some prestige projects. and was lauded for them, although obviously he would also do a bit of trash for the cash if needed.
If Fukunaga is a 'big name' / 'artsy' director (David Lynch?) for doing a very critically lauded TV show then so's Campbell. Do you know Edge of Darkness?
And maybe Mendes did want to have it both ways, which is perhaps why Skyfall was so good and made so much money. It had that old school fun Bond feel combined with a bit of proper drama (just like Campbell added in CR) to give it more tension and excitement. The first billion dollar Bond. More of that please.
Something I could have said at any point of this exchange but didn't. I think the person making snarky and aggressive comments is the one who wants to argue- I'm trying to have a conversation, which is why I was making points and illustrating my thinking. But nevermind, if you just want to be snarky I don't want to talk.
Your point seems to be not that they shouldn't hire big name or artsy directors (I think I actually convinced you of that with the Gilbert example) but rather that they should hire someone who's really good at making Bond films, and who could disagree with that.
My point is what I originally said which is they shouldn't hire a big name pretentious artsy director (Not to be confused with Martin Campbell). I don't know whats not clear about that.
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
I'm grateful for all the weird swings the franchise has taken over the years, whoever we want to blame for them. The highs and lows of the franchise are, with a little distance, part of the fun. I can love the enthusiasm Mendes brought to Skyfall while being gutted at how out of gas he was in Spectre. I can be grouchy at Spectre's third act while loving its train fight. The franchise is the very definition of a mixed bag, but under the right lens even the missteps fascinate.
I think if there's any blame to be placed in the arena of ill-fitting directors, it's that Eon (and maybe Craig) for some reason pivoted to "A-listers"/auteurs for the last four movies and assumed such directors could (or would even want to) operate within the Bond machine. Some could; others could not. And the only fix to this disconnect is to either give the directors more freedom, or to understand that some storytellers can't operate that way. It's not a hanging crime but it is a bit of a learning curve, maybe.
After the incredible highs and lows of Craig's run, I would like to see the franchise reset to one that is multi-generational, something 12-year-olds might enjoy again. But if one is cranking these out as one's life's work, one might understandably have other priorities.
😁 Well said, perhaps I should've gave more nuance to my ask as you just did. I just think its time for a director who doesn't take themselves so seriously and wouldn't leave over creative differences. A solid, action and drama/comedy director. A Christopher Mcquarrie, Edgar Wright or Matthew Vaughn.
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
McQuarrie feels pretty well shackled to the M:I series right now. That's his bag and I'd say let him run with it. I love what he's done with that series and I feel pretty happy having it run concurrently with the Bond franchise. They both scratch different itches.
Vaughn is on a downwards trajectory. He feels like he's lost his touch with his last few films and I just don't know if he's the guy to tackle Bond anymore.
Wright is a choice I like. He has a fun sensibility in his work and can direct action sequences well.
But again, my choice is Gareth Evans. He's a Welshman who lived in Indonesia for many years and got into their martial arts scene. There isn't a better action director out there right now. His understanding of action geography is amazing and he has a real knack for choosing interesting shot compositions within action scenes.
From S1,E5 of GANGS OF LONDON (warning, very violent):
Edgar Wright is my choice for a new direction (he even had a good Bond candidate in his last film: Sam Claflin, who sadly is about to age out of the role).
But if we applied the "doesn't leave projects over creative differences" rule, then Wright himself would be out, as he rather famously exited Ant-Man before filming began.
I like Edgar Wright but I'm not sure that he hasn't made anything but pretty much flawed movies (in my opinion) since Shaun. None of them quite work for me, they feel like they just fall short of their aim slightly.
I would like to see Wright directing Bond. Since Shaun he's made several movies. In my opinion Fuzz and especially Baby Driver shows that he's a promising candidate.
I've made peace with the idea that "all Bonds are flawed movies" so I'd love to see his energy and enthusiasm contributing to some all-time Bond moments.
If they pivot from their "name director/auteur" path, that means the layman might not even know a great journeyman candidate by name. Who is the Peter Hunt/Martin Campbell working today? We generally only know the "celeb" director names around these parts.
David Michôd, the Aussie filmmaker behind flicks like "Animal Kingdom" and "The Rover," is teaming up with Sydney Sweeney for a new biopic on Christy Martin. He has a style and mood that is very evocative of the vibe conjured by Denis Villeneuve. Michôd's knack for gritty storytelling talent could cook up something seriously intriguing. His intense character exploration and knack for suspense could give 007 a fresh spin.
You know, I'm probably one of the few folks who actually got a kick out of his "War Machine" on Netflix. Sure, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but there's something oddly entertaining about its satire. "The King" is another gem from David Michôd's repertoire that I thoroughly enjoyed, especially with Timothée Chalamet leading the charge. There's just something about Michôd's take on historical dramas that hits the spot.
Then there's Michôd's direction. He's got this knack for capturing the grit and grime of medieval warfare, making every battle feel visceral and intense. But it's not all blood and guts; there's also this underlying sense of political intrigue and betrayal.
Comments
I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch,
I think there's a few people on this forum who identify with wanting a director like Martin Campbell and not the artsy kind we've been getting lately. THAT is the point I'm making.
Would that be this Monty Python sketch?
"Excuse me, is this the right thread for an argument?"
I do hope that we can have friendly discussion rather than arguments, which should be taken to PMs if necessary.
That's the one!
But in all seriousness, I agree with that sentiment, Barbel. 🍸️
Ultimately, the problem with the majority of the directors chosen by EON this millennium is not that they are too big. As Emtiem points out, several were decidedly “small.” The problem is that they keep choosing “serious” artists. EON’s recent picks are littered with flavor-of-the-week indie types who just aren’t right for Bond. What they need are journeymen who know how to handle the type of breezy, escapist film Bond is meant to be. It’s no coincidence that the two best Bond films of the last 30 years were both directed by the same guy. And he wasn’t a fancy auteur.
The point I'm making is that Campbell was an 'artsy director' in 1995: his -extremely serious- drama series won multiple BAFTAs and everything. I'm sure there's lots of people on this forum who know that too! 😁
Should we have got the guy who directed amazing, heartbreaking, multiple BAFTA/Oscar-nominated kitchen sink drama Alfie to do You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me?
I'm just saying that the definition of 'big name/artsy director' is very vague if we're including everyone who's made anything vaguely well-regarded on film or TV. Frankly on films this size, I'd kind of like to have someone who's proven themselves to be able to handle something like this. You don't have to be aggressive or make up silly strawman statements like saying I 'think Tarantino and Nolan are the only big name directors' in order to prolong a pointless argument or pretend that I'm the only one taking part in the conversation, which is why I ignored it to try and keep this friendly - I tend to think that Mendes is the biggest name that's ever done a Bond, and his films showed a real feeling for the 007 of old and felt fun and glamorous and extremely stylish and lush and he produced the biggest hit Bond film there's been to that point - if we had more of that I'd love it.
For me half the point of the Bonds is that they're a load of old hokum made and starring massively over-qualified people. John Barry, Ken Adam, Sean Connery, Lewis Gilbert etc. - these are huge talents, and having them there made the Bonds what they are.
I guess what you're saying is that they should have the right sensibility for it, but I don't think that's the same as saying they shouldn't be well-regarded or successful or big or artsy, because clearly they can be that as it's worked lots of times before. Someone like Marc Forster I think struggled with it a bit, but I'm not sure there was any sign of that in his previous work. I guess it's just always a bit of a gamble, and perhaps less of a gamble to use someone who's made good films before.
Not just that, but if you look at Campbell's overall CV, you'll see that the Bond films that he delivered are both exactly in his wheelhouse. I first was made aware of him via NO ESCAPE, a 1994 B action film starring Ray Liotta. This was one of those 'much better than it had any right to be' little actioners that developed a following due to the skill behind the camera. If you've never seen it, give it a go. Campbell makes great use of the smallish budget, has some fantastic shot compositions, and has an overall strong command of storytelling. The action scenes all had the right amount of 'oomph' to them and there was a sense of fun to the overall tone. When I heard that THIS guy was going to do the next Bond film, I was excited. I was not surprised that he delivered.
His films since GE have been peaks and valleys. Apart from CR, he also did the wonderful THE MASK OF ZORRO and a few other good ones. He's also had a couple of stinkers, GREEN LANTERN being the most noteworthy. Even his bad films show an overall command of narrative flow and an ability to create that 'oomph' factor that Bond desperately needs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: my absolute #1 top choice for director would be Gareth Evans. He directed THE RAID: REDEMPTION and THE RAID 2 and also was responsible for S1 of GANGS OF LONDON. The man has a great command of action flow while also maintaining a strong narrative throughline. His latest film, HAVOC, is in post production and stars Tom Hardy, Timothy Olyphant, and others. It's one of my most anticipated films and I'm really hoping that it comes out this year.
You make Martin Campbell sound like David Lynch. 😁 He directed a lot of crime and action dramas, yes.
Lewis Gilbert was able to completely shed that auteur mindset to make his Bond films. Mendes, in particular, wanted to have it both ways.
But we're not talking in hindsight: with the statement that big name/artsy directors should be avoided we're saying that someone who has made well-regarded stuff shouldn't be considered, which would mean Gilbert doesn't get hired in this alternative version of 1967 that follows these rules. I'm just saying that doesn't really work.
And yes, in the years leading up to GoldenEye, on TV Campbell directed Reilly Ace of Spies, which is not a light and breezy jaunt, a drama about the trade unions, the award-winning and grim Edge of Darkness, a drama film about suspicious deaths of teenagers in Yeovil, some weird US TV film about magic, and some episodes of Homicide. I'm not saying he's David Lynch (please stop being reductive and aggressive about everything I say - have a proper conversation. I'm also not going to criticise you for replying so please don't try that again either) but he was pretty 'artsy' as you'd put it. He didn't just do trash and actually went for some prestige projects. and was lauded for them, although obviously he would also do a bit of trash for the cash if needed.
If Fukunaga is a 'big name' / 'artsy' director (David Lynch?) for doing a very critically lauded TV show then so's Campbell. Do you know Edge of Darkness?
And maybe Mendes did want to have it both ways, which is perhaps why Skyfall was so good and made so much money. It had that old school fun Bond feel combined with a bit of proper drama (just like Campbell added in CR) to give it more tension and excitement. The first billion dollar Bond. More of that please.
Funny, It seems like you just want to argue with anything I say. We can agree to disagree. 🤝
Something I could have said at any point of this exchange but didn't. I think the person making snarky and aggressive comments is the one who wants to argue- I'm trying to have a conversation, which is why I was making points and illustrating my thinking. But nevermind, if you just want to be snarky I don't want to talk.
Your point seems to be not that they shouldn't hire big name or artsy directors (I think I actually convinced you of that with the Gilbert example) but rather that they should hire someone who's really good at making Bond films, and who could disagree with that.
My point is what I originally said which is they shouldn't hire a big name pretentious artsy director (Not to be confused with Martin Campbell). I don't know whats not clear about that.
Leave it there, guys. Take it to PMs if you have to.
Fellas, you're both pretty!
I'm grateful for all the weird swings the franchise has taken over the years, whoever we want to blame for them. The highs and lows of the franchise are, with a little distance, part of the fun. I can love the enthusiasm Mendes brought to Skyfall while being gutted at how out of gas he was in Spectre. I can be grouchy at Spectre's third act while loving its train fight. The franchise is the very definition of a mixed bag, but under the right lens even the missteps fascinate.
I think if there's any blame to be placed in the arena of ill-fitting directors, it's that Eon (and maybe Craig) for some reason pivoted to "A-listers"/auteurs for the last four movies and assumed such directors could (or would even want to) operate within the Bond machine. Some could; others could not. And the only fix to this disconnect is to either give the directors more freedom, or to understand that some storytellers can't operate that way. It's not a hanging crime but it is a bit of a learning curve, maybe.
After the incredible highs and lows of Craig's run, I would like to see the franchise reset to one that is multi-generational, something 12-year-olds might enjoy again. But if one is cranking these out as one's life's work, one might understandably have other priorities.
😁 Well said, perhaps I should've gave more nuance to my ask as you just did. I just think its time for a director who doesn't take themselves so seriously and wouldn't leave over creative differences. A solid, action and drama/comedy director. A Christopher Mcquarrie, Edgar Wright or Matthew Vaughn.
McQuarrie feels pretty well shackled to the M:I series right now. That's his bag and I'd say let him run with it. I love what he's done with that series and I feel pretty happy having it run concurrently with the Bond franchise. They both scratch different itches.
Vaughn is on a downwards trajectory. He feels like he's lost his touch with his last few films and I just don't know if he's the guy to tackle Bond anymore.
Wright is a choice I like. He has a fun sensibility in his work and can direct action sequences well.
But again, my choice is Gareth Evans. He's a Welshman who lived in Indonesia for many years and got into their martial arts scene. There isn't a better action director out there right now. His understanding of action geography is amazing and he has a real knack for choosing interesting shot compositions within action scenes.
From S1,E5 of GANGS OF LONDON (warning, very violent):
From THE RAID: REDEMPTION (warning, very violent):
From THE RAID 2 (warning, extremely violent):
I anxiously, anxiously await HAVOC, a major big budget release with Tom Hardy that is in post production.
Edgar Wright is my choice for a new direction (he even had a good Bond candidate in his last film: Sam Claflin, who sadly is about to age out of the role).
But if we applied the "doesn't leave projects over creative differences" rule, then Wright himself would be out, as he rather famously exited Ant-Man before filming began.
I like Edgar Wright but I'm not sure that he hasn't made anything but pretty much flawed movies (in my opinion) since Shaun. None of them quite work for me, they feel like they just fall short of their aim slightly.
I would like to see Wright directing Bond. Since Shaun he's made several movies. In my opinion Fuzz and especially Baby Driver shows that he's a promising candidate.
I've made peace with the idea that "all Bonds are flawed movies" so I'd love to see his energy and enthusiasm contributing to some all-time Bond moments.
If they pivot from their "name director/auteur" path, that means the layman might not even know a great journeyman candidate by name. Who is the Peter Hunt/Martin Campbell working today? We generally only know the "celeb" director names around these parts.
I think Brian Kirk is a good workman-like director. He's Irish and has directed episodes for a range of high-end TV series including GoT.
He also directed the movie "21 bridges" staring the late Chadwick Boseman. It's a very solid action drama that deserved more attention.
I have three suggestions:
Justin Kurzel
David Michôd
Sean Durkin
Sean Durkin for sure. THE IRON CLAW was excellent.
I'd love to see Ridley Scott fit this into his schedule just to get one Bond film out of him.
David Michôd, the Aussie filmmaker behind flicks like "Animal Kingdom" and "The Rover," is teaming up with Sydney Sweeney for a new biopic on Christy Martin. He has a style and mood that is very evocative of the vibe conjured by Denis Villeneuve. Michôd's knack for gritty storytelling talent could cook up something seriously intriguing. His intense character exploration and knack for suspense could give 007 a fresh spin.
You know, I'm probably one of the few folks who actually got a kick out of his "War Machine" on Netflix. Sure, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but there's something oddly entertaining about its satire. "The King" is another gem from David Michôd's repertoire that I thoroughly enjoyed, especially with Timothée Chalamet leading the charge. There's just something about Michôd's take on historical dramas that hits the spot.
Then there's Michôd's direction. He's got this knack for capturing the grit and grime of medieval warfare, making every battle feel visceral and intense. But it's not all blood and guts; there's also this underlying sense of political intrigue and betrayal.
https://deadline.com/2024/05/sydney-sweeney-boxer-christy-martin-movie-biopic-david-michod-1235903974/