ROTTEN TOMATOES: Four Directors Up for the Next "Bond" Flick? Comments

Four Directors Up for the Next "Bond" Flick?

by Scott Weinberg | May 21, 2007

Summary

Curious to know who'll be directing the next James Bond flick? Join the club. One source has a short list of potential helmers, all of whom would be pretty ... distinctive. Back to Article

(1-33 of 33 posts) | Reply

Sputnik99 writes:
on May 21 2007 11:30 PM

[b]I'm no Ebert & Roeper, but...[/b]
Scott's the only choice, IMO. Here's why:

Forster: No action experience
Proyas: Too dark and creepy (I like Crow, though)
Mostow: Too much of a "Made for TV" feel to his movies

Scott has the right balance of experience for a fast-paced, action-packed Bond thriller. Too bad fans can't vote on it.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on May 22 2007 12:02 AM

scott is too flashy for bond's elegant style, too many quick cuts in the action

mostow is standard hollywood competent but nothing else (the closest one to martin campbell)

proyas is great but maybe too dark for bond, and this is not a franchise to experiment with

forster is a chamaleon and a very clever director, he would be my choice among these four

ut I would love to see peter weir directing bond

(Reply to this)

optic_85 writes:
on May 22 2007 12:17 AM

[b]Hmmmmm[/b]
I say 'no' to Scott. I love the guy, but he's to stylized for a franchise like this. It wouldn't feel like a Bond movie. It was just feel like...well, a Tony Scott flick. Personally, I would love to see Luc Besson do a bond film.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 22 2007 12:29 AM

I don't know if Tony Scott has what it takes to continue the series in the style of Casino Royale.. which is really what I'd hoped they be aiming for. This is why Forster is probably my favourite out of those listed, since I think he'll bring a level of seriousness and believability the others can't.

Proyas is a case of too much style over substance. Mostow films just don't feel right, and since he was unable capture the feel of the Terminator series properly, he shouldn't get his hands on Bond. Mr Scott has become a little too experimental in his recent years and his editing can be very frustrating. I just don't think it's suited for the classy and less ADHD orientated feel of the new Bond series.

(Reply to this)

bamb0o-stick writes:
on May 22 2007 02:55 AM

Paul Greengrass would be my pick, since he's already directed two Bourne movies and Casino Royale had similar qualities between the two titles. I for one actually loved the car chase scene in the Bourne Supremacy, and you can never have enough chase scenes in a Bond flick.

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on May 22 2007 06:19 AM

Wow...Paul Greengrass would be a good one. And Marc Forster would be good. Tony Scott's James Bond movie would just be another one of his movies...except with Bond. Like...1,000 different cuts in one minute, all of which are overexposed.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 22 2007 06:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#866306)
He would be good, but perhaps that'd be too much of an admission by the Bond people that the Bourne films have stolen their coveted throne in the "internation super spy" genre.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 22 2007 06:26 AM

[b]why not use the guy who did Casino Royale??[/b]
...for continuity's sake

(Reply to this)

MadmanCody writes:
on May 22 2007 08:55 AM

this list sounds like a joke, i won't see the next bond movie if any one of those guys directs it, especially not the hack director of the crow and i, robot. and the only tony scott film that i consider "great" is probably true romance.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on May 22 2007 09:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#866310)
[b]Good don't watch it.[/b]
good I didn't want to hear you complaining at the theater when I'm watching the next Bond anyway.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on May 22 2007 09:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#866310)
How can you even consider Alex Proyas a "hack"? Have you seen Dark City?

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on May 22 2007 09:40 AM

I don't really care about Mostow, but I'm a fan of the other three, so I'm happy with this short list. Scott or Proyas would be great interesting choices, Foster would be an interesting choice too, but I don't want to see him do Bond as much.

(Reply to this)

eastern2western writes:
on May 22 2007 09:49 AM

[b]hey[/b]
how about john woo? He made mission II and movie is basically a james bond ripoff with more action and gadgets.

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on May 22 2007 11:06 AM

John Woo and Tony Scoot would be HORRIBLE choices. They are too stylized. They would take the limelight off of Bond.

Marc Foster is by far the best choice. He's a good director who has directed very DIFFERENT pieces of work and fitted into several different styles of storytelling.

Why does he have to have experience with action? Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan had no action movie experience yet they made the best comic book movies of the past 5 years.

All these movies have huge budgets, they hire the right stunt and cg directors. The director over anything needs to know human emotion...things John Woo knows nothing about.

(Reply to this)

samarama writes:
on May 22 2007 12:29 PM

I say no to both Woo and Tony Scott.

Come on, guys. The reason "Casino Royale" was better than practically any other Bond movie was in the writing and making Bond a more human character. The secret wasn't in the action, but in the story itself. That is largely thanks to Paul Haggis, one of the best writers working.

Therefore, the franchise needs someone who is good with character, emotion and drama, not necessarily explosions, stunts and gadgets. If a director knows how to tell a satisfying story, the action and fireworks can be brought in by stunt coordinators, choreographers , etc. That's all icing on the cake. But the cake itself has to be good, and I don't think Scott or Woo really are all the greatest bakers. Scott is full of empty flash, though "Deja Vu" wasn't bad. If he can tone down the jittery editing and just focus on the story, he'd be alright.

I'm all for Forster, Greengrass, Proyas or Mostow. Forster, Greengrass and Proyas are three of the best working directors, in my opinion. All three are amazing visionaries that craft great stories that work without having to throw in empty pizazz to make up for their weaknesses.

(Reply to this)

okuonuora writes:
on May 22 2007 01:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#866310)
You are as stupid as you look.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on May 22 2007 01:13 PM

[b]My thoughts[/b]
Marc Forster: Why not. He makes some good drama, which James Bond could use. Score: 8

Tony Scott: He'd make good action, but not much else. Score: 6.5

Alex Proyas: I don't know about him... he seems like a science fiction type of guy, and I don't think James Bond should go sci-fi. But he has made some good movies. Score: 7.75

Jonathan Mostow: Haven't seen anything by him except for a half of T3, which was pretty good, and his other stuff looks fine. Score: 8

But really, I think they should just keep Martin Campbell.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 22 2007 02:41 PM

Is it any coincidence that Goldeneye and Casino Royale, the best Bond movies of late, were both directed by Martin Campbell? Give that guy whatever he wants, and have him direct the next one. He is apparently the best at it.

(Reply to this)

Reeven writes:
on May 22 2007 02:47 PM

Why not just stick with Martin Campbell?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Reply to this)

ajmueller writes:
on May 22 2007 05:25 PM

I would definitely go with Forster. That guy's made some solid films. Tony Scott would ruin it.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on May 22 2007 05:58 PM

even if forster would be my first choice of that list, it would be nice to see some love for alex proyas, after all he directed the most underrated movie of all time: dark city

(Reply to this)

RevolverOcelot writes:
on May 22 2007 06:29 PM

definitely not tony scott. try ridley scott.

(Reply to this)

Dread writes:
on May 22 2007 10:26 PM

FUCK giving it to Tony Scott. I'd rather Michael Bay have it than Tony Scott. The guy's a hack.

Jesus, just keep Martin Campbell. Isn't it clear he's the only one who can direct Bond movies anymore?

(Reply to this)

punkrockpirate writes:
on May 22 2007 10:49 PM

[b]no on tony scott[/b]
I loathe Tony Scott; I've seen some of his movies a few times on TV, and while they get a little better in terms of headaches on a smaller format, his quick cutting and frenetic (read: crackhead) style of filming annoys me to no end. I think Forster's an interesting choice, and I also agree with whoever mentioned Luc Besson. Also, who mentioned the Bourne movies, what about either Paul Greengrass or Doug Liman? I thought Liman's Bourne was good, as was Mr. and Mrs. Smith (not classic, of course, and a step below good Bond films, but fun like the best ones can be).

(Reply to this)

MC. writes:
on May 23 2007 11:05 AM

de niro

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on May 23 2007 12:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#866326)
That's not funny.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on May 23 2007 02:16 PM

Tony Scott is just going through the same phase Oliver Stone went through when he did Natural Born Killers and U-Turn. Tony's movies have always been fast-paced, but they've gotten progressively frenetic and it would take a producer with a firm hand to have him do the Bond series justice. I agree that Marc Forster could be good and action scenes in those kind of movies are almost exclusively handled by the second unit director anyway.

(Reply to this)

WiseGuy writes:
on May 24 2007 03:35 AM

I think they should keep Martin Campbell! Why are they thinking about other directors any way?

(Reply to this)

criddic writes:
on May 24 2007 12:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#866304)
OKay, Scott is too stylized, but Luc Besson is not? Uh, remember The Fifth Element?

Martin Campbell should do the next one. He did a good job with Casino Royale and The Mask of Zorro (back in '98).

(Reply to this)

Jethro Floyd writes:
on May 25 2007 09:52 AM

I want Verhoeven.

(Reply to this)

arcadefire325 writes:
on May 25 2007 11:59 AM

it would be funny to have tony scott as the director. An ADHD version of Bond. i'm joking. the bourne supremacy director would be good.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on May 25 2007 05:24 PM

i dunno i don't like any of tony scott's films (that's right not even top gun) and marc foster is too dramatic and in my opinion jonathon mostow kindof sucks at making movies........... terminator 3 c'mon he has already made a bad sequel to an excellent series why let him do the same thing to bond........... i wouldn't mind seeing alex proyas taking a shot at it even though he's kind of weird............ i robot seemed kind of like a big change for him actually........... what happened to the last director?

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on May 26 2007 01:33 AM

Forster hasn't done it for me in his last few directorial outings. In fact, he tends to squash the tone and heart of the movie, or bring ideas to the script that don't wax. I read a bunch of scripts in development last year, and to me one of the very best was "Stranger Than Fiction." It was hilarious, inventive, and had a punk-rock music soundtrack and ethos that made the main character's journey more triumphant and real. Forster threw all that out for some bemused, Kaufman-aping drollness and I literally fell asleep. "Stay" was another hot screenplay with a lot of buzz behind it, and though I haven't seen the film...has anyone? I'll let "Finding Neverland" slide, because I understand how it resonates with some audiences, plus I haven't read the script for it.

Maybe Forster works better under the radar, in which case Bond 22 shouldn't be left in his hands.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Marc Forster

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links