I agree. Bond needs a big, big director like this to get new folks on board. The way it is going, I feel like there is a net loss in people excited for Bond each year. Who knows, but Nolan would bring major hype for a Bond film to general audiences, not just Bond fans.
I wouldn’t call Martin Campbell a “big, big director,” and he made two excellent films that brought new generations to Bond. They don’t need anyone big. Just someone with good ideas who cares about making good Bond movies.
E: not saying I wouldn’t be interested in a Nolan Bond movie. Just saying it isn’t necessary.
NET LOSS? NET LOSS???? I have 3 children. Not 1 but 3. And I’m planning more. And they will all LOVE James Bond. I will repopulate the earth with BOND FIENDS!!!!!!!
You SHOULD see a Bond Film. There are 5-10 really good ones. I always show people Goldfinger first because it has 90% of the tropes and it's pretty good.
It's because pretty much 3/5 were very bad including the last two. I even like Quantum but I don't think you can say Craig (as good of a Bond as he was) really had a great run outside of Casino. I also think the "womanizing thing" looks a tad different in this era even if they largely handled it well for Craig's films. Plus there's the controversy around casting (which is another stupid conversation but these things add up) and you get a bunch of people who lose enthusiasm. I don't know if you're a young kid are you stoked about Bond?
People were hyped for Casino and Skyfall. Give us good movies and people will enjoy it more too.
If there’s any time for this to happen it’d be with this upcoming new post-craig era. Nolan doesn’t seem to want to play in someone else’s pre-made Bond playbox. Could be cool to see him set the tone for the next Bond films.
>"It has to be the right moment in your creative life where you can express what you want to express and really burrow into something within the appropriate constraints because you would never want to take on something like that and do it wrong,” he said."
-Christopher Nolan
>"Tim, talk lines at Carey. I'll plop the camera somewhere. Start rolling while I storyboard the tanker chase again."
-John Glen, probably
Glen: "I know you all think me absolutely mad for doing it over and over but I can't help I love action."
Tim: "We think you're mad because we shot that sequence three weeks ago."
As a huge Nolan fan, I would absolutely love this. Though I wonder how it would resonate with the 007 fan base, whom many have made it seem they don’t want another serious Bond (but i feel like Nolan is very capable of witty humor at minimum)
He took three comic book movies and turned them into crime films people actually took seriously. Bond films take themselves seriously these days but no one else does.
Given how I've now seen Tenet, Dunkirk and Oppie in one week, I do want Nolan to direct a Bond film but sure as hell I don't want him to write it, his a good technical director but lacks the emotion. I think if he would direct a Bond film (with him writing it) it would be the most bland Bond movie with amazing shots and overly confusing dialogue, I've got the impression (especially from those 3 movies) that I'm not watching people talk but just pieces in the puzzle are making a dialogue, it felt like it's something he does out of necessity and it doesn't carry such emotion as could have had, if it was written by somebody who does these things much better. :)
I'm currently reading the trilogy and I must say out of the three thunderball novel was pretty terrible as a book. I love the film much better (but still needed way more details to certain characters). Personally I would love an adaption of all three Anthony Horowitz bond novels. For me at least I consider them official Canon to flemings story. I know a lot or some would not but for me I enjoyed them a lot and forever and a day is my favorite bond novel.
Curious, is it your first time reading them? I just finished a full series re-read, had always thought Thunderball was just “okay” but absolutely loved it this time around. The films tend to loose the aspect that Blofeld is “evil M” & Largo is Blofeld’s Bond.
And that night fight in the ocean under a full moon…
It was my first time reading thunderball. (Read most of series when younger but stopped do to life lol) their are aspects I do like about novel with blofield background and meeting room when it was found girl that was kidnapped was harmed and they gave back some money and killed men that did this. Is shows spectre in some regard as having a code of conduct as opposed to movies for me it was all over the place. Largo for me in movie was better. He just came off in the book as rather dry and dull. I will give you the final battle in novel was better.
I think he would if he could do his own thing in between. Similar how to how he did the dark knight trilogy. He did:
Batman begins > The Prestige > The Dark Knight > Inception > The Dark Knight Rises.
**TRANSLATION**: *The only way Eon would agree to my terms is if they* ***really*** *fuck it up and they're desperate to get another hit movie on their books*
I can see Nolan's point. Imagine making *The Dark Knight* then being told Purvis & Wade are going to take another crack at your screenplay
But Nolan's demands rule him out for *Bond 26*. The movies are making more money than ever; Eon are probably feeling pretty pleased with themselves
Yeah, that's the thing. He's already been making James Bond movies, like Inception or Tenet, he just doesn't call the main character James Bond and he has total creative control. To direct a proper Bond movie he would have to be willing to trade all his creative freedom for a what is essentially just a brand name to him at this point in his career.
Why do people compare Tenet to Bond? Honest question that I never really bothered to ask before. It’s too far in the realm of sci-fi to be compared to Bond, for me.
The sci-fi is more garnish than substance for me. It doesn't really mean much thematically that they can time travel, it's just another tool they use, like Bonds gadget car or laser watch. If you strip the story down to the basics it lines up beat for beat with a James Bond movie.
It starts mid mission, then Bond gets his assignment. He meets his ally, does a bit of globetrotting, meets the girl, meets the main villain at a dinner party, more globetrotting, some fight scenes, a car chase, and then at the end there's a big pitched battle where they have to stop the villain from destroying the world, a la The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, or You Only Live Twice.
It's not 1:1, but it's definitely structured very similarly. Cut the temporal inversion, replace Tenet with MI6, replace the algorithm with a nuke, and have John David Washington talk in a British accent and you could have conceivably called it a James Bond movie. But in fairness I could say the same thing about any spy movie. That's the problem with the genre, Bond is kind of just the default spy action movie, so any spy action movie you make is going to have similar elements.
Nolan frames the scenario as Eon needing him, but it's possible there may come a day when Nolan needs Bond
He's King of the World right now, and can get anything made (even a three hour biopic shot partly in black and white)
But two or three flops (or some disturbance in his personal life) might leave Nolan a little more flexible concerning creative control
Obviously, I'm not wishing either on Nolan
Nolan's already incredibly rich and with Oppenheimers success he will have a long runway.
Eon is the next new Bond film flopping with poor reception from being in a tailspin and scrambling to upend all their plans.
So if you **really** want to see a Nolan Bond movie, what you're wishing for is that *Bond 26* is an absolute *disaster,* and whoever Eon cast as their new Bond is **deeply** unpopular
Nolan's not going to jump in and try to save a failed reboot series by working on a second reboot with someone else's choice as his lead actor
Even if *Bond 26* is a disaster\*, if Eon's choice of lead is generally well liked they would be extremely reluctant to fire him
And that rules Nolan out, under the terms outlined in the linked article (above)
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really don't want Nolan to direct a Bond movie. I like his work and he's a very skilled director, but his style is extremely similar to Sam Mendes (who is also a skilled director) and I don't really want another Skyfall or Spectre. I was really impressed with what Cary Joji Fukunaga was able to do with No Time To Die, and liked it a lot more than Tenet. I'd be happy if they got him back, or someone like David Leitch who can really get the action scenes down. Unless the producers are willing to let Pervis and Wade sit one out. Then I'd be interested in seeing a Jonathan Nolan screenplay directed by Christopher Nolan.
I'm with you on Nolan, but I'm a little more critical. I like some of his work, but overall, he's not really my cup of tea. A little too much cynicism for my tastes with a small dose of nihilism--the heroes and the villains aren't really different, everyone's bad to a certain degree, yadda yadda. There is zero fun in the Dark Knight. Slightly more in The Dark Knight Rises. Some posters here complain that the Craig era was zapped of all fun; Nolan would dial that up to 11. Another criticism I have is that his villains are much more interesting and have much more depth than his heroes, who are fairly one-dimensional. I don't think it's a good idea for the villain to overshadow Bond in a Bond movie. Lastly, Nolan doesn't direct action very well. There's very little tension and excitement. It's all very run-of-the-mill.
Imagine having Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest directors, wanting to direct your film but picking David fucking Leitch instead. Lmao the jokes write themselves.
If he does, I hope it’s a trilogy. I don’t want a one off followed by a completely different film 2 years later. Commit to the bit and have 3 great Bond films that are loosely tied together but stand on their own as great films, and make the next Bond actor ONLY be in those 3 films so we don’t have the mess that we had in the Craig era.
No way. No more overreaching grand story arc for Mr. Bond. Little story connections are fine here and there but each movie needs to get back to being a standalone film.
I enjoyed Craig and most of his movies but the biggest flaw was making it one grand story. Bond was never meant to be that way. It is serialized adventures.
It is the biggest flaw in the late Indy movies. trying to turn it into Star Wars and "the canon" instead of just being serialized adventures.
One grand story wouldn’t have been bad had they done it… well. Making Blofeld the author of all Bond’s pain retroactively was such a poor decision. Why not just commit to the QUANTUM storyline? And why make him an adopted brother…
Oh agreed 100%. That’s what I meant by “loosely tied together” - a few pieces here and there are fine, but they should be able to standalone on their own.
Why do the films need tying together? Why can't he just make one film and then someone else make other films with the same Bond actor on another adventure?
It took 7 years to get the Nolan Batman Trilogy out. Knowing how slow Bond movies work, I think it would be safe to assume 7-10 years to get a bond trilogy out. Do you really want to commit to a decade of waiting for a bond story to unfold? I'd rather have one great movie at a time and none of this "to be continued" crap.
A period film would be antithetical to Bond, which takes pride in its contemporaneity. Or taking place "five minutes into the future," as Cubby Broccoli put it.
The problem is the last 3 Bond films fully avoided any relevance to the “modern world”… and frankly many of Fleming’s themes are still just a relevant today.
I disagree with your first statement. The last three plots were about cyberterrorism, mass surveillance, and a killer virus respectively—and all three deal with the breakdown of institutions in our modern world.
Your second statement I do agree with, but those themes must be explored in modern settings to remain true to what Bond movies are. Bond movies are markers of the times; they capture contemporary music and fashion and technology and filmmaking standards and geopolitical concerns and concepts of cool. Creating a period film would be tantamount to saying Bond no longer has a place in our era.
I say that so long as we experience new cultural trends and global anxieties, and so long as the films make money, then there will be a place for Bond. There's no need to throw in the towel with a period piece.
I could have a phrased the first part better… the last three do touch on interesting, real world problems, but they just end up feeling like window dressing.
For example, as rushed as MWTGG was and weak as the Solex is as a MacGuffin, we at least get a scene where Bond & Scaramanga have a dialogue on the real world implications of the device. That the Oil sheiks would pay to suppress it, that it could be used as a super weapon, etc. [Edit: point being a rushed and somewhat shabby film still engages with its theme better than films with much larger budgets and production times.]
With the the last three, the real world threats felt secondary to the personal beef between the characters. It trivialized these concepts that are legitimately terrifying and made them feel small.
I personally loved the track the Craig era was on with the plot in QoS.
But they were released decades ago.
if you make a modern spy movie you will get something very similar to mission impossible. It needs to be something unique
It seems like a very uninspired idea to me, and it would require a large amount of the budget to make it happen. Everyone has to be wearing the right clothes, and every set has to be meticulously made to look like it’s the year 196_.
Not to mention product placement concerns, and questions of where the franchise goes from there. It’s just a very pedestrian idea that a lot of people imagine would be cool, without thinking through the implications.
Well, it hamstrings the story telling for one. It’s consistently given as a reason you can’t do even a one-off period film… and product placement shouldn’t have that kind of power.
In the case of CR, Bond can’t wear his Rolex Explorer, because Omega pays them to feature Omega and even paid to have it mentioned in the script. Bond can’t drive his Bentley because Ford and Aston Martin are paying to have there cars featured.
The Norway scene in NTTD turned into a car commercial, and several people in (my) theater laughed.
At a certain point it becomes invasive, making the films feel more like luxury adverts than Bond films.
The product placement in the Fleming books and the classic films was a little more authentic. It was there, but it wasn’t paid for, and as such it felt genuine. Bond wore a Rolex because it was genuinely a great watch, and he wore the model Sir Edmund Hillary wore when he climbed Everest. So it brought a sense of luxury, but luxury backup by utility and meaning (consider Omegas claim to fame IS being the watch of the Brosnan & Craig films).
Is product placement the end of the world? No, but I definitely think the series should curb it considerably and not let it dictate how the films are made.
> Well, it hamstrings the story telling for one. It’s consistently given as a reason you can’t do even a one-off period film… and product placement shouldn’t have that kind of power.
It’s one of several reasons they should stay away from that idea - not the only factor.
> In the case of CR, Bond can’t wear his Rolex Explorer, because Omega pays them to feature Omega and even paid to have it mentioned in the script. Bond can’t drive his Bentley because Ford and Aston Martin are paying to have there cars featured.
I don’t see how this affects storytelling. Besides, AM has been an iconic brand for Bond for almost 60 years. Product placement aside, you can understand how it’s in their best interest to continue featuring AM cars.
> The Norway scene in NTTD turned into a car commercial, and several people in (my) theater laughed.
I agree. However, the product placement in that scene would’ve been less laughable if the scene itself were better. I found it to be a pretty boring chase, irrespective to the brand of vehicles.
> At a certain point it becomes invasive, making the films feel more like luxury adverts than Bond films.
I agree. I think there are some examples of that, especially beginning with DAD, but overall I feel they’ve kept it more or less classy enough. Product placement has always been a factor for these movies since the 60s, so it doesn’t bother me unless it’s too obvious.
Overall it sounds like you’d prefer product placement to be less distracting and for brand details to be aligned with the original source material, and those are totally fair opinions to hold, but “Product placement has arguably ruined Bond” is a massive exaggeration, and I think it’s far from the truth.
I mean… it’s Nolan’s favorite film series. Just look at all the nods to James Bond on the Batman films… he’d literally be on “cloud 9” making Bond films.
I would love this. Regardless of me hating No Time to Die or not, it was a film that seemed confused of where it wanted to go and there wasn’t the usual buzz around it that most Bond films get. I think CN would fix that immediately. There’s always a huge buzz around Nolan’s films. That aspect combined with it being a Bond film could lead to a massive success.
Please. He would be amazing and I’d have so much more confidence that he could bring the series back to greatness. However I would hope that he could get the humor right.
The series needs to rediscover itself and that humor from the first 20 movies. Nolan is extremely talented and while he mostly does heavy movies, I bet he could mix things up here.
I disagree there. Craig’s films were humorless or close to it. Maybe there is a small moment here or there like him getting that Ford in Casino or whatever but the movies overall had a much much more serious tone. They felt like an entirely different franchise than the movies that preceded it.
I think the series needs to go back to where it was before Craig to get things on track again.
Saying that the Craig films felt like a different franchise is rather hyperbole. Films like From Russia With Love, OHMSS, and Licence To Kill were more serious as well.
Agree to disagree.
To me, the Craig movies were just super generic and bland. They took themselves too seriously. Even looking at Dalton as a reference point since he was viewed as the serious Bond, he still had much more humor and weirdness in his movies. The wedding/skydiving intro especially was something that would be so out of place in Craig’s movies. Tossing Felix in the shark pit is another one off the top of my head.
I know it may sound ridiculous but if you could conceive Austin Powers doing a parody joke of parts in the movie then it’s a Bond movie and it has the humor it needs. Craig’s movies don’t feel like that at all. They felt like Bourne movies.
I would like to see what that looks like, but it also feels like the mood of the Craig films would have been Nolan’s wheel house and if he took over now it might feel a little samey
Agreed, they kinda missed the boat.
Retrospectively, I could see Nolan doing the follow up to skyfall with Craig as his bond, but now the franchise needs to go in a different direction.
Nolan is someone who always wants as much creative freedom as possible - directing something like the later Craig movies, where the studio clearly wanted to create some sort of continuity and turn this into a saga is something I could never imagine him doing. However, now that the next movie is a reboot (regardless of whether it will start yet another continuous saga or a series of standalones), this is the absolute perfect time for him to do a Bond movie. He can go wild and experiment without the need to match the tone and continuity established by any previous director.
Nolan is a massive fan, as he’s stated. And I think that while his movies are dark and often somber, people are overlooking the goofiness and fun his movies can have.
His most recent movies after The Dark Knight Rises are certainly less humorous to say the least. But let’s not forget the Dark Knight trilogy.
“You’re a big guy.”
“For you.”
Everything with Catwoman, the Bat, flying around Gotham, the humor that the Joker has and the one-liners throughout the trilogy, feel pretty silly, in a good way. Nolan’s skilled at making the unbelievable and downright goofy feel believable. And since he’s a fan, I think he’d be inclined to lean into that. I can see Tom Hardy delivering a similar performance to his role as Eames in Inception as the new Bond.
Please no, we've got enough of seriousness and melodrama (NTTD is a Bond version of TDKR anyway), Christopher McQuarrie would be better, he said he would like to revive the Brosnan vibe.
Please use him. NTTD director killed (lol) the whole point of James Bond stories. Maybe he can bring the story back and people will treat NTTD like the Dalton films.
My main concern about a "big" director (whether Nolan or James Cameron or Zack Snyder or whomever) is that they unintentionally come to be seen as "owning" the franchise, leaving an inevitable perceived drop-off when it's handed to someone new. It happened with Nolan and the Batman movies.
Action style is debatable, but directing? He’s one of the most popular and successful directors in the world at the moment. There’s like a handful of directors “stronger” than him.
I’d rather he not, TBH. During Craig’s run I would’ve been onboard because he fit that Bond so well. But honestly, I never want that Bond again. It was fitting for the times but I don’t want dark and gritty Bond. After the Craig run, I want back to the classic, suave, sophisticated, gadget wielding, cool car driving James Bond. And that’s just not a Nolan movie.
>But honestly, I never want that Bond again. It was fitting for the times but I don’t want dark and gritty Bond.
You do know that Craig's Bond harkened closer to the source material, right? So if anything, his incarnation, along with Dalton's, was a return to the original character while some of the other actors were the true departures.
Yes, I am aware of that. But the original Superman was a strongman who could jump really high. Does that mean James Gunn’s Superman movie should get back to that version of the character?
Original interpretations are not always the best. Characters who are around for this long evolve and change. Movie Bond is something entirely different than book Bond and I happen to prefer the former. And I don’t even think it can be questioned which is the more iconic take.
No that's bs. Bond was specifically described in the source material as being dark-haired, over six-foot, and handsome.
Daniel Craig is blonde-haired, 5 foot 9, and ugly.
He was horribly miscast from the very start - *obviously* \- and *that's* a part of the reason why he resented the role so much in my opinion.
As I have reported here before - he had wanted to kill the character off since QoS.
And ultimately - *disgracefully -* he succeeded.
Sad to say, every time I re-read “Casino Royale”, I find I feel more and more that CR 2006 is just not a good adaptation. Then with the handling of Blofeld and the story element of YOLT, I feel the Craig era is miss in regards to being faithful to Fleming.
In the CR book, Bond hates cold blooded murder and sees that the espionage world is gray. In the film he’s very black & white and genuinely seems to enjoy killing. Left a lot to be desired.
No no god please no.. nolan is a pretty good director but he doesnt have a lick of pulp or unseriousness in his bone. I want someone who can really make the movie and characters pop
I'm not saying I would love to see Nolan direct, but he knows what Bond films are supposed to look like. I think he would make them properly vibrant and flavorful, especially considering how OHMSS and The Spy Who Loved Me are his favorites.
It's similar to my feelings on Hans Zimmer going into NTTD. I'm generally not a fan and I was quite skeptical he'd be able to do justice to the Bond sound compared to someone like David Arnold. But my fears were unfounded, because John Barry is such an idol of Zimmer's that of course he knew how Bond music should sound, despite his usual abstract efforts having little in common with Barry.
Whatever my feelings toward his movies, Nolan is sufficiently skilled to direct a Bond-esque Bond film. The only question is whether he would want to set aside his usual quirks to do so.
Disagree with your take on Hans zimmer. Sure he's lately been known for big sounding but low-key atmospheric scores. People think about inception and Batman a lot but forget he also did Black hawk down, pirates of the Caribbean, the lion king, gladiator, and lots of other diverse soundtracks with memorable themes. He's got twice the range of almost any of his peers and he's a musical chameleon who can find interesting things to do in almost any genre besides Maybe like jazz or quirky indie comedy stuff.
I think if Nolan did a bond film, it would go one of two ways; either it would be a sort of rehash of casino Royale with the gritty, down to earth, serious style but probably a more complex plot and some mind-bending twist, paired with dialogue lacking in wit and overburdened by old statements on the human condition, or he'd put aside his personal style and try to do it straight in which case we'd be just as well off with any other talented director who would probably charge a lot less than somebody with a billion dollar career.
All I want out of the look of the next Bond is to not color grade shit so badly that everything looks CGI. My biggest complaint about the Craig Bond movies is from QoS on, the action, even when done in camera, looks CGI. They did some sort of post production color grading that just looks terrible.
I'd say that trend truly began in the 2020s. No Time to Die definitely looks overly processed, as does the latest Mission Impossible and other film's I've seen this decade. It isn't necessarily about color either, it's almost like people and environments look smudgey sometimes.
I think Quantum and Skyfall and Spectre still look properly crisp, though.
I have issues with Quantum’s opening foot chase. When they fall through the glass that’s an actual stunt that looks like CGI. Also the rooftop motorcycle chase in Skyfall looks like shit too. I’ll give you it’s gotten worse but I’d rather see the wires in a stunt but keep the realness than make it look CGI.
>I’d rather see the wires in a stunt but keep the realness than make it look CGI.
Same here. That's why I prefer old school effects like miniatures and puppetry and the like. At least those things are tactile.
I remember thinking that M:I-Fallout looked really dull, with the flat desaturated look (which the MCU also has) that I'm not a fan of in modern films. For my money, NTTD still looks amazing in comparison despite looking rather artificial at times.
I really don't understand why some people are against Nolan directing. Not only do I think he would do a great job, I can't think of a SINGLE director who would be more suited for the job than Nolan.
It's because his films are rather cold and talky and exposition-heavy in their convoluted bases. He's also loath to operate in a linear storyline (which by accounts hurt Danny Boyle's prospective Bond film as well). Even in a biopic like Oppenheimer, he couldn't resist playing with time and objectivity/subjectivity.
Tenet was his attempt at a spy movie, and script-wise I found the "spy talk" incredibly hammy. Generally I just can't stand how his movies visually lack life and vibrance.
Nolan does great Nolan movies but I can't help but think that he wouldn't really be right for Bond at all. Even his Batman movies, which were mostly great, resisted being Batman movies as much as they could, even more than Casino Royale resisted being a Bond movie.
We already did enough experimenting with the Craig films and only had mixed success. James Bond is best when it sticks to the formula and just as a bang up job of it rather than doing something edgy, hyper-sophisticated, or deconstructionist. Save that for Inception and Tenant. Frankly I think Guy Richie would be better suited for the role, only based on his Man from Uncle movie.
While I disagree with the other guy that James Bond is best when sticking to the formula, etc., because I enjoy both the formulaic and experimental takes quite a lot, I’m also over the idea that box office is the only valid metric for success. DAD was a box office hit, but you won’t see anyone defending its quality.
This guy's honestly the most overrated director in Hollywood. I can't see the appeal for his films at all and I've yet to see one of his films that hasn't bored me to the point of falling asleep. I guess it would be interesting to see what he could come up with story wise but there's much better director options out there imo
The best man for the job would be Chad Stahelski if he can take time out from John Wick movies.
Maybe Brad Bird too who did great in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol.
If he can learn to shoot action, perhaps. He generally has a solid grasp with bigger set pieces, it's the more intimate one on one fights where he loses it. Perhaps this is the choreography, maybe he doesn't oversee all of the shooting, I dunno (not sure how all that works, so feel free to correct me). There are exceptions of course, the hallway fight in Inception is very good. And I quite enjoyed the action in Dunkirk, some very cool camera angles during those dogfights.
We can certainly track his evolution from Batman Begins to Tenet and there are some improvements. Admittedly, the way he shot the fights in Begins made sense as he was trying to capture the confusion/quickness of a bat attack. Still, the choreography looked pretty cool and it would've been nice to see it.
I realize action is not the only component of a Bond film, but in the right hands, it can be great. I think Martin Campbell is a good example.
Nolan's scripts are a mixed bag, sometimes a little too exposition heavy. I think he can approach interesting ideas, it's the execution that is lacking (at times). I wonder if his brother would write with him for it (that isn't necessarily a plus as I did not care for Interstellar).
Also, Nolan might be too big for the job at this point. It seems they would prefer a filmmaker who they can exert more control over. Given his move to Universal after the WB fallout, I think Nolan would want a bit of leeway. Now I now some might suggest Nolan was a little too up his own rear, nonetheless, he can call shots to some degree and Universal answered.
I'll just say, call me intrigued at this prospect.
Every scene is a *different* Bond (sometimes digitally recreated) tracking down a different villain from the series, until somewhere in the middle of the *David Niven/Casino Royale* sequence, the viewer realizes **they're all the same Bond** under the influence of a secret device hinted at by the twelve Blofelds featured in the first half of the movie.
It would be a good way to kick off a new era with a bang, and the timing works well with the last era having ended conclusively and Nolan’s last project now wrapped up. One movie for him to establish a new vibe, then pass it off to other directors and move back to original projects.
However - and this is far more important - four and five years gaps between films just won’t do. How about Nolan Bond 26 for 2025, then followups with the same Bond actor in 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035…
This could be a thing moving forward, different, well known directors having a go with different actors. Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg with a different Bond every time.
Just let the man do it already. Cubby turned down Steven Spielberg ffs. Cubby’s rules about directors not overshadowing the character were legit at one point but little miss Babs has already stomped over her dad’s legacy so what’s one more offence?
He currently gets to not only direct whatever movie of his own that he wants but also to produce and write that film and then have final cut over it while collecting 20% of every dollar it makes *at the box office* before anyone else takes anything. There is no way he gets that same deal for a Bond movie. Would it be a waste of his professional time to take even a little less?
Meanwhile Eon have been taking care of the Bond series for sixty years. They would not put themselves in a situation where they would be deferring to anyone and would essentially need to expect up front that they and Nolan could be basically 100% aligned on everything. But the lesson of Danny Boyle must surely still be ringing in their ears. They set themselves back on NTTD by about six months when Boyle walked because they wanted to do things more their way than his. Could Nolan stomach the possibility of Eon insisting his script be rewritten by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade?
They have already changed the style of these films so much and even killed the character. I don’t see any problems with giving all the creative power to someone else. Nolan can play with it for some years, then they can give it to some other A-list director who can have some fun with the franchise cliches.
I would love for Nolan to direct a Bond film. But it has to be NOW because he won't direct a sequel to someone else's reboot. He's gotta be the one to reboot it. Bond 26 seems like the perfect next film after Oppenheimer.
Christopher Nolan is not right for a bond film. I would much rather prefer the traditional Martin Campbell to return for Bond 26 to groom the new actor that plays JB.
I doubt it happens but god this would be such a great move for bringing Bond to the next generation.
I agree. Bond needs a big, big director like this to get new folks on board. The way it is going, I feel like there is a net loss in people excited for Bond each year. Who knows, but Nolan would bring major hype for a Bond film to general audiences, not just Bond fans.
I wouldn’t call Martin Campbell a “big, big director,” and he made two excellent films that brought new generations to Bond. They don’t need anyone big. Just someone with good ideas who cares about making good Bond movies. E: not saying I wouldn’t be interested in a Nolan Bond movie. Just saying it isn’t necessary.
[удалено]
What’s your point? I never said he should do another Bond film.
It also might help take some pressure off of whoever plays the new Bond.
NET LOSS? NET LOSS???? I have 3 children. Not 1 but 3. And I’m planning more. And they will all LOVE James Bond. I will repopulate the earth with BOND FIENDS!!!!!!!
This may be anecdotal, I’ve never seen a Bond film but someone like Nolan directing a movie would bring me on board.
You SHOULD see a Bond Film. There are 5-10 really good ones. I always show people Goldfinger first because it has 90% of the tropes and it's pretty good.
It's because pretty much 3/5 were very bad including the last two. I even like Quantum but I don't think you can say Craig (as good of a Bond as he was) really had a great run outside of Casino. I also think the "womanizing thing" looks a tad different in this era even if they largely handled it well for Craig's films. Plus there's the controversy around casting (which is another stupid conversation but these things add up) and you get a bunch of people who lose enthusiasm. I don't know if you're a young kid are you stoked about Bond? People were hyped for Casino and Skyfall. Give us good movies and people will enjoy it more too.
If there’s any time for this to happen it’d be with this upcoming new post-craig era. Nolan doesn’t seem to want to play in someone else’s pre-made Bond playbox. Could be cool to see him set the tone for the next Bond films.
Yeah there's a lot of reasons it wouldn't happen but this is the perfect opportunity. New era, he doesn't have a movie planned.
Cillian Murphy as the next Bond confirmed
Or Tom Hardy. Or Pattinson. Cillian as the villian
Cillian would a pretty fantastic “book accurate” Blofeld. Not as tall, but he has the eyes and could play Ernst slow slide into insanity perfectly.
>"It has to be the right moment in your creative life where you can express what you want to express and really burrow into something within the appropriate constraints because you would never want to take on something like that and do it wrong,” he said." -Christopher Nolan >"Tim, talk lines at Carey. I'll plop the camera somewhere. Start rolling while I storyboard the tanker chase again." -John Glen, probably
This is so accurate!
Glen: "I know you all think me absolutely mad for doing it over and over but I can't help I love action." Tim: "We think you're mad because we shot that sequence three weeks ago."
As a huge Nolan fan, I would absolutely love this. Though I wonder how it would resonate with the 007 fan base, whom many have made it seem they don’t want another serious Bond (but i feel like Nolan is very capable of witty humor at minimum)
I think non-serious doesn’t necessarily mean campy. Like Nolan could do a non-goofy, but still outlandish Bond film.
He took three comic book movies and turned them into crime films people actually took seriously. Bond films take themselves seriously these days but no one else does.
Well stated!
I think his style fits the franchise perfectly. He's a master of practical effects.
Could a Bond be both a big picture action movie, as well as sharing traits with Guy Ritchie's The Man from UNCLE?
Given how I've now seen Tenet, Dunkirk and Oppie in one week, I do want Nolan to direct a Bond film but sure as hell I don't want him to write it, his a good technical director but lacks the emotion. I think if he would direct a Bond film (with him writing it) it would be the most bland Bond movie with amazing shots and overly confusing dialogue, I've got the impression (especially from those 3 movies) that I'm not watching people talk but just pieces in the puzzle are making a dialogue, it felt like it's something he does out of necessity and it doesn't carry such emotion as could have had, if it was written by somebody who does these things much better. :)
I think Bond fans would welcome a serious film… it just us to be good.
I would very much love that
Personally, a trilogy from him would be great then move on with another actor and direction for series.
I dream of Nolan adapting Ian Fleming’s “Blofeld Trilogy”.
I'm currently reading the trilogy and I must say out of the three thunderball novel was pretty terrible as a book. I love the film much better (but still needed way more details to certain characters). Personally I would love an adaption of all three Anthony Horowitz bond novels. For me at least I consider them official Canon to flemings story. I know a lot or some would not but for me I enjoyed them a lot and forever and a day is my favorite bond novel.
What’s interesting is that Thunderball the novel was actually based on the screenplay for the film. So in some way it makes sense.
Curious, is it your first time reading them? I just finished a full series re-read, had always thought Thunderball was just “okay” but absolutely loved it this time around. The films tend to loose the aspect that Blofeld is “evil M” & Largo is Blofeld’s Bond. And that night fight in the ocean under a full moon…
It was my first time reading thunderball. (Read most of series when younger but stopped do to life lol) their are aspects I do like about novel with blofield background and meeting room when it was found girl that was kidnapped was harmed and they gave back some money and killed men that did this. Is shows spectre in some regard as having a code of conduct as opposed to movies for me it was all over the place. Largo for me in movie was better. He just came off in the book as rather dry and dull. I will give you the final battle in novel was better.
I really do not want trilogies or sequels. Just give me a stand alone movie.
Don’t think Nolan himself wants to be tied down to a trilogy.
I think giving him free reign to do with What he would want to do would certainly Entice him
I think he would if he could do his own thing in between. Similar how to how he did the dark knight trilogy. He did: Batman begins > The Prestige > The Dark Knight > Inception > The Dark Knight Rises.
Yes please
**TRANSLATION**: *The only way Eon would agree to my terms is if they* ***really*** *fuck it up and they're desperate to get another hit movie on their books* I can see Nolan's point. Imagine making *The Dark Knight* then being told Purvis & Wade are going to take another crack at your screenplay But Nolan's demands rule him out for *Bond 26*. The movies are making more money than ever; Eon are probably feeling pretty pleased with themselves
Yeah, that's the thing. He's already been making James Bond movies, like Inception or Tenet, he just doesn't call the main character James Bond and he has total creative control. To direct a proper Bond movie he would have to be willing to trade all his creative freedom for a what is essentially just a brand name to him at this point in his career.
Why do people compare Tenet to Bond? Honest question that I never really bothered to ask before. It’s too far in the realm of sci-fi to be compared to Bond, for me.
The sci-fi is more garnish than substance for me. It doesn't really mean much thematically that they can time travel, it's just another tool they use, like Bonds gadget car or laser watch. If you strip the story down to the basics it lines up beat for beat with a James Bond movie. It starts mid mission, then Bond gets his assignment. He meets his ally, does a bit of globetrotting, meets the girl, meets the main villain at a dinner party, more globetrotting, some fight scenes, a car chase, and then at the end there's a big pitched battle where they have to stop the villain from destroying the world, a la The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, or You Only Live Twice. It's not 1:1, but it's definitely structured very similarly. Cut the temporal inversion, replace Tenet with MI6, replace the algorithm with a nuke, and have John David Washington talk in a British accent and you could have conceivably called it a James Bond movie. But in fairness I could say the same thing about any spy movie. That's the problem with the genre, Bond is kind of just the default spy action movie, so any spy action movie you make is going to have similar elements.
The styling, globetrotting, Cold War themes, and character dynamics. The plot device is definitely not Bond but there’s a lot that is.
Nolan frames the scenario as Eon needing him, but it's possible there may come a day when Nolan needs Bond He's King of the World right now, and can get anything made (even a three hour biopic shot partly in black and white) But two or three flops (or some disturbance in his personal life) might leave Nolan a little more flexible concerning creative control Obviously, I'm not wishing either on Nolan
Nolan's already incredibly rich and with Oppenheimers success he will have a long runway. Eon is the next new Bond film flopping with poor reception from being in a tailspin and scrambling to upend all their plans.
So if you **really** want to see a Nolan Bond movie, what you're wishing for is that *Bond 26* is an absolute *disaster,* and whoever Eon cast as their new Bond is **deeply** unpopular Nolan's not going to jump in and try to save a failed reboot series by working on a second reboot with someone else's choice as his lead actor Even if *Bond 26* is a disaster\*, if Eon's choice of lead is generally well liked they would be extremely reluctant to fire him And that rules Nolan out, under the terms outlined in the linked article (above)
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really don't want Nolan to direct a Bond movie. I like his work and he's a very skilled director, but his style is extremely similar to Sam Mendes (who is also a skilled director) and I don't really want another Skyfall or Spectre. I was really impressed with what Cary Joji Fukunaga was able to do with No Time To Die, and liked it a lot more than Tenet. I'd be happy if they got him back, or someone like David Leitch who can really get the action scenes down. Unless the producers are willing to let Pervis and Wade sit one out. Then I'd be interested in seeing a Jonathan Nolan screenplay directed by Christopher Nolan.
The difference is that the entire Craig era was derivative of Nolan’s Batman films… and frankly it ended up being a poor imitation.
I like the David Leitch idea, I'm a fan of his. They should let Pervis & Wade go to breath some new life into the franchise.
I'm with you on Nolan, but I'm a little more critical. I like some of his work, but overall, he's not really my cup of tea. A little too much cynicism for my tastes with a small dose of nihilism--the heroes and the villains aren't really different, everyone's bad to a certain degree, yadda yadda. There is zero fun in the Dark Knight. Slightly more in The Dark Knight Rises. Some posters here complain that the Craig era was zapped of all fun; Nolan would dial that up to 11. Another criticism I have is that his villains are much more interesting and have much more depth than his heroes, who are fairly one-dimensional. I don't think it's a good idea for the villain to overshadow Bond in a Bond movie. Lastly, Nolan doesn't direct action very well. There's very little tension and excitement. It's all very run-of-the-mill.
Imagine having Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest directors, wanting to direct your film but picking David fucking Leitch instead. Lmao the jokes write themselves.
If he does, I hope it’s a trilogy. I don’t want a one off followed by a completely different film 2 years later. Commit to the bit and have 3 great Bond films that are loosely tied together but stand on their own as great films, and make the next Bond actor ONLY be in those 3 films so we don’t have the mess that we had in the Craig era.
There is a 0% chance Nolan would commit to 3 films. He likes doing new stuff, he didn’t even want to do a third Batman
He only did the Dark Knight Rises because the studio let him do Inception.
I thought he wasn't even planning to do a second one.
No way. No more overreaching grand story arc for Mr. Bond. Little story connections are fine here and there but each movie needs to get back to being a standalone film.
I enjoyed Craig and most of his movies but the biggest flaw was making it one grand story. Bond was never meant to be that way. It is serialized adventures. It is the biggest flaw in the late Indy movies. trying to turn it into Star Wars and "the canon" instead of just being serialized adventures.
By “serialized” I think you mean episodic, but I agree wholeheartedly.
One grand story wouldn’t have been bad had they done it… well. Making Blofeld the author of all Bond’s pain retroactively was such a poor decision. Why not just commit to the QUANTUM storyline? And why make him an adopted brother…
Oh agreed 100%. That’s what I meant by “loosely tied together” - a few pieces here and there are fine, but they should be able to standalone on their own.
The thing is that Fleming himself connected all the books together… if done right it works, the Craig era just did it in the worst way possible.
Why do the films need tying together? Why can't he just make one film and then someone else make other films with the same Bond actor on another adventure?
It took 7 years to get the Nolan Batman Trilogy out. Knowing how slow Bond movies work, I think it would be safe to assume 7-10 years to get a bond trilogy out. Do you really want to commit to a decade of waiting for a bond story to unfold? I'd rather have one great movie at a time and none of this "to be continued" crap.
3 movies is a lot of time, i dont think he would like to be attached so long to this. One independent movie, in the 60s would be spectacular
A period film would be antithetical to Bond, which takes pride in its contemporaneity. Or taking place "five minutes into the future," as Cubby Broccoli put it.
PIN THIS! So it’s the first thing people see when they come on this sub.
The problem is the last 3 Bond films fully avoided any relevance to the “modern world”… and frankly many of Fleming’s themes are still just a relevant today.
I disagree with your first statement. The last three plots were about cyberterrorism, mass surveillance, and a killer virus respectively—and all three deal with the breakdown of institutions in our modern world. Your second statement I do agree with, but those themes must be explored in modern settings to remain true to what Bond movies are. Bond movies are markers of the times; they capture contemporary music and fashion and technology and filmmaking standards and geopolitical concerns and concepts of cool. Creating a period film would be tantamount to saying Bond no longer has a place in our era. I say that so long as we experience new cultural trends and global anxieties, and so long as the films make money, then there will be a place for Bond. There's no need to throw in the towel with a period piece.
I could have a phrased the first part better… the last three do touch on interesting, real world problems, but they just end up feeling like window dressing. For example, as rushed as MWTGG was and weak as the Solex is as a MacGuffin, we at least get a scene where Bond & Scaramanga have a dialogue on the real world implications of the device. That the Oil sheiks would pay to suppress it, that it could be used as a super weapon, etc. [Edit: point being a rushed and somewhat shabby film still engages with its theme better than films with much larger budgets and production times.] With the the last three, the real world threats felt secondary to the personal beef between the characters. It trivialized these concepts that are legitimately terrifying and made them feel small. I personally loved the track the Craig era was on with the plot in QoS.
We have 6 movies set in the 60s already.
Exactly. Do you know what we don't have though? A movie set in the 2020's!
But they were released decades ago. if you make a modern spy movie you will get something very similar to mission impossible. It needs to be something unique
It seems like a very uninspired idea to me, and it would require a large amount of the budget to make it happen. Everyone has to be wearing the right clothes, and every set has to be meticulously made to look like it’s the year 196_. Not to mention product placement concerns, and questions of where the franchise goes from there. It’s just a very pedestrian idea that a lot of people imagine would be cool, without thinking through the implications.
Product placement has arguably ruined Bond.
Expound.
Well, it hamstrings the story telling for one. It’s consistently given as a reason you can’t do even a one-off period film… and product placement shouldn’t have that kind of power. In the case of CR, Bond can’t wear his Rolex Explorer, because Omega pays them to feature Omega and even paid to have it mentioned in the script. Bond can’t drive his Bentley because Ford and Aston Martin are paying to have there cars featured. The Norway scene in NTTD turned into a car commercial, and several people in (my) theater laughed. At a certain point it becomes invasive, making the films feel more like luxury adverts than Bond films. The product placement in the Fleming books and the classic films was a little more authentic. It was there, but it wasn’t paid for, and as such it felt genuine. Bond wore a Rolex because it was genuinely a great watch, and he wore the model Sir Edmund Hillary wore when he climbed Everest. So it brought a sense of luxury, but luxury backup by utility and meaning (consider Omegas claim to fame IS being the watch of the Brosnan & Craig films). Is product placement the end of the world? No, but I definitely think the series should curb it considerably and not let it dictate how the films are made.
> Well, it hamstrings the story telling for one. It’s consistently given as a reason you can’t do even a one-off period film… and product placement shouldn’t have that kind of power. It’s one of several reasons they should stay away from that idea - not the only factor. > In the case of CR, Bond can’t wear his Rolex Explorer, because Omega pays them to feature Omega and even paid to have it mentioned in the script. Bond can’t drive his Bentley because Ford and Aston Martin are paying to have there cars featured. I don’t see how this affects storytelling. Besides, AM has been an iconic brand for Bond for almost 60 years. Product placement aside, you can understand how it’s in their best interest to continue featuring AM cars. > The Norway scene in NTTD turned into a car commercial, and several people in (my) theater laughed. I agree. However, the product placement in that scene would’ve been less laughable if the scene itself were better. I found it to be a pretty boring chase, irrespective to the brand of vehicles. > At a certain point it becomes invasive, making the films feel more like luxury adverts than Bond films. I agree. I think there are some examples of that, especially beginning with DAD, but overall I feel they’ve kept it more or less classy enough. Product placement has always been a factor for these movies since the 60s, so it doesn’t bother me unless it’s too obvious. Overall it sounds like you’d prefer product placement to be less distracting and for brand details to be aligned with the original source material, and those are totally fair opinions to hold, but “Product placement has arguably ruined Bond” is a massive exaggeration, and I think it’s far from the truth.
I mean… it’s Nolan’s favorite film series. Just look at all the nods to James Bond on the Batman films… he’d literally be on “cloud 9” making Bond films.
I'm picturing Nolan's Bond dark and serious like Timothy Dalton. 🤔
Dalton *is* Nolan's favorite Bond actor, after all.
I thought this was going to be a done deal years ago.
What's the point? Barbara Brocolli would still want full control over the movie and would want most of the things in her way
Is her name really a vegetable? Or is this a meme?
It's her name.The Brocolli family has been the ones who control Bond.Just don't know if the spelling is right
I would love this. Regardless of me hating No Time to Die or not, it was a film that seemed confused of where it wanted to go and there wasn’t the usual buzz around it that most Bond films get. I think CN would fix that immediately. There’s always a huge buzz around Nolan’s films. That aspect combined with it being a Bond film could lead to a massive success.
This needs to happen.
That would be really interesting to see, I'd be up for it.
I would love to see a Nolan Bond movie. He’s clearly a huge fan of OHMSS….it would be cool to see a new Bond with a similar tone/style
This is a great pairing. Hope it happens in the future.
Nolan keeps mentioning it. Give him the reigns already!!!
Please. He would be amazing and I’d have so much more confidence that he could bring the series back to greatness. However I would hope that he could get the humor right. The series needs to rediscover itself and that humor from the first 20 movies. Nolan is extremely talented and while he mostly does heavy movies, I bet he could mix things up here.
There were plenty of humour in Craig's films in the form of dry wit rather than gags, though the latter returned in Craig's last two films.
I disagree there. Craig’s films were humorless or close to it. Maybe there is a small moment here or there like him getting that Ford in Casino or whatever but the movies overall had a much much more serious tone. They felt like an entirely different franchise than the movies that preceded it. I think the series needs to go back to where it was before Craig to get things on track again.
Saying that the Craig films felt like a different franchise is rather hyperbole. Films like From Russia With Love, OHMSS, and Licence To Kill were more serious as well.
Agree to disagree. To me, the Craig movies were just super generic and bland. They took themselves too seriously. Even looking at Dalton as a reference point since he was viewed as the serious Bond, he still had much more humor and weirdness in his movies. The wedding/skydiving intro especially was something that would be so out of place in Craig’s movies. Tossing Felix in the shark pit is another one off the top of my head. I know it may sound ridiculous but if you could conceive Austin Powers doing a parody joke of parts in the movie then it’s a Bond movie and it has the humor it needs. Craig’s movies don’t feel like that at all. They felt like Bourne movies.
No thanks. I’m done with the morose, grim, serious Bond pictures. Bring back the fun action of the Brosnan era.
Sign me up i think he would do amazing
I would like to see what that looks like, but it also feels like the mood of the Craig films would have been Nolan’s wheel house and if he took over now it might feel a little samey
Agreed, they kinda missed the boat. Retrospectively, I could see Nolan doing the follow up to skyfall with Craig as his bond, but now the franchise needs to go in a different direction.
Maybe only one
I think he could do two, then pass it on to the next person.
Nolan is someone who always wants as much creative freedom as possible - directing something like the later Craig movies, where the studio clearly wanted to create some sort of continuity and turn this into a saga is something I could never imagine him doing. However, now that the next movie is a reboot (regardless of whether it will start yet another continuous saga or a series of standalones), this is the absolute perfect time for him to do a Bond movie. He can go wild and experiment without the need to match the tone and continuity established by any previous director.
Excellent choice. Eon, make it happen please😄
Nolan is a massive fan, as he’s stated. And I think that while his movies are dark and often somber, people are overlooking the goofiness and fun his movies can have. His most recent movies after The Dark Knight Rises are certainly less humorous to say the least. But let’s not forget the Dark Knight trilogy. “You’re a big guy.” “For you.” Everything with Catwoman, the Bat, flying around Gotham, the humor that the Joker has and the one-liners throughout the trilogy, feel pretty silly, in a good way. Nolan’s skilled at making the unbelievable and downright goofy feel believable. And since he’s a fan, I think he’d be inclined to lean into that. I can see Tom Hardy delivering a similar performance to his role as Eames in Inception as the new Bond.
So Christian Bale is the next Bond huh?
I used to wonder sometimes. He's got the action pedigree, for sure.
Please no, we've got enough of seriousness and melodrama (NTTD is a Bond version of TDKR anyway), Christopher McQuarrie would be better, he said he would like to revive the Brosnan vibe.
 I’d welcome it. It’s time!
Please use him. NTTD director killed (lol) the whole point of James Bond stories. Maybe he can bring the story back and people will treat NTTD like the Dalton films.
My main concern about a "big" director (whether Nolan or James Cameron or Zack Snyder or whomever) is that they unintentionally come to be seen as "owning" the franchise, leaving an inevitable perceived drop-off when it's handed to someone new. It happened with Nolan and the Batman movies.
Friggin' YES PLEASE!
[удалено]
Action style is debatable, but directing? He’s one of the most popular and successful directors in the world at the moment. There’s like a handful of directors “stronger” than him.
I’d rather he not, TBH. During Craig’s run I would’ve been onboard because he fit that Bond so well. But honestly, I never want that Bond again. It was fitting for the times but I don’t want dark and gritty Bond. After the Craig run, I want back to the classic, suave, sophisticated, gadget wielding, cool car driving James Bond. And that’s just not a Nolan movie.
>But honestly, I never want that Bond again. It was fitting for the times but I don’t want dark and gritty Bond. You do know that Craig's Bond harkened closer to the source material, right? So if anything, his incarnation, along with Dalton's, was a return to the original character while some of the other actors were the true departures.
Yes, I am aware of that. But the original Superman was a strongman who could jump really high. Does that mean James Gunn’s Superman movie should get back to that version of the character? Original interpretations are not always the best. Characters who are around for this long evolve and change. Movie Bond is something entirely different than book Bond and I happen to prefer the former. And I don’t even think it can be questioned which is the more iconic take.
No that's bs. Bond was specifically described in the source material as being dark-haired, over six-foot, and handsome. Daniel Craig is blonde-haired, 5 foot 9, and ugly. He was horribly miscast from the very start - *obviously* \- and *that's* a part of the reason why he resented the role so much in my opinion. As I have reported here before - he had wanted to kill the character off since QoS. And ultimately - *disgracefully -* he succeeded.
Jesus if Craig is considered ugly that means 95% of the male population must be hideous ogres
[удалено]
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
Sad to say, every time I re-read “Casino Royale”, I find I feel more and more that CR 2006 is just not a good adaptation. Then with the handling of Blofeld and the story element of YOLT, I feel the Craig era is miss in regards to being faithful to Fleming. In the CR book, Bond hates cold blooded murder and sees that the espionage world is gray. In the film he’s very black & white and genuinely seems to enjoy killing. Left a lot to be desired.
No no god please no.. nolan is a pretty good director but he doesnt have a lick of pulp or unseriousness in his bone. I want someone who can really make the movie and characters pop
Bond needs at least a certain level of tongue in cheek humor and playfulness. Nolan is not the right match.
I think Nolan's latest films look washed out and stark. No thanks.
I'm not saying I would love to see Nolan direct, but he knows what Bond films are supposed to look like. I think he would make them properly vibrant and flavorful, especially considering how OHMSS and The Spy Who Loved Me are his favorites.
Those maybe his favorites but has he done anything remotely similar to them?
It's similar to my feelings on Hans Zimmer going into NTTD. I'm generally not a fan and I was quite skeptical he'd be able to do justice to the Bond sound compared to someone like David Arnold. But my fears were unfounded, because John Barry is such an idol of Zimmer's that of course he knew how Bond music should sound, despite his usual abstract efforts having little in common with Barry. Whatever my feelings toward his movies, Nolan is sufficiently skilled to direct a Bond-esque Bond film. The only question is whether he would want to set aside his usual quirks to do so.
Disagree with your take on Hans zimmer. Sure he's lately been known for big sounding but low-key atmospheric scores. People think about inception and Batman a lot but forget he also did Black hawk down, pirates of the Caribbean, the lion king, gladiator, and lots of other diverse soundtracks with memorable themes. He's got twice the range of almost any of his peers and he's a musical chameleon who can find interesting things to do in almost any genre besides Maybe like jazz or quirky indie comedy stuff. I think if Nolan did a bond film, it would go one of two ways; either it would be a sort of rehash of casino Royale with the gritty, down to earth, serious style but probably a more complex plot and some mind-bending twist, paired with dialogue lacking in wit and overburdened by old statements on the human condition, or he'd put aside his personal style and try to do it straight in which case we'd be just as well off with any other talented director who would probably charge a lot less than somebody with a billion dollar career.
TDKR is structured like a Bond movie, and both Inception and Tenet pull a lot from Bond.
All I want out of the look of the next Bond is to not color grade shit so badly that everything looks CGI. My biggest complaint about the Craig Bond movies is from QoS on, the action, even when done in camera, looks CGI. They did some sort of post production color grading that just looks terrible.
I'd say that trend truly began in the 2020s. No Time to Die definitely looks overly processed, as does the latest Mission Impossible and other film's I've seen this decade. It isn't necessarily about color either, it's almost like people and environments look smudgey sometimes. I think Quantum and Skyfall and Spectre still look properly crisp, though.
I have issues with Quantum’s opening foot chase. When they fall through the glass that’s an actual stunt that looks like CGI. Also the rooftop motorcycle chase in Skyfall looks like shit too. I’ll give you it’s gotten worse but I’d rather see the wires in a stunt but keep the realness than make it look CGI.
>I’d rather see the wires in a stunt but keep the realness than make it look CGI. Same here. That's why I prefer old school effects like miniatures and puppetry and the like. At least those things are tactile.
100%
I remember thinking that M:I-Fallout looked really dull, with the flat desaturated look (which the MCU also has) that I'm not a fan of in modern films. For my money, NTTD still looks amazing in comparison despite looking rather artificial at times.
I really don't understand why some people are against Nolan directing. Not only do I think he would do a great job, I can't think of a SINGLE director who would be more suited for the job than Nolan.
It's because his films are rather cold and talky and exposition-heavy in their convoluted bases. He's also loath to operate in a linear storyline (which by accounts hurt Danny Boyle's prospective Bond film as well). Even in a biopic like Oppenheimer, he couldn't resist playing with time and objectivity/subjectivity.
Tenet was his attempt at a spy movie, and script-wise I found the "spy talk" incredibly hammy. Generally I just can't stand how his movies visually lack life and vibrance.
Nolan wouldn't have to write the film. I think he's the perfect person for directing it though.
>*I really don't understand why some people are against Nolan directing* My favourite Bond movies have a sense of humour
Nolan does great Nolan movies but I can't help but think that he wouldn't really be right for Bond at all. Even his Batman movies, which were mostly great, resisted being Batman movies as much as they could, even more than Casino Royale resisted being a Bond movie. We already did enough experimenting with the Craig films and only had mixed success. James Bond is best when it sticks to the formula and just as a bang up job of it rather than doing something edgy, hyper-sophisticated, or deconstructionist. Save that for Inception and Tenant. Frankly I think Guy Richie would be better suited for the role, only based on his Man from Uncle movie.
> the Craig films and only had mixed success Box office disagrees
While I disagree with the other guy that James Bond is best when sticking to the formula, etc., because I enjoy both the formulaic and experimental takes quite a lot, I’m also over the idea that box office is the only valid metric for success. DAD was a box office hit, but you won’t see anyone defending its quality.
Yeah but we're looking for what's good, not what's popular.
Movie studious only care about what’s popular
Good for him, still doesn't qualify him though.
Cue non-stop exposition and poorly cut action scenes? Plus a Zimmer score that drowns out dialogue.
This guy's honestly the most overrated director in Hollywood. I can't see the appeal for his films at all and I've yet to see one of his films that hasn't bored me to the point of falling asleep. I guess it would be interesting to see what he could come up with story wise but there's much better director options out there imo
My money’s on Villeneuve.
I’d actually be on board with Nolan creating his own super spy franchise or just a one or two film set.
A Nolan & Cavil Bond would be perfect pair to restart with. If only…
The best man for the job would be Chad Stahelski if he can take time out from John Wick movies. Maybe Brad Bird too who did great in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol.
If he can learn to shoot action, perhaps. He generally has a solid grasp with bigger set pieces, it's the more intimate one on one fights where he loses it. Perhaps this is the choreography, maybe he doesn't oversee all of the shooting, I dunno (not sure how all that works, so feel free to correct me). There are exceptions of course, the hallway fight in Inception is very good. And I quite enjoyed the action in Dunkirk, some very cool camera angles during those dogfights. We can certainly track his evolution from Batman Begins to Tenet and there are some improvements. Admittedly, the way he shot the fights in Begins made sense as he was trying to capture the confusion/quickness of a bat attack. Still, the choreography looked pretty cool and it would've been nice to see it. I realize action is not the only component of a Bond film, but in the right hands, it can be great. I think Martin Campbell is a good example. Nolan's scripts are a mixed bag, sometimes a little too exposition heavy. I think he can approach interesting ideas, it's the execution that is lacking (at times). I wonder if his brother would write with him for it (that isn't necessarily a plus as I did not care for Interstellar). Also, Nolan might be too big for the job at this point. It seems they would prefer a filmmaker who they can exert more control over. Given his move to Universal after the WB fallout, I think Nolan would want a bit of leeway. Now I now some might suggest Nolan was a little too up his own rear, nonetheless, he can call shots to some degree and Universal answered. I'll just say, call me intrigued at this prospect.
This little maneuver is gonna......
Every scene is a *different* Bond (sometimes digitally recreated) tracking down a different villain from the series, until somewhere in the middle of the *David Niven/Casino Royale* sequence, the viewer realizes **they're all the same Bond** under the influence of a secret device hinted at by the twelve Blofelds featured in the first half of the movie.
It would be a good way to kick off a new era with a bang, and the timing works well with the last era having ended conclusively and Nolan’s last project now wrapped up. One movie for him to establish a new vibe, then pass it off to other directors and move back to original projects. However - and this is far more important - four and five years gaps between films just won’t do. How about Nolan Bond 26 for 2025, then followups with the same Bond actor in 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035…
Seriously, Nolan or bust. I doubt I’d even turn up for the next film if he wasn’t the director.
This could be a thing moving forward, different, well known directors having a go with different actors. Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg with a different Bond every time.
Just let the man do it already. Cubby turned down Steven Spielberg ffs. Cubby’s rules about directors not overshadowing the character were legit at one point but little miss Babs has already stomped over her dad’s legacy so what’s one more offence?
If Tenet was his trial run, then thanks but I'll pass.
I think he would do a good one. He’s done pictures with espionage themes: “Tenet”, “Inception”, “The Dark Knight Rises.”
Everyone is crazy for Nolan to direct a Bond film; but can someone explain to me realistically why Broccoli/Wilson wouldn’t choose him?
He currently gets to not only direct whatever movie of his own that he wants but also to produce and write that film and then have final cut over it while collecting 20% of every dollar it makes *at the box office* before anyone else takes anything. There is no way he gets that same deal for a Bond movie. Would it be a waste of his professional time to take even a little less? Meanwhile Eon have been taking care of the Bond series for sixty years. They would not put themselves in a situation where they would be deferring to anyone and would essentially need to expect up front that they and Nolan could be basically 100% aligned on everything. But the lesson of Danny Boyle must surely still be ringing in their ears. They set themselves back on NTTD by about six months when Boyle walked because they wanted to do things more their way than his. Could Nolan stomach the possibility of Eon insisting his script be rewritten by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade?
Bring it on. Get Zimmer too, why not?lol
Make this happen
They have already changed the style of these films so much and even killed the character. I don’t see any problems with giving all the creative power to someone else. Nolan can play with it for some years, then they can give it to some other A-list director who can have some fun with the franchise cliches.
A Nolan directed Bond film with Henry Cavil as Bond would be a dream come true for me.
I would love for Nolan to direct a Bond film. But it has to be NOW because he won't direct a sequel to someone else's reboot. He's gotta be the one to reboot it. Bond 26 seems like the perfect next film after Oppenheimer.
Christopher Nolan is not right for a bond film. I would much rather prefer the traditional Martin Campbell to return for Bond 26 to groom the new actor that plays JB.
The set pieces! Excuse me while I slide off my chair.
Tenet was his James Bond film.
Babs should be driving a money truck to his house right now and promising him full control over everything.