Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Who Should Direct Bond 24? Take Our Poll

Features
by Anne Thompson and Bill Desowitz
March 7, 2013 4:17 PM
6 Comments
  • |


Quentin Tarantino in "Django Unchained"

Cons: He might be a tad straight-on sober for this.

Ridley Scott
Pros: He can do anything with superb visual panache.

Cons: He has nothing to prove; this would probably bore him. He doesn't need a hit, the usual reason to tackle Bond.

Bryan Singer
Pros: He knows how to handle a mammoth project with action and VFX. After "Valkyrie" and "Jack the Giant Slayer," he could use a hit.

Cons: He can be volatile to work with and unreliable about staying on budget and schedule, doesn't always toe the line with his studio handlers.

Quentin Tarantino
Pros: He already tried to do "Casino Royale" for Pierce Brosnan. Could turn Bond on its head with a glorious commentary on the franchise.

Cons: He's turned down directing other people's material; even if he did his own script, he might subvert and undermine the franchise. Already rejected by Wilson and Broccoli; too much of an idiosyncratic auteur who would prefer keeping Bond rooted in the '60s.

Matthew Vaughn
Pros: He's already worked with Craig on "Layer Cake," which was the movie that got him the Bond gig; he's tackled more action with mixed results in "Kick-Ass" and got a taste of franchise pressure with "X-Men: First Class." If anyone can bring some pleasure back to Bond and help Craig "light the fuse on any explosive situation" (to borrow a phrase from "Die Another Day"), it's Vaughn.

Cons: Busy developing "The Fantastic Four" reboot as producer at Fox; might not be prestigious enough to follow in Mendes' footsteps. He has a tendency to get cold feet and walk away from projects in pre-production.

Joss Whedon
Pros: He's a smart, funny writer who could dig into the Bond universe with love, wit and understanding the way he did "The Avengers," which was well-supervised by Marvel. He works well with others.

Cons: He lacks flair as a gifted visual craftsman.

Joe Wright
Pros: He's the ultimate prestige director that can do it all (including action, as witnessed in "Hanna"). "Adapt or Die" is fitting for Bond as well in a post "Skyfall" world.

Cons: Bond might be too confining for his refined tastes.

Bob Zemeckis
Pros: He's a canny, innovative writer-director who could figure out ways to make the next Bond compelling. He might want to follow up his Oscar-nominated return to live-action filmmaking, "Flight," with a bigger-budget extravaganza. He delights in playing with the all the tools in the box--and buttressing his blockbuster bonafides.

Cons: Like Scott, taking on someone else's franchise might be beneath him; it's childsplay.

Take our poll below.

6 Comments

  • JAB | March 10, 2013 7:12 PMReply

    Paul Greengrass is my choice to direct just about anything, but he took Bond to the next level with Bourne which the makers of "Casino Royale" wisely drew a lot of inspiration from. Bigelow & Fincher are too intense. As you said "Inception" was Nolan's excellent homage to 007.
    I like Noyce because he did excellent work in this thriller genre small & large with "Dead Calm" & "A Clear & Present Danger". Another name to think about is Ron Howard who knows how to wring suspense from an ending we already knew the outcome of ("Apollo 13").

  • Michael Medeiros | March 8, 2013 5:11 PMReply

    Frankly, I think I should. I've already directed one very low budget feature, Tiger Lily Road which is a character driven, kind of kinky, dark comedy with at least, I think, 4 gunshots and a snow storm. Who else has those credentials? Seriously? But hey, decide for yourself - watch our scene clips on youtube/tigerlilyroad. PS: I also saved the world in X-Men First Class. Really. imdb me.

  • Bobby | March 9, 2013 2:35 PM

    Are you out of your mind? A bond movie is a BIG movie. It's got mega EXPLOSIONS and lots of sexual inuendo and well, explosions and chases and shit. Actually your scene clips are kind of funny. But they're NOT BOND!

  • Brian | March 8, 2013 11:24 AMReply

    Fincher, Nolan, Noyce, and Zemeckis are all respectable and talented directors who would each bring something interesting to the material in ways that I would not expect of the other directors cited above (aside from my main choice). However, the only one who'd bring any real heart and creative fire to the enterprise (something lacking in the franchise since, oh, LICENCE TO KILL?) would be Tarantino. His Bond would make me sit up and take notice and put a smile on my face...and possibly have audiences cheering like they did when I first saw YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE in a theater 46 years ago.

  • Adam | March 7, 2013 5:39 PMReply

    Anyone would do a better job. Am I the only person alive who actually watched Skyfall?

  • Adiel Holguin | March 7, 2013 4:22 PMReply

    Wait for Sam Mendes!

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Sony Counters Bad Press with 'Spider-Man' ...
  • PBS Preview: Six New 'Makers' Documentaries ...
  • Toronto Film Festival Global Summit ...
  • Distribution Maestro Jeff Blake Exits ...
  • Trailers From Hell Loves 'All That ...
  • Which World Premieres Did Venice La ...
  • Parker Posey and Jamie Blackley Will ...
  • Get Tied Down With First Trailer for ...
  • Not Into 'Hercules'? Here Are 6 Alternatives ...
  • Comic-Con Movie Preview: Warner Bros., ...