Who Should Direct Bond 24? Take Our Poll

Who Should Direct Bond 24? Take Our Poll

Now that Sam Mendes has dropped out of directing “Bond 24,” who should helm the follow-up to the billion-dollar “Skyfall”? The new MI6 table’s been set with M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whishaw), and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and with no more rites of passage or existential crises to deal with, Daniel Craig’s 007 is now fully formed and reporting for duty “with pleasure.” Here’s a rundown of some of the likeliest and unlikeliest directors; we invite you to vote for your favorite in the poll below.

J.J. Abrams
Pros: The producer-writer-director knows how to start with character to find the heartbeat of a series.

Cons: He’s got his hands full with “Star Trek” and “Star Wars”; he can’t tackle every major franchise.

Kathryn Bigelow
Pros: One of the hottest and most prestigious directors around; has the action chops to handle Bond along with great visual instincts and narrative precision; could turn Craig’s Bond into a more interesting blunt instrument — obsessive, conflicted, yet still as unpredictable and as dangerous as hell. A female perspective would lend something fresh, especially in light of Judi Dench’s departure as M.

Cons: Too much of an auteur to work with producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. Likes working with journalist/scriptwriter Mark Boal, who is not the right fit for this fantasy world.

Danny Boyle
Pros: Prestigious, eclectic, elegant, and would provide a new vision that’s both retro and relevant.

Cons: Availability and ability to tackle the Bond machinery.

Kenneth Branagh
Pros: Experienced actor-director brings smart screen craft and character depth to even comic-book epics like “Thor.” Boasts the Brit advantage; actors love him.

Cons: Availability and avid desire to go Bond.

Martin Campbell
Pros: He successfully rebooted Bond twice with Pierce Brosnan (“GoldenEye”) and Craig (“Casino Royale”); he knows Bond inside and out and is comfortable with the extraordinary demands of the machinery; the fanboys love him; and Sean Connery recommended that Craig stick with him for the duration of his tenure.

Cons: He’s not keen on navel gazing, which goes with the territory of making Craig’s Bond the center of the story, if not the plot, and he’s not a prestige director in keeping with the new direction post “Casino Royale.”

David Fincher
Pros: He’s as prestigious as they come and can take Bond into new dramatic and VFX-bending territory.

Cons: Too dark and idiosyncratic; also too much of an uncontrollable maverick to suit Wilson and Broccoli.

Duncan Jones
Pros: Great dramatic flair and wit; expanded his skills with stylish “Source Code”; already developing an Ian Fleming biopic.

Cons: Already developing an Ian Fleming biopic.

Christopher Nolan
Pros: He’s an uber Bond fan like Mendes; he’s got the action chops along with the right cerebral narrative temperament for Craig’s conflicted 007; he’s already paid homage to “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” in “Inception.”

Cons: He’s even busier than Mendes, producing “The Justice League” and is going forward with the heady sci-fi epic “Interstellar” with his brother Jonathan (who wrote it for Steven Spielberg before he dropped out). Who knows if he’d mesh with what “Skyfall” screenwriter John Logan is currently concocting?

Philip Noyce
Pros: He did a great job with Angelina Jolie in international spy thriller “Salt.” He’s a solid studio craftsman with impeccable skills.

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.

Who should direct Bond 24?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

This Article is related to: Features and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Comments

JAB

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

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.

Brian

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

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

Adiel Holguin

Wait for Sam Mendes!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *