>Nolan directed trilogy >Set in the 60s >Aaron Taylor-Johnson Bond >Tom Hardy 006 >Michael Caine M >Arctic Monkeys, Kanye West and SIA title songs
Nolan seems like the only man who can save this dead franchise right now
M:I is nothing without Tom Cruise and is extremely formulaic since Ghost Protocol, both these things would turn Nolan off since he'd have limited creative freedom.
>>Tom Hardy 006
Why even include 006?
Caine M
Far too old. He turned 93 yesterday. >>Set in the 60s
Bond successfully survived beyond the 60s. Besides, it is a false belief that taking Bond back to the 60s will see us get a Bond film like those with Connery. Nolan will have to contend with modern industry sensibilities and the pop cultural view of the decade that will warp the intention - it easily becomes the case that the period is either showed as: 1) having contemporary aptitudes with nothing more than a shallow style of substance 60s aesthetic; or 2) it bashes you over the head about how problematic the era was. Even if Nolan somehow overcomes that the focus of the films is wrapped up in what is little more than a gimmick.
The only advantage Nolan brings to Bond is his potential to steer it from the terrible direction Barbara Broccoli has it however, there is not guarantee that Nolan would meaningfully get that influence (who does the script?) or that if he does that his own direction would even be good. Just in general, you need a journeyman director for Bond rather than some bigshot with a stylised style or desire to make it artsy/'cinema'. The best director the Bond franchise had was John Glen, followed by Martin Campbell in second place.
True but as you pointed out, Nolan is the best bet to put Bond back on the right track after that ending and that movie. He has the name power and now that he cleaned house in the Oscars, he has no need to bait and make dour shit anymore. I hope he realizes this and goes back into franchise filmmaking and Bond is the best bet.
>he has no need to bait and make dour shit anymore.
That's just his style. Most likely he did try to gain Oscars as his career went one but, that is more the subject matter he chose rather than any radical difference in his approach to filmmaking and what appeals to him. He is not suited for the pulp that Bond is, with inclinations will see him deliver something that for Bond is too clever by half.
We won't know until he does it. He's been clamoring for that Oscar all his career, each and every single one of his movies made with that express purpose so it's both, he does infuse his style but that style was born out of a need for that Oscar recognition. Now that's over, he got the biggest dues possible. He'll let loose and do Bond and probably show a side of him that's laid back and flashy. I hope so anyway, it would be smart. If he still does that same shtick even after the Oscar wins, I don't know..
>Cary Joji Fukunaga >Marc Forster >Lee Tamahori
All these hack nobodies have directed a Bond movie since Memento came out. If Nolan wanted to direct a Bond movie then he would have done it by now
Considering his existing filmography, I don't think that would be a much better direction for Bond.
It's a pick your poisons type of thing. It's that or they get some woman director that makes garbage that makes No Time To Die look like The Spy Who Loved Me.
>action scenes not on par with Bond >has never cast a bombshell girl >will insist on mixing film formats >may spontaneously write a bomb macguffin into any plot
He's not the guy. Even as a fan I dread to see him get tied up in such an easy stage to fail on.
In today world people unironically believe that Craig and Pierce are the best bonds.
Nolan would so shitty movies but maybe will save the franchise from those people and 'Black Bond' guys
Pierce is a weird one. I think he was a fine Bond, he just had some really bad movies. I think he grew on me....
But god knows, I'd never rewatch his films. MAYBE the first one?
Brosnan's time sees the films move towards a distinct action focus with Brosnan Bond being presented as a black ops agent in the way previous Bonds were not. Whether or not one cares for it will come down to personal opinion (I myself am not a massive fan) but, I would argue that whilst a different execution Brosnan Bond is still in keeping with the underlying spirit of what came before.
This is wrong. Brosnan was not a black ops operator in any way shape or form, that's Craig. He was no different than any of the other Bonds, just some aesthetic updates. That's all. The James Bond from 1962-2002 is the same guy in the same timeline. Craig is some imposter who took over. The codename theory is moronic but it's the only way to make sense of Daniel Craig.
They have more focus on action set pieces instead of the more laid back/contemplative tone (go watch Thunderball, it's a fricking arthouse film almost) but I just don't see what you're saying. He guns down people? All of them did that. These movies were always about the action, Brosnan's was just a bit more bombastic and had lots of gunfire to match the high octane style of the time but the rest is perfectly Bondian. I feel like you're right but you overstate it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This is wrong. Brosnan was not a black ops operator in any way shape or form, that's Craig. He was no different than any of the other Bonds, just some aesthetic updates. That's all. The James Bond from 1962-2002 is the same guy in the same timeline. Craig is some imposter who took over. The codename theory is moronic but it's the only way to make sense of Daniel Craig.
I don't think anyone says Brosnan and Craig are alike in approach - indeed, you get people commonly saying pre-Craig that sees Brosnan grouped with his predecessors. Yes, previous Bond movies had action set pieces and we saw Bond doing operations however, such action did not have the same driving focus or were presented in the same way as the ones in the Brosnan movies are. Brosnan's Bond is at his core very much classic Bond but, what's being said is he gets reinvented as being foremost explicitly an action hero in a way that none of his predecessors were and that sees him take on a black ops focus that was not really prevalent before.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I feel like Brosnan, despite him being a very much classic Bond, should be lumped with Craig due to (aside from being picked by Cubby) belonging to the Barbara era and the post Cold War era. For any hardcore nuclear Bond fan, the 60's-80's period with Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton are REAL Bond and Brosnan is a nice heritage years continuation while Craig's the abomination and black sheep of them all since he's a full on reboot and not a soft reboot like Brosnan which is why I never cared that they killed him off. He was never James Bond to begin with.
Brosnan is very much a 90s action hero that sees Bond become a one man army back ops agent. The difference between Brosnan and Craig is that Craig Bond is mopey, with the films being tryhard gritty & mature and not revelling in the escapist fun.
There will never be another James Bond movie. Talk about a more dead franchise. It's coasting off of the legendary Sean Connery movies for ages. Pierce was great and a throwback to those movies but then they ruined it all for 20 years. You don't come back from that. Only solution is that Bezos buys them out which is why he bought MGM for the Bond rights he'll eventually strongarm them into selling.
>Aaron Taylor-Johnson with his voice fixed with voice training and some TRT >the director has to be a working man at EON >bring back Purvis and Wade which they are (nice step in the right direction) >DEI/ESG is dying >just bring back Brosnan-style Bond with escapist fun and cool guy fantasy story. >no more gay woman ballads, get a male singer to do a rock anthem like Chris Cornell (only good part of Craig's era) >get a composer like Lorne Balfe or David Arnold returning to set the tone of Bond again
2 billion at the box office easy, especially in this day and age starved for male-focused content. Barbara is senile though so it'd never happen.
Has there been any actual new news about this rumor? Last I had heard Nolan wasn't going to take it because it would lock him in for 3 movies at least.
It's just that, Nolan is just half-heartedly saying he'd do Bond as a nod to his liking of it but otherwise he wouldn't go near a franchise that's been sucked dry and left to the devices of some rich nepo baby who'd drive him insane.
Cool yet another reason not to watch a Bond movie
>Noaln
proof Nolan is a midwit. If he were a real director he would want to direct a Mission Impossible film.
>Nolan directed trilogy
>Set in the 60s
>Aaron Taylor-Johnson Bond
>Tom Hardy 006
>Michael Caine M
>Arctic Monkeys, Kanye West and SIA title songs
Nolan seems like the only man who can save this dead franchise right now
M:I is nothing without Tom Cruise and is extremely formulaic since Ghost Protocol, both these things would turn Nolan off since he'd have limited creative freedom.
This, but Matt Smith as James Bond and a theme song written and performed by Elton John and Lady Gaga.
Also Awkwafina as the "Bond Girl" and a 15 certificate so it can include nudity.
Noo, it's Thom Yorke who'd get another go at theme song
>>Tom Hardy 006
Why even include 006?
Caine M
Far too old. He turned 93 yesterday.
>>Set in the 60s
Bond successfully survived beyond the 60s. Besides, it is a false belief that taking Bond back to the 60s will see us get a Bond film like those with Connery. Nolan will have to contend with modern industry sensibilities and the pop cultural view of the decade that will warp the intention - it easily becomes the case that the period is either showed as: 1) having contemporary aptitudes with nothing more than a shallow style of substance 60s aesthetic; or 2) it bashes you over the head about how problematic the era was. Even if Nolan somehow overcomes that the focus of the films is wrapped up in what is little more than a gimmick.
Michael Caine is retired.
The only advantage Nolan brings to Bond is his potential to steer it from the terrible direction Barbara Broccoli has it however, there is not guarantee that Nolan would meaningfully get that influence (who does the script?) or that if he does that his own direction would even be good. Just in general, you need a journeyman director for Bond rather than some bigshot with a stylised style or desire to make it artsy/'cinema'. The best director the Bond franchise had was John Glen, followed by Martin Campbell in second place.
True but as you pointed out, Nolan is the best bet to put Bond back on the right track after that ending and that movie. He has the name power and now that he cleaned house in the Oscars, he has no need to bait and make dour shit anymore. I hope he realizes this and goes back into franchise filmmaking and Bond is the best bet.
Considering his existing filmography, I don't think that would be a much better direction for Bond.
>he has no need to bait and make dour shit anymore.
That's just his style. Most likely he did try to gain Oscars as his career went one but, that is more the subject matter he chose rather than any radical difference in his approach to filmmaking and what appeals to him. He is not suited for the pulp that Bond is, with inclinations will see him deliver something that for Bond is too clever by half.
We won't know until he does it. He's been clamoring for that Oscar all his career, each and every single one of his movies made with that express purpose so it's both, he does infuse his style but that style was born out of a need for that Oscar recognition. Now that's over, he got the biggest dues possible. He'll let loose and do Bond and probably show a side of him that's laid back and flashy. I hope so anyway, it would be smart. If he still does that same shtick even after the Oscar wins, I don't know..
wasnt that the reason he made tenet?
He got Best Director and Best Picture, he should do Bond now that he's got his dues. His favourite Bond is Timothy Dalton.
if the next bond is anything like tenet, I ain't watching it
Tenet is like "dad falling asleep on the couch in the afternoon" kino without the kino part.
Yeah, Bond is all about the time travel.
>the guy that has been ripping off bond movies his entire life wants to direct one
news at eleven
Out of all the contemporary directors he's the best choice so
>Cary Joji Fukunaga
>Marc Forster
>Lee Tamahori
All these hack nobodies have directed a Bond movie since Memento came out. If Nolan wanted to direct a Bond movie then he would have done it by now
What cartoon Bond villain you'd like to see nolanified?
Goldfinger.
It's a pick your poisons type of thing. It's that or they get some woman director that makes garbage that makes No Time To Die look like The Spy Who Loved Me.
Baron Samedi
OBVIOUSLY.
>his ambition and plan is to become white
I kneel.
Dr No, played by Dr Now.
>action scenes not on par with Bond
>has never cast a bombshell girl
>will insist on mixing film formats
>may spontaneously write a bomb macguffin into any plot
He's not the guy. Even as a fan I dread to see him get tied up in such an easy stage to fail on.
I'll watch it if he brings back Aiden Gillen to reprise his role as CIA.
>For the big guy, James?
>No, for you.
>you'd miss me
>you're a big guy
he should direct Hellraiser or Star Wars. Like if agree.
Waste of fricking time but it's likely we won't get a non-white Bond with him so it's lesser evil.
It would be Cilian Murphy though.
It'll be this guy. Current frontrunner and reports say he's got the part and worked with Nolan.
Or, OR, Tom Hardy
he's 46 and phones in every performance nowadays anyway
if Nolan gets the gig then be prepayed for Hardy chewing the scene as some eccentric villian.
>Tom Hardy
>Cilian Murphy
I mean Nolan could pick them but, they are bad choices and too old anyway.
In today world people unironically believe that Craig and Pierce are the best bonds.
Nolan would so shitty movies but maybe will save the franchise from those people and 'Black Bond' guys
>Craig
I hate that I know you're being serious
Pierce is a weird one. I think he was a fine Bond, he just had some really bad movies. I think he grew on me....
But god knows, I'd never rewatch his films. MAYBE the first one?
Brosnan's time sees the films move towards a distinct action focus with Brosnan Bond being presented as a black ops agent in the way previous Bonds were not. Whether or not one cares for it will come down to personal opinion (I myself am not a massive fan) but, I would argue that whilst a different execution Brosnan Bond is still in keeping with the underlying spirit of what came before.
Yea, about the same how I feel.
This is wrong. Brosnan was not a black ops operator in any way shape or form, that's Craig. He was no different than any of the other Bonds, just some aesthetic updates. That's all. The James Bond from 1962-2002 is the same guy in the same timeline. Craig is some imposter who took over. The codename theory is moronic but it's the only way to make sense of Daniel Craig.
Anon, the likes of the opening to Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day are not in the vein of what came before.
They have more focus on action set pieces instead of the more laid back/contemplative tone (go watch Thunderball, it's a fricking arthouse film almost) but I just don't see what you're saying. He guns down people? All of them did that. These movies were always about the action, Brosnan's was just a bit more bombastic and had lots of gunfire to match the high octane style of the time but the rest is perfectly Bondian. I feel like you're right but you overstate it.
I don't think anyone says Brosnan and Craig are alike in approach - indeed, you get people commonly saying pre-Craig that sees Brosnan grouped with his predecessors. Yes, previous Bond movies had action set pieces and we saw Bond doing operations however, such action did not have the same driving focus or were presented in the same way as the ones in the Brosnan movies are. Brosnan's Bond is at his core very much classic Bond but, what's being said is he gets reinvented as being foremost explicitly an action hero in a way that none of his predecessors were and that sees him take on a black ops focus that was not really prevalent before.
I feel like Brosnan, despite him being a very much classic Bond, should be lumped with Craig due to (aside from being picked by Cubby) belonging to the Barbara era and the post Cold War era. For any hardcore nuclear Bond fan, the 60's-80's period with Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton are REAL Bond and Brosnan is a nice heritage years continuation while Craig's the abomination and black sheep of them all since he's a full on reboot and not a soft reboot like Brosnan which is why I never cared that they killed him off. He was never James Bond to begin with.
Brosnan is very much a 90s action hero that sees Bond become a one man army back ops agent. The difference between Brosnan and Craig is that Craig Bond is mopey, with the films being tryhard gritty & mature and not revelling in the escapist fun.
Imagine the dialogue.
he suck at making good action fights
>bah dum
>buhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>Hans Zimmer soundtrack kicks in
Why would Universal let him direct a MGM Bond movie when they just spent a ton to get him from Warner Brothers?
It was a one movie deal, they don't own him.
time travelling bond?
lame
If Carmen Sandiego can travel though time, why not Bond?
There will never be another James Bond movie. Talk about a more dead franchise. It's coasting off of the legendary Sean Connery movies for ages. Pierce was great and a throwback to those movies but then they ruined it all for 20 years. You don't come back from that. Only solution is that Bezos buys them out which is why he bought MGM for the Bond rights he'll eventually strongarm them into selling.
Yes he's a great fit saying otherwise is peak contrarianism after the mostly mediocre craig era
I know Cinemaphile hates Nolan because he got popular but a Bond directed by him probably WOULD be good.
imagine the memes
This is the best reason for a Nolan Bond. I want him to go full 60's Bond.
Kin007.
>Noaln
Nolan demands 100% creative control of all his projects so this is never happening
time traveling james bond ? im in.
>Aaron Taylor-Johnson with his voice fixed with voice training and some TRT
>the director has to be a working man at EON
>bring back Purvis and Wade which they are (nice step in the right direction)
>DEI/ESG is dying
>just bring back Brosnan-style Bond with escapist fun and cool guy fantasy story.
>no more gay woman ballads, get a male singer to do a rock anthem like Chris Cornell (only good part of Craig's era)
>get a composer like Lorne Balfe or David Arnold returning to set the tone of Bond again
2 billion at the box office easy, especially in this day and age starved for male-focused content. Barbara is senile though so it'd never happen.
Has there been any actual new news about this rumor? Last I had heard Nolan wasn't going to take it because it would lock him in for 3 movies at least.
It's just that, Nolan is just half-heartedly saying he'd do Bond as a nod to his liking of it but otherwise he wouldn't go near a franchise that's been sucked dry and left to the devices of some rich nepo baby who'd drive him insane.