I like the idea of a Christopher Nolan James Bond film. It would certainly be interesting and bring butts in seats. I tend to like, but not love, his stuff. I’m just not completely sold that he would be a good match for Bond, but I’d be willing to find out. But having said that, with his penchant for wanting total control, I don’t see Amazon going for Nolan at this time. They’ll want to try their hands at it first–AND pick their own 007–and there are other director options out there. Maybe not as big and esteemed as Nolan, but certainly capable.
No, I see Amazon trying it their way for one to three films with James Bond #7. If that doesn’t work out, THAT’s when I see them willing to go to Christopher Nolan to try to “save” their series IP.
A Nolan Bond… Looks like I’m pretty much alone with my take on this: I wouldn’t want it.
In football, they say that no player can be bigger than the club. It should be the same for Bond: no director (or actor) can be bigger than the franchise. It’s James Bond 007, first and foremost, and that wouldn’t be the case with Nolan at the Helm. Eon almost lost it with Mendes and Craig, but it was still James Bond. Nolan on the other hand would totally make it his own, and no one would be talking about this being a Bond movie, but only about the new Nolan movie (and how he gave the old crap movies a run for their money). If it’s Amazon’s goal to achieve this, so be it, but in that case, I’m out.
And then, after we had that Nolan Bond? Who’s going to be the idiot director to throw his hat into the ring and say “I can top this.”? If Amazon wants something that lasts, they should start it off carefully and build up slowly. One doesn’t start a poker night by going all-in on the first hand
The serious tone, lighting, pretentiousness (paintings, poetry readings), plot holes, the borrowing from The Dark Knight with Silva’s arrest and escape etc. Mendes was open about the influence.
Now, if there was just someone to maintain that attitude/approach. Hmmm …
That is what makes SPECTRE so special. EON/Mendes/Craig pushed the cinematic membrane, and demonstrated how capacious a franchise film could be, while still making a cogent franchise film.
But was that the case with Nolan’s Batman? I didn’t think so, but I’m not a big enough Batman or Nolan fan to tell either way. Making Wayne quit at the end and having a life with Selina/Catwoman was probably quite unique, a Nolan twist that tied it all off.
Otherwise I would say his Batman was recognisable and also still bigger - for lack of a better term - than the Nolan brand. Nolan’s interpretation for sure. But if he can do this with Batman he ought to do it just as well with Bond, should it ever come to this.
I expected this
It’s as simple as that: Who was Nolan when he started with his Batman thing? And who was Nolan when it ended? With Nolan taking over Bond, we’d be at who he was when it ended and way beyond.
While he gave Batman an incredible boost, the character has taken a rollercoaster ride ever since, with “name actor” castings* and all that stuff (and even younger actors expressing their fear of ending up as “f***ing old Batman”).
*I consider both Affleck and Pattinson as stunt casting, just desperately hiring “names” with little care for the character or suitability, in order to somehow top the Nolan tenure.
Neither do I if I’m honest. I suppose the allure lies more in a general consistent vision with Nolan, not so much in any inventiveness or originality of the elements themselves. It’s the way they are assembled that makes the result unique, a distinctive approach to the story that favours an ‘unfolding’ over an ‘unspooling’.
This is a very good argument, no doubt true. Would probably be a similar effect if Spielberg was the next director. Or Coppola.
But Skyfall was trying to be more serious and even had Q scoffing at gadgets, which was basically drawing a line in the sand between the type of films Eon used to make and the Craig era.
Which was weird, as the plot holes in Skyfall were more blatant than much of what had come before - for example, Q’s astonishingly imbecilic inputting of the laptop into the MI6 mainframe and Silva’s subsequent escape despite being surrounded by armed guards which was so near impossible that they didn’t even bother showing it.
You may be right. I suppose people’s tolerances for that sort of thing may vary. At worst, this is a genuine plot hole as there’s no way to get to the next scene, which is why the scene of Silva escaping is not shown as it simply can’t be depicted.
At best, it’s inelegant, as it sets up suspense without paying it off.
A even more egregious example is Bond’s apparent death at the start. He falls from a great height which should easily kill him, seemingly drowns and gets carried over two waterfalls. And yet somehow survives.
That’s crazier than almost anything in the Moore era.
I want to like the film but it doesn’t make it easy
With all the respect in the world, I think those points I mentioned are the sort of thing that is classed as a plot hole by a heck of a lot of people.
What would your definition of a plot hole be?
It’s my understanding that a plot hole is like a hole in the road. The story, like the road, ends prematurely. You can drive over them if they’re small enough or gather enough speed to fly over the bigger ones. As a writer, you get to design the road, so you can just not have a hole in the first place.
I’m generally supportive of Purvis and Wade, but having Bond survive without explanation is unearned. Any writer can get the audience to gasp by showing a character’s death but if they don’t show how he’s survived when we see him again it’s just nakedly manipulative.
In any case, it all came to a head in December, a month after Broccoli and Wilson picked up the Thalberg at the Governors Awards. That’s when The Wall Street Journal published a piece detailing the chilly state of affairs between Amazon and the Broccolis in which Barbara is quoted as telling friends that Amazon executives were “fucking idiots.” Not surprisingly, those choice words did not go over well with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. “He read her quote in the Journal and got on the phone and said, ‘I don’t care what it costs, get rid of her,’ ” is how one insider describes what happened, confirming that what Bezos ended up paying for the franchise was close to a billion dollars.
