Dave Bautista confirms that there were talks about Hinx’s comeback and his hopes were high. But not anymore. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/news/a865569/dave-bautista-james-bond-25-return-spectre-mr-hinx/
Perhaps he’s referring to the Purvis and Wade old script and when Hodge’s idea came aboard, there was no more Hinx…
If they do (in fact) have a compelling script in hand, then I don’t think any of these new director’s mentioned would pass on the opportunity to put their signature on the dotted line. But, the longer we go without any official news paints a suspicious picture on that fact, IMO.
I enjoyed Clarkson’s mini-series Collateral starring Carey Mulligan.
No offence but I thought Collateral was very bad indeed. Hammy and predictable with cliches used to power virtually everything.
However, life on mars was simply amazing (uk version) and there’s hardly a bad ep of Dexter in existense.
Collateral seems to have been a love/hate relationship with critics, but it’s David Hare…all his work has that response. SJ Clarkson is very much a director in the same mold as Campbell, she’ll make the best possible film from the script you present to her.
Dave Bautista confirms that there were talks about Hinx’s comeback and his hopes were high. But not anymore. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/news/a865569/dave-bautista-james-bond-25-return-spectre-mr-hinx/
Perhaps he’s referring to the Purvis and Wade old script and when Hodge’s idea came aboard, there was no more Hinx…
It’s a shame.
Enjoyed Collateral myself but as Orion stated, it’s a David Hare thing before anything. Thought Life on Mars was brilliant (not so Ashes) but as a discussion, how much of a TV episode should a director be getting “credit” for it they didn’t direct the first couple of episodes? Directors that come onboard I would argue don’t really leave “their” mark on a series, so is even using TV as an indicator fair on a director?.
For example - Campbell (along with the terrific Troy Kennedy Martin) get all the credit for the Traffic mini-series. But you could also make an argument (not that I am) and say “Campbell - he directed The Professionals didn’t he? That’s as hackneyed as you get!”
Not picking on The Professionals of course (or MInder, or Shoestring, or Homicide: Life on the Streets). Will defend those series till the end of time (Lewis Collins should have been Bond!!!) 
I think the answer is; yes and no. Some show runners are rather insistent on a specific style and tone for their series, whilst others allow for freedom of expression in their directors. Kudos, I know for a fact, like their directors to have free reign, so Life On Mars and Hustle will be very strong examples of SJ Clarkson as a director.
And there’s nothing at all wrong with that. Campbell had more bondian pedigree though, with Reilly and The Professionals.
Amen to that!
I have no idea. I wrote it first
Methinks “meticulous craftsmen” and “talented journeymen” with or without the adjective(s) are better phrases. What happened to the days where chaps like Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert could be had…
The term Cahiers had (tweaked by Sarris) was metteur-en-scene: not quite an auteur, but a superior craftsman who did shape the work, but not necessarily as an expression of personal themes (though personality could show through). I believe that metteurs-en-scene are like triples–the rarest hit in baseball. Fewer are produced now since most of the earlier ones were either the products of the studio system or apprenticed to great directors (Hamilton). Nowadays most aspiring directors either think of themselves as potential auteurs or are competent craftsmen who film the script, but are not the shapers that Hamilton and Gilbert were (since they are not required to be. They need to get the work done on time/under budget. What they have is superior technology compared to journeymen of the past that allows for errors to be corrected easily).
Absolutely!
Too much attention and reverence are given to those directors who mainly do variations on one or two of their main themes, while those who make lots of themes work again and again are considered second rate.
The real artist, IMO, is the versatile one. Someone who can make art out of everything.
Perhaps in this case a TV background could give Clarkson the edge. She’d be used to working to much tighter production schedules which Bond 25 will now have. TV directors usually have to work within the existing framework of a series and so hopefully that would mean she’d be less likely to clash with the producers on issues such as casting. She has worked on numerous series with a big action component so doing an action film won’t be too much of a change of pace. Plus she already has experience working with iconic characters.
I’m not going to break down her entire CV now, but I’ll end by bringing up her work on Jessica Jones. Overall I thought the first series was fantastic, thanks in no small part to David Tennant’s Killgrave. Clarkson only directed the first 2 episodes so her involvement with Tennant was minimal, however I felt these episodes did a fantastic job at building up Killgrave and creating anticipation for his arrival. You could argue that making a villain threatening without them appearing on screen is a much harder job.
And I will, thanks 
In my humble experience building anticipation and expectation is the easier, fun part of storytelling. It’s coming up with the goods later and meeting those expectations which is the far harder part.
Great movies exceed expections, but sadly it’s a rare thing these days that they even meet them.
That’s why instead of writing linear many plan their stories, by one method or another (I like cards and a big whiteboard). So that all the seeds & build-up and their reveals and resolutions can inform one another and hopefully avoid disappointment.
One could also argue, however, that the build up of any mystery is always much more satisfying than the actual reveal.
Theories and suspicion are just opening up many possibilities while the reveal narrows it down to only one thing that might be delightful but much more often just lets one down.
Personally, I prefer to write linear at first, developing the story as the viewer will experience it. And then, going through it again, I might change things to set up the surprises better. That way, I keep it fresh for me. Constructing everything before writing takes out the fun for me.
All so true - true of writing and true of life.
And I get your point about linear being more exciting for a writer. Unless you write you can’t really appreciate the excitement of a blank page - the world building and the fact that anything you want can happen (so long as it makes internal sense in that world). I done some directing, painting and even some a little acting and nothing quite compares to the excitement of writing. Pity it’s so damn hard to make any money at it.
But I just can’t start without points plotted on the map first; story beats and most importantly having an understanding of what is motivating my characters to make the choices they make; the cause and effect, which, if you squeeze it in later it can be tempting to fudge because you don’t want to change something in the script that you’ve fallen in love with (many movies appear to be full of these, such as Prometheus).
I don’t feel like it constricts me - the opposite - without having to worry about the big picture quite as often I can really indulge in the detail and authenticity of the voices.
Then I write linear and of course the best laid plans always change and flexibility is important - the best ideas always spring from the writing process.
But like the best bank robberies I like to have a plan to start with.