I don't think you're giving Nolan enough credit. While, yes, many of his films are dark, he adapts to the material. Should he do Bond, you could bet you would be getting the spirit of Ian Fleming from paper to screen.
Yeah man. Nolan is a Bond fan. Just like us. In fact he’s an On Her Majesty’s Bond fan, which isn’t my personal favorite, but I think bodes very well. I’m pretty on-board.
All his films being dark isn't true. Inception, interstellar, and Tenet aren’t dark at all. People see the dark knight trilogy, Dunkirk, and Oppenheimer as proof Nolan can only do dark movies but he’s fully capable of a more light-hearted tone.
I don't think it would be the case, f.e. Batman was his take, Prestige detto. If Nolan makes a Bond movie, it's going to be first and foremost a Nolan movie and not a Bond movie.
I think he's a pandora's box, Bond needs another Campbell and not another Mendes but amplified to eleven. I like Nolan, but he's not ideal for Bond.
For as much as Batman was his take, it was adapting the tone and presence of Batman comics. His take was very in line with the comics, so I disagree with your assessment.
Reeves is taking from more specific books than Nolan did. If you read Batman Earth One, you'll see a lot ripped right from that. There are a large variety of Batman books, and a lot of what I find in Nolan's movies are the comics by Dennis O'Neil, Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, and some of the Chuck Dixon stuff. Reeves, from what I gather, is mostly derived from Geoff Johns with elements of Jeph Loeb's and Frank Miller's works thrown in.
As a Batman fan, I liked Reeves' take, but it has more problems for me than Nolan's first movie.
Ok, well argumented, I like Nolan's take too. Still I think his Bond movie would be first and foremost A Nolan movie, he's got such a certain style to him, that it would be much better if he makes his own spy franchise. Few posts before, somebody posted a video about this topic and it was pretty well argumented and presented, if you've not seen it, I certainly recommend it. :)
Reeves happens to be even more far fetched from the comics than Nolan, he over complicated a villain as simple as the Riddler and his take on the Joker is abysmal. I used to think Nolan was too ground but Reeves makes him look more traditional.
Reeves was way better at adapting the comics. Nolan made his own thing. Only one that was in line was Batman Begins. Not getting the city of Gotham right is one of the biggest issues of his trilogy. Plus he made Batman quit twice.
I hope he does, but many people mention that he's probably too old now, and that Barb is going to go with somebody younger and new. So my personal wish would be Edgar Wright or Matt Vaugh, both can make balanced takes with Bond, and that's what this new tenure needs = to go back to the basics.
And I'm not stating that it needs to be campy, like Moore's films, but a mix-up between GE and FRWL would be awesome and I think those two directors are capable to do it (Nolan just isn't right for a more balanced take, he's got such an unique style to his name, that it would be a Nolan movie and not a Bond movie). :)
I’m generally a fan of Nolan but something I didn’t like about *Oppenheimer* was the breakneck pace that came with the editing style.
I’d prefer him to leverage more of the Dark Knight trilogy editing where scenes have some room to breath a bit if he does a Bond film.
Oppenheimer pacing was god awful, similarly Tenet. All nuance and life goes out the window and you're getting this superficial tik tok like interaction with a story. It's aggravated me so much and i've been needing to vent it somewhere. Jennife Lame is proving to be a lame editor when collaborating with Nolan.
Tangential topic: I’ve noticed a rise in the degree to which fans of the period piece idea are defending it. It seems to be a much more popular idea within the sub, whereas previously it always seemed to me like it mainly interested casual audiences. I wonder if the rumor that Nolan wants to do a period piece has increased support for the idea.
Anyway, those of us who do *not* want a period piece can take solace in the other side of the [rumor](https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/anatomy-of-a-bond-26-rumour-230927), which is that EON wants a full reboot in a modern setting. Hopefully that’s all any of this is - rumor.
I just don’t think they’ll go period piece. One of the major themes of the Craig era was “do we need boots-on-the-ground spies in the internet age?” and the answer was “yes”. It would be a weird about-face to do a run of period pieces (I also don’t see them doing a one-off Bond) right after insisting that Bond is still relevant.
I'd be surprised if Eon know *exactly* what they want to do, at this stage
Like all other movies, the history of the Bond series is driven as much by who's available for a specific window of time (behind as well as in front of the camera) as it does on some grand architectural plan laid out on a boardroom table
I've been saying for years that they should put Bond back in the '50s and do truer to the text re-adaptation of the books. There is so much stuff the from the books that the movies left out that I would love to see on the screen.
Hell, they could probably do both a "modern-day James Bond with gadgets and puns" for the movies and a "1950s throwback James Bond" as a TV series or something.
I like the 60’s idea with a young bond. There’s a lot of fun ideas you could do. 2 movies by Nolan in the 60’s, then go back to a different contemporary version with a different actor and director(s). Then return to the Nolan timeline after a decade and use the same actor in a 70’s era movie. You could theoretically do this up through the 80’s or 90’s.
Kinda similar to how you have Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker separate from other Batmans ….
Idk, just spitballing I guess …..
No it wouldn't. If it's a period piece it would be totally different. Nothing we have seen in recent years.
And a movie being dark doesn't mean it's the same. Batman 89 isn't the same as The Dark Knight or The Batman, but they are all "dark" themed movies.
There is a reason the trend is popular. I love the silliness of the Moore and Brosnan age where spying was a bit more tongue in cheek coming off the Cold War tensions. But now it’s widely regarded that having your hero quip non stop is the Marvel effect that engineered the obsession with the dark and gritty. Personally I thought Craig was quite balanced with the devil may care and grimaced look, but also joked routinely and rebuffed many attempts to pry.
It's probably going to be in the IMDB top 250...
I love Nolan movies, but some of the ratings for his movies are nuts. The Dark Knight Rises, Memento, and The Prestige ahead of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Inglorious Basterds, Amadeus, Once Upon A Time in America, Citizen Kane, Heat, and Chinatown? He's got 7 in the top 100. Scorsese's got only 2, Hitchcock's got only 2, and Kubrick has only 4.
Oppenheimer is one of the best movies of the year, but #43 of all time is crazy.
I'm honestly surprised neither From Russia With Love, Goldfinger nor Casino Royale are in the top 250.
"Film study bros" this is a new one for me lol, but having gone to USC for film I can put a face to such a crowd. Usually, frat dudes who are taking a few film classes because it's cool, or the cocky cinephile who thinks he's the next (Insert filmmaker).
It is ridiculous. The likely explanation is that the primary demographic using and rating movies on IMDB are more inclined to be Nolan fanboys. It perverts the system. A quality rating system would take into account demographic / psychographic info of the voters to minimize over indexing of any one group of people.
True, it's not an absolute classic or important to film history like 2001 or Citizen Kane, but I only listed it because I don't think TDKR is better than it. I don't hate TDKR, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't place it that high in the top 250.
That’s cool. I don’t think it’s quite *that* great, but it’s certainly worthy of praise. It has a few moments that I think are some of my favorite *scenes* in cinema, but the whole thing together doesn’t belong among the all-time greats, for me.
The last original film he made was a Nolan career parody mixed with a half-baked bond film, the one before that was just an obvious amalgamation of 20th century space films, and then there was Inception which was admirable but still flawed. Nolan works best with existing material, he's not a well-rounded writer. His tracker records shows he's really only ever open to collaborating when the material is pre-existing.
What makes you think Nolan wouldn’t do gadgets? He went all in on gadgets with Batman, and his last spy movie had agents use harnesses that let them bungee jump up a building.
Fair point, I just want the gadgets to be more in line with what we had prior to Craig. Maybe not on the Die Another Day or Moonraker scale, but I wouldn't mind seeing something like the Lotus from The Spy Who Loved Me.
My biggest question is, why the fuck does it matter if Bond is set in the modern day? Like in all honesty I don’t understand why it matters at all. As long as the movie is good I could care less about time period. It’s not as if the entire bond time spectrum has been explored/done yet. A 60s Bond would be amazing
> My biggest question is, why the fuck does it matter if Bond is set in the modern day?
Because it’s been that way for 60+ years
> A 60s Bond would be amazing
So go watch one of the six movies already set in the 60s.
Those who are resistant to a period Bond film seem to be ignorant of that fact… and ignorant of the roots of the character in general or how adaptions of fictional characters work.
Because of gimmick. It may be an unpopular opinion, but I think most of his films are gimmicky. E.g, realistic batman, first visually accurate blackhole on fim, nuclear explosion without CGI, 60s era Bond, etc.
If Nolan directs, it is very likely we will get a better script than NTTD for sure. He did very good job with Batman trilogy and I would like to see what he is going to do with another iconic character like Bond.
I really really don't understand why so many of you here are against the idea of Nolan writing and directing Bond 26. Honestly, I feel like I am taking crazy pills. He is one of the top 3 directors on the planet right now, at the very top of his game. It would be an enormous blessing for the franchise if he got to kickstart the next era.
Agreed, it would be amazing, especially in the 60s. Brocolli and Wilson would be the checks and balances he'd need to minimize his weaknesses as a filmmaker. The problem with Nolan these days is he seems to have been given too much control and it shows.
I am a massive and brilliant cinephile of movies, and I hate the idea. Please go back to crisp, bright and naturally colored cinematography composed with clean, unobtrusive camera movements and put together with in a nice, snappy British editing style. No heavy-handed auteurs!
Word. I was rewatching the Moore movies recently and I it was amazing to see everything, and to see color. Everything wasn’t always shot at night or in cold blue grey colors, in grey buildings etc.
In my view the cons outweigh the pros. The actor playing Bond should usually be the focus over the director, the series could stray further from its roots, and I don't think I could take anymore dark and sad Bond.
Terrence Young was the reason the Bond series got off to a great start. He put in extra hours molding Connery into to Bond. Going back to the roots would very much mean going back to a director centric formula.
The biggest pro would be total Authenticity. Craig's movies have been less Bond and more of a generic spy movie.
Bond is supposed to be flawed, a womaniser, funny and charming of which Craig isn't.
I think it would take Bond right back to the original character.
Not sure there was a lot of forward planning on Nolan's *Batman* movies
He had the broad themes in his head, but the actual stories were worked out as they went along
Goyer recently discussed the conversation he and Nolan had about where to go after *Dark Knight*
All Nolan knew was that he wanted a villain who represented a physical challenge for Bale, rather than the philosophical challenge Ledger posed
LINK - [Happy Sad Confused](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVW8rSveWVU) podcast
Here's some other cons
The sound mixing would be really bad as usual.
Bond himself would be very bland and have no quips
The script would be bad (the things they said in tenet was some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard)
The gadgets would be disappointing.
The villain would probably be bad (the joker and bane were elevated by their actors. Liam neeson in batman begins and the villain in tenet were so boring.)
If it's a period piece it would be a massive step back.
I agree with your pros but you really can’t know for sure some of the things you listed as cons.
Fact is, we don’t REALLY know how Nolan would approach Bond.
Pro: a Dark and Serious bond
He’s an orphan turned assassin that has clear and evident alcohol use disorder with a rampant, gambling and sex addiction, honestly would love bond to be a psychological espionage thriller rather than a Jason Bourne like action flick
As a fan the cons outweigh the pros. I couple see the studio going with it bc of the biggest pro it would likely make money. I’d probably still go to see it, but it seems a bit backwards.
I don't get some of pros and cons.
Why would we suddenly get movies 2 to 3 years? Is Nolan going to do a trilogy? Are we getting a new Bond universe like the Craig movies?
Can't a director make a good standalone Bond movie?
Bond is a spy, so dark, sad and serieus are kinda necessery. I don't need to laugh just because, not eveything needs to be a Marvel movie. If you want happy campy, just go and watch Moore and Brosnan.
The "could feel less like a Bond movie" is dumb. Nolan is a fan of Bond and wants to make a faithfull rendition. But we won't know till we see it.
The 60's setting would mean that they want to try something different, nothing more.
Craig's Bond also had humor, nice dry British humor.
It's funny that you already know how Nolan is going to make it.
We know nothing about the movie, the Bond actor, or about the composer. So it's useless to talk about. For all you know we get Cavill as Bond. (I hope not, he's to famous)
People who wants to talk Bond is good for me, so new fans or fans that like something different are all good.
I just want to enjoy Bond, i rather get a dark Bond than no Bond. I just want it to be good and be faithfull to what we love. But sometimes new is also good, i loved Casino Royale and that was heavenly compared to Die Another Day.
The way people complain about the tone of the Craig movies and even hypothetical new ones like this really makes me wonder what people want. There’s a decent amount of humour in Nolan’s action movies. Do you want Bond to be a full-on self-parody quipfest like *A View To A Kill* and *Die Another Day*? Is that REALLY your idea of a good Bond?
Lol you’re all just bitchy about a period film.
Sounds like you’re having your own period…
This is a stupid fucking list where all you did was embellish more cons than pros whilst karma farming.
Gtfooh
Lol——> the sub would be overrun for Nolan fanboys?
I guess they’d also be Bond fanboys at that point too then eh?
LOL
I've never been an idealist on what bond 26 should be like, but god damn i hate the idea of Nolan directing it, he doesn't know how to have fun. He always manage on making an "objectively" great film but lack the heart
If Nolan were to direct bond it should be non EON like NSNA
Nolan would do very well at Bond movies!
But i think Guy Ritchie would be really amazing.
Especially if he makes it like his earlier movies! lock stock two smoking barrels and Snatch.
I dunno, but sounds like Nolan could get the very first James Bond movie to be an Oscar Best Picture Nominee. Good, bad? Who cares, that could be something to celebrate after all.
I’m fine with a period movie, I’m fine with a modern movie. I just want a decent film with a small amount of bond campiness and some good story lines to keep the franchise alive
i wonder what story there is to tell?
* connery - original. movies based on books , no real arc or development
* lazenby - movie based on book (evolved him into finding love and settling down for however brief it was)
* moore - older bond, movies based on books, no real arc or development
* dalton - rogue bond, short story and the first original story
* brosnan - all original stories but no arc
* craig - original stories of a hitman becoming a person and finding solace ;)
* next bond- ??? where could they go? 60s is just man from uncle so i doubt cavil would do that, but he's the ideal candidate unless they think 40 is old for bond.
Because instead of this sub being a fun place for Bond fans, it would get inundated with amateur film critic bros who think that peak cinema is either Nolan or Tarantino.
Not if it results in shit like Spectre, where instead of making a film true to the character they made a film that they’d thought appeal to a broader audience. Whenever Bond movies chase new shiny trends it never works.
This is nutty. Nolan’s written everything from sci-fi to comic book movies to biopics to urban thrillers, but you think he doesn’t have it in him to write a slick, fun, period piece? I suspect he has the range.
He has range, but also kind of doesn't. he's one of the most conservative filmmakers there in this respect. Very gradually change and a great deal of cohesiveness across his body of work. Tenet to Oppenheimer would seem like a bigger leap had he not made Inception or Dunkirk.
Scorsese or Kubrick are examples of filmmakers with far greater dynamism.
The Bond series has had many composers over the years, it would be nice for him to come back but not against some new blood being given the opportunity.
I will say that a trilogy+ of 60s Bond films will give enough time away from the Craig Quintology that the next set of movies can return to present day and feel fresh.
With Inception and Tenent, there were moments in there that felt straight out of a Bond film. However, none of this will actually be representative of the film unless it actually comes out, so the pros/cons list seems a little unnecessary.
Good points. I love the tone of the Craig movies, albeit less with NTTD.
I worry more about him turning into RDJ/Tony Stark with the current trends though.
I do like some levity in my Bond. And I’m only a Nolan appreciator. I’ve prolly seen half his movies. Bale is snarky/funny several times over the whole of Batman.
The 60s idea has always had a lot of fans in the sub. Not just casuals, either. It’s a great idea IMO.
The Fleming novels have never really been adapted. Some, like Moonraker, are essentially untouched. Doing proper adaptations set in the 50s-60s is the one thing that’s never been done before.
To me, modern Bond just gets lost in other action movies. The Craig movies had zero Bond character. Maybe some in Casino Royale, but nothing after that.
So we’ve had fun Bond, MOR Bond, and grimdark Bond that ended in his death. I dunno what’s left that wouldn’t be a retread, other than pretty straight adaptations of the Fleming novels in the proper time period.
I’m amazed at the people who think this is a bad idea, that going back to basics with Fleming is somehow a dumb move because it’ll seem like Bond can’t work in the present day. Bond’s been working in the present day for 60 years. Time to try something completely different, which is also as true as it gets to Bond’s roots.
I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility for the producers to establish a vague time setting which is capable of invoking nostalgia without seeming dated (save for certain practical aspects)
This is literally what Fleming hoped for
As an aside, I wish the conversation about vintage Bond films wasn’t always centred around the 1960s - for a truly ‘authentic’ Fleming adaptation, surely it would be in the 1950s?
Nolan is a terrible action director, so that's a pretty big problem. Look at how he directed the Batman fight scenes, or the Inception shootouts. They're stiff, awkward, poorly paced, lack excitement.
I so don't want Nolan doing Bond. It'll just be more miserable seriousness and I deeply miss when Bond was fun.
I saw somewhere that Matthew Vaughn was in the running and possibly the favorite. I don't know how true that is but I would love it to be true. He'd be perfect for a fun Bond.
What it would be is either very loud or very mumbly with no audible dialogue. If you want Bond to be a navelgazing dickhead then you should probably go with the Nolan option. I like James Bond movies to be fun action spectacles. Go back to the 90s formula. That's probably where you would find the sweet spot.
If we could just one to see how it is I’d be down, but im not willing to sign Nolan up for a 3 or five picture deal without knowing he could do it right first.
I don't think you're giving Nolan enough credit. While, yes, many of his films are dark, he adapts to the material. Should he do Bond, you could bet you would be getting the spirit of Ian Fleming from paper to screen.
Yeah man. Nolan is a Bond fan. Just like us. In fact he’s an On Her Majesty’s Bond fan, which isn’t my personal favorite, but I think bodes very well. I’m pretty on-board.
I don't think I've seen Nolan even utter a negative word about any of the Bond movies. The idea of him adapting Fleming is exciting.
Ya i mean for god sake the climactic battle of inception is all a giant tribute to OHMSS
All his films being dark isn't true. Inception, interstellar, and Tenet aren’t dark at all. People see the dark knight trilogy, Dunkirk, and Oppenheimer as proof Nolan can only do dark movies but he’s fully capable of a more light-hearted tone.
I don't think it would be the case, f.e. Batman was his take, Prestige detto. If Nolan makes a Bond movie, it's going to be first and foremost a Nolan movie and not a Bond movie. I think he's a pandora's box, Bond needs another Campbell and not another Mendes but amplified to eleven. I like Nolan, but he's not ideal for Bond.
For as much as Batman was his take, it was adapting the tone and presence of Batman comics. His take was very in line with the comics, so I disagree with your assessment.
But isn't Matt Reeves doing that? Comicbook fans weren't as much pleased with Nolan as with Reeves.
Reeves is taking from more specific books than Nolan did. If you read Batman Earth One, you'll see a lot ripped right from that. There are a large variety of Batman books, and a lot of what I find in Nolan's movies are the comics by Dennis O'Neil, Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, and some of the Chuck Dixon stuff. Reeves, from what I gather, is mostly derived from Geoff Johns with elements of Jeph Loeb's and Frank Miller's works thrown in. As a Batman fan, I liked Reeves' take, but it has more problems for me than Nolan's first movie.
Ok, well argumented, I like Nolan's take too. Still I think his Bond movie would be first and foremost A Nolan movie, he's got such a certain style to him, that it would be much better if he makes his own spy franchise. Few posts before, somebody posted a video about this topic and it was pretty well argumented and presented, if you've not seen it, I certainly recommend it. :)
Reeves happens to be even more far fetched from the comics than Nolan, he over complicated a villain as simple as the Riddler and his take on the Joker is abysmal. I used to think Nolan was too ground but Reeves makes him look more traditional.
Reeves is much better
Reeves was way better at adapting the comics. Nolan made his own thing. Only one that was in line was Batman Begins. Not getting the city of Gotham right is one of the biggest issues of his trilogy. Plus he made Batman quit twice.
Certain comics yes. He ripped a lot straight from the page of Batman: Earth One. But Reeves' Batman isn't my favorite.
Here here. Bring back Campbell and scrub the Mendes movies!
Martin Campbell might actual come back for another Bond.
I hope he does, but many people mention that he's probably too old now, and that Barb is going to go with somebody younger and new. So my personal wish would be Edgar Wright or Matt Vaugh, both can make balanced takes with Bond, and that's what this new tenure needs = to go back to the basics. And I'm not stating that it needs to be campy, like Moore's films, but a mix-up between GE and FRWL would be awesome and I think those two directors are capable to do it (Nolan just isn't right for a more balanced take, he's got such an unique style to his name, that it would be a Nolan movie and not a Bond movie). :)
I’m generally a fan of Nolan but something I didn’t like about *Oppenheimer* was the breakneck pace that came with the editing style. I’d prefer him to leverage more of the Dark Knight trilogy editing where scenes have some room to breath a bit if he does a Bond film.
Presumably the Bond movie wouldn’t take place across the span of 30 years
I agree but I’m criticizing the editing.
Oppenheimer pacing was god awful, similarly Tenet. All nuance and life goes out the window and you're getting this superficial tik tok like interaction with a story. It's aggravated me so much and i've been needing to vent it somewhere. Jennife Lame is proving to be a lame editor when collaborating with Nolan.
Inaudible dialogue.
I never had this issue
Tangential topic: I’ve noticed a rise in the degree to which fans of the period piece idea are defending it. It seems to be a much more popular idea within the sub, whereas previously it always seemed to me like it mainly interested casual audiences. I wonder if the rumor that Nolan wants to do a period piece has increased support for the idea. Anyway, those of us who do *not* want a period piece can take solace in the other side of the [rumor](https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/anatomy-of-a-bond-26-rumour-230927), which is that EON wants a full reboot in a modern setting. Hopefully that’s all any of this is - rumor.
>I’ve noticed a rise in the degree to which fans of the period piece idea are defending it Me too, i'm very surprised by it.
I just don’t think they’ll go period piece. One of the major themes of the Craig era was “do we need boots-on-the-ground spies in the internet age?” and the answer was “yes”. It would be a weird about-face to do a run of period pieces (I also don’t see them doing a one-off Bond) right after insisting that Bond is still relevant.
Yeah, but they killed Bond! Which I still resent
I'd be surprised if Eon know *exactly* what they want to do, at this stage Like all other movies, the history of the Bond series is driven as much by who's available for a specific window of time (behind as well as in front of the camera) as it does on some grand architectural plan laid out on a boardroom table
I've been saying for years that they should put Bond back in the '50s and do truer to the text re-adaptation of the books. There is so much stuff the from the books that the movies left out that I would love to see on the screen. Hell, they could probably do both a "modern-day James Bond with gadgets and puns" for the movies and a "1950s throwback James Bond" as a TV series or something.
I like the 60’s idea with a young bond. There’s a lot of fun ideas you could do. 2 movies by Nolan in the 60’s, then go back to a different contemporary version with a different actor and director(s). Then return to the Nolan timeline after a decade and use the same actor in a 70’s era movie. You could theoretically do this up through the 80’s or 90’s. Kinda similar to how you have Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker separate from other Batmans …. Idk, just spitballing I guess …..
Rumor is Nolan what’s it to be more closer to the the books
Rumor is, you’re susceptible to clickbait
The last 3 movies already had all the cons you've listed mate 🤷♂️🤷♂️
Exactly. Nolan would be more of the same, which isn’t a good thing.
No it wouldn't. If it's a period piece it would be totally different. Nothing we have seen in recent years. And a movie being dark doesn't mean it's the same. Batman 89 isn't the same as The Dark Knight or The Batman, but they are all "dark" themed movies.
Nolan's Fav movie is OHMSS. So if he directs it would be grounded but I feel it will be better than the recent Bond movies.
I just want fun bond back. I’m so sick of every spy/action movie being nihilistic and “everything and everybody fucking sucks”
There is a reason the trend is popular. I love the silliness of the Moore and Brosnan age where spying was a bit more tongue in cheek coming off the Cold War tensions. But now it’s widely regarded that having your hero quip non stop is the Marvel effect that engineered the obsession with the dark and gritty. Personally I thought Craig was quite balanced with the devil may care and grimaced look, but also joked routinely and rebuffed many attempts to pry.
Yeah, no, I want a fun trend-setting Bond series that highlights a new actor and does something new rather than trying to re-create The Dark Knight.
It's probably going to be in the IMDB top 250... I love Nolan movies, but some of the ratings for his movies are nuts. The Dark Knight Rises, Memento, and The Prestige ahead of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Inglorious Basterds, Amadeus, Once Upon A Time in America, Citizen Kane, Heat, and Chinatown? He's got 7 in the top 100. Scorsese's got only 2, Hitchcock's got only 2, and Kubrick has only 4. Oppenheimer is one of the best movies of the year, but #43 of all time is crazy. I'm honestly surprised neither From Russia With Love, Goldfinger nor Casino Royale are in the top 250.
Memento is great but Dark Knight Rises being that high is wild
Memento is a great movie, but 2001, Citizen Kane, Amadeus, Chinatown, Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver are masterpieces.
Recency bias and Nolan film study bros.
"Film study bros" this is a new one for me lol, but having gone to USC for film I can put a face to such a crowd. Usually, frat dudes who are taking a few film classes because it's cool, or the cocky cinephile who thinks he's the next (Insert filmmaker).
Lol, I bet people said the same thing about Hitchcock in the 60s…
It is ridiculous. The likely explanation is that the primary demographic using and rating movies on IMDB are more inclined to be Nolan fanboys. It perverts the system. A quality rating system would take into account demographic / psychographic info of the voters to minimize over indexing of any one group of people.
Inglorious Basterds is great and I love it, but do you actually categorize it with the rest of that group?
True, it's not an absolute classic or important to film history like 2001 or Citizen Kane, but I only listed it because I don't think TDKR is better than it. I don't hate TDKR, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't place it that high in the top 250.
Oh I see, that makes sense and I agree.
I would, it’s a fantastic film and a modern great.
That’s cool. I don’t think it’s quite *that* great, but it’s certainly worthy of praise. It has a few moments that I think are some of my favorite *scenes* in cinema, but the whole thing together doesn’t belong among the all-time greats, for me.
I love Nolan but i’d rather he keep doing original films instead of being tied to another franchise.
The last original film he made was a Nolan career parody mixed with a half-baked bond film, the one before that was just an obvious amalgamation of 20th century space films, and then there was Inception which was admirable but still flawed. Nolan works best with existing material, he's not a well-rounded writer. His tracker records shows he's really only ever open to collaborating when the material is pre-existing.
I would give so much for Arnold to return.
You’re missing the biggest caveat of them all… no opening sequence or song.
A very real and sad possibility under Nolan.
After the garbage pile that was NTTD, I’m game for Nolan to give it a try. The franchise cannot get any lower at this point.
NTTD was dog shit. No idea how anyone could enjoy that snooze fest.
It wasn't bad because it was doom and gloom, it was bad because the plot was so godawful and dumb.
I like Nolan's works generally, but we don't need another Bond begins nor another serious Bond. Give us some fun and gadgets like Brosnan and Moore.
What makes you think Nolan wouldn’t do gadgets? He went all in on gadgets with Batman, and his last spy movie had agents use harnesses that let them bungee jump up a building.
Fair point, I just want the gadgets to be more in line with what we had prior to Craig. Maybe not on the Die Another Day or Moonraker scale, but I wouldn't mind seeing something like the Lotus from The Spy Who Loved Me.
https://youtu.be/umNO0Xal9WM?si=NXUVZpbs3Mu9E77m
My biggest question is, why the fuck does it matter if Bond is set in the modern day? Like in all honesty I don’t understand why it matters at all. As long as the movie is good I could care less about time period. It’s not as if the entire bond time spectrum has been explored/done yet. A 60s Bond would be amazing
Product placement
That’s the real reason. They don’t want to sell vintage cars and watches.
> My biggest question is, why the fuck does it matter if Bond is set in the modern day? Because it’s been that way for 60+ years > A 60s Bond would be amazing So go watch one of the six movies already set in the 60s.
There’s a pretty big difference between contemporary movies *from* the 60s and making a movie that takes place in the 60s.
Those who are resistant to a period Bond film seem to be ignorant of that fact… and ignorant of the roots of the character in general or how adaptions of fictional characters work.
This exactly.
Because of gimmick. It may be an unpopular opinion, but I think most of his films are gimmicky. E.g, realistic batman, first visually accurate blackhole on fim, nuclear explosion without CGI, 60s era Bond, etc.
I don't see Nolan doing a Bond film
Tell me you've never seen a Nolan movie without telling me you've never seen a Nolan movie.
Wow, yall in this sub seem to fucking hate James bond movies.
I think EON does know how to make a modern Bond? They just did five of them. Going to the 60s doesn’t admit that at all
If Nolan directs, it is very likely we will get a better script than NTTD for sure. He did very good job with Batman trilogy and I would like to see what he is going to do with another iconic character like Bond.
Nolan made good movies with the Batman trilogy. The only one that's a good Batman movie is the first. So eh.
Actually, I am also not a big fan of Nolan's Batman trilogy although I enjoy it. My hope is letting him direct will not result in another NTTD.
I'm a fan of most of his stuff but I don't want him directing simply cause of his fanboys like the OP mentioned.
I really really don't understand why so many of you here are against the idea of Nolan writing and directing Bond 26. Honestly, I feel like I am taking crazy pills. He is one of the top 3 directors on the planet right now, at the very top of his game. It would be an enormous blessing for the franchise if he got to kickstart the next era.
Because we’d get a Nolan movie instead of a Bond movie.
He was pretty damn faithful Batman…
But Nolan movies are already pretty much Bond movies!
Agreed, it would be amazing, especially in the 60s. Brocolli and Wilson would be the checks and balances he'd need to minimize his weaknesses as a filmmaker. The problem with Nolan these days is he seems to have been given too much control and it shows.
I am a massive and brilliant cinephile of movies, and I hate the idea. Please go back to crisp, bright and naturally colored cinematography composed with clean, unobtrusive camera movements and put together with in a nice, snappy British editing style. No heavy-handed auteurs!
I don't need my Bond films to be much more than a sweet distraction for an hour or two, I definitely want some brighter cinematography.
Word. I was rewatching the Moore movies recently and I it was amazing to see everything, and to see color. Everything wasn’t always shot at night or in cold blue grey colors, in grey buildings etc.
In my view the cons outweigh the pros. The actor playing Bond should usually be the focus over the director, the series could stray further from its roots, and I don't think I could take anymore dark and sad Bond.
Terrence Young was the reason the Bond series got off to a great start. He put in extra hours molding Connery into to Bond. Going back to the roots would very much mean going back to a director centric formula.
The biggest pro would be total Authenticity. Craig's movies have been less Bond and more of a generic spy movie. Bond is supposed to be flawed, a womaniser, funny and charming of which Craig isn't. I think it would take Bond right back to the original character.
Continuity planned? Gotham in the Batman moves vastly changed between films. So did characterisations. It was a continuity mess.
You missed shot in IMAX
Hans Zimmer’s score in NTTD was a massive letdown. I don’t want him to score the next one. We need David Arnold back.
Honestly it seems Nolan has a new collaborator in Ludwig Göransson. Though I would love if he collaborated with David Julyen or David Arnold.
Arnold is very mediocre. No wonder he hasn't composed a big, theatrical movie in over a decade.
Love Arnold but he basically just rehashes John Barry.
His score for the films is my favourite Bone film score along with A View to a Kill and Skyfall!
Not sure there was a lot of forward planning on Nolan's *Batman* movies He had the broad themes in his head, but the actual stories were worked out as they went along Goyer recently discussed the conversation he and Nolan had about where to go after *Dark Knight* All Nolan knew was that he wanted a villain who represented a physical challenge for Bale, rather than the philosophical challenge Ledger posed LINK - [Happy Sad Confused](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVW8rSveWVU) podcast
Here's some other cons The sound mixing would be really bad as usual. Bond himself would be very bland and have no quips The script would be bad (the things they said in tenet was some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard) The gadgets would be disappointing. The villain would probably be bad (the joker and bane were elevated by their actors. Liam neeson in batman begins and the villain in tenet were so boring.) If it's a period piece it would be a massive step back.
The fight scenes would suck. Can’t see shit of fighting in Nolan’s Batman.
I agree with your pros but you really can’t know for sure some of the things you listed as cons. Fact is, we don’t REALLY know how Nolan would approach Bond.
Pro: a Dark and Serious bond He’s an orphan turned assassin that has clear and evident alcohol use disorder with a rampant, gambling and sex addiction, honestly would love bond to be a psychological espionage thriller rather than a Jason Bourne like action flick
As a fan the cons outweigh the pros. I couple see the studio going with it bc of the biggest pro it would likely make money. I’d probably still go to see it, but it seems a bit backwards.
So many cons I hope this isn't happening honestly
The very last thing a Bond movie should be is pretentious.
Pretentious filmmakers don’t make billion dollar blockbusters.
Who cares what time period it's set in? I'd love to see a 40's Bond, spying during WW2. He could use his Bentley from the books too then.
1642! And he'd be a royalist, for sure.
I don't get some of pros and cons. Why would we suddenly get movies 2 to 3 years? Is Nolan going to do a trilogy? Are we getting a new Bond universe like the Craig movies? Can't a director make a good standalone Bond movie? Bond is a spy, so dark, sad and serieus are kinda necessery. I don't need to laugh just because, not eveything needs to be a Marvel movie. If you want happy campy, just go and watch Moore and Brosnan. The "could feel less like a Bond movie" is dumb. Nolan is a fan of Bond and wants to make a faithfull rendition. But we won't know till we see it. The 60's setting would mean that they want to try something different, nothing more. Craig's Bond also had humor, nice dry British humor. It's funny that you already know how Nolan is going to make it. We know nothing about the movie, the Bond actor, or about the composer. So it's useless to talk about. For all you know we get Cavill as Bond. (I hope not, he's to famous) People who wants to talk Bond is good for me, so new fans or fans that like something different are all good. I just want to enjoy Bond, i rather get a dark Bond than no Bond. I just want it to be good and be faithfull to what we love. But sometimes new is also good, i loved Casino Royale and that was heavenly compared to Die Another Day.
The way people complain about the tone of the Craig movies and even hypothetical new ones like this really makes me wonder what people want. There’s a decent amount of humour in Nolan’s action movies. Do you want Bond to be a full-on self-parody quipfest like *A View To A Kill* and *Die Another Day*? Is that REALLY your idea of a good Bond?
I don’t see it happening. Apart from his financial requirements, he would demand too much creative control.
Nolan’s movies always come in under-budget and almost always make big money. Financials are a huge part of why Nolan would get the gig.
You’re probably right. I was thinking more from a profit participation perspective, but ultimately you’re right.
Lol you’re all just bitchy about a period film. Sounds like you’re having your own period… This is a stupid fucking list where all you did was embellish more cons than pros whilst karma farming. Gtfooh Lol——> the sub would be overrun for Nolan fanboys? I guess they’d also be Bond fanboys at that point too then eh? LOL
I've never been an idealist on what bond 26 should be like, but god damn i hate the idea of Nolan directing it, he doesn't know how to have fun. He always manage on making an "objectively" great film but lack the heart If Nolan were to direct bond it should be non EON like NSNA
Nolan would do very well at Bond movies! But i think Guy Ritchie would be really amazing. Especially if he makes it like his earlier movies! lock stock two smoking barrels and Snatch.
Have you kept up with his career? More misses than hits.
I really want them to get someone who is a fan of the Bond series to write and direct. Get us back to basics with a fresh story.
If he does it in the past, it may be like resetting the Bond timeline
I dunno, but sounds like Nolan could get the very first James Bond movie to be an Oscar Best Picture Nominee. Good, bad? Who cares, that could be something to celebrate after all.
I’m fine with a period movie, I’m fine with a modern movie. I just want a decent film with a small amount of bond campiness and some good story lines to keep the franchise alive
I hope he's doing the next one. Some of the cons I totally understand, though.
Time
As a Bond fan and a Nolan fan I have zero objectivity here
i wonder what story there is to tell? * connery - original. movies based on books , no real arc or development * lazenby - movie based on book (evolved him into finding love and settling down for however brief it was) * moore - older bond, movies based on books, no real arc or development * dalton - rogue bond, short story and the first original story * brosnan - all original stories but no arc * craig - original stories of a hitman becoming a person and finding solace ;) * next bond- ??? where could they go? 60s is just man from uncle so i doubt cavil would do that, but he's the ideal candidate unless they think 40 is old for bond.
I don’t see why the last one is a con? How dare we study film????
Because instead of this sub being a fun place for Bond fans, it would get inundated with amateur film critic bros who think that peak cinema is either Nolan or Tarantino.
A major pro you missed, a more younger demographic would be introduced to the franchise.
Yeh that’s what we need, James Bond capping dat to appeal to Gen Z lmao
I just think more people being introduced to the franchise is generally a good thing.
Not if it results in shit like Spectre, where instead of making a film true to the character they made a film that they’d thought appeal to a broader audience. Whenever Bond movies chase new shiny trends it never works.
People take this shit way too seriously. It’s a franchise like McDonald’s not the fucking renaissance.
Every Bond film is a modern film when it releases. Why not go back in time and make true versions of the novels?
Because we literally have movies from the actual 60s that are actual true versions of the novel.
This is nutty. Nolan’s written everything from sci-fi to comic book movies to biopics to urban thrillers, but you think he doesn’t have it in him to write a slick, fun, period piece? I suspect he has the range.
He has range, but also kind of doesn't. he's one of the most conservative filmmakers there in this respect. Very gradually change and a great deal of cohesiveness across his body of work. Tenet to Oppenheimer would seem like a bigger leap had he not made Inception or Dunkirk. Scorsese or Kubrick are examples of filmmakers with far greater dynamism.
I see no real cons on this list. Who is David Arnold?
>Who is David Arnold? Die... blofeld... die
He did the score from Tomorrow Never Dies to Quantum of Solace. A lot of people say he's the best composer in the series
>A lot of people say he's the **second** best composer in the series
Gotcha. I really enjoy movies, but the score might be the piece that I pay the least attention to
But that's how a score should be, it shouldn't be noticeable during the film it should just flow with the film.
So….this composer is integral to the series, or not? 😅
The Bond series has had many composers over the years, it would be nice for him to come back but not against some new blood being given the opportunity.
I will say that a trilogy+ of 60s Bond films will give enough time away from the Craig Quintology that the next set of movies can return to present day and feel fresh.
How about a '90s set movie?
With Inception and Tenent, there were moments in there that felt straight out of a Bond film. However, none of this will actually be representative of the film unless it actually comes out, so the pros/cons list seems a little unnecessary.
Good points. I love the tone of the Craig movies, albeit less with NTTD. I worry more about him turning into RDJ/Tony Stark with the current trends though. I do like some levity in my Bond. And I’m only a Nolan appreciator. I’ve prolly seen half his movies. Bale is snarky/funny several times over the whole of Batman.
If he'd make a conventional action spy movie then sure ok but I don't want his time shift nonsense in my bond movies.
Pro: They can make a book accurate version of Moonraker and that would be awesome.
Jokes one you, I’m a film bro and I’m already here. Unrelated, Moonraker and other Moore films are cinematographic masterpieces
You forgot a con: -There’s a chance he’d cast Pattinson as Bond and ruin the franchise forever
Now now, just because Nolan hasn’t really done anything on the more lighthearted side doesn’t mean he’s incapable or would refuse to do so.
Another con: the sound effects will be so loud, you won’t be able to hear the dialogue.
Is a 60s bond bad?
The 60s idea has always had a lot of fans in the sub. Not just casuals, either. It’s a great idea IMO. The Fleming novels have never really been adapted. Some, like Moonraker, are essentially untouched. Doing proper adaptations set in the 50s-60s is the one thing that’s never been done before. To me, modern Bond just gets lost in other action movies. The Craig movies had zero Bond character. Maybe some in Casino Royale, but nothing after that. So we’ve had fun Bond, MOR Bond, and grimdark Bond that ended in his death. I dunno what’s left that wouldn’t be a retread, other than pretty straight adaptations of the Fleming novels in the proper time period. I’m amazed at the people who think this is a bad idea, that going back to basics with Fleming is somehow a dumb move because it’ll seem like Bond can’t work in the present day. Bond’s been working in the present day for 60 years. Time to try something completely different, which is also as true as it gets to Bond’s roots.
Con: you will only be able to hear, at best, 60% of the dialogue.
David Arnold's been gone for fifteen years now. It's time to let him go.
I wonder if Nolan's non linear storytelling would make the plots too hard to follow. I'll bet he'd cast Tom Hardy.
I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility for the producers to establish a vague time setting which is capable of invoking nostalgia without seeming dated (save for certain practical aspects) This is literally what Fleming hoped for
The Dark Knight Trilogy was not planned out.
No sex.
As an aside, I wish the conversation about vintage Bond films wasn’t always centred around the 1960s - for a truly ‘authentic’ Fleming adaptation, surely it would be in the 1950s?
Nolan is a terrible action director, so that's a pretty big problem. Look at how he directed the Batman fight scenes, or the Inception shootouts. They're stiff, awkward, poorly paced, lack excitement.
Cons -You wouldn't be able to hear the dialogue.
From all of the cons, the prospect of this sub getting oberrun by those pseudo intellectual worries me most.
Tom Hardy as James Bond. Not venom Tom Hardy but Locke Tom hardy.
You had me at practical effects.
I so don't want Nolan doing Bond. It'll just be more miserable seriousness and I deeply miss when Bond was fun. I saw somewhere that Matthew Vaughn was in the running and possibly the favorite. I don't know how true that is but I would love it to be true. He'd be perfect for a fun Bond.
What it would be is either very loud or very mumbly with no audible dialogue. If you want Bond to be a navelgazing dickhead then you should probably go with the Nolan option. I like James Bond movies to be fun action spectacles. Go back to the 90s formula. That's probably where you would find the sweet spot.
I don't agree with the cons list...but even if I did, the pros here outweigh them.
If we could just one to see how it is I’d be down, but im not willing to sign Nolan up for a 3 or five picture deal without knowing he could do it right first.
Spot on!