It’s Nolan, Christopher Nolan.
Would Christopher Nolan be good for bond?
It has dominated the dreams of fans for what would seem an age. Dreams of a Bond, moulded through the imagination of Christopher Nolan.
In recent days that dream seems to have taken a positive if tentative step towards realisation.
Will it turn out to be the movie equivalent to the 2nd coming, or will it be a dud move for all?
Nolan seems to have once again caught a wave in the shape of Oppenheimer and the deal with Universal Studios. He seems to live up to the infamous in Nolan We Trust memes and T-shirt slogans bestowed by his loyal fanbase.
But a shadow looms just as large as Oppenheimers box office haul. Its Bond, James Bond. Nolan has always been interested in the martini swilling death defying super spy. His work is littered all over with reverence for Bond. But could he do it, and would he?
Word on the grapevine, is that discussions have been positive, although there are caveats. Bond producers Eon and Barbera Broccoli with Amazon and MGM in tow, seem reticent to relinquish total creative control of the franchise to Nolan.
EON and Broccoli in particular up to this point, have had final say in everything ranging from scripts to casting and marketing. Their devotion and oversight to the franchise has kept it stable for over 60 years.
The advantage of handing over the creative reigns is evident. Over the course of his career, Nolan has had creative freedom on the majority of his projects.
He was trusted by Warner Bros and leaned on heavily, his films often flagships for the studio. His speciality at creating complex stories in the framework of the big summer blockbuster is not unparalleled. Yet the success behind Nolan’s work has been constantly proving big studio releases needn’t be dumb corporate cannon fodder. It all depends on how much he would be allowed to implement his own vision.
There has been rumour of a return to the 60s. Would this be the way to go?
We all know by now the outdated chauvinist attitude Bond exudes will probably not be a main staple of this new iteration.
There would be things we are familiar with, mixed with Nolan’s precise eye and gift for delivering elite standard cinematic set pieces. It would be a brand new paint job on the good old DB5, ejector seat included.
Nolan has proven he is as adept even when restricted to a time or place. Dunkirk and Oppenheimer prime examples that his style can be transferable between genres. It remains to be seen if, and it’s a big if, whether related parties would go for Nolan’s back to basics vision for Bond.
Would it be a standalone Bond? There are whispers of 2 possibly 3 films to be helmed by Nolan.
Perhaps EON/Broccoli and MGM/Amazon are looking at Nolan’s past efforts for inspiration, particularly the much revered Dark Knight Trilogy. Built entirely from the ground up. The trilogy is a high watermark in Nolan’s career . Completely stripping away any memory of the much maligned Batman and Robin, Nolan reinvented and changed Batman, forever.
An overhaul of Bond could be what’s required? More than competent at building a franchise he may be, but a rebuild also hinges on who will play the plucky protagonist. Who will play Nolan’s Bond? Does he have someone in mind? Do EON and Broccoli?
Aaron Taylor Johnson is the latest in a long list of names thrown around the tabloids. Who next week? This decision must hold weight on any deal or negotiation. No matter the vision or aesthetic.
In theory, the combination of one of the world’s most popular franchises and one of its most sought after directors seems tempting. Yet there’s always that old adage, be careful what you wish for. Fans have longed for this for years. And very, very externally, so has Nolan. It could be a case of be careful what you wish for from both sides if it were a disaster. In reality a disaster seems oddly far fetched. In an age of an endless library of films at our fingertips, and endless amount of commentary and critique towards every single one. It’s hard to imagine a world in which a Nolan Bond film tanks and gets bashed around the town. His skillset at handling a big franchise combined with A list actors, complex material and big set pieces, all with huge budgets, fits into 007.
As it stands, Oppenheimer’s box office haul is at a near staggering $900million, a remarkable statistic considering it’s a 3 hour long period piece.
The simultaneous release of Oppenheimer and Barbie , seems to have created an unexpected degree of uncertainty, despite the huge profits of both films, many fans are left wondering. Is it just the so called event movies that can rake in the cash at the multiplex, or is there a middle ground? What about mid budget films? The small more independent movies?
Where and how do they thrive when the weight of huge studio releases like Barbie and Oppenheimer and maybe in time a Chris Nolan Bond movie, become the only thing people are interested in making?
It’s hopefully possible somehow for movies of all forms to co-exist and for the creators to be allowed to create.
I am aware that all this, all these theories and motivations and negotiation, may all just be tears in the rain. But when it comes down to it, when it comes to Bond and only Bond, I believe Nolan would be nothing but good for the franchise. Whether that’s good for cinema or not, it’s almost inconsequential. Adoring super fans, I suspect, will flock in their droves, in their Nolan We Trust t-shirts.
I’ll see you there.
