All right, all right. Since it’s been sort-of unofficially confirmed that Sam Mendes is signed up for the catchily-named ‘Bond 24’, this is a bit academic but nevertheless his name comes up each and every time a new helmer is needed for the 007 franchise. In fact it was even believed that Christopher Nolan had been informally approached for the next Bond movie before Sam Mendes eventually agreed to return.
Around the time of Inception (2010)—and Christopher Nolan mentioning that film’s debt to the James Bond movies in general and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) in particular—the Internet nearly exploded with volleys of counter-attacks saying why Nolan would be the best or worst thing to happen to Ian Fleming’s superspy.
A couple of years later—and with Nolan the power behind Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel throne—we can possibly be a bit more rational about the pros and cons. Now here I’m just tackling the cons. A lot of this depends on how well his take on Superman works and/or is received, of course. So just consider these submitted for your approval…
10. Run time
Some consider them epic; some are still waiting for feeling to return to their buttocks. The fact is, Christopher Nolan makes looooong movies—and they’re only getting longer. James Bond has a similar history of outstaying his welcome with one too many padded action scenes—even On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Casino Royale have their longeurs, and by the time James Bond and Q are ballooning in to rescue Octopussy, you may yell at the screen.
Do we really need Nolan trying to make it “the biggest Bond of all”?
This article was first posted on June 16, 2013