›

The case for and against... Martin Campbell

1…78101213…18

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's had the most difficult job of any director since 1987. Twice. That of introducing a new Bond actor to the world. He succeeded both times, which is quite a tremendous achievement.

    Yeah, and if he were to do it once more in future, and pull it off again, I'd be inclined to call him the best Bond director ever, personally. I mean, Young is almost unbeatable, but at least he benefited from a ever growing momentum behind Bond at the time. The sheer improbably of getting a franchise back on it's feet 3 times, separated by over 2 decades would just be insane.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's had the most difficult job of any director since 1987. Twice. That of introducing a new Bond actor to the world. He succeeded both times, which is quite a tremendous achievement.

    Yeah, and if he were to do it once more in future, and pull it off again, I'd be inclined to call him the best Bond director ever, personally. I mean, Young is almost unbeatable, but at least he benefited from a ever growing momentum behind Bond at the time. The sheer improbably of getting a franchise back on it's feet 3 times, separated by over 2 decades would just be insane.

    If he did it again, yes, he'd be the greatest. No question.

    I don't think he'll get the chance, however.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2017 Posts: 8,395
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's had the most difficult job of any director since 1987. Twice. That of introducing a new Bond actor to the world. He succeeded both times, which is quite a tremendous achievement.

    Yeah, and if he were to do it once more in future, and pull it off again, I'd be inclined to call him the best Bond director ever, personally. I mean, Young is almost unbeatable, but at least he benefited from a ever growing momentum behind Bond at the time. The sheer improbably of getting a franchise back on it's feet 3 times, separated by over 2 decades would just be insane.

    If he did it again, yes, he'd be the greatest. No question.

    I don't think he'll get the chance, however.

    Yeah, unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's had the most difficult job of any director since 1987. Twice. That of introducing a new Bond actor to the world. He succeeded both times, which is quite a tremendous achievement.

    Yeah, and if he were to do it once more in future, and pull it off again, I'd be inclined to call him the best Bond director ever, personally. I mean, Young is almost unbeatable, but at least he benefited from a ever growing momentum behind Bond at the time. The sheer improbably of getting a franchise back on it's feet 3 times, separated by over 2 decades would just be insane.

    If he did it again, yes, he'd be the greatest. No question.

    I don't think he'll get the chance, however.

    Yeah, unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

    I would never rule it out.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2017 Posts: 6,287
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Those are also two great opportunities other directors didn't have.

    Not least being able to film Fleming source material like Casino Royale that establishes the Bond character. Martin Campbell did a great job with it, but still.

    Many other directors had Bond source material and did worse with it. Plus, you can't prove a negative.

    Campbell's role in rescuing the Bond character from post-Cold War irrelevance in 1995 and again from parody in 2006 cannot be overstated.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    echo wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Those are also two great opportunities other directors didn't have.

    Not least being able to film Fleming source material like Casino Royale that establishes the Bond character. Martin Campbell did a great job with it, but still.

    Many other directors had Bond source material and did worse with it. Plus, you can't prove a negative.

    Campbell's role in rescuing the Bond character from post-Cold War irrelevance in 1995 and again from parody in 2006 cannot be overstated.
    Campbell insisting that Bond needs the DB5 is even worse than a parody.
    The "rescue" from parody is a natural process in Bond history.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2017 Posts: 11,189
    At least in 1995 we hadn't seen the DB5 In decades.

    Also in CR it's worked into the story.

    This is controversial but in later years Q/Desmond was boarderline parody.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The DB5 was ok in Goldeneye. There was a 6 year gap which was the longest, and they needed to remind people of Bond. What isn't necessary is having it appear in practically every film since.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I don't think the DB5 in GoldenEye was necessary, really. That chase scene was a bit superfluous. We just had a action scene to open the film, we didn't need more excitement so soon. It's a great introduction to Xenia, I just think it could have taken half the time. It was too elaborate and long-winded for me, the cyclists falling over being the low point. That being said, the scene doesn't really damage the film as a whole, I just wish they had edited down more.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I enjoy the car chase. Cheesy music and all. The shot of Famke driving that Ferrari smiling flirtatiously at Brosnan is great.

    Yes they re-use the falling over routine (last seen in FYEO with the skiers) but I prefer that to the "checking the bottle" schtuck that they flogged to death in Moore's era.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2017 Posts: 8,395
    Yeah, it's alright - just could have been snappier. Much snappier, IMO. I have no problem when the film slows down just the Severnaya sequence a little bit later, but when they spend time for something with little dramatic weight or importance to the plot, it just comes off as filler. A minor issue in the wider picture of the film itself.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I enjoy the car chase. Cheesy music and all. The shot of Famke driving that Ferrari smiling flirtatiously at Brosnan is great.
    As I said on the GE thread, that entire post titles sequence is one of my favourites. It has classic Bondian style and playful 'cool', and informed me in 1995 that nobody did it better.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    w2bond wrote: »
    The DB5 was ok in Goldeneye. There was a 6 year gap which was the longest, and they needed to remind people of Bond. What isn't necessary is having it appear in practically every film since.
    Yeah? By bringing back a car from 40 years ago? In Brosnan´s case, I can even halfway understand that they didn´t want to rely 100% on his limited acting chops. But then, the DB5 did only a very superficial, first-glance job of reminding people. It would have been much more effective to work better with the character and plot. I don´t mean to say character and plot were bad in GE, but for the purpose of reminding people, they brought in some elements that were new, but they sold them as if that was what bond would typically do. E.g. Bond adjusting his necktie in the tank in St. Petersburg: Campbell says somehwhere Brosnan came up with it and said, "this is what bond would do", and Campbell says he liked that a lot. But Bond never had done anything like that before.

    With Craig, they introduced a Bond that had nothing to do with the old Bond, despite all the source material, yet Craig nevertheless completely made the role his own. The DB5 is totally awkward as a reminder. Not to mention that in the other new films, the DB5 is nothing but nostalgia. Campbell didn´t do it for purely nostalgic reasons, but he opened the doors wide for it.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I don´t mean to say character and plot were bad in GE, but for the purpose of reminding people, they brought in some elements that were new, but they sold them as if that was what bond would typically do. E.g. Bond adjusting his necktie in the tank in St. Petersburg: Campbell says somehwhere Brosnan came up with it and said, "this is what bond would do", and Campbell says he liked that a lot. But Bond never had done anything like that before.
    I'm very disturbed to read this, but not entirely surprised. That explains the even more unforgiveable nonsense in the TWINE PTS underwater.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Yeah, it's alright - just could have been snappier. Much snappier, IMO. I have no problem when the film slows down just the Severnaya sequence a little bit later, but when they spend time for something with little dramatic weight or importance to the plot, it just comes off as filler. A minor issue in the wider picture of the film itself.

    Every Bond film has filler. See, for example, the helicopter and boat chases at the end of FRWL. It's an understandable result of Broccoli wanting to put all of the money spent up on screen.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    The DB5 was ok in Goldeneye. There was a 6 year gap which was the longest, and they needed to remind people of Bond. What isn't necessary is having it appear in practically every film since.
    Yeah? By bringing back a car from 40 years ago? In Brosnan´s case, I can even halfway understand that they didn´t want to rely 100% on his limited acting chops. But then, the DB5 did only a very superficial, first-glance job of reminding people. It would have been much more effective to work better with the character and plot. I don´t mean to say character and plot were bad in GE, but for the purpose of reminding people, they brought in some elements that were new, but they sold them as if that was what bond would typically do. E.g. Bond adjusting his necktie in the tank in St. Petersburg: Campbell says somehwhere Brosnan came up with it and said, "this is what bond would do", and Campbell says he liked that a lot. But Bond never had done anything like that before.

    With Craig, they introduced a Bond that had nothing to do with the old Bond, despite all the source material, yet Craig nevertheless completely made the role his own. The DB5 is totally awkward as a reminder. Not to mention that in the other new films, the DB5 is nothing but nostalgia. Campbell didn´t do it for purely nostalgic reasons, but he opened the doors wide for it.

    It's good when Bond does something new (like ski off a mountain); otherwise we're stuck in formula. Whether or not you agree that Brosnan made the right choice is a different matter.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    It is indeed surprising. I always thought some of the more fan service elements were chosen by the producers, because it was such a long gap and they wanted to play up the popular image of Bond, including the iconography.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    echo wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Yeah, it's alright - just could have been snappier. Much snappier, IMO. I have no problem when the film slows down just the Severnaya sequence a little bit later, but when they spend time for something with little dramatic weight or importance to the plot, it just comes off as filler. A minor issue in the wider picture of the film itself.

    Every Bond film has filler. See, for example, the helicopter and boat chases at the end of FRWL. It's an understandable result of Broccoli wanting to put all of the money spent up on screen.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    The DB5 was ok in Goldeneye. There was a 6 year gap which was the longest, and they needed to remind people of Bond. What isn't necessary is having it appear in practically every film since.
    Yeah? By bringing back a car from 40 years ago? In Brosnan´s case, I can even halfway understand that they didn´t want to rely 100% on his limited acting chops. But then, the DB5 did only a very superficial, first-glance job of reminding people. It would have been much more effective to work better with the character and plot. I don´t mean to say character and plot were bad in GE, but for the purpose of reminding people, they brought in some elements that were new, but they sold them as if that was what bond would typically do. E.g. Bond adjusting his necktie in the tank in St. Petersburg: Campbell says somehwhere Brosnan came up with it and said, "this is what bond would do", and Campbell says he liked that a lot. But Bond never had done anything like that before.

    With Craig, they introduced a Bond that had nothing to do with the old Bond, despite all the source material, yet Craig nevertheless completely made the role his own. The DB5 is totally awkward as a reminder. Not to mention that in the other new films, the DB5 is nothing but nostalgia. Campbell didn´t do it for purely nostalgic reasons, but he opened the doors wide for it.

    It's good when Bond does something new (like ski off a mountain); otherwise we're stuck in formula. Whether or not you agree that Brosnan made the right choice is a different matter.
    There are worlds between Bond doing some stunt that he hasn´t done before, and something he´s supposed to do habitually, like adjusting his necktie.
    You get stuck in formula if you don´t keep it alive. If you apply it well, it doesn´t get stale. See for instance Blade Runner and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: same formula, yet two entirely fresh films.

  • RobertsonRobertson
    Posts: 170
    Casino Royale was a decent film, and Goldeneye was just what the franchise needed after the Timothy Dalton garbage.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    For me Brosnan became Bond when he plowed through the streets of St Petersburg in the tank
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    For me Brosnan became Bond when he plowed through the streets of St Petersburg in the tank

    That's a cool moment, although I suspect if they were to do something similar today it might touch a nerve with the public.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I never liked the tank sequence to be honest.

    Brosnan became Bond for me with the jump in the PTS.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    At least in 1995 we hadn't seen the DB5 In decades.

    Also in CR it's worked into the story.

    This is controversial but in later years Q/Desmond was boarderline parody.

    I agree. It's farsical in LTK and really he should probably have been retired around then.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I never had a problem with Desmond or the way he was used, but I have a problem when something new is introduced and sold as traditional. If it´s new, be honest and sell it as new.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    At least in 1995 we hadn't seen the DB5 In decades.

    Also in CR it's worked into the story.

    This is controversial but in later years Q/Desmond was boarderline parody.

    I agree. It's farsical in LTK and really he should probably have been retired around then.

    That is controversial. It's obvious by GE that Desmond is using cue cards but c'mon by that point he was all that was left of the classic Bond era.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I thought it was not working towards the end, but then I'm not a fan of those last few films.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,111
    I even like Desmond more in the Dalton-Brosnan years than in the earlier films.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    He's more like a cuddly uncle from LTK onwards.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    His chemistry with Brosnan is superb. Particularly love their TND scene.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2017 Posts: 11,189
    He's like a cuddly uncle from the mid 80s onwards really. TLD was maybe where he should have realistically thought about calling it a day.

    He says "pay attention 007" in TLD, LTK and GE as well as "this I'm particularly proud of" in GE and TND.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    wow. the writing really has been on top form for a while now.
Sign In or Register to comment.