›

The case for and against... Martin Campbell

1…89111314…18

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I don't suppose you can blame Desmond for continuing to appear in them. It was presumably well-paid and a relitively small part. He also had fans that understandably loved him.

    Though I think even he queried why they hadn't replaced him earlier.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    no fair play to him. any one else would have done the same.

    apart from Dalts of course.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    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.

    His lines are like comfort food by that point.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't ever feel like Desmond peaked in his portrayal. I think he got better and better in the role. When they made GoldenEye for instance, he had to show exasperation to Bonds quips, then soften into having a chuckle together then snap back into irritability. That's hard to pull off in the space of 2 minutes.

    And when has Desmond ever delivered something as well as he did his final lines?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Desmond was like an old shoe. A familiar presence. However, I have to admit that he stopped being a credible quartermaster for me sometime during the Moore years. As others have said, he became more of an 'uncle' type figure towards the end.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Martin Campbell.
    How one can make a case against him would escape me.

    He is responsible for THE Bond event of our lifetime. GoldenEye.
    He and Brosnan made the second half of the nineties into a new Golden Age for Bond with pop culture dancing of joy and just think of the consequences like the possibly best Console Game ever.

    And then came Casino Royale. Campbell introduced another Bond actor. The film didn't have the impact GE had, not even close, but Campbell managed to take Craig and actually convince most of the audience, that this man can be a version of James Bond.
    And of course Casino Royale has the best ensemble cast ever.
    Just imagine Brosnan had been in that film! What a missed opportunity.

    Martin Campbell overall is maybe the most important director in the series. Unimaginable if another director had failed GoldenEye or worse Casino Royale.
    Just imagine Marc Forster and QOS had come first....
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell.
    How one can make a case against him would escape me.

    He is responsible for THE Bond event of our lifetime. GoldenEye.
    He and Brosnan made the second half of the nineties into a new Golden Age for Bond with pop culture dancing of joy and just think of the consequences like the possibly best Console Game ever.

    And then came Casino Royale. Campbell introduced another Bond actor. The film didn't have the impact GE had, not even close, but Campbell managed to take Craig and actually convince most of the audience, that this man can be a version of James Bond.
    And of course Casino Royale has the best ensemble cast ever.
    Just imagine Brosnan had been in that film! What a missed opportunity.

    Martin Campbell overall is maybe the most important director in the series. Unimaginable if another director had failed GoldenEye or worse Casino Royale.
    Just imagine Marc Forster and QOS had come first....

    YMMV.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    And of course Casino Royale has the best ensemble cast ever.
    Just imagine Brosnan had been in that film! What a missed opportunity.
    Yikes.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    CpKbe9qh.jpg
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Lord help us!

    I'll be having nightmares for weeks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Lord help us!

    I'll be having nightmares for weeks.
    That photo isn't doing him or the notion any favours. Quite the contrary, I'm afraid.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    Casino Royale would have been a better film with Brosnan in it. They would have dropped that whole "Bond's first mission" marketing gimmick that was asinine and went nowhere.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Casino Royale would have been a better film with Brosnan in it. They would have dropped that whole "Bond's first mission" marketing gimmick that was asinine and went nowhere.

    +1
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Casino Royale would have been a better film with Brosnan in it. They would have dropped that whole "Bond's first mission" marketing gimmick that was asinine and went nowhere.

    +1

    Especially because of the "went nowhere" aspect I absolutely agree.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Theoretically it could have been a better film, yes. Unfortunately, there are pivotal scenes (including the infamous ball whacker) which I just can't see Brosnan being able to pull off (without the usual exaggerations). Furthermore, I think Eva Green was pivotal to CR's success. I think she would have chewed Brosnan up and spat him out. So I'm afraid I don't agree.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I agree with @bondjames
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    bondjames wrote: »
    Theoretically it could have been a better film, yes. Unfortunately, there are pivotal scenes (including the infamous ball whacker) which I just can't see Brosnan being able to pull off (without the usual exaggerations). Furthermore, I think Eva Green was pivotal to CR's success. I think she would have chewed Brosnan up and spat him out. So I'm afraid I don't agree.

    "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me." Seems to me that's appropriate for the character.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Brosnan and Green would have been dynamite on screen.
    Craig is somewhat overrated in CR, Green is chewing him up in every single sceen. Her left eyebrow has more movement than Craig's face. Just look at the train sequence. Craig looks like he is afraid to act or something.

    Brosnan has a natural talent with women on screen, with any actress. Even Dr. Christmas Jones works because he elevates her non-existing talent.

    CR is a fine film, and with Brosnan some scenes naturally would have been written differently. So compare the torture scene is invalid. That was written merely to show off Craig's body, it's so obvious. Same for the ridiculous cringe-worthy blue swim wear commercial.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Theoretically it could have been a better film, yes. Unfortunately, there are pivotal scenes (including the infamous ball whacker) which I just can't see Brosnan being able to pull off (without the usual exaggerations). Furthermore, I think Eva Green was pivotal to CR's success. I think she would have chewed Brosnan up and spat him out. So I'm afraid I don't agree.

    "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me." Seems to me that's appropriate for the character.
    Can you imagine Brozza being able to pull off that post-drowning scene? I can't (based on the evidence from his prior films). Craig demonstrated perfect controlled rage combined with a sense of hopelessness. For that reason alone (and there are several other instances) I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in that film.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The Baywatch scene actually is acted well. But then Craig is always good in looking depressed, hurt or exhausted.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    If Brosnan had done CR, it would have been a very different film.

    Babs and Co. needed an actor's actor for the film they wanted to make, and Craig was the man for that job.

    Brosnan could have done a far better job with SP. In fact, I would have much preferred him in it as I've mentioned before.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I agree, CR in 2006 needed a new actor. Therefore all is good how it is.

    But if CR could have been possible in 2004 or 2005 it should have been Brosnan, it could have been his FYEO and I would have preferred that much over the failed attempt to re-boot Bond.
    And it would have spared us QOS.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    I agree CR makes more sense as a bittersweet ending to a tenure than it does as a first film. They could have gotten all that out of there system, and then start afresh without the need for a gritty reboot.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Craig was great for CR. I haven't been all that sold on him since to be honest (he carried QoS, but that film was all action and needed a good actor to anchor it, otherwise it would have just collapsed).

    It's almost like they've been trying to make films to suit his sensibilities, and that has led to distortions which I'm not too keen on. That's why I look forward to a new approach, and sooner rather than later (especially given how long the gestation period has been between films).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    bondjames wrote: »
    Craig was great for CR. I haven't been all that sold on him since to be honest (he carried QoS, but that film was all action and needed a good actor to anchor it, otherwise it would have just collapsed).

    It's almost like they've been trying to make films to suit his sensibilities, and that has led to distortions which I'm not too keen on. That's why I look forward to a new approach, and sooner rather than later (especially given how long the gestation period has been between films).

    It was the same with Judy Dench. "We've got her, we may as well use her!" Personally I think they might be better clearing out the cast completely. I'm happy for Moneypenny, M and Q to have no more than a few minutes of screen time per film. We don't need high calibre actors for that. Even Bond needs to be more mysterious again, and less of an open wound. I mean, he is supposed to be a spy after all. The only character in a Bond film that truly sees the benefit of a layered performance is the villain, IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Craig was great for CR. I haven't been all that sold on him since to be honest (he carried QoS, but that film was all action and needed a good actor to anchor it, otherwise it would have just collapsed).

    It's almost like they've been trying to make films to suit his sensibilities, and that has led to distortions which I'm not too keen on. That's why I look forward to a new approach, and sooner rather than later (especially given how long the gestation period has been between films).

    It was the same with Judy Dench. "We've got her, we may as well use her!" Personally I think they might be better clearing out the cast completely. I'm happy for Moneypenny, M and Q to have no more than a few minutes of screen time per film. We don't need high calibre actors for that. Even Bond needs to be more mysterious again, and less of an open wound. I mean, he is supposed to be a spy after all. The only character in a Bond film that truly sees the benefit of a layered performance is the villain, IMO.
    Your comment made me think back to the earlier Batman films from the 80s/90s, where the villains were more developed and Bat was a little more mysterious. I think we've gone through a long period of hero 'peel back' & revelation (starting with the landmark Batman Begins), but the trend may be about to change.
  • RobertsonRobertson
    Posts: 170
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Casino Royale would have been a better film with Brosnan in it.

    I agree.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,170
    I always pictured a Brosnan CR having the gunbarrel open on Madagascar. The parkour/crane sequence might have been a great PTS for a Brosnan CR. In addition, Bond would be sporting different attire for that sequence- possibly a tan linen suit similar to what he wore in the GE BMW scene.
    I think a Brosnan CR would have been just as successful as it was with Craig. Audiences as well as hard core fans loved Brosnan as Bond. That tends to be forgotten in light of the later Craig films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I always pictured a Brosnan CR having the gunbarrel open on Madagascar. The parkour/crane sequence might have been a great PTS for a Brosnan CR. In addition, Bond would be sporting different attire for that sequence- possibly a tan linen suit similar to what he wore in the GE BMW scene.
    I think a Brosnan CR would have been just as successful as it was with Craig. Audiences as well as hard core fans loved Brosnan as Bond. That tends to be forgotten in light of the later Craig films.
    I think it could have been even more successful financially. However, I don't think it would have achieved the same kind of critical recognition. Reboots were all the rage back then thanks to BB, and EON went in the right direction. Plus, a new actor added a 'refresh' element to the proceedings, which was welcome as the formula had gone stale. I contend that we're due for it again, sooner rather than later. Every 10 or so years, there should be a switch. Even Dalton provided that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    With all the love for Craig going on we mustn't forget he only was more successful than Brosnan with SF and now SP.

    EON took a risk and quite possibly lost money with Craig during the first two films.
    Taking risks is something needed though.
Sign In or Register to comment.