The case for and against... Martin Campbell

191012141518

Comments

  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames 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.
    Hopefully. There´s nothing wrong with going into the character of the protagonist. But there´s also nothing wrong or boring with Bond being a well-balanced human being as portrayed by Roger Moore. There is however something wrong with Her Majesty´s finest, toughest and overall best asset all of a sudden suffering from a childhood trauma or sulking because he got shot, as if he never got hurt before.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    bondjames 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.

    Yeah, I feel in the Craig era we've switched from focus on plot (even a simple or weak one) with minor character development, to focus on character development with minor plot. In the old films we would get subtle moments when the human side of Bond would show, but he would largely remain a guarded figure who was just focused on the job at hand. Now it's the inverse. Bond is an open wound, and when the plot of the film does come up, it seems almost accidental. Like someone mentioned it by mistake. I get the same feeling from both Skyfall and SPECTRE, that the nuts and bolts aren't really important. That's just background information compared to the emotional resonance we're supposed to feel. I've no problem with that, but when there's nothing to back it up, what's it really worth?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames 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.
    Hopefully. There´s nothing wrong with going into the character of the protagonist. But there´s also nothing wrong or boring with Bond being a well-balanced human being as portrayed by Roger Moore. There is however something wrong with Her Majesty´s finest, toughest and overall best asset all of a sudden suffering from a childhood trauma or sulking because he got shot, as if he never got hurt before.
    Yes, I agree. Especially when we see it in nearly every recent consecutive film. It's like they're trying to 'one up' Bourne.
    bondjames 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.

    Yeah, I feel in the Craig era we've switched from focus on plot (even a simple or weak one) with minor character development, to focus on character development with minor plot. In the old films we would get subtle moments when the human side of Bond would show, but he would largely remain a guarded figure who was just focused on the job at hand. Now it's the inverse. Bond is an open wound, and when the plot of the film does come up, it seems almost accidental. Like someone mentioned it by mistake. I get the same feeling from both Skyfall and SPECTRE, that the nuts and bolts aren't really important. That's just background information compared to the emotional resonance we're supposed to feel. I've no problem with that, but when there's nothing to back it up, what's it really worth?
    I very much agree. Plot does appear to be incidental these days. I think they nailed the character elements in SF but failed to achieve that in SP. Others prefer SP due to the familiar elements making a comeback, although I personally think the execution was predictable and botched. Regardless, I think they're tapped out, and need a new approach. I think they recognize that too, based on comments from young Wilson and P&W.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @bondjames
    comments from young Wilson and P+W?
    I have missed that info.

    What drives me mad is that P+W are still allowed to work on Bond. Or are they?

    They'll probably view a new apporach to make the mission personal for Bond haha...and include M in the plot :P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BondJasonBond006, Wilson made some comments early last year that they were going to look at new threats and that they are trying to give us something new. P&W made some remarks late last year that SP marked more of an ending in the way Bond was done (or something along those lines) and that the current political environment poses new challenges in how to craft a Bond film.

    You ask a pertinent question though. Only Baz has confirmed P&W. EON have been silent on everything.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    What an eventful month June has been for Bond 25 news, eh? Tell you what, lets quickly summarize:
















    Nah, but seriously, I think something will either be released or leaked in the coming month. Even EON aren't this sneaky.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

    They didn't lose any money, I don't know where you've got that from. On the whole CR was critically lauded, something cemented further as time goes on. I love Brosnan as much as the next man (Who's that? The next man), but let's be real about this.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    They didn't lose any money, I don't know where you've got that from. On the whole CR was critically lauded, something cemented further as time goes on. I love Brosnan as much as the next man (Who's that? The next man), but let's be real about this.

    What I mean is CR and QOS didn't sell more tickets than GE or DAD did. Brosnan in CR would most certainly have sold much more tickets.

    Of course none of the Bond films ever lost money. I worded it a bit wrongly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan probably could have delivered better box office for CR/QoS (ticket sales) based on the history. Craig came into his own with SF in this respect though.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brosnan probably could have delivered better box office for CR/QoS (ticket sales) based on the history. Craig came into his own with SF in this respect though.

    Skyfall's success will always be linked to the 50th though and not to Craig as such.

    Casino Royale will remain his one classic for all times. And rightfully so.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brosnan probably could have delivered better box office for CR/QoS (ticket sales) based on the history. Craig came into his own with SF in this respect though.

    Skyfall's success will always be linked to the 50th though and not to Craig as such.

    Casino Royale will remain his one classic for all times. And rightfully so.

    Disagree with this. I'm pretty certain if you flagged up SF with the general public they wouldn't even remember the anniversary. It just worked. And I say that as someone who thinks CR is far and away the best Craig film. There's no getting away from the fact SF did something special and we should celebrate that, not find excuses for why a minority is correct and the rest of the world has been, in some way, hoodwinked.
  • Posts: 12,466
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    My thoughts exactly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    My thoughts exactly.
    +2.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I agree too. I think they'll both be seen as classics.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Too a certain generation, yes. But younger people will be less taken with Skyfall.
  • Posts: 170
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    I only slightly like Casino Royale.
  • Posts: 11,425
    This has taken an interesting new turn.

    Brosnan is a not very good actor who, with the right direction, can still turn in a decent performance. As far as I'm concerned his Bond performances were all duds, but I can still see a scenario in which it might have worked.

    I always liked the idea of Tarantino directing Brosnan in CR.

    Brozza is much more of a Tarantino actor than Craig.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Robertson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    I only slightly like Casino Royale.

    I enjoy Casino Royale, but it's the reputation as a stone cold classic that confounds me. The constant hyperbole gets a little grating after a while.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfall will be forgotten in 10 to 15 years.

    Casino Royale on the other hand will always stand in a line with GoldenEye, The Spy Who Loved Me and Goldfinger.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Robertson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    I only slightly like Casino Royale.

    I enjoy Casino Royale, but it's the reputation as a stone cold classic that confounds me. The constant hyperbole gets a little grating after a while.

    Within the genre and specifically the franchise it's a stone cold classic. That's quite simply what it is.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Robertson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    I only slightly like Casino Royale.

    I enjoy Casino Royale, but it's the reputation as a stone cold classic that confounds me. The constant hyperbole gets a little grating after a while.

    I'd say the same thing about GoldenEye. Simply cannot understand on any level what people see in it.

    CR I think is a very decent entry, but I am not quite as sold on it as some people on here. The writing is fairly ropey in places and there are aspects I don't much care for. But overall it's very good. Craig hits it out the park and there's a good supporting cast, nice title song and score and for the most part it looks pretty good.

    Overall I think Campbell is rather overrated as a Bond director. Claims that he's the most important director in the series' history are totally overblown.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Overall I think Campbell is massively overrated as a Bond director. Claims that he's the most important director in the series' history are totally overblown.
    He's far more consequential than Glen in my view. He also easily eclipses the last three during the Brosnan era. So in my opinion, he's the most effective Bond director since Gilbert (and many of the classic team including Bassey, Adam, Lee etc.) departed at the end of the 70s.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Robertson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me both CR and SF are classics that work well as standalone Bond films or within Craig's series. QoS and SP are both good, but to me, CR and SF are his finest and I think they'll both go down as Bond classics.

    I only slightly like Casino Royale.

    I enjoy Casino Royale, but it's the reputation as a stone cold classic that confounds me. The constant hyperbole gets a little grating after a while.

    I'd say the same thing about GoldenEye. Simply cannot understand on any level what people see in it.

    If it was a film you saw repeatedly during the critical time of your youth you may think differently.

    Incidentally, who has said here that he is the most important director of all? I like Campbell but he's not on the same level as Terrence Young.

    @bondjames. "Consequential" is a good word for Campbell.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited June 2017 Posts: 9,020
    I may have said something like that. Campbell was paramount to GoldenEye's success when it was most important.

    And again, after EON took the unnecessary risk of replacing a sure bet winner of a Bond actor, Campbell came in and delivered.
    Just imagine Marc Forster had directed CR. Craig would probably not have survived past two films.

    Yes, in the "modern" time, Campbell is by far the most important director.

    Of course Terence Young has defined Bond!!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I may have said something like that. Campbell was paramount to GoldenEye's success when it was most important.

    And again, after EON took the unnecessary risk of replacing a sure bet winner of a Bond actor, Campbell came in and delivered.
    Just imagine Marc Forster had directed CR. Craig would probably not have survived past two films.

    Yes, in the "modern" time, Campbell is by far the most important director.

    Of course Terence Young has defined Bond!!

    Completely agree!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Yep.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brosnan probably could have delivered better box office for CR/QoS (ticket sales) based on the history. Craig came into his own with SF in this respect though.

    Skyfall's success will always be linked to the 50th though and not to Craig as such.

    Casino Royale will remain his one classic for all times. And rightfully so.

    Disagree with this. I'm pretty certain if you flagged up SF with the general public they wouldn't even remember the anniversary. It just worked. And I say that as someone who thinks CR is far and away the best Craig film. There's no getting away from the fact SF did something special and we should celebrate that, not find excuses for why a minority is correct and the rest of the world has been, in some way, hoodwinked.
    Fact is that SF has so many problems it´s absolutely inexplicable why it was such a massive success, with or without 50th anniversary.
    I don´t consider Campbell the best or flawless, but perhaps Eon should have forced him to take a breather and then make Craig´s 3rd and 4th film. That way, at least it would feel like the same universe.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Fact is that SF has so many problems it´s absolutely inexplicable why it was such a massive success, with or without 50th anniversary.
    That's easy. It was a massive success because it looked absolutely fantastic. Also, the characters were three dimensional and resonated (Silva was a camp element, but his conflict with M was something everyone could relate to - a loving child jilted and betrayed by his maternal figure who he depended on). Plot was secondary and yes, perhaps on that front we were deceived - Mendes expertly used theatrics and visuals to distract from a flawed plot.
  • Posts: 1,162
    boldfinger wrote: »
    .Fact is that SF has so many problems it´s absolutely inexplicable why it was such a massive success, with or without 50th anniversary.

    According to my,admittedly completely unscientific, poll among those who usually don't go and watch Bond movies at the cinema anymore it was because they had heard that M died in it. It's one of the three names everyone who has ever heard of the franchise knows and relates to. In my opinion It's just as simple as that. Of course the queen parachuting with 007 didn't hurt either.
Sign In or Register to comment.