It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I would actually welcome his return; Campbell “ gets” Bond and that is incredibly important.
Before someone mentions his age, he is fit, healthy and obviously still has a passion for filmmaking. As far as his other films not measuring up to his Bond films, I could not care less; he does Bond well and that’s all that matters.
Give Campbell a strong script and the right actor as Bond and let’s roll.
I agree...
If he was picked I suspect there'd be a good reason.
It seems to me he respects Bond more and pays closer attention to Bond scripts than other films' scripts.
well, you like GE more than I do.
I can't believe Casino Royale was directed by the director of GE.
Why? The two movies are almost identical in style. Oh, yeah, I love GoldenEye.
The script and... well GE looks like a TV movie with those close-ups.
Campbell was a TV director and you can see that in GE.
Oh, that didn't bother me at all. It was still the mid-90s. The 80s was still a bit in their bloodstream.
Anyway, I’d say GE is actually a pretty well made film. A lot of the cinematography/camera movements and editing choices are actually quite complex and well crafted. Not to say it’s a stylistically bombastic film, just very well done.
Overall though, I actually like Campbell’s approach. As much as Fukunaga’s directing had a lot of flair I’m not a fan of the way he moves the camera during action sequences (ie compare the staircase fight in NTTD to the one in CR. There’s this sense that the camera seems to move independently of the characters with the long take, and it takes away a bit of the believability for me. The editing and camera movements in CR feel much more purposeful/connected to the actors’ movements and personally immerse me in the scene a bit more).
Funny enough, MI looked better too.
Casino Royale looks like... well, a movie with a healthy budget and it's not TSWLM either. It's mostly a poker game!
Anyway, it's my opinion.
Do you mean that because of De Palma's dutch angles?
That said, I'm astonished by his output outside the Bond series. A couple of his films are okay, good even, but he's mostly made forgettable stuff beyond that. Then again, John Glen, whose Bond films I find really good for about 80%, didn’t really direct anything of notable quality after LTK either. Perhaps some guys deliver their best work with Bond, and that's fine.
Still, Campbell was given the interesting challenge of introducing a new actor in the role. While never a guaranteed success, there is, I believe, something of an advantage tied to that. Unburdoned with what had come before, you can start experimenting a bit, create a new vision, help to establish a fresh tone. Both times, Campbell succeeded. GE took Bond next-level, whereas CR took him to base-level so to speak, and audiences appreciated the move on both occasions. Some even say that Campbell "saved the series twice" with a successful reset after more uncertain or confusing times.
But Campbell never returned for follow-up films. We don't know how well he would handle the difficult task of giving the new actor, after his exciting introduction, even more exciting adventures without slipping into either dull repetition or gross exxageration -- and there's always a DAD lurking in the shadows. Also, two films, both dear to me, may not paint a complete picture of a director. Perhaps we simply got lucky, twice, and Campbell was dealt easy cards, though I'm still willing to give him more credit.
A return of Campbell for number 3 seems a bit far-fetched, though. Some here will resent me for saying this, but at 80, he may find himself a bit exhausted for the demanding job of directing a Bond film. Also, while I think the world of his two Bond films, I don't treat him -- or anyone else -- as the lord our savior of the Bond films. I think it's utterly ridiculous to pin our hopes on merely one guy, whether he's Campbell, Nolan, Villeneuve,...
If he did a third and it sucked, then we could reflect and say that maybe he got lucky with CR and GE but two out of two ain’t bad.
Well, everything. Comparing Campbell to De Palma is like comparing John Guillermin to Spielberg.
It was ok but it was also too old school.
Generally, yes - however we weren't speaking generally. You were specific in that GE looks like a TV movie because of Campbell's use of close-ups. Evidently, that is reductive analysis.
And also ridiculous. Nothing about GE looks like a TV movie from that era. Very reductive, indeed.
$60 million budget helped a little
That's not the point. ;)
Unpopular opinion, John Glen is not the best director in the world but he knew where to put the camera.
He was also extremely old school, which is a bad thing now too.
And too old.
Yes. Old people shouldn't direct. You're absolutely right.