The case for and against... Martin Campbell

11213151718

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,011
    So @DEKE_RIVERS would you call Sergio Leone's westerns cheap-looking TV westerns, because of Leone's penchant for close-ups and extreme close-up shots?
  • Posts: 4,122
    I’d say Campbell’s a better director than Glen. Even his non-Bond films generally have a good sense of visual storytelling (they’re just often by the numbers and unexceptional thrillers, but competently directed ones).

    Glen, who incidentally was a really good editor and second unit director, was hired as director due to how long he’d worked on those former roles for Bond, and let’s be honest to keep directing costs down in an era where Bond budgets had flatlined. If ever there’s a Bond director who can be described as ‘tradesman-like’ it’s him, and I’d argue he’s the only one that can fully be described as such (Campbell despite his reputation amongst Bond fans did have a lot of story input into CR, and quite clear creative directions for his Bond films. He wasn’t just hired to keep a budget low, they wanted him to direct due to what he’d bring). Consequently it meant that outside of Bond his directing opportunities were more limited with made for TV movies etc.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    The Mask Of Zorro is still the best swashbuckler made in the last three decades. Looks visually gorgeous, too.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 19 Posts: 2,011
    Yeah, Campbell is a top Bond director. But I think what John Glen did so well, was how really good he took inventive action (started by previous Bond directors) up another notch for the series.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 19 Posts: 16,359
    I get a bit alarmed when folks only talk about directors in terms of where they're putting the cameras. Whilst that is part of their job (but also the DP's too) the director is the person who interprets the script- they don't just choose whether to go for a close-up or not but they decide how everyone will play a scene, the pace of it, the tone of it, everything about it. A director can take a scene in a script and make it a comedy and another different director can take the same scene and make it a horror.

    With Bond I think you can see that in the Roger films; it seems like Roger was a director's actor, and you can see his characterisation of Bond has three distinct versions which tally with each of his three directors: they're all Roger of course, but you have that tinged with the slightly vicious and mean version in LALD/MWTGG; the more laid-back and warm version of TSWLM/MR; and then the more romantic and human shades in FYEO-AVTAK.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    I'll vote in favour for Martin for two reasons: one, we'd know a new film is in the making. two. he's delivered before, he uderstands Bond and can work with the producers. AFAK directors don't really do the stuntwork themselves, so age shouldn't be a problem. at all.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,011
    mtm wrote: »
    I get a bit alarmed when folks only talk about directors in terms of where they're putting the cameras. Whilst that is part of their job (but also the DP's too) the director is the person who interprets the script- they don't just choose whether to go for a close-up or not but they decide how everyone will play a scene, the pace of it, the tone of it, everything about it. A director can take a scene in a script and make it a comedy and another different director can take the same scene and make it a horror.

    With Bond I think you can see that in the Roger films; it seems like Roger was a director's actor, and you can see his characterisation of Bond has three distinct versions which tally with each of his three directors: they're all Roger of course, but you have that tinged with the slightly vicious and mean version in LALD/MWTGG; the more laid-back and warm version of TSWLM/MR; and then the more romantic and human shades in FYEO-AVTAK.

    So well put.
  • edited June 19 Posts: 1,330
    mtm wrote: »
    I get a bit alarmed when folks only talk about directors in terms of where they're putting the cameras. Whilst that is part of their job (but also the DP's too) the director is the person who interprets the script- they don't just choose whether to go for a close-up or not but they decide how everyone will play a scene, the pace of it, the tone of it, everything about it. A director can take a scene in a script and make it a comedy and another different director can take the same scene and make it a horror.

    With Bond I think you can see that in the Roger films; it seems like Roger was a director's actor, and you can see his characterisation of Bond has three distinct versions which tally with each of his three directors: they're all Roger of course, but you have that tinged with the slightly vicious and mean version in LALD/MWTGG; the more laid-back and warm version of TSWLM/MR; and then the more romantic and human shades in FYEO-AVTAK.

    I don't like the pace of GE either.

    I don't want to trash that movie. He did a better job with Casino Royale so I don't hate the guy.

    Maybe he understood Bond better the second time.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,011
    Well, I'm sure if we delve in deeper, there are a whole lot of people who like GoldenEye than Casino Royale.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    Well, I'm sure if we delve in deeper, there are a whole lot of people who like GoldenEye than Casino Royale.

    Considering the results of @GoldenGun's many ranking games, I'm fairly confident that you are correct, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 19 Posts: 4,616
    I could go either way on Martin Campbell. It isn't an age thing. I think that he just wants to end on a higher note than when he started. That's rare in any Bond media. Similar to Anthony Horowitz in a way.
  • Posts: 1,859
    FOR: CR and Zorro sum it up for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    What about Legend of Zorro though? 8-X

    I thought the first one was superb, one of the all time best adventure movies, but that second one... yikes. MaxCasino may have a point.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,011
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Well, I'm sure if we delve in deeper, there are a whole lot of people who like GoldenEye than Casino Royale.

    Considering the results of @GoldenGun's many ranking games, I'm fairly confident that you are correct, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷.

    Oh, sure @DarthDimi Agreed!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 692
    I'm all for Campbell returning if he's up for it. His movies have a punchy style and irreverent tone that are perfect for Bond. And quite honestly I don't think there are any other directors who get Bond like him.
  • Posts: 1,859
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm all for Campbell returning if he's up for it. His movies have a punchy style and irreverent tone that are perfect for Bond. And quite honestly I don't think there are any other directors who get Bond like him.

    Agreed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm all for Campbell returning if he's up for it. His movies have a punchy style and irreverent tone that are perfect for Bond. And quite honestly I don't think there are any other directors who get Bond like him.

    That's highly improbable. They simply have to try harder to find the right guy for the job.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 21 Posts: 2,011
    Yeah, I think most of us want Campbell back, not necessarily because we want him back, but because of Bond 26 feeling like a proper Bond film. I think there are lots of good directors who might not be able to make a Bond film, feel like a Bond film. If Sam Mendes were announced as Bond 26's director, it might not be the most super-exciting piece of news, but it's sort of a safety net...knowing the film would feel like a Bond film. But of course, EON can still look for fresh directors, but they would have to be really careful when picking, because I didn't enjoy Fukunaga's direction in NTTD. It's a well-shot film for sure, but for me...for the most part, NTTD doesn't feel like a Bond film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    Yeah, I think most of us want Campbell back, not necessarily because we want him back, but because of Bond 26 feeling like a proper Bond film. I think there are lots of good directors who might not be able to make a Bond film, feel like a Bond film. If Sam Mendes were announced as Bond 26's director, it might not be the most super-exciting piece of news, but it's sort of a safety net...knowing the film would feel like a Bond film. But of course, EON can still look for fresh directors, but they would have to be really careful when picking, because I didn't enjoy Fukunaga's direction in NTTD. It's a well-shot film for sure, but for me...for the most part, NTTD doesn't feel like a Bond film.

    Yep, good post, totally agree. I would prefer fresh meat to revisiting old stuff, but it should have that intangible Bond feel which Campbell & Mendes got but Forster & Fukunaga didn't. Don't ask me what it is though! :)
  • Posts: 4,122
    It's tricky finding those directors who I guess 'get' how to make a Bond movie. I'm not even sure if there's any way of gauging it from their previous movies (I mean, would anyone have guessed that Lewis Gilbert - a director known for making often relatively smaller character dramas - would have been capable of directing high spectacle Bond films like YOLT, TSWLM and MR? Even his bigger budget films before Bond don't quite point to that same sense of escapism. It's a similar case with most of the other directors).
  • Posts: 1,330
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, I think most of us want Campbell back, not necessarily because we want him back, but because of Bond 26 feeling like a proper Bond film. I think there are lots of good directors who might not be able to make a Bond film, feel like a Bond film. If Sam Mendes were announced as Bond 26's director, it might not be the most super-exciting piece of news, but it's sort of a safety net...knowing the film would feel like a Bond film. But of course, EON can still look for fresh directors, but they would have to be really careful when picking, because I didn't enjoy Fukunaga's direction in NTTD. It's a well-shot film for sure, but for me...for the most part, NTTD doesn't feel like a Bond film.

    Yep, good post, totally agree. I would prefer fresh meat to revisiting old stuff, but it should have that intangible Bond feel which Campbell & Mendes got but Forster & Fukunaga didn't. Don't ask me what it is though! :)

    Campbell had a novel and that helps a lot.

    NTTD seems less official than NSNA but that's what you get when you kill James Bond. It will always seem alternative.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 21 Posts: 4,616
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, I think most of us want Campbell back, not necessarily because we want him back, but because of Bond 26 feeling like a proper Bond film. I think there are lots of good directors who might not be able to make a Bond film, feel like a Bond film. If Sam Mendes were announced as Bond 26's director, it might not be the most super-exciting piece of news, but it's sort of a safety net...knowing the film would feel like a Bond film. But of course, EON can still look for fresh directors, but they would have to be really careful when picking, because I didn't enjoy Fukunaga's direction in NTTD. It's a well-shot film for sure, but for me...for the most part, NTTD doesn't feel like a Bond film.

    Yep, good post, totally agree. I would prefer fresh meat to revisiting old stuff, but it should have that intangible Bond feel which Campbell & Mendes got but Forster & Fukunaga didn't. Don't ask me what it is though! :)

    Good post. I will also defend Fukunaga in one regard: everyone views artwork differently. I could go either way if he came back (obviously, I don’t think he will). Same with Campbell, as I said before. EON’s directors are similar to IFP’s authors. Especially recently. Deaver and Forster are similar in the sense that they tried something TO different. At least Deaver was a Bond fan though. As someone said on here years ago, in 2008, we got 2 big Bond products from 2 people who weren’t Bond fans. And it showed, in more ways than one. We don’t want IFP or EON doing that again! So, what I’m saying is that, while we can trust someone, don’t always put all bets on them. Even if they are “professionals” in any creative experience. People burn out, TMWTGG is arguably the biggest behind the scenes about this. Richard Maibaum, who thought he was best, arguably made the script worse by adding the Solex subplot. He should have followed Tom Mackiewicz’s idea of Bond and Scaramanga’s battle(s) of the equals. Limited time or not, message or not, he probably shouldn’t have written that script. Guy Hamilton shouldn’t have directed it, honestly. The cynicalism of everyone shows on the screen. What I’m saying is that experience does not equal quality. Martin Campbell is no different. As I said before, he might just want to leave on a high note.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    NTTD seems less official than NSNA but that's what you get when you kill James Bond. It will always seem alternative.

    😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
  • Posts: 5,993
    For those who say that Martin Campbell is too old to direct, let me remind you that Charles Crichton was 78 when he filmed A Fish Called Wanda. And we all know how that turned out, right ?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    Co-directed by Cleese though to some extent.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    IMO opinion, going back, a third time, to a director, to make a magic again, wouldn’t necessarily instil confidence in me. We were lucky to get two bangers from Campbell, and, if he was hired in 2025/6/7, I would be just meh about it.

    There are more, potentially exciting directors out there that could march Bond into a new era. Going back in the past to recreate the present and future isn’t very exciting, not in the effort, nor the thoughtfulness of it (seems lazy).

    Bring on someone new, surround them with the EoN team, execute a tight and exciting story, and with the mixing of history (the experienced EoN team), with a fresh vision (director, DP), and see what they can make.

    But going back to the well seems a little counterintuitive and lacking in effort and imagination.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    It would honestly depend on the type of story they're aiming to tell. Campbell's age isn't the issue. It would be his suitability to the project. Both GoldenEye and Casino Royale were, for all intents and purposes, a stripped back approach that benefited greatly from Campbell's "nuts and bolts" style, as I called it before.

    If they craft something in the writer's room and look at Campbell and feel he's the right hand to guide it, there's no reason to not be confident in it. But that will be the main reason he gets an invite.

    They'll do their homework and find the right captain for the ship. It could be a previous director, it could be a fresh one.
  • Posts: 1,859
    peter wrote: »
    IMO opinion, going back, a third time, to a director, to make a magic again, wouldn’t necessarily instil confidence in me. We were lucky to get two bangers from Campbell, and, if he was hired in 2025/6/7, I would be just meh about it.

    There are more, potentially exciting directors out there that could march Bond into a new era. Going back in the past to recreate the present and future isn’t very exciting, not in the effort, nor the thoughtfulness of it (seems lazy).

    Bring on someone new, surround them with the EoN team, execute a tight and exciting story, and with the mixing of history (the experienced EoN team), with a fresh vision (director, DP), and see what they can make.

    But going back to the well seems a little counterintuitive and lacking in effort and imagination.

    I think Campbell could do it but I think the audience would be looking for a fresher approach. I'm not really sure what contemporary director I would pick at this point though. It certainly would not be Nolan. It really needs the Godzilla Minus One treatment. A director awash in the character's legacy, a very reasonable budget and a emotional story that delivers on the action.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    delfloria wrote: »
    It really needs the Godzilla Minus One treatment. A director awash in the character's legacy, a very reasonable budget and a emotional story that delivers on the action.

    I don't mind about the budget, but when you mention emotional story, it's interesting because I've been re-reading On His Majesty's Secret Service, and as much as Higson sort of distances himself from CraigBond, I find it's very easy to picture Craig's Bond in it: it's contemporary, basically Bond as per usual, but Higson gives him lots of good, sardonic lines (he's a comedy writer) so fits with Craig pretty well. But as a Bond adventure it's fairly straightforward stuff: there's a baddie and Bond goes and gets him. Which is good bank holiday-style fun, but I must admit it kind of jars when you're picturing Craig in it, because there's not much of a central story for Bond himself; there's little emotion going into it. And honestly, yes, I think it needs that now to drive it to a more cinematic place.
    Even if you look at Horowitz's books: that's Fleming's Bond but there is a central big emotional story for Bond in each of them, especially the last two. I think a straight 'Bond goes and defeats the baddie' story isn't really enough now.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    there is a central big emotional story for Bond in each of them, especially the last two. I think a straight 'Bond goes and defeats the baddie' story isn't really enough now.

    Which is a big component of both of Campbell's films, to be fair. Despite the "greatest hits" criticism of GoldenEye, there is an unorthodox emotional core at its centre, and that was quite fresh. Casino Royale has a more obvious one, admittedly.
Sign In or Register to comment.