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
Thank goodness there are people in production who actually do that as full-time job, then!
Relax, Tonto! Relax! 😂
Plenty of bad actors continue to find work in Hollywood. It's about the look.
And yes, Cavill is a bad actor.
True. The looks are often what they have going for them at times.
That’s not an objective fact; that’s more your opinion.
Cavill is the Lazenby of the Supermans.
:-? You're having an odd one today, @peter!
This is why Superman has never excelled on the big screen the way Bond, Batman, and other heroes have; because people only want Christopher Reeves 2.0. Completely forgetting the last time we got that, the film didn’t do as well at the Box Office. I hate to say it too, but aside from that first film; the Reeve’s Superman series has aged poorly in its depictions of certain characters, and it’s film making techniques. It’s only the generation that grew up with those films that hold them up in such high regard, and again that’s mainly due to the first movie. But for the rest of us, who grew up watching other versions, the Reeve’s take is a bit bland when compared to the DCAU (STAS and JLU) take. Say what you will about Cavill’s Superman, but he helped revive the character’s popularity before getting unfairly axed from the role. The announcement of him coming back for Black Adam only to get fired by James Gunn months later upset a lot of people, and it was only a small subset of individuals who were delighted by that news.
Also comparing Cavill to Lazenby is a poor comparison considering Cavill has the business acumen to stick around and make more films; and actually has a sizable following of fans who adore his take on Superman.
He's the Lazenby in that, while handsome, he has no discernible acting ability.
This is true about Superman. Richard Donner's firing is still felt. Reusing the same villains hasn't helped Superman either. Zack Snyder isn't the best actor's director either. I always felt that he was too polarizing for Superman, let alone heading a whole cinematic universe. Sadly, he (and to a degree WB) proved me right. Peter Hunt was a decent actor's director, even for GL. As for Argylle, it wasn't Cavill who put me off. It was Samuel L Jackson, doing the same stuff he always does. So as for Campbell and Cavill I could go either way. Age for either isn't a factor.
Point taken. Agreed, they are thought of as journeymen directors.
I think it points to a very fundamental idea even with actor's directors, and especially with Bond directors - they need to cast the right actors and be able to get the best out of them. Campbell had some fantastic actors in both his films (Craig, Mickelson, Green, Dench, Bean, and even Cumming) who all inhabited their parts and likely made the filming process easier/more fruitful. And I think he got the best out of them.
It kinda makes sense. I once worked as a camera assistant for a director who told me he preferred to direct actors as little as possible beyond basic blocking on-set (he joked he hadn't actually directed an actor since he was at film school). His logic was pick the right actor for the part/one he could work with, discuss the script with them before filming (and of course jump in if absolutely needed during filming, but this rarely happened apparently), but ultimately the performance was theirs.
After seeing Argyle, and how absolutely brutal Cavill was reminded me of this, and I voiced my argument against Campbell coming back and/or I wouldn’t want him having anything to do with the audition process and choosing the next actor.
Saying that, there’s quite a wide chasm between the direction and filmmaking of CR and SF (where we can simply compare and contrast a nuts n bolts guy vs a filmmaker who works with the actors (outside of just the blocking)).
It's not that hard.
I think Forster did his best (and actually did some very good work on that film), but he was out of his depth given the constraints and the scale of the film he was working on. I'm not necessarily sure if Campbell would have given us an immediately warmly received follow up to CR, but it would have certainly been different in a few key ways. Perhaps the terrible editing/camerawork wouldn't have been an issue.
The issue was the editing. It failed as a visual presentation and was a mess.
What was wrong with the script for QoS @DEKE_RIVERS ?
They didnt have writers, that's the problem.
I actually think the script of QOS is pretty decent as it is. Maybe not the best Bond script of all time, but it's got some really great moments. The dialogue is much better than CR's at any rate. It's really not the worst Bond script (or at least what it turned out to be).
I don't think the script was the fundamental problem at any rate, even if it could have been ironed out. Actually it's one way in which I'm glad Forster was involved. The biggest issues lie in how the film was shot/edited together in my opinion. Then there's that more subtle lack of Bondian flair/imagination.
No, they had writers. And then there was a strike.
But you fail to answer the question to your own statement: the script was the issue, you said. What was the issue with the script. I mean, @DEKE_RIVERS , there was a script, it was written, by writers, so what was the issue with the script? Or don’t you know?
If Campbell wanted Cavill back in 2006 it meant that he thought he could mold his personality to fit Bond's, just as he successfully did with Brosnan and Craig, two completely different actors with completely different looks. Campbell understands Bond in a way that certain directors *cough*Mendes*cough* didn't.
So you finally watched NTTD @slide_99 ?
And @DEKE_RIVERS , I’d really love to know what was wrong with QoS the script? Considering you’ve already said in the past that scripts aren’t important and aren’t made to be read, what was the issue with the script with QoS? And please don’t repeat they had no writers, as clearly, on the credits, there are writers.
I’m sorry @CraigMooreOHMSS , I’m obviously very slow, I didn’t know you described me as being reductive. Why would you have?
Anyway, it's like I said, the director doesn't control the actor's performance fundamentally.
Previous page. You even responded! :))
I’m still not understanding the joke; I’m assuming I said something more that make you feel this way?
Whatd I say that was reductive in your eyes? I’m obviously as slow as slow can be on this, 🤷♂️. Please, bring me up to speed.