Was Martin Campbell the right man to direct CR?

Pierce2Daniel

It is arguable that since the series rejuvenated itself in 1995 no other director aside Martin Campbell has real nailed the essence of Bond. His GE is the pinnacle of the Brosnan era and his CR surpassed his first attempt. He marred style and glamour with thrills and danger. Personally I think he understood the character of Bond better than anyone. Furthermore, he's a dab hand at creating thrilling action set pieces.

But...in the face of a post QOS/SF world, where the producers have approached more dramatic/auter type directors, was Campbell the right fit for CR? Afterall on paper it does make sense he would return, but CR was a reboot - an attempt to inject new blood into the series - is the guy who already did a Bond film before really the right choice, or was he just the safe option?

BAIN123

I think he's probably the best of the "modern" Bond directors and only has Mendes as a real rival. The films by both men had some solid action scenes as well as some brilliant dramatic moments

-Campbell - the torture scene
-Mendes - M's death

X3MSonicX

Campbell made a good directing on both films. Seems that he knows how to introduce a new Bond, if you know what i mean.

Getafix

I think MC did a decent job on CR. Parts of it, like the Miami aiport chase, feel like a throwback to the worst of generic 80s action bombast, but overall you have to give him credit for letting the script and actors breath and do their job. GE is for me one of the worst films in the series, but that was partly down to Brosnan, a dire script and awful music.

In hindsight I think he was he right man for CR and GE was probably beyond saving any way.

I do feel overall that he approached Bond a bit too much as a kit of parts - seeing it just as a formula, particularly with GE.

Pierce2Daniel

Getafix wrote:

I think MC did a decent job on CR. Parts of it, like the Miami aiport chase, feel like a throwback to the worst of generic 80s action bombast, but overall you have to give him credit for letting the script and actors breath and do their job. GE is for me one of the worst films in the series, but that was partly down to Brosnan, a dire script and awful music.

In hindsight I think he was he right man for CR and GE was probably beyond saving any way.

I do feel overall that he approached Bond a bit too much as a kit of parts - seeing it just as a formula, particularly with GE.

CR and GE were far from formulaic. GE deliberatly plays on the Bond forumula, opposed to just bringing Bond back from the cold war, Campbell draggs the character kicking and screaming into the new age and the formula is played with successfully; very much akin to what Mendes did with SF.

CR also does away with the formula entirely only really carrying the essence of the guy, the girl and the villain.

Mallory

Campbell's CR directing was solid and sturdy. Give the changes they were making with the narrative and "type" of bond film they were making, it was probably a better choice. But would Have liked to have seen CR shot a little more edgily.

Kananga

Yes, thats all i need to say.

BAIN123

Mallory wrote:

Campbell's CR directing was solid and sturdy. Give the changes they were making with the narrative and "type" of bond film they were making, it was probably a better choice. But would Have liked to have seen CR shot a little more edgily.

I'd rather have a film that's shot in a decent way compared to one thats jumping around all over the place and trying to be too clever - which is what happened in the next film.

Campbell knows how to make a scene tense and atmospheric. I think one of his best scenes in GE was inside Serveneya during the massacre. The sequence with Natalya's terrified face alongside the close up of Xenia's firing gun is fantastic.

He certainly bettered himself in CR though.

myworldisenough

Clearly he was the right choice. CR was a smash hit and critically acclaimed. All the Daniel Craig doubters were silenced. Whilst Craig put in a great performance, behind it was great direction by Campbell. The producers made a smart choice to hire him given his previous success with Goldeneye which although was not a reboot, did nevertheless usher in a new era of Bond. Both movies are stylish and memorable with great action sequences. Campbell has to rate as one of the finest Bond directors.

Goldeneye95

Martin Campbell did a fantastic job directing CR. EON should have Martin Campbell direct every actors first Bond film. (IMO)

pachazo

He was absolutely the right choice. Much like Craig, any doubts I had about him were completely erased when I saw the film.

thelordflasheart

Absolutely the right choice. I have CR as my #1 Bond film and a large part of that is due to Campbell's direction. Fantastic mix of eye-popping action, character work, tense scenes, interesting visuals, and a great feel of a journey.

X3MSonicX

I wonder how better QoS would be, if Martin had directed it.

Creasy47

X3MSonicX wrote:

I wonder how better QoS would be, if Martin had directed it.

While the editing was a huge problem with the film, alongside Marc's take on it, another big problem was the writer's strike deadline and what happened to the script. Craig himself stated that they were doing rewrites as they filmed along.

thelordflasheart

Creasy47 wrote:

X3MSonicX wrote:

I wonder how better QoS would be, if Martin had directed it.

While the editing was a huge problem with the film, alongside Marc's take on it, another big problem was the writer's strike deadline and what happened to the script. Craig himself stated that they were doing rewrites as they filmed along.

Yes, but wasn't that because Forster rejected the original (and I thought completed) script because it "wasn't the story I wanted to tell"?

Creasy47

@thelordflasheart, I'm not sure. I just thought they were working on the script, got it in before the writer's strike began, but still reworked it while filming. That's all I've heard, anyway.

thelordflasheart

Creasy47 wrote:

@thelordflasheart, I'm not sure. I just thought they were working on the script, got it in before the writer's strike began, but still reworked it while filming. That's all I've heard, anyway.

The way that I remember it, and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this wasn't what happened, was that they had a script but Forster rejected it and wanted to tell the more political story that we got, with our enemies hidden among us in corporations and government. I don't believe that the rejected script was the infamous one with Vesper's son, I thought there was yet another one that was more "standard". Surely someone else here will know the details.

ultrabox

While QOS falls somewhere in the middle of the series for me, I did like (in retrospect) a chance to see a Bond movie done in a more artistic manner. Though now that I've seen it, I'd rather see him the more traditional way. I don't like to dwell of what could have been, because I always wondered what an artistic Bond would be before QoS.

HASEROT

it was a huge success, so it's hard to second guess the decision to bring him on..

4EverBonded

Definitely the right choice, hard to argue with the success of GE and CR - critical success and commercial success and two of my personal favorites.

MrBond

The first script for QoS that was written by Purivs and Wade were rejected by Forster the moment he took the project. The only thing that made it into the final film the PTS and the scenes in Siena.

Then Haggis sat down to write a completely new script, a script which included Vespers child and a climax in the Swiss alps. Forster rejected that idea too in November 2007. Just two months before the principal shooting and only a month before the writers strike. But Haggis started up a new script (which more or less became an outline with only the dialogues between Bond and Mathis). Craig and Forster did fill in the blanks so that they had a script when they started the shooting.

But, during the shooting they hired a young writer called Joshua Zetumer who did re-writes of the film from the casts wishes. I've heard that together with Forster and Craig he changed the last part of the film too.

I hope that was the answers of your questions!

Pierce2Daniel

MrBond wrote:

The first script for QoS that was written by Purivs and Wade were rejected by Forster the moment he took the project. The only thing that made it into the final film the PTS and the scenes in Siena.

Then Haggis sat down to write a completely new script, a script which included Vespers child and a climax in the Swiss alps. Forster rejected that idea too in November 2007. Just two months before the principal shooting and only a month before the writers strike. But Haggis started up a new script (which more or less became an outline with only the dialogues between Bond and Mathis). Craig and Forster did fill in the blanks so that they had a script when they started the shooting.

But, during the shooting they hired a young writer called Joshua Zetumer who did re-writes of the film from the casts wishes. I've heard that together with Forster and Craig he changed the last part of the film too.

I hope that was the answers of your questions!

No script was ever written involving Vespers child, it was merely an idea thar Haggis had that was vetoed early on, at worst the idea was in a treatment it never went as far as the scrpt stage.

MrBond

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

MrBond wrote:

The first script for QoS that was written by Purivs and Wade were rejected by Forster the moment he took the project. The only thing that made it into the final film the PTS and the scenes in Siena.

Then Haggis sat down to write a completely new script, a script which included Vespers child and a climax in the Swiss alps. Forster rejected that idea too in November 2007. Just two months before the principal shooting and only a month before the writers strike. But Haggis started up a new script (which more or less became an outline with only the dialogues between Bond and Mathis). Craig and Forster did fill in the blanks so that they had a script when they started the shooting.

But, during the shooting they hired a young writer called Joshua Zetumer who did re-writes of the film from the casts wishes. I've heard that together with Forster and Craig he changed the last part of the film too.

I hope that was the answers of your questions!

No script was ever written involving Vespers child, it was merely an idea thar Haggis had that was vetoed early on, at worst the idea was in a treatment it never went as far as the scrpt stage.

Alright, "script" may have been a poor choice of word but from what I've heard it was on a treatment/draft.

DarthDimi

Campbell was the right man for GE and CR. He would have been the right man for QoS as well. The total victories both of his films are, demonstrate his effectiveness in every possible way. The way Orson Welles can be proven to be the best man ever for Citizen Kane, in the exact same way Campbell can be proven to be the best man for GE and CR: just watch the films and think 'would anyone have done it better?'. The answer would quite simply be: no, of course not. ;-)

I'm a fan...

BAIN123

I'm not going to deny campbell had his faults though. I was watching the Q scene in GE a few weeks back and, while there are a few fun moments like the man being wheeled away in the phone box and the woman being flung back in her chair, it's a clunky sequence at best. Desmond literally looks off camera and Brosnan does look kind of uncomfortable.

But could anyone have directed the scene when Bond meets Alec better? I don't think so.

Could anyone have directed the torture sequence in CR better or the scene when Bond nurses his wounds after the fight on the stairs? Certainly not.

RogueAgent

Yes for me! Just look at how good that movie is!

Pierce2Daniel

This discussion makes for interesting reading:
http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=24013

What do we make of the comments that Campbell's direction was a bit bog-standard? I do disagree that the film is not visually interesting. I think Campbell and Mehuex really exceeded themselves, I think they really challenge Mendes and Deakins in that regard, naturally the latter two have more flair but Campbell really brings it in my opinion.

StirredNotShaken

Of course he was! That film could not be any better than it is. /thread

WillyGalore

StirredNotShaken wrote:

Of course he was! That film could not be any better than it is. /thread

Would you care to expand on that? I absolutely love CR also and Campbell was certainly the best man for the job but it's certainly not a film without it's faults. For one thing, the entire sequence of Bond going into cardiac arrest and the use of the defibrillator could have been dropped.

Creasy47

No film is perfect, even my favorites. But, with any slight fault or problem I might have with CR, I don't think there could have been a better choice than Campbell. I think they should just freeze him in a lab, and then unfreeze him to do the debut for each new Bond actor.

StirredNotShaken

Yes but again, I like the defibrilator sequence. I get that it's out of place and basically deus ex machina, but I've always felt that Vesper reconnecting the lead and saving his life was necessary for him to truly fall in love with her. Honestly, the amount of content I would take out of the film amounts to all of fifteen seconds of it: Rolex/Omega and Mathis' exposition. I've said this before.