›

Campbell disses QOS

boldfingerboldfinger
edited June 2011 in News Posts: 5,767
<blockquote>Martin Campbell backs Sam Mendes as Bond 23 director - 'Quantum' was 'lousy'
Bond 23 - 13-06-11

In an interview with former 007 director Martin Campbell, principally about his "Green Lantern" movie, Crave Online quizzed the helmsman about his thoughts on James Bond - past and future.

Crave Online: What is it about you that is ideal for creating and launching new things?

Martin Campbell: Well, I’m cheap. No, the thing is I’ve never done a comic book movie before. Superheroes, I guess, yes. Bond, I guess is a form of superhero, and Zorro obviously is, but I’ve never done a superhero movie before, and I wasn’t even versed in the comic when it came through the door. Once having read them and so forth, it fascinated me about the whole world of Green Lantern, going to another planet, going to the center of the universe. That’s really why I did it. What it is about me, these things aren’t about me, really. These things are a huge team effort by everybody. It’s always handed across to the director. I’m the guy on the floor certainly, but Donald [De Line], my producer, a huge contribution from him as with Greg [Berlanti] the writer, and the actors. Unlike a lot of movies, these things are very much a team effort, and in this case, particularly so.

Crave Online: What do you think of the way they’ve taken the Bond series after Casino Royale with Quantum of Solace?

Martin Campbell: Oh, I thought it was lousy. And hopefully this next one will be terrific. Sam Mendes is directing it and I’m sure it’ll be terrific.</blockquote>



Well, I still think Campbell shouldn´t talk about things he doesn´t understand.


«1

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    He's right though. QoS was pretty lousy - especially compared to GE and CR.

    And he DOES understand Bond. He's directed 2 of the best entries in the series.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,718
    What on earth are you talking about, boldinger ?? Campbell directed 2 of the last 6 outings, don't you think he's more qualified than anyone of us here ?? 8-X So a 2-time Bond director doesn't understand Bond ? What a load of nonsense. Totally untrue. Just because he disses a Bond outing you happen to like, doesn't mean he 'doesn't understand things' as well as you do... Talk about fanboyish post.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Campbell directed two of the very best Bonds ever or at least of the past two decades. Reception to both films was highly positive, compared to TND's and QOS's being only lukewarm.

    A few examples:

    imdb appreciation
    • GE: 7.1
    • TND: 6.4
    • CR: 8.0
    • QOS: 6.8
    rotten tomatoes appreciation
    • GE: 80%
    • TND: 55%
    • CR: 94%
    • QOS: 64%
    metacritic appreciation
    • GE: 65%
    • TND: 56%
    • CR: 81%
    • QOS: 58%
    Looks like Campbell's films are dearly loved all over the globe, @boldfinger, whereas each successor faced a score drop which in QOS's case is rather harsh sometimes.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    It's also interesting to note that bothTND and QoS were quite troubled productions.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    hm this is 1st time i am hearing about metacritis
    and yeah he is right QoS was one of the worse Bond movies,it had potential but i dont know how they ruined it
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    What on earth are you talking about, boldinger ?? Campbell directed 2 of the last 6 outings, don't you think he's more qualified than anyone of us here ?? 8-X So a 2-time Bond director doesn't understand Bond ? What a load of nonsense. Totally untrue. Just because he disses a Bond outing you happen to like, doesn't mean he 'doesn't understand things' as well as you do... Talk about fanboyish post.
    Something that I notice as common on the internet is that when you don't like something that someone else does, a defensive reaction is to say that the reason you don't like it is that you don't "get it". But hey, all opinions are valid.

    I wouldn't say that QoS was "lousy" but I thought it was very over-directed. I think that CR is a great example of how you can make a Bond film that is visually interesting but still easy to follow. There are so many little things that Campbell did that make the film more dynamic - for example, when Bond jumps out the embassy window in the "Madagascar chase" the camera pushes forward with him. A small thing, but it makes the action more exciting because the audience is part of it. Same with the interesting angle when Bond jumps out of the bulldozer with the sun in the shot, or the two-level shots of Bond and the bomber (on the lift and the elevator, respectively) that show what each one is doing and how they're mirroring each other yet using different techniques. Or the wonderfully panoramic helicopter shot around the crane that gives the sense of scope to the fight before the close-ups.

    I read an interview with Foster (perhaps here) where he explained the *ideas* behind a lot of his decisions. Quite frankly, I found them pretentious. He wanted Bond to have action scenes based on all four elements: earth, air, fire, water. Umm, okay...but *why*? He wanted the action scenes to be edited in a confusing way in the beginning to mirror the idea that Bond doesn't understand what is going on in the beginning of the film. Interesting idea, but you can make the audience feel that they don't understand what is going on in the plot *without* making them check out of an action scene because they can't tell what's going on! Kudos for trying something new, but remember that the first obligation you have is to provide the audience with a good story and film. Once you've established that you're doing that THEN you can start tweaking things to make it more interesting.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    This is the rest of those comments from that interview:

    Crave Online: Why didn’t you like it? Were there themes from Casino Royale you were hoping they’d pick up on?

    Martin Campbell: No, I just thought the story was pretty uninteresting. I didn’t think the action was related to the characters. I just thought overall it was a bit of a mess really.


    To be honest he does have a point. The action and story seemed to be jumping back and fourth throughout the film. The threat wasn't substancial enough and the action scenes did seem rather filler and murky when compared to Royale. It's difficult to explain but where Royale had the genuinely exciting chase scenes at Madagascar and Miami airport, Solace's action scenes seemed fairly...underwelming by comparison.

    I think at its heart what it lacked was a solid, complete story. The script was re-written several times and the final draft was handed in just before the writers strike began in 2008. The film didn't feel finished and had resolved little by the time it ended.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    I think QoS script was rushed out to capitalize on the Crappy Inferior Bourne franchise
  • lecherolechero
    Posts: 161
    QOS certainly was a troubled outing, but it's still highly enjoyable.
    Campbell should focus on his own post-Bond work. Edge of Darkness was mediocre at best, and judging from the trailers, Green Lantern does not look very promising.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Campbell, I agree, has had a rather hit-and-miss career outside of Bond (Zorro vs Edge of Darkness which wasn't that great). However no one can doubt his legacy in the world of 007. I think he is perfectly entitled to voice his views on other entries - especially when the reporter ASKS HIM FIRST.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2011 Posts: 5,767
    What on earth are you talking about, boldinger ?? Campbell directed 2 of the last 6 outings, don't you think he's more qualified than anyone of us here ?? 8-X So a 2-time Bond director doesn't understand Bond ? What a load of nonsense. Totally untrue. Just because he disses a Bond outing you happen to like, doesn't mean he 'doesn't understand things' as well as you do... Talk about fanboyish post.
    I didn´t say he doesn´t understand Bond. But to say QOS is ´a mess´ and ´lousy´ makes me think he didn´t understand the film. I doubt very much that Campbell would say the same had the film had a warmer reception.

    And, no, definitely no, DC007, having directed 2 of the last 6 Bond films doesn´t qualify Campbell more than any of us here to judge any of the Bond films.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,718
    But to say QOS is ´a mess´ and ´lousy´ makes me think he didn´t understand the film
    Why, because having a different opinion than yours on QOS means he didn't understand the film ?? I thought QOS was a mess, lousy, pathetic, boring, unmemorable... Do I also not understand the film ?
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    But to say QOS is ´a mess´ and ´lousy´ makes me think he didn´t understand the film
    Why, because having a different opinion than yours on QOS means he didn't understand the film ?? I thought QOS was a mess, lousy, pathetic, boring, unmemorable... Do I also not understand the film ?
    Look, I´m merely of the opinion that someone who did two Bonds shouldn´t act as uncourteously as if he was offended that Forster did something Campbell didn´t intend. It´s not as if GE or CR were perfect Bond films, quite the opposite, they both took huge liberty in defining Bond, compared to the until then established character. Nevertheless, they were good films, but so is QOS, at least in my book.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    But to say QOS is ´a mess´ and ´lousy´ makes me think he didn´t understand the film
    Why, because having a different opinion than yours on QOS means he didn't understand the film ?? I thought QOS was a mess, lousy, pathetic, boring, unmemorable... Do I also not understand the film ?
    Look, I´m merely of the opinion that someone who did two Bonds shouldn´t act as uncourteously as if he was offended that Forster did something Campbell didn´t intend. It´s not as if GE or CR were perfect Bond films, quite the opposite, they both took huge liberty in defining Bond, compared to the until then established character. Nevertheless, they were good films, but so is QOS, at least in my book.
    You didn't answer the question - because Campbell doesn't follow your opinion on QOS, he doesn't understands the film ??
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    I think the fact Campbell has directed 2 of the most successful entries of the series does qualify him more than us. As a professional filmaker he has had first hand experience in telling a story and filming action.

    Also, its not just him that has called the film "a mess". Critics have and so have A LOT of fans. If you like it and disagree with Campbell that's fine - the film seems to have divided people.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I do get the feeling, Campbell thinks his films are some kind of holy grail in the Bond series and although he's entitled to his opinion, I could criticise GoldenEye and Casino Royale just as much. Hell, for me, at least Quantum Of Solace presented an attempt at something new for the series in style and how the story is told, unlike his by-the-numbers films.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I'd prefer a "by-the-numbers" Bond film that's at least entertaining than one that's pretentious, lacks identity and tries too hard to be different.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    Correct Mr cambell
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Also, its not just him that has called the film "a mess". Critics have and so have A LOT of fans. If you like it and disagree with Campbell that's fine - the film seems to have divided people.
    That's fine but if he holds the series in such high regard, I thought he would at least elaborated on what he thoght was so bad about it. He comes across in the interview as something who calls something bad but actually has no idea what he didn't like about it. Though of course, I know that unlikely to be the case.
    I'd prefer a "by-the-numbers" Bond film that's at least entertaining than one that's pretentious, lacks identity and tries too hard to be different.
    Me too, though through it's style Quantum Of Solace sure has identity.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    But to say QOS is ´a mess´ and ´lousy´ makes me think he didn´t understand the film
    Why, because having a different opinion than yours on QOS means he didn't understand the film ?? I thought QOS was a mess, lousy, pathetic, boring, unmemorable... Do I also not understand the film ?
    Look, I´m merely of the opinion that someone who did two Bonds shouldn´t act as uncourteously as if he was offended that Forster did something Campbell didn´t intend. It´s not as if GE or CR were perfect Bond films, quite the opposite, they both took huge liberty in defining Bond, compared to the until then established character. Nevertheless, they were good films, but so is QOS, at least in my book.
    You didn't answer the question - because Campbell doesn't follow your opinion on QOS, he doesn't understands the film ??
    I never put it that way.
    I find nothing lousy or messy about QOS, so, assuming Campbell knows more about it than me (which I doubt, because as he is a professional filmmaker, so am I a passionate film watcher), then all the more so should he be able to detect certain good qualities in it, even if he should hate the film.

  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    Samuel - it's entirely possible that he did elaborate on it and the newspaper and or editor didn't include it. Or more likely that he gave a brief answer because the time for questions is limited in an interview and he wanted to stick with Green Lantern (any pre-release interview with a director is for the explicit interest in building excitement for a project - a sales job, if you will - and what you never see or read about is how there is often a studio rep or publicist guiding the conversation back to the film at hand).

    Campbell likely knows exactly *why* he didn't like QoS. His life and career are dedicated to filmmaking so he understands very well what he *thinks* works and doesn't work. As was pointed out, given the critical (and popular) response to QoS it's hardly as if his views are outside the mainstream. I'm not a restaurant chef but I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion about the food I order; in the same vein we are perfectly entitled to have opinions about the films that we watch. However, a good director may have a better appreciation of *why* something doesn't work for a lot of people and can break it down in more textbook-like terms. Whereas I might have a "like/dislike" gut reaction, a director - or editor - can probably think "Oh, the sense of space wasn't clearly defined because of the poor depth of field because of the lens choice which is why the action comes off as less potent leading to less excitement when etc..."

    Also, I've never read anything that leads me to conclude that Campbell "thinks his films are some sort of holy grail in the Bond series" like you say. Is there an interview that you could point me to that supports this? It sounds to me like you're reading things into what Campbell said because he dissed a film that you (perhaps) really like and your reaction may be a little more emotional than intellectual. I'm not saying this to make you feel criticised - I mean it as someone who is looking at this from the outside.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I agree with Campbell, but at the same time, his two Bonds are far from the best IMHO.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    It sounds to me like you're reading things into what Campbell said because he dissed a film that you (perhaps) really like and your reaction may be a little more emotional than intellectual.
    I appreciate much of what you say, thelordflashheart, but Campbell´s remarks about QOS come across as exactly what you describe above: as a little more emotional than intellectual. Of course, many people in that business get quoted only in fragments, but this is not the first time Campbell has made a similar remark, and as a professional he should know how such remarks will be used, which leads to the conclusion that he was fully aware of his words´ effect, regardless of what else he may have said.

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Crave Online: What do you think of the way they’ve taken the Bond series after Casino Royale with Quantum of Solace?

    Martin Campbell: Oh, I thought it was lousy. And hopefully this next one will be terrific. Sam Mendes is directing it and I’m sure it’ll be terrific.
    Spot on, Campbell, even though I find GE a bit overrated and not nearly as good as CR. However, GE is FRWL quality compared to QOS.
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    Posts: 572
    While I think most people here would agree with Campbell, I think it was unwise to make those comments. As is everyone (including boldfinger, folks), he is entitled to his opinion, however, he's not doing anyone nor himself favors by making negative comments of other's work (publicly). In my opinion, he's inviting other directors to criticize his work. I don't know...it just seems careless and tactless.
  • SuitedBondSuitedBond
    Posts: 11
    I'm not a fan of Martin Campbell's style, especially not in GoldenEye. But Marc Forster, who has directed some great movies, completely failed at Bond. Why? Because he doesn't do action movies, so he copied others were doing at the time. I was hoping he would bring to Bond what he has brought to other films, but he left that all behind. Sam Mendes isn't an action movie director either, but I hope he doesn't try to be one like Forster did. Bond needs a director who can make a movie exciting without too many action sequences.
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    Posts: 572
    I remember Wilson & Broccoli saying that they wanted this one to be full of action and I remember thinking, "Why?" Was it really a Forster thing or might the writers/producers/someone else also had some input that negatively impacted the film?
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    I'd have to agree with Martin Campbell. QOS was a lousy, pathetic Bond movie. For a direct sequal to CR, it failed to provide the same pulse-pounding story, character development, dialogue, and one of the more important aspects, the villains. Dominic Greene is no match for Le Chiffre. Also, the camera work in QOS was absolutely horrifying! It butchered what would have otherwise been fairly entertaining action scenes.
  • GregGreg
    Posts: 3
    Campbell directed two of the very best Bonds ever or at least of the past two decades. Reception to both films was highly positive, compared to TND's and QOS's being only lukewarm.

    A few examples:

    imdb appreciation
    • GE: 7.1
    • TND: 6.4
    • CR: 8.0
    • QOS: 6.8
    rotten tomatoes appreciation
    • GE: 80%
    • TND: 55%
    • CR: 94%
    • QOS: 64%
    metacritic appreciation
    • GE: 65%
    • TND: 56%
    • CR: 81%
    • QOS: 58%
    Looks like Campbell's films are dearly loved all over the globe, @boldfinger, whereas each successor faced a score drop which in QOS's case is rather harsh sometimes.

    dude you nailed it
  • GregGreg
    Posts: 3
    Also the problem with Quantum for me was the fact that they made Bond unbelievable. I am talking about jumping out of an airplane and crash landing to the ground and then NOBODY mentions that again?

    any thoughts?
Sign In or Register to comment.