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
Or just the combination of things. It's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is.
Martin Campbell could have made a decent Star Wars movie. I don’t blame him for the flawed but enjoyable Green Lantern!
Martin Campbell is set to direct Daisy Ridley in Cleaner.
A Die Hard style action film set in London.
If we're lucky, maybe Martin Campbell can usher in the next Bond and go for the hattrick as far as Bond films go.
GoldenEye and Casino Royale are in my TOP 10 Bond movies but isn't he too old to be director of Bond 26?
He'll be 81-82 when they start shooting the movie.
I'd wager age makes little difference to a director. Ridley Scott is 85, after all.
I've seen recent interviews with Campbell; he's fit and sharp as a tack. Age is not an issue.
I do agree though, his movies outside of Bond and Zorro don't do much for me. In fact those 70s films of his are arguably more interesting.
CR was an origin story, that used a lot of Ian Fleming's source material. GE was 28 years ago, when he was in his mid to late 50's.
Would he want to go through such an intense movie process going into his 80's?
Go for the hattrick? Go out on a high, with 2 Bond classics?
Who knows how far away Bond 26 is.
Yeah it's odd that although he tries to do more in the entertaining Bond vein, they never quite seem to land. Even the second Zorro film wasn't great. Obviously Edge of Darkness (the original) was more in the 'masterpiece' vein, but he doesn't really seem to return to that feel.
So I guess, have we got lucky with him and a third 007 film from him might be as disappointing as his other films, or is Bond somehow the thing which guarantees great results from him?
In fairness to Campbell he's a director who knows what he's doing. Even in those lesser films I've seen I've always gotten a sense that he understands how to craft an action scene, build up tension, character etc. Compared with a director like, say, Marc Forster he's able to more consistently deliver a thriller/action film that's at least technically competent from a filmmaking perspective. Like the majority of directors however I get the sense he's only as good as the film he's making. I don't think he's ever going to turn a mediocre action flick into something more interesting. He's just going to competently deliver what's needed. Sometimes that's all that's needed with Bond, especially with films like GE and CR which had had time to be crafted/written in good time.
I'm sure he'd be able to do the job. My gut instinct is they'll go with a director who's a bit more involved in the pre-production side rather than someone like Campbell who's a bit more workman-like.
Yeah that's a fair point. I'm not sure he put much input into the scripts for his Bond movies, not as much as someone like Mendes who steered the whole course of his ones.
I actually don't know how much Mendes had to do with the script of SP, but yes he did bring Logan on board for SF and seemed to contribute to the general story ideas. Fukunaga as well had a hand in writing NTTD. Even Forster from what I can tell had much more of a role in the pre-production of QOS than Campbell did on his films (which explains the 'short and fast as a bullet' concept that spreads to things like the editing and cinematography of that film).
In that sense perhaps a criticism of Campbell isn't that he too old but that he's too out dated a director for Bond. I'm not someone who personally thinks there's an outright distinction between 'workman-like' directors such as Glen or Campbell, and more 'creative/auetuer' ones such as Fukunaga. In reality films, especially Bond films, are always a collaborative process, a director's job is to steer the various departments towards a coherent creative direction, and even the most distinctive auteurs have workman-like processes. Perhaps even if a director doesn't physically sit down and write parts of the script what's needed is one who will take more of a creative lead. This seems to be where the Bond films (as well as a lot of other franchise films in general, however superficially) are going with their directors compared to the past. It might lead to something more interesting than what Campbell could give us.
Campbell brought Paul Haggis onto the project, according to Some Kind of Hero:
“Campbell felt the Purvis and Wade script needed a rewrite. I suggested Paul Haggis should write it, to make it much more gritty, more realistic and make Bond basically a more interesting character. Wade was sanguine “I think Martin just suspected me and Neal because we kind of represented Barbara and Michael’s camp, he was always going to make sure we got fired”.
Which Campbell films have you seen? I've seen No Escape, GE, The Mask of Zorro, CR and The Foreigner.
GE, CR, Mask of Zorro, Vertical Limit, Edge of Darkness, The Foreigner. I seem to remember seeing No Escape when I was young but I don't remember much from it.
https://www.showbiz411.com/2023/06/07/general-hospital-actress-sarah-joy-brown-accuses-james-bond-film-director-of-sexual-assault-in-emotional-twitter-spaces
Very sad and disappointing if true. But it’s the kind of thing why I never “look up to” famous figures that create things I enjoy.