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
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.
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.
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.
Considering the results of @GoldenGun's many ranking games, I'm fairly confident that you are correct, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷.
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.
Oh, sure @DarthDimi Agreed!
Agreed.
That's highly improbable. They simply have to try harder to find the right guy for the job.
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.
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.
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.