58 replies to this topic

[lorna99]

Campbell Explains His "Big Bang Theory"
Director reveals there is just one explosion planned for 'Casino Royale'

The Times November 03, 2005

Screen

Licensed to stir up, not shake to bits
The director Martin Campbell tells James Mottram why there's a bit of Zorro in the new Bond

Martin Campbell is beginning to carve out a reputation as a director who saves the day. Hot on the heels of his latest film, The Legend of Zorro

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='lorna99' date='3 November 2005 - 12:53']While Bond purists are no doubt gulping down several vodka Martinis to steady their nerves, Campbell can

[level007]

[quote name='lorna99' date='3 November 2005 - 13:53']

The script, by the Oscar-nominated Paul Haggis, jettisons the first half of the novel, which was set during the Cold War, and beefs up secondary characters such as the tragic Bond girl Vesper Lynd.

[Lionheart]

[quote]Such staples as Q and Miss Moneypenny are absent[/quote]

So this is still the case....is it really necessary to take this approach, I wonder...

[quote]Campbell admits that there is only one explosion scheduled

[killkenny kid]

[

[Lionheart]

While Bond purists are no doubt gulping down several vodka Martinis to steady their nerves

And that is really funny BTW

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

[quote name='killkenny kid' date='3 November 2005 - 13:23']
[

[Timothy]

Dunno, I appreciate the down-to-earth thing. But just one explosion ? Hey - Bond still is a blockbuster, a actionthriller.

I really like the idea of having a less action, more characterdriven plot - but this seems a bit to radical too me. With this stuff of first part fucussing just on charakters, it sounds a bit like a soap opera love story...

Of course, it's right. ALl the stuff exploding gets boring. However, Bond is a man in the battle, and you know how high the deterioration is at the fronts...

Don't get me wrong. I dont want another DAD or YOLT, where neraly everything explodes - but CR will emulate with MI3 at the BOs - and the normal audience might choose MI3 for such reasons.

What will Bond do if nothing explodes ? God, he's a MI6-Agent and he's supposed to kill the villain. Hope they don't forget this writing the best bond woman part ever. Oh forgot, that Bond is just a Vesper man eh...boy...

[marktmurphy]

Well, Bourne Supremacy only had one big explosion and it was pretty thrilling. I daresay we'll get a couple, though- I expect any car chase will have a little one in.

[Kingdom Come]

"Campbell admits that there is only one explosion scheduled

[Harmsway]

I like the one explosion idea. If there is "lots of action" that Wilson claimed that was in there, it just means the action is going to have to be fairly original.

[zencat]

One explosion? Fine by me.

[tdalton]

I wonder how much more information Martin Campbell is going to leak about the script before filming actually starts. I would have rather not have known about the one explosion thing and then be surprised when only one thing blew up in the film. EON needs to place gag order on their director before he starts giving away the film line for line.

All Campbell's comments do is confuse people anyway. I seriously doubt that there will be just one explosion. Maybe there'll be just one the same way that the Bond of CR is supposed to be 28 played by 37 year old (who looks like he's in his 40s) Daniel Craig.

Edited by tdalton, 03 November 2005 - 04:32 PM.

[Scorpion]

Two things:

1. From what i've read the director is either:

a) lying; b ) does not really know what the hell is happening/going to happen; c) trying to mis-lead everyone for a real 'le bombe suprise'; or d) sending out 'trial balloons' to get a sense of how he's going to prevent this thing from being a critical and financial mess;

and

2. The greatest of the 'realistic' 007 thrillers (Dr No, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's..., and the two Dalton's) all had MORE than two or three explosions.

I'm not saying you can't make a really terrific 007 adventure with only one explosion...it's just that it flies in the face of established success. (If Casino is 75 percent as good as 'Russia or Her Majesty's, i'll be extatic...but it's not shaping up to be that way given Campbell's egotistical blabbing over the last 5 weeks, is it?)

I'm afraid I have a really bad feeling about this director. Casino Royale, if 'too stripped down' will be a financial failure* and instead of waiting 2 to 3 years to see Bond 22, i'm going to have to wait 4 to 7 years for it.


-----


*if people want me to go through the formula, i'll happily do so.

Edited by Scorpion, 03 November 2005 - 05:55 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]One explosion is fine.


So long as it

[Qwerty]

A-Okay with me.

[Bondian]

Has anyone thought that this explosion could last 15-20 mins?.

[Donovan]

[Scorpion]

A-Okay with me.

No Bond movie has ever had only one explosion...Not FRWL, not OHMSS, none of the Daltons. I.e. none of the so-called 'gritty' ones.

I'm afraid the 'other' explosions will come after the second weekend of the box-office after the people who see it the first weekend tell others not to bother.

The 2nd explosion: Campbell's intentions of ever making another movie in tinseltown

The 3rd explosion: Michael and Barbara's hopes of making Bond 22 within 5 years.

The 4th explosion: Sony's desire to bankroll Bond 22.

Want me to go on?

[MrDraco]

Campbell's just blowing smoke out of his i think...

[Lounge Lizard]

So little boom-boom in the new Bond? That has to be seen to be believed.

'Martin, what if we just add one more explosion. A little one, just to be sure. We could blow up a stray dog or something. No?'

Bond's charm lies not in the quantity of explosions- I've seen enough explosions in the Brosnan era to last me for a decade. My ears are still ringing. One big bang is fine with me, as long as it's well timed and has a sense of real dread, no point in just giving us the old picturesque great balls of fire.

Could it be as per chapter 5-6 from Fleming's 'Casino Royale'? Am I being a spoiler if I bring up the events of those chapters on this board?

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

A-Okay with me.

I'm afraid the 'other' explosions will come after the second weekend of the box-office after the people who see it the first weekend tell others not to bother.

The 2nd explosion: Campbell's intentions of ever making another movie in tinseltown

The 3rd explosion: Michael and Barbara's hopes of making Bond 22 within 5 years.

The 4th explosion: Sony's desire to bankroll Bond 22.

Want me to go on?

Not really considering how little of a basis for saying that you have.

[bleary_25]

Yes, but how many machine guns is it going to have?

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Yes, but how many machine guns is it going to have?

47

[DanMan]

Thunderball only had one explosion and it was the most successful Bond film.

[Bryan Harris]

No Bond movie has ever had only one explosion...Not FRWL, not OHMSS, none of the Daltons. I.e. none of the so-called 'gritty' ones.

Yes, every great Bond film has had at least one very, very large explosion, but it just doesn't follow that a Bond film's quality hinges on the number of explosions.

If Campbell's intention is to find other avenues for suspense or exciting action, I wouldn't mind too much if there were even (Gasp! Shock horror!) no explosions. There are too many great thrillers that don't feature Stuff Blowing Up to think otherwise.

[[dark]]

One explosion? Fine by me.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

[Scorpion]

Thunderball only had one explosion and it was the most successful Bond film.

Incorrect, my friend.

- Fiona's assassination of Lippe
- The Naval attack
- The cocoon section of the Disco Volante being blown to bits
- Largo being blown to oblivion

That's FOUR that come to mind off the top of my head. LOL

I'm sure I could think of others...

PLUS there's some underwater explosions as well. Shocking ones too where the Spectre frogman gets his chest ignited by the explosive charge from ConneryBond's exotic underwater weaponry.

Plus, PLUS, Thunderball is BOND AND BEYOND...it is NOT regarded as a "stripped-down/gritty" thriller a la FRWL, TLD, LTK. Thunderball has jet packs, tons of gadgets, modified DB5 and BSA motorbike, never-before seen minisubs, a speedboat with a detachable cocoon, etc. Thunderball was the greatest and most successful Bond of ALL TIME partly because of the gadgetry and teched-up weaponry. PLUS a caper to end all capers that gave one a sense of world-wide panic.

Give me some credit for heaven's sake.

Edited by Scorpion, 04 November 2005 - 01:58 AM.

[Scorpion]

No Bond movie has ever had only one explosion...Not FRWL, not OHMSS, none of the Daltons. I.e. none of the so-called 'gritty' ones.

Yes, every great Bond film has had at least one very, very large explosion, but it just doesn't follow that a Bond film's quality hinges on the number of explosions.

If Campbell's intention is to find other avenues for suspense or exciting action, I wouldn't mind too much if there were even (Gasp! Shock horror!) no explosions. There are too many great thrillers that don't feature Stuff Blowing Up to think otherwise.

Look, Mr Harris...you conveniently decided to leave out the paragraph that followed the quote of mine that you cited.

I don't want to argue with you but there has NEVER been a 'James Bond 007 adventure' were there was NO explosion or ONLY ONE explosion. LOL.

And, yes, there are many great thrillers that don't 'feature Stuff Blowing Up' but they are not in the genre that this movie we're discussing belongs to, are they? And if there are...name three of your 'too many'.

Go ahead. Name them. Please. Humour me.

I think Campbell is going to blow up the franchise and Cubby will be turning in his grave because this idiot is doing everything that flies in the face of what Cubby viewed a great 007 adventure to be.

Mark my words: If we get "stripped-down, gritty and dark with an unsophisticated and inexperienced Bond' then you can kiss Bond 22 goodbye for a minimum of 5 years after next November.

2007 will be year for concentrating on the Connery/Moore/Brosnan back catalogue.

2008 will be a year for soul searching

2009 will be a year of wondering how to get back on track

2010 will be a year of getting financing ready for Bond 22

2011 they will announce Bond # 7 with everyone incorrectly blaming poor old 43-year old Craig.

2012 an old-style Bond 22 with lots of gadgets, girls, guns, humour and explosions.

[Harmsway]

And, yes, there are many great thrillers that don't 'feature Stuff Blowing Up' but they are not in the genre that this movie we're discussing belongs to, are they? And if there are...name three of your 'too many'.

I laugh that you people honestly care about a lack of explosions. Explosions are hardly an important piece of the Bond formula. According to Michael G. Wilson, the film is full of action - this just seems like a sign of a more intelligent route to get action done. Fine by me.