10 replies to this topic

[Jaws0178]

Okay, I was just looking through Youtube, and found the Casino Royale teaser trailer. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't care who plays Bond, but everyone is talking about how Daniel Craig was born to play Bond, and how he will own in Casino Royale, but what if November rolls around, and the movie sucks. Who's to blame?

[Thunderfinger]

You are.

[Jaws0178]

Oh, okay. Just wondering

[Publius]

but what if November rolls around, and the movie sucks. Who's to blame?

Depends on how the movie "sucks". Could be Craig, the supporting cast, writing, directing, the score, editing...any number of things combined in any number of ways. So, strictly speaking, whoever and/or whatever failed to live up to "standards". Problem is, standards are a subjective thing, so even if there is consensus or even unanimity, it's not definite or objective by any means.

However, who and what the blame is actually put on is another matter entirely, but that too depends on what the most widespread perceptions are, so it's impossible to say at this point with any certainty. My personal conjecture is that Craig stands a good chance of being the most popular target if CR is not well-received, but he might also be seen as better than the film he was in if his performance is great but the flick mediocre, which honestly would be a vote of confidence anyway if the Brosnan era is any indication (I remember hearing a lot of "I like Brosnan as Bond, but not his Bond movies").

So CR could do well without general "approval" of Craig, or Craig could get the thumbs up even from casual fans without CR getting the same. I can't see both tanking together as a very likely scenario, all things considered.

[JimmyBond]

I think the script is great, I think Craig is great, but I have reservations about Campbell. If anyone is to blame, it will be him.

He really didnt do that great a job on Goldeneye, why he was asked back I have no idea.

[Jaws0178]

He really didnt do that great a job on Goldeneye, why he was asked back I have no idea.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that count, I enjoyed Goldeneye very much.

[bernsmartin007]

He really didnt do that great a job on Goldeneye, why he was asked back I have no idea.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that count, I enjoyed Goldeneye very much.

Goldeneye was the best Brosnan Bond film easily, and the mass concensus is the same in my experience.

This time around, however, he knows the Bond scene very well and they have been researching the Fleming books for a while planning this film. He is also a much more experienced director, but I find he needs interesting mateirel to make a good film. The first Zorro had a much superior script and Anthony Hopkins, and he did a great, stylish family action film with that. The second one had a terrible script and no Hopkins to anchor it and it was a mediocre film yet still stylishly filmed in parts.

He brings a lot of atmosphere and style to films and with his genuine excitement for this film and it's sheer artistic licence (the PTS, more film noir style etc) he will blossom. Plus it's a different kind of film to Goldeneye, more classic Bond and less like a Navy SEALS movie. His work on the Monte Carlo casino scene in Goldneye was really moody and stylish, and clearly the Casino Royale scenes will be far superior to those...that's excellent IMO.

[Jackanaples]

He really didnt do that great a job on Goldeneye, why he was asked back I have no idea.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that count, I enjoyed Goldeneye very much.

Goldeneye was the best Brosnan Bond film easily, and the mass concensus is the same in my experience.

This time around, however, he knows the Bond scene very well and they have been researching the Fleming books for a while planning this film. He is also a much more experienced director, but I find he needs interesting mateirel to make a good film. The first Zorro had a much superior script and Anthony Hopkins, and he did a great, stylish family action film with that. The second one had a terrible script and no Hopkins to anchor it and it was a mediocre film yet still stylishly filmed in parts.

He brings a lot of atmosphere and style to films and with his genuine excitement for this film and it's sheer artistic licence (the PTS, more film noir style etc) he will blossom. Plus it's a different kind of film to Goldeneye, more classic Bond and less like a Navy SEALS movie. His work on the Monte Carlo casino scene in Goldneye was really moody and stylish, and clearly the Casino Royale scenes will be far superior to those...that's excellent IMO.

I think Martin Campbell is only as good a director as the material he has to work with. Hence, he should be brilliant on CASINO ROYALE.

I find it funny that when talking about him no one ever mentions the projects that got him the Bond directing gigs in the first place. Two tv mini series for British tv: REILLY: ACE OF SPIES and EDGE OF DARKNESS. REILLY makes Bond pale in comparison (and Fleming said this too when comparing the real Sidney Reilly to Bond), and EDGE is still considered by many to the best program ever aired on British tv.

Now, a lot of credit goes to the writers of both series to be sure, but the point is that Martin Campbell understands Bond and can do great work when he has the material.

[Orion]

He really didnt do that great a job on Goldeneye, why he was asked back I have no idea.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that count, I enjoyed Goldeneye very much.

Goldeneye was the best Brosnan Bond film easily, and the mass concensus is the same in my experience.

This time around, however, he knows the Bond scene very well and they have been researching the Fleming books for a while planning this film. He is also a much more experienced director, but I find he needs interesting mateirel to make a good film. The first Zorro had a much superior script and Anthony Hopkins, and he did a great, stylish family action film with that. The second one had a terrible script and no Hopkins to anchor it and it was a mediocre film yet still stylishly filmed in parts.

He brings a lot of atmosphere and style to films and with his genuine excitement for this film and it's sheer artistic licence (the PTS, more film noir style etc) he will blossom. Plus it's a different kind of film to Goldeneye, more classic Bond and less like a Navy SEALS movie. His work on the Monte Carlo casino scene in Goldneye was really moody and stylish, and clearly the Casino Royale scenes will be far superior to those...that's excellent IMO.

I think Martin Campbell is only as good a director as the material he has to work with. Hence, he should be brilliant on CASINO ROYALE.

I find it funny that when talking about him no one ever mentions the projects that got him the Bond directing gigs in the first place. Two tv mini series for British tv: REILLY: ACE OF SPIES and EDGE OF DARKNESS. REILLY makes Bond pale in comparison (and Fleming said this too when comparing the real Sidney Reilly to Bond), and EDGE is still considered by many to the best program ever aired on British tv.

Now, a lot of credit goes to the writers of both series to be sure, but the point is that Martin Campbell understands Bond and can do great work when he has the material.

Well i think we are all agreed that MArtin Campbell will always make the bes of what he's got, so as they ahve a very talented lead cast in Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen and Jeffery Wright, and (apparently from those who have read it) a brilliant script not to mention a very good editor and (in my opinion although i know some of you disagree) a very good composer. So it should be good, it has very few excuses not to be.

[Skudor]

It could be the movie itself, for sucking too much.

[bernsmartin007]

I don't think this film will "suck" at all. From the script, trailer, casting and clips it can only be good, very good or great.

Basically I know this will be a good Bond film and a good FILM in general, I am just excited to see just HOW good it turns out, as it has the potential to be an amazingly good film.