538 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

In which case, it wasn't a flop.

A film can turn a profit and still be deemed something of a flop if it fails to meet expectations.

Oh, it can be deemed a flop alright. But that doesn't mean it is one.

Anyway, whose expectations are we talking about here? The studio certainly didn't give a stuff about James Bond. If they did, they would have given the film a decent amount of production funding and a proper advertising budget.

And even with the odds stacked against it, the film performed pretty admirably worldwide.

Which revisionists would that be?

There's plenty 'round these parts.

That Judo Chop's one of them, I bet.

Bond films nearly always underperform in America. Even Casino Royale did comparatively poor business there.

To an extent, but the business LICENCE TO KILL did in America was particularly pitiful (especially when one looks at its rather dismal debut).

Crap advertising. Blame MGM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

It did well enough (more than A VIEW TO A KILL, at any rate), but it wasn't really a "huge" international hit by any stretch. It was definitely a low-end success in terms of franchise history, and performed noticeably poorer than the earlier 80s Bond films.

That were also directed by John Glen?

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

To an extent. I don't think they did it anywhere near as well as Craig's films have done it.

What about TLD?


I just cannot see how TLD did any damage to the franchise, because it made lots of money and is often cited as a franchise classic. Same for LTK, outside of the box office area of course, but we all know that's more down to marketing than Glen's direction.

I'd be curious to know what the marketing campaigns of the Glen era were worth against Bond 1995+.

It seems odd to me that Glen is criticised as ruining 80s Bond and killing the franchise with his "lack of panache" and supposed generic mediocrity, when his last Bond film was a deathly serious, back to basics, mean Bond movie (with a 15 certificate). DIE ANOTHER DAY made stacks of money (mainly IMO because of the marketing overkill) so therefore is Lee Tamahori a better director then Glen, because his last 007 film didn't make less than the one before it?

Agreed totally on your comments about TLD and marketing campaigns.

[Loomis]

What kind of film did Campell envision?

From what I've gathered, much more of a "Bond Begins" tale than eventually came to be. Craig wasn't his choice for Bond. He wanted someone much younger. He's even admitted as much, and while it's clear he's come to terms with Craig and respects his Bond a lot (and he should... Craig's performance as Bond significantly elevated CASINO ROYALE's quality, on the whole, and reflected very well on Campbell), it was clear that he wasn't in control and there was some struggle behind the scenes.

Well, obviously Campbell would never have expected final cut or total creative control. Firstly, he isn't Kubrick, and, secondly, he was making a film in the notoriously producer-led Bond franchise. The same would have gone for Forster, even though Forster has (whether deserved or otherwise) a much higher reputation as a director and an artist than Campbell.

However, I remember rumours that Campbell's choice for Bond was Henry Cavill. He also made a reference to Craig shortly before Craig was announced as Bond that was taken as disparaging at the time but was soon revealed to be tongue-in-cheek. Commenting on the 007 casting process, Campbell referred to "Whatsisname, Cray?". A lot of fans - myself included - took this to be a nasty barb at the Craigmeister, although I'm sure that at the time Campbell must have known that Craig had landed the role and was merely having a little fun. But it may have added fuel to the rumours (eagerly whipped up by the Craignotbonders) that Campbell and Craig didn't get on and that the production was a warzone of clashing egos.

Then again, I also recall rumours that Campbell's top choice was Goran Visnjic, so who knows what to believe?

[tdalton]

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

It did well enough (more than A VIEW TO A KILL, at any rate), but it wasn't really a "huge" international hit by any stretch. It was definitely a low-end success in terms of franchise history, and performed noticeably poorer than the earlier 80s Bond films.

That were also directed by John Glen?

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

To an extent. I don't think they did it anywhere near as well as Craig's films have done it.

What about TLD?


I just cannot see how TLD did any damage to the franchise, because it made lots of money and is often cited as a franchise classic. Same for LTK, outside of the box office area of course, but we all know that's more down to marketing than Glen's direction.

I'd be curious to know what the marketing campaigns of the Glen era were worth against Bond 1995+.

It seems odd to me that Glen is criticised as ruining 80s Bond and killing the franchise with his "lack of panache" and supposed generic mediocrity, when his last Bond film was a deathly serious, back to basics, mean Bond movie (with a 15 certificate). DIE ANOTHER DAY made stacks of money (mainly IMO because of the marketing overkill) so therefore is Lee Tamahori a better director then Glen, because his last 007 film didn't make less than the one before it?

Agreed. I don't see why Glen gets the criticism that he gets. For me, he directed four of the films that reside in my top 10 (FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK), and never really had a film that was truly awful (I find AVTAK infinitely more watchable than many of the other "bad" films in the franchise, like DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD). Granted, none of these films are artistic masterpieces by any stretch of the imagination, but they're very effective films in their own ways and are amongst the very best in the Bond franchise.

[QOS007]

Martin Campbell mus come back at all costs so we can have Bond film like Casino Royale with a more Bondonian theme

[Bucky]

Martin Campbell mus come back at all costs so we can have Bond film like Casino Royale with a more Bondonian theme

casino royale is my favorite bond movie but i like them having different directors, especially if they are going after more qualified directors. i dont want every bond movie to feel the same like the last two bourne movies were with greengrass.

[Harmsway]

It seems odd to me that Glen is criticised as ruining 80s Bond and killing the franchise with his "lack of panache" and supposed generic mediocrity, when his last Bond film was a deathly serious, back to basics, mean Bond movie (with a 15 certificate).

Well, it was "deathly serious, back to basics, mean" and all that, but it still wasn't very good, and ranks among the ugliest Bond films. Tone and quality don't go hand in hand.

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, however, is good, and Glen's best Bond film, but it still suffers from Glen's very dull direction. It's my guess that Dalton would have gone over better if the series had been injected with some real style.

As for the remainder of his films, I think it ranks from dire (AVTAK, FYEO) to moderately entertaining (OP).

[B5Erik]

I still say the ideal director for a Bond movie is John McTiernan.

If he directed with the action style of Die Hard and the character drama, suspense, and style of The Thomas Crown Affair you'd be talking about a great Bond movie.

It would be an ideal fit for the next Bond movie where Craig's Bond has finally, "Become," Bond, James Bond. It won't be a return to the Roger Moore era, but it could be something like From Russia With Love, Thunderball, For Your Eyes Only, and The Living Daylights.

Give him a good script and a good cast and he'll make a great movie.

Edited by B5Erik, 08 December 2008 - 02:02 AM.

[Eurospy]

I think that nowdays having a director of the thriller variety would be the risk to take.

The Bond directors of these last years have only been from drama, and Forster and Campbell aside, the results not always have been that good.

[Satorious]

Agreed. A decent thriller director (and direction) is the way to go. Bond needs some suspense. This is part of the reason CR worked so well, and QOS didn't really (for me at least).

[Eurospy]

And I have to say that I find Campbell highly overrated. He was absolutely fantastic in CR, but I don't share the same opinion regarding GE.

I know how much most fans simply adore Mr. Campbell, and considering his CR I'm quite inclined to agree, but I always felt that he took some sort of a challenge from the producers more than anythig else.

I just find it so incredibly odd that the same director who demanded that the amount of Bond's spy/detective work would be removed from GE (which makes me think that he has a much more generic vision of Bond) and nonetheless that is the same man who brought us the excellent CR.

Not to mention, the apparently true rumour of Campbell wanting a Bond that would be in his mid-20s. Which I think would not have been have half as successful as what we ended up with (no matter how brilliant a younger actor might be).

[Bradley De La Cloche]

Campbell was good, but, come on. He's hardly Cecil B. DeMille.

[Bucky]

And I have to say that I find Campbell highly overrated. He was absolutely fantastic in CR, but I don't share the same opinion regarding GE.

I know how much most fans simply adore Mr. Campbell, and considering his CR I'm quite inclined to agree, but I always felt that he took some sort of a challenge from the producers more than anythig else.

I just find it so incredibly odd that the same director who demanded that the amount of Bond's spy/detective work would be removed from GE (which makes me think that he has a much more generic vision of Bond) and nonetheless that is the same man who brought us the excellent CR.

Not to mention, the apparently true rumour of Campbell wanting a Bond that would be in his mid-20s. Which I think would not have been have half as successful as what we ended up with (no matter how brilliant a younger actor might be).

my thoughts exactly. casino royale in my opinion is far better than anything else he has done. the first zorro and goldeneye were decent but nothing exceptional. i do not think he would be able to have the same sort of success again if he was brought back.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

After having seen "The Dark Knight," I'd like to see Christopher Nolan direct Bond 23. I think that, given the amazing nature of "Knight," he could handle both the action scenes and the dialogue scenes between characters.

[Mr_Wint]

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, however, is good, and Glen's best Bond film, but it still suffers from Glen's very dull direction. It's my guess that Dalton would have gone over better if the series had been injected with some real style.

And with real style I guess you are referring to QOS now... right?

[Judo chop]

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, however, is good, and Glen's best Bond film, but it still suffers from Glen's very dull direction. It's my guess that Dalton would have gone over better if the series had been injected with some real style.

And with real style I guess you are referring to QOS now... right?

I'm in total agreement with Harms. I'm not sure he'd put it exactly this way, but I feel that Glen's lifeless direction drowned Dalton's potential for being a truly distinctive Bond. (Though I blame EON, not Glen, for hiring Glen.)

I'm not sure what the point to your question is Mr_Wint, except to inject another dis at QOS via sarcastic remark.

[Harmsway]

And with real style I guess you are referring to QOS now... right?

Not necessarily. I do think QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a very stylish entry in the Bond franchise (as was its predecessor, CASINO ROYALE), but a stylish Dalton Bond film back in 1987 would have probably looked different from CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[Publius]

After having seen "The Dark Knight," I'd like to see Christopher Nolan direct Bond 23. I think that, given the amazing nature of "Knight," he could handle both the action scenes and the dialogue scenes between characters.

Although Nolan seems to have a propensity for too many speeches (I prefer more subtlety and more concise dialog), I think he could handle most other aspects of a Bond film rather well. The cinematography would probably be brilliant.

However, I worry that he would make it too long. I prefer Bond films to be a bit under two hours, like the early Connery ones, TND, and now QoS. That said, if that was the trade-off for the first Bond film made in IMAX (especially if it was Thunderball-esque), I'd be game.

[Quantumofsolace007]

part of me Think Edward Zwick(spelling he's directing Defiance) and Brian Singer will definitly be rumoured in the upcoming mnonths not5 sure if they'll get it but i'm positive they'll be rumoured.


Zwick i like Defiance looks good.

[Mr_Wint]

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, however, is good, and Glen's best Bond film, but it still suffers from Glen's very dull direction. It's my guess that Dalton would have gone over better if the series had been injected with some real style.

And with real style I guess you are referring to QOS now... right?

I'm in total agreement with Harms. I'm not sure he'd put it exactly this way, but I feel that Glen's lifeless direction drowned Dalton's potential for being a truly distinctive Bond. (Though I blame EON, not Glen, for hiring Glen.)

I'm not sure what the point to your question is Mr_Wint, except to inject another dis at QOS via sarcastic remark.

I find it interesting that some fans call Glen's direction "bland" when it actually is very similar to the style established by Young and Hunt (something that is always ignored by these fans).

As for QOS/TLD; Compare the Tosca scene with the opera scene the "hack director" did in TLD. Nowhere in QOS can I find anything as stylish or moody as the Bratislava scene. Try to compare the hotel-desert scenes in QOS with Glen's climax scenes in Afghanistan. Lifeless direction? No, the so-called style in QOS feels extremely faked in comparison.

[Harmsway]

I find it interesting that some fans call Glen's direction "bland" when it actually is very similar to the style established by Young and Hunt (something that is always ignored by these fans).

Only in the sense that Glen is like the knock-versioff on of Young and Hunt. His work might remind you of the originals, but it's not at all satisfying in and of itself.

As for QOS/TLD; Compare the Tosca scene with the opera scene the "hack director" did in TLD.

Okay. Forster's Tosca sequence is infinitely more elegant and visually striking. It might not be the better-written sequence, but there's a visual beauty there far beyond anything Glen ever musters. I daresay the Tosca scene is one of the most beautiful sequences in the history of Bond.

Try to compare the hotel-desert scenes in QOS with Glen's climax scenes in Afghanistan.

Again, I think the desert scenes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE are superior in their visual offerings. The sheer excellence of the cinematography in these scenes has no equal in any of the Glen films.

[Loomis]

And with real style I guess you are referring to QOS now... right?

Not necessarily. I do think QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a very stylish entry in the Bond franchise (as was its predecessor, CASINO ROYALE), but a stylish Dalton Bond film back in 1987 would have probably looked different from CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Indeed.

And the reason for that is that action movies were never really stylish until 1988's DIE HARD, one of the most important and influential releases of all time (and by no means just because it gave birth to the whole DIE HARD-on-a-bus/DIE HARD-on-a-plane/DIE HARD-on-a-lawnmower/DIE HARD-at-a-sporting-event/DIE HARD-at-a-convention-of-George-Lazenby-fans mini-boom of the 1990s).

Whether by accident or design, McTiernan and co. showed that the critically derided action genre could not only accommodate but also pioneer haute cuisine filmmaking.

They showed, in other words, that a movie that was, essentially, RAMBO could be put together with all the intoxicating cinematic artistry you'd expect from, say, AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS.

Without DIE HARD, there would be no THE DARK KNIGHT. I promise you that. Arguably, DIE HARD even opened the door a little bit for Tarantino, whose PULP FICTION I'd rate alongside DIE HARD as one of the most important and influential films of the past twenty years.

Now, a year prior to DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON had kicked things up a notch for the ridiculed action genre, insofar as Donner and co. had brought their dime store pulp detective thriller material to the screen with a considerable degree of hard-edged flair. However, DIE HARD goes much further, boasting innovative cinematography and cutting (LETHAL WEAPON, while very good indeed, is really a pretty conventional flick), as well as a sophisticated aesthetic that borders on arthouse.

[mario007]

I think Edward Zwick as suggested above would be good ... I am sure Danny boy will recommend him to the producers if they had a good working relationship. With him I feel that we would get an epic 007 outing ... more traditional in nature. John McTirenen would be AWSOME but not very likely.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I think Edward Zwick as suggested above would be good ... I am sure Danny boy will recommend him to the producers if they had a good working relationship. With him I feel that we would get an epic 007 outing ... more traditional in nature. John McTirenen would be AWSOME but not very likely.

I've seen the trailer for Defiance and honestly i agree Ed looks like he can od the job and an americna directing 007 would be a "risk"

[Thunderball302]

But otherwise, I would like to see J.J. Abrams.

Oh, please no.

EON wouldn't be able to control Abrams - they would never bring him in - i wouldn't mind seeing him act a a director on Bond only - directing someones elses script - but he always wants to control everything - i don't want him having that kind of control and i'm sure EON would never give it to him!

TLD and LTK nearly ran Bond into the ground?

Naturally. LICENCE TO KILL was a flop, and that's not news. It was a definite low point in Bond history. Heck, after LICENCE TO KILL's release and lack of blockbuster success, Dalton was commenting that he thought the Bond franchise had really come to an end.

LICENCE TO KILL, in some sense, was the culmination of a slow decline in interest in Bond since MOONRAKER, which more or less covers the entirety of the Glen's run as director. And when the franchise did try to reinvent itself with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, Glen lacked the panache and skill as a director to make them real successes.

Wasn't TLD a huge international hit?

Weren't both of Dalton's efforts priding the serious, back to basics approach that Craig's films are now being praised for?

Of the two Dalton efforts, only LTK was the misunderstood one, and I say that because Craig is now having huge success with that gritty approach).

Last I looked as well, FYEO was the back to basics antidote to MOONRAKER, and received much critical and commercial success. That only leaves OCTOPUSSY and AVTAK as the "panache lacking" run of the mill-ers, doesn't it?

i tried to rewatch FYEO the other night - i could make it through the entire movie - it was very boring!

[Thunderball302]

from imdb:

<<<<<Traditionally when one of his films is about to open, George Lucas goes on holiday to get away from all the hoopla. As Star Wars (1977) was just about to open, Lucas went to Hawaii where he was joined by Steven Spielberg. When the grosses for Lucas's film came in, and it was clear that his movie was going to be a hit, Lucas relaxed and was able to discuss other topics with his friend. It was at this point that Spielberg confessed he always wanted to direct a James Bond film, to which Lucas told him he had a much better idea - an adventure movie called "Raiders of the Lost Ark". The conversation came up while the two were making a sand castle. After their trip, they got together and developed the script with Lawrence Kasdan.>>>>>

it is possible that at this stage in his career Spielberg would like to try his hand at Bond since it is something that he has always wanted to do.

if he was interested i'd talk to him if i was EON - i'm not sure i'd pick him to direct the rebooted Bond - but i'd talk to him.

Steven Spielberg would make a fantastic Bond movie which would incorporate the "emo" elements of Daniel's Bond with the Volcano-lair elements of the past.
Rather I think that the best person to direct a Bond film would be Brad Bird - the director of The Incredibles. See the second half and tell me if it isn't a Bond flick (albeit with a family and kids involved).
Atleast the PTS of the movie would be great - as the Bearded One's later movies start great and end with a whimper (except Catch me, Munich, and Terminal).

i agree with you about Brad Bird - but i don't think he has ever directed a live action movie - has he? i don't know if i want him to learn on Bond.

i wouldn't want to see Campbell back but i would be interested in John McTiernan and Wolfgang Petersen.

[Eurospy]

I'm not sure if Spielberg would take the volcano lair-approach (since his ROTLA early draft's finale pays a big homage to the Bond films) or if he would go the QOS route again, since he and Lucas were greatly impressed with The Bourne Ultimatum.

But J.J. Abrams, I'm not sure if he'd be such a good choice. His M:I 3 felt like a patchwork of bits and bobs taken from his own Alias. And his Superman draft was a bit too radical (Lex Luthor is a Kryptonian with superpowers of his own?!).

So I don't feel like any of these options would be quite secure.

Still have to watch Defiance.

Edited by Eurospy, 15 December 2008 - 10:28 AM.

[YOLT]

I would prefer Forster any other director if he can achieve to shoot WIDER and just a bit SLOWER. I really liked QOS overall.

GE seemed like it was done for TV. If Campbell going to return he must shoot it like CR not like GE.

[krypt]

Personally, I think it would be cool if Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn, Danny Boyle or Neil Marshall directed the next film.

[Orion]

Personally, I think it would be cool if Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn, Danny Boyle or Neil Marshall directed the next film.

I would agree with Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake is my favourite film)

However i tihnk none of those choices are likely as thay are all directors who like to have alot of control on their movies which i doubt EON would let them have.