32 replies to this topic

[RedKelly]

Since QOS is indeed the direct followup it was understood to be, why not keep the same director? Just from the PTS of the movie I lost the sense that it was a sequel happening the same day as CR ending. The tone/pace of each movie is very different which is where I always forget how much Bond's love was emphasized in CR. I just think that maybe if Campbell had stayed on it would have been a great continious story and maybe set up for a trilogy which is what I wanted. I loved CR and some of the complaints were it was too much dialogue and the card scenes, but we needed that to understand what Craig wanted to do as Bond. Would the action scenes have played out very differently if Campbell directed? I think so, I loved the CR parkour sequence and would have loved it if Campbell stayed for QOS then possibly a third. On a different note, why didn't Bond wear the same exact suit that was worn in the ending of CR?

[DamnCoffee]

Since QOS is indeed the direct followup it was understood to be, why not keep the same director? Just from the PTS of the movie I lost the sense that it was a sequel happening the same day as CR ending. The tone/pace of each movie is very different which is where I always forget how much Bond's love was emphasized in CR. I just think that maybe if Campbell had stayed on it would have been a great continious story and maybe set up for a trilogy which is what I wanted. I loved CR and some of the complaints were it was too much dialogue and the card scenes, but we needed that to understand what Craig wanted to do as Bond. Would the action scenes have played out very differently if Campbell directed?

Campbell was asked to return, but he decided not, too. I seem to remember an interview with Campbell during the production of Casino Royale, saying that he was asked to do Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough, after GoldenEye, but he turned them down, claiming that they were "Just typical Bond movies". He said that he agreed to make Casino Royale because it was so different, it wasn't just a Bond movie, it was a lot more than that. He probably turned down Quantum of Solace for these same reasons. I wouldn't think that he would've been much of a sequel man, either, especially after Zorro 2.

I think so, I loved the CR parkour sequence and would have loved it if Campbell stayed for QOS then possibly a third.

I would've loved to see how Campbell would've handled the Siena Chase.

On a different note, why didn't Bond wear the same exact suit that was worn in the ending of CR?

They changed constume designer, plus Brioni was replaced by Dunhill.

[Tybre]

What Mharkin says is true. There's also the possibility of other involvements. I know Campbell is attached to the Green Lantern film and a few other movies (can't remember which offhand). Dunno when he signed onto them, but schedules could've conflicted. I doubt this plays into it at all, but it's still a possible factor.

[RedKelly]

Yes so I see. I would have liked him to direct QOS. Would any of you have wanted him to?

[MattofSteel]

Sure.

And yeah, it's less a question of them "keeping" him and more one of him not wanting to do it. Seems to me he throws every last iota of what he has at every Bond film he does, so they're probably very tiring to him.

[Tybre]

Sure.

And yeah, it's less a question of them "keeping" him and more one of him not wanting to do it. Seems to me he throws every last iota of what he has at every Bond film he does, so they're probably very tiring to him.

Indeed. But thankfully it means they turn out to be damn good films.

[MattofSteel]

Indeed they do. The runaway 2 best of the last six, and that's in no way a condemnation of the others. TND is underappreciated and QOS is still quite remarkable even without Campbell there. But GoldenEye and CR are both in my top 5 Bonds for a reason.

[tdalton]

While I like what Campbell did with CASINO ROYALE, I'm glad that we got Forster for QUANTUM OF SOLACE. So far, Campbell's been inconsistent with his films. CASINO ROYALE is one of the best Bonds, but GOLDENEYE is mediocre at best (it does have its moments, but overall it's nothing great).

Out of all of the directors the series has had, Forster would be the one that I would most want to return for another film.

[Jose]

While I like what Campbell did with CASINO ROYALE, I'm glad that we got Forster for QUANTUM OF SOLACE. So far, Campbell's been inconsistent with his films. CASINO ROYALE is one of the best Bonds, but GOLDENEYE is mediocre at best (it does have its moments, but overall it's nothing great).

I still think Sean Bean was the best thing about Goldeneye.

But yes.

The way I (and maybe others) see it is that Goldeneye was (any way you slice it) still stuck in the mold of the traditional (for want of a better term) Bond.

Casino Royale, on the other hand, was a fresh start. That probably gave Campbell more freedom than he had with Goldeneye.

I would have liked it if he had done QoS.

Edited by Jose, 07 June 2009 - 07:21 AM.

[tdalton]

I still think Sean Bean was the best thing about Goldeneye.

Completely agreed. Sean Bean was fantastic as 006 (one of the franchise's best villains, IMO) and he would have made a phenomenal Bond. GOLDENEYE would have been a much better film had they simply switched the two lead actors into opposite roles, with Sean Bean as Bond and Pierce Brosnan as Trevelyan.

[stamper]

Hey didn't Campbell said that the beginning of the next one was already shot ? (ie same time as in CR) ?

Whatever happened to that ?

[DamnCoffee]

It was a rumour.

[RedKelly]

Hey didn't Campbell said that the beginning of the next one was already shot ? (ie same time as in CR) ?

Whatever happened to that ?

I heard the same thing over at mi6.co.uk there was apparently a boat chase and felix was involved and said I'll drive you shoot. Nice idea.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I seem to remember an interview with Campbell during the production of Casino Royale, saying that he was asked to do Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough, after GoldenEye, but he turned them down, claiming that they were "Just typical Bond movies".

Too bad he didn't do Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough and Die Another Day. He's my favourite director. I've saw Zorro 2 yesterday and it's really a Bond film starring Zorro.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I've saw Zorro 2 yesterday and it's really a Bond film starring Zorro.

Only that it's really boring.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I liked it, though I prefer The Mask of Zorro more.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

14 years into the franchise's relaunch with GE, I would love for the series to once again settle into a revolving list of directors ala Glen, Gilbert, Young etc.
For me, Campbell, Forster, and yes, even Tamahori, would make a great EON stable for the 21st century.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

14 years into the franchise's relaunch with GE, I would love for the series to once again settle into a revolving list of directors ala Glen, Gilbert, Young etc.
For me, Campbell, Forster, and yes, even Tamahori, would make a great EON stable for the 21st century.

I wouldn't mind betting Forster will return at some point

[RedKelly]

14 years into the franchise's relaunch with GE, I would love for the series to once again settle into a revolving list of directors ala Glen, Gilbert, Young etc.
For me, Campbell, Forster, and yes, even Tamahori, would make a great EON stable for the 21st century.

I wouldn't mind betting Forster will return at some point

Damn I hope not.

[havok_007]

Well in short they should have, because QOS was a bloody average bond movie. Marc Foster didn't have the slightest on how to shoot action scenes and that wreaked the whole movie.
Campbell actually has a clue about how action works in film and how to make it affective.
Zorro 2 wasn't all that bad anyway.

Brosnan was still a better bond than Craig even if his last 3 movies sucked

[byline]

Marc Foster didn't have the slightest on how to shoot action scenes and that wreaked the whole movie.

I disagree. The "Tosca" and hotel sequences, both of which I believe Forster directed, were among the best scenes in the film (not only in terms of action, but overall).

[MattofSteel]

Marc Foster didn't have the slightest on how to shoot action scenes and that wreaked the whole movie.

I disagree. The "Tosca" and hotel sequences, both of which I believe Forster directed, were among the best scenes in the film (not only in terms of action, but overall).

Agreed. Most of the film's action was shot wonderfully, but the unit director only has so much control when it reaches the editing room. Blame Forster for his instruction of cutting the film so erratically, sure. But blame the editors for not knowing better. Or whatever executive suggested it should be frantic, like Bourne.

And I don't say that universally. Because some of the film's action is phenomenal.

[PositivelyShocking]

QoS was never going to be a good film, with or without Martin Campbell. The script was rushed and rewritten several times, the director had no clear grasp of the characters or story, and the decision to bring in Dan Bradley to shoot the action sequences was the final nail in the coffin.

Basically what's left is a half-finished film with flat characters and mediocre plot that desperately cries out for more development. They should have delayed the film a year to shoot an additional 30 minutes and fine-tune everything.

Yes, Martin Campbell's presence may have made it better; the fact that he directed two of the best Bond films is no mere coincidence. But he couldn't have single-handedly saved it.

[jaguar007]

I still think Sean Bean was the best thing about Goldeneye.

Completely agreed. Sean Bean was fantastic as 006 (one of the franchise's best villains, IMO) and he would have made a phenomenal Bond. GOLDENEYE would have been a much better film had they simply switched the two lead actors into opposite roles, with Sean Bean as Bond and Pierce Brosnan as Trevelyan.

I agree. GoldenEye could have been great if Dalton was still Bond, they got rid (or at least scaled back) the Boris character, and done away with the stupid motorcycle jump to the airplane bit.

I always felt that GE was Brosnan's best Bond movie, but Brosnan's worst performance as Bond. He never seemed alpha male at all and was very unsure of himself as Bond, and it showed.

[Bucky]

i dont think campbell would have made the movie better. maybe if they take another 4 year break they can bring him back. he always seems to get bond films in the best position when they have had plenty of time to work on the scripts and plan it all out. it probably makes his job slightly easier compared to other directors who get scripts that are not as polished.

[jaguar007]

Brosnan was still a better bond than Craig even if his last 3 movies sucked

I could not disagree with you more.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I always felt that GE was Brosnan's best Bond movie, but Brosnan's worst performance as Bond. He never seemed alpha male at all and was very unsure of himself as Bond, and it showed.

I agree, though you could probably say that both Moore and Lazenby looked a little unsure at times in their debuts (and, in Lazenby's case, swansong), no matter how great their performances were (and they were). The Bonds that have looked completely confident from the first movie are Connery, Dalton and in particular Craig.

[Safari Suit]

I thought Moore seemed to have fit into the role like a glove in LALD, oddly it's in TMWTGG he seems to be at his most awkward and unsure.

[Jose]

I still think Sean Bean was the best thing about Goldeneye.

Completely agreed. Sean Bean was fantastic as 006 (one of the franchise's best villains, IMO) and he would have made a phenomenal Bond. GOLDENEYE would have been a much better film had they simply switched the two lead actors into opposite roles, with Sean Bean as Bond and Pierce Brosnan as Trevelyan.

Interesting idea there, tdalton. It's probably just me, but I can't picture Brosnan as Trevelyan.

This is an idea (an impossible one at that) that I kick around in my head from time to time- Sean Bean as Bond after Daniel Craig?

[JimmyBond]

QoS was never going to be a good film,

For me your post stops right here, as I disagree completely with that statement.