197 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

Now on the CBn main page...

Martin Campbell backs Sam Mendes for Bond 23

'Sam will do a splendid job...'

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I agree with Campbell. It's too bad in retrospect he did not direct QOS. If he had, I think it would've had more of a true "feel" of being a sequel to CR. As it stands now, FRWL has a better "feel" of being a sequel to DN for example than QOS does to CR. So does MR to TSWLM and LTK to TLD.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Too bad Forester didn't direct CR.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I have to agree with Campbell on this, too. I was astonished that Forster could get away with everything that he did. You didn't see Campbell get away with new editors, new title sequence directors, etc. It's just too bad that Campbell didn't want to come back and direct the sequel. It would have been 10X better, even with a poor script.

Too bad Forester didn't direct CR.

Are you serious? I understand that different people have different tastes in movies. But how could Forster POSSIBLY direct Casino Royale? He said that CR was too long.
Sorry for venting, but there's a special place in my heart for Casino Royale.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I have to agree with Campbell on this, too. I was astonished that Forster could get away with everything that he did. You didn't see Campbell get away with new editors, new title sequence directors, etc. It's just too bad that Campbell didn't want to come back and direct the sequel. It would have been 10X better, even with a poor script.

Too bad Forester didn't direct CR.

Are you serious? I understand that different people have different tastes in movies. But how could Forster POSSIBLY direct Casino Royale? He said that CR was too long.
Sorry for venting, but there's a special place in my heart for Casino Royale.

Just stirring the pot mate...I do prefer the lean and mean QOS to CR. Sorry, I just do...but I still love CR.

[Single-O-Seven]

Campbell's references to Bond's relationships indicate that he has never seen or read OHMSS.

[jaguar007]

I have to agree with Campbell on this, too. I was astonished that Forster could get away with everything that he did. You didn't see Campbell get away with new editors, new title sequence directors, etc.

Hmmm, I don't recall Stuart Baird editing any other Bond movie than Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

Campbell's references to Bond's relationships indicate that he has never seen or read OHMSS.

He's referenced OHMSS in plenty of other interviews.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think Campbell should not badmouth Bond films he has not directed. That´s bad form. Is he already worried that his CR-fame will end after EDGE OF DARKNESS?

"Completely lost its way"? Utter idiocy, Mr.Campbell.

[tdalton]

I think Campbell should not badmouth Bond films he has not directed. That´s bad form. Is he already worried that his CR-fame will end after EDGE OF DARKNESS?

"Completely lost its way"? Utter idiocy, Mr.Campbell.

Completely agreed.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Campbell's references to Bond's relationships indicate that he has never seen or read OHMSS.

He's referenced OHMSS in plenty of other interviews.

Yeah, in another recent article (afraid I can't exactly remember which one), he cites Bond eventually marrying Tracy after having loved Vesper.

And as for Martin Campbell's quote about QOS having "completely lost its way", I won't go quite that far, but I think his basic point is correct. QOS strayed too far from its 007 heritage and that, coupled with its many flaws, prevents it from being being a good Bond film and instead just an average one.

[HildebrandRarity]

Campbell is a complete head.

1. He didn't want to direct Q0S so why say anything negative about it.

2. He lucked into a Fleming story with Craig as an actor.

3. He had James Bond flying like a little frail Fairy in the GoldenEye pre-titles and made Pierce look like Tinkerbell as he flew into the plane.

Pathetic excuse for a director who did the ghastly Zorro 2 just before CR.

He's being an really.

[DR76]

And as for Martin Campbell's quote about QOS having "completely lost its way", I won't go quite that far, but I think his basic point is correct. QOS strayed too far from its 007 heritage and that, coupled with its many flaws, prevents it from being being a good Bond film and instead just an average one.

QoS is not my favorite Bond film, or is even considered to be among my favorite Bond films. But I do get tired of the complaints that the movie had "strayed from its 007 heritage" or such nonsense. I get so tired of certain fans insisting that ALL Bond films adhere to some kind of formula. It almost seems as if many moviegoers lack any kind of appreciation for something different or original.

Someone had to follow up on the story that was presented in CR. And QoS did the job. Not as well as CR, but it did the job as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have a movie like QoS than a piece of crap like DAF, because its producers were too gutless to follow up on a complex story like OHMSS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

You didn't see Campbell get away with new editors, new title sequence directors, etc.

No... but Lewis Gilbert got away with it in '67.

[tdalton]

And as for Martin Campbell's quote about QOS having "completely lost its way", I won't go quite that far, but I think his basic point is correct. QOS strayed too far from its 007 heritage and that, coupled with its many flaws, prevents it from being being a good Bond film and instead just an average one.

QoS is not my favorite Bond film, or is even considered to be among my favorite Bond films. But I do get tired of the complaints that the movie had "strayed from its 007 heritage" or such nonsense. I get so tired of certain fans insisting that ALL Bond films adhere to some kind of formula. It almost seems as if many moviegoers lack any kind of appreciation for something different or original.

Very well said.

I'd also say that I agree with the overall sentiment of Hildebrand Rarity's post as well.

[blueman]

Campbell's got a different idea about Bond than Forster - obviously. Woo.

[FLEMINGFAN]

I think Campbell should not badmouth Bond films he has not directed. That´s bad form. Is he already worried that his CR-fame will end after EDGE OF DARKNESS?

"Completely lost its way"? Utter idiocy, Mr.Campbell.

I think that a director is perfectly qualified to critique another's work and it should be something that is encouraged. They would certainly know the ins-and-outs more than a film critic or fan, especially one Bond-director talking about another Bond-director. That is a very small and select and distinguished group.

Director Lewis Gilbert also had bad words for QUANTUM OF SOLACE and stated them in front of Michael Wilson at a recent gathering, so Martin Campbell is not alone in that ring.

[Jim]

Campbell's got a different idea about Bond than Forster - obviously. Woo.

Quite.

Man who did not direct film says he might have directed film differently shocker.

In other news, water "arguably" wet, says expert.

[Jack Rapace]

Campbell is a complete head.

1. He didn't want to direct Q0S so why say anything negative about it.

2. He lucked into a Fleming story with Craig as an actor.

3. He had James Bond flying like a little frail Fairy in the GoldenEye pre-titles and made Pierce look like Tinkerbell as he flew into the plane.

Pathetic excuse for a director who did the ghastly Zorro 2 just before CR.

He's being an really.

One can't say better! 200 % agree.

Edited by Jack Rapace, 30 January 2010 - 10:30 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think Campbell should not badmouth Bond films he has not directed. That´s bad form. Is he already worried that his CR-fame will end after EDGE OF DARKNESS?

"Completely lost its way"? Utter idiocy, Mr.Campbell.

I think that a director is perfectly qualified to critique another's work and it should be something that is encouraged. They would certainly know the ins-and-outs more than a film critic or fan, especially one Bond-director talking about another Bond-director. That is a very small and select and distinguished group.

Director Lewis Gilbert also had bad words for QUANTUM OF SOLACE and stated them in front of Michael Wilson at a recent gathering, so Martin Campbell is not alone in that ring.

Of course, Campbell can critique another director´s work. But you state that as if a director were an objective expert. Campbell is - as every director - fueled by ego. And please, don´t tell me that a director can state his opinion on another film better than a fan. Because in the end, it´s just that: an opinion.

[Jack Rapace]

I'd rather have a movie like QoS than a piece of crap like DAF,

You insult people who enjoy this movie. You're free to dislike a film,but you must respect the preferences of the others. Thank you.

[SecretAgentFan]

I'd rather have a movie like QoS than a piece of crap like DAF,

You insult people who enjoy this movie. You're free to dislike a film,but you must respect the preferences of the others. Thank you.

And having re-watched DAF recently I really have to admit that it is a fantastic film. So, maybe, DR76, you should give DAF another chance?

[David Schofield]

Of course, Campbell's opinion carries weight. He directed CR; its out there for us to compare with QOS and decidde which we prefer. Here's what Campbell did with Bond, here's Forster's take on it.

And I can't accept in anyway Hildebrand's comments that Campbell succeeded due to circumstance and good forune; did Forster "fail" because circumstance and fortune consipred against him, then?

Frankly, there is far more credance in the opinion of someone who has contributed to the Bond series than "woo-woo" fan boys. Campbell has shown what he can do.

Bit like George Lazenby slagging off Brosnan's Bond. At least Laz has on film his take on Bond. You prefer it to Broz, fine; if you don't that's okay too. But at least Lazenby has given his interpretion; he's not some fan boy dreaming how much more macho tha Brosnan HE'D be if he was whisked from Interweb-land to pay Bond.

Christ, I hope Lazenby's never criticised Craig's take on Bond.

[dutch_pepper]

I think this article is made up by the writer. I think Campbell wouldn't say what's in the article.

[sharpshooter]

Of course, Campbell's opinion carries weight. He directed CR; its out there for us to compare with QOS and decidde which we prefer. Here's what Campbell did with Bond, here's Forster's take on it.

And I can't accept in anyway Hildebrand's comments that Campbell succeeded due to circumstance and good forune; did Forster "fail" because circumstance and fortune consipred against him, then?

Frankly, there is far more credance in the opinion of someone who has contributed to the Bond series than "woo-woo" fan boys. Campbell has shown what he can do.

Bit like George Lazenby slagging off Brosnan's Bond. At least Laz has on film his take on Bond. You prefer it to Broz, fine; if you don't that's okay too. But at least Lazenby has given his interpretion; he's not some fan boy dreaming how much more macho tha Brosnan HE'D be if he was whisked from Interweb-land to pay Bond.

Christ, I hope Lazenby's never criticised Craig's take on Bond.

I agree completely. Campbell is entitled to his opinion.

[DamnCoffee]

Campbell is a complete head.

1. He didn't want to direct Q0S so why say anything negative about it.

2. He lucked into a Fleming story with Craig as an actor.

3. He had James Bond flying like a little frail Fairy in the GoldenEye pre-titles and made Pierce look like Tinkerbell as he flew into the plane.

Pathetic excuse for a director who did the ghastly Zorro 2 just before CR.

He's being an really.

No, you're the fool my friend. Just because he didn't agree with Quantum of Solace does NOT give you the right to publicly slam him. Everyone has their own opinion, and Cambpell has his. I agree with it.

It's like going to someone "OH YOU DIDN'T DIRECT *INSIRT LEAST FAVORITE FILM HERE* SO YOU CAN'T HAVE AN OPINION."

Just learn to respect the opinion of others Hildebrand, then maybe you will get more around here, too.

[Jim]

Campbell is a complete head.

1. He didn't want to direct Q0S so why say anything negative about it.

2. He lucked into a Fleming story with Craig as an actor.

3. He had James Bond flying like a little frail Fairy in the GoldenEye pre-titles and made Pierce look like Tinkerbell as he flew into the plane.

Pathetic excuse for a director who did the ghastly Zorro 2 just before CR.

He's being an really.

No, you're the fool my friend. Just because he didn't agree with Quantum of Solace does NOT give you the right to publicly slam him. Everyone has their own opinion, and Cambpell has his. I agree with it. It's like going to someone "OH YOU DIDN'T DIRECT *INSIRT LEAST FAVORITE FILM HERE* SO YOU CAN'T HAVE AN OPINION."

Just learn the respect the opinion of others Hildebrand, then maybe you will get more around here, too.

You're falling into this increasingly tedious person's pointless trap; don't do it.

Don't get sucked in. As my housemaster used to observe.

[volante]

I honestly believe QOS would have had a difernt feel if Martin Campbell had directed it.

Discuss

[SecretAgentFan]

I honestly believe QOS would have had a different feel if anybody else had directed it.

Don´t discuss.

[MajorB]

Campbell's references to Bond's relationships indicate that he has never seen or read OHMSS.

He's referenced OHMSS in plenty of other interviews.

Yeah, in another recent article (afraid I can't exactly remember which one), he cites Bond eventually marrying Tracy after having loved Vesper.

And as for Martin Campbell's quote about QOS having "completely lost its way", I won't go quite that far, but I think his basic point is correct. QOS strayed too far from its 007 heritage and that, coupled with its many flaws, prevents it from being being a good Bond film and instead just an average one.

I think his reference to relationships didn't mean Bond could never have one again, but that he couldn't have a meaningful relationship in the film right after CR. He was expressing sympathy with the writers for having to find an emotional core for B22 within that limitation.

And I agree that saying QoS wasn't a "true" Bond film imposes too many restrictions on the franchise. There were parts of it I didn't care for, but not because it strayed too far from the "formula." There were just things I didn't enjoy as much as I'd have liked.