197 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

So, what did Gilbert say about Quantum?

He probably said that Quantum was so intense and breathless that he nearly had a siesure!



In all seriousness he probably said something in the order of:

"Er, Michael...where were all the uniformed bad guys with the interesting logos and crests...you know, the ones we used to use as cannon fodder for Bond...?"

[Richard]

CASINO ROYALE lost its way before QUANTUM OF SOLACE did and Martin Campbell is largely to blame. He had no business dumping Ian Fleming's subtext and replacing it with a new subtext that is anathema to Fleming and the Bond universe. While it's true that Campbell is a superb action director, he turned the story into a gender war, which Bond loses. As did Zorro in THE LEGEND OF -- . Campbell specializes in deconstructing male heroes into feminist stereotypes. That's why Barbara Brocolli picked him for the job in the first place. He prefers a slovenly, clueless James Bond to the smarter reserved gentleman of QOS.

Marc Foster would have been a better choice for CASINO ROYALE which should have been more of a dark, moody, atmospheric noir thriller (like the book) with less action, while Campbell should have directed the action sequences only in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Daniel Craig is absolutely fearless when it comes to hurling himself into dangerous stunts and action scenes. That's his main strength as James Bond. It was just dumb to cut away from his physical acting in QOS action scenes. The so-called "flash-editing" is a joke. Campbell, if he can do nothing else right, could have made the action scenes in QOS memorable.


Richard

Edited by Richard, 31 January 2010 - 12:08 AM.

[JimmyBondi]

The arrogance of this guy!
Anyone watch his piece of crap Zorro sequel that looked like an 80's Roger Moore Bond spoof with acting horses etc.?
Unlike many I happened to despise his boring Goldeneye and also CR wasn't his reinvention but rather Quentin Tarantinos and the writers.
He's not that great with handling emotional scenes either. Just think of the cringeworthy corny scene in CR when Bond and Vesper come out of the rain laughing and falling off the stretcher. Yuck!
Mind you, the action in CR was great but can't be soley credited to Campbell either.
How taking it down a few notches Mr Campbell or need I remind you of "Vertica Limit"?

[Richard]

When CASINO ROYALE was released, Barbara Brocolli laughed her head off at its success, thinking that all the men in the audience were too stupid to know when they are being insulted.


Richard

[Guy Haines]

I really dont think Forster has to cry himself to sleep over Campbell's comments. Forster's non-Bond work has rarely not been showered with praise from critics and award ceremonies. The highlight of Campbell's non Bond work is Zorro...

Of course, Bond directors rarely have much else on their CV than Bond.

Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt - they all had little worth remembering other than Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, OHMSS, all of which were in a different class than Forster's QOS.

As far as Campbell's non-Bond highlight, I'd venture the seminal orginal "Edge of Darkness". Perhaps you are too young to remember the impact of that's orginal broadcast?

I can remember the original TV drama "Edge Of Darkness", in fact I've recently bought the DVD of it and am looking forward to watching it again. A very good drama fully deserving the BAFTAs it won. Messrs. Broccoli and Wilson must have been watching too, given that they cast one of its stars, Joe Don Baker, in the first Dalton Bond film.

[Cabainus]

I am actually staggered at the amount of vitriol being spewed in the direction of Campbell. The guy gave an opinion, something he has every right to do given that he has twice helped reinvigorate the series.

Campbell is castigated for his opinion, but in the same breath those criticising him feel its fine to make offensive jokes about Lewis Gilberts age and toilet habits?

Shameful.

[Richard]

I am actually staggered at the amount of vitriol being spewed in the direction of Campbell. The guy gave an opinion, something he has every right to do given that he has twice helped reinvigorate the series.

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote nor the character the originating film makers and actors worked so hard to create and sustain. Barbara Broccoli is equally to blame. There were other ways, better ways, to reinvigorate the series. What you saw on the screen was the easy, lazy way.

I can't say I think much of Lewis Gilbert's contribution as director, either, but at least he did not try to pervert James Bond into a modern feminist caricature of what the character is supposed to be.

Richard

[HildebrandRarity]

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote

I can't say I think much of Lewis Gilbert's contribution as director, either, but at least he did not try to pervert James Bond into a modern feminist caricature of what the character is supposed to be.

"Everytime I see you...I feel reborn"

[Tarl_Cabot]

I don't worship anyone - least the man who had James Bond flying like a ing Fairy into a single prop airplane in GoldenEye pretitles. That was absolutely ghastly!

So much for 'understanding' Mr Bond! Bond as Tinkerbell, perhaps!

Not as bad as Bond getting tortured by a beautiful women's thighs...?

[Jack Spang]

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.

I love something fresh and original in a Bond film. For me, QOS is my 5th worst Bond film after the ghastly Brosnan era because of the fact it was pretty much made up of almost just one action scene after another with precious little else. I prefer the dialogue in QOS to CR and what little character movement there is, is good but that is it as far as it's merits go. I'm not a fan of the shaky camera work but this is only a minor gripe in comparison to what I dislike about it. I can easily overlook the former. CR was also a thriller and part drama. QOS only falls into the action category as far as genres are concerned.

I agree with Campbell about QOS losing it’s way. I’m obviously not sure what aspects of the film he is referring to but I believe it lost its way in terms of sacrificing story and characters for just plain action taking place in a running time that is too short.

[jaguar007]

Unlike many I happened to despise his boring Goldeneye and also CR wasn't his reinvention but rather Quentin Tarantinos and the writers.

Quentin Tarantino had NOTHING to do with the CR we got on the big screen. He said he wanted to make Casino Royale as a black and white period piece with Pierce Brosnan and that is all. Not one suggestion of his had anything to do with CR the film.

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote nor the character the originating film makers and actors worked so hard to create and sustain. Barbara Broccoli is equally to blame. There were other ways, better ways, to reinvigorate the series. What you saw on the screen was the easy, lazy way.


Richard

Have we seen the same version of Casino Royale or read the same books by Ian Fleming?? Because I think CR is the most faithful movie to the spirit of Fleming in almost 40 years. In the books I never saw Bond as a posh suave superspy who never got his clothes dirty or hair out of place, unless you are referring to the Gardner/Benson novels. I also never saw Bond as a clueless thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug in Casino Royale either.

Remember in the book CR, Bond did not like the idea of having to work with a woman.

[danslittlefinger]

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote

I can't say I think much of Lewis Gilbert's contribution as director, either, but at least he did not try to pervert James Bond into a modern feminist caricature of what the character is supposed to be.

"Everytime I see you...I feel reborn"

Hey, if you had Eva Green sitting on you, you'd say the same thing.
Well I would.

[Royal Dalton]

I thought Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were both crap films, for various different reasons. I've never been a fan of Martin Campbell as a director, though. Even before he directed a Bond film. He frames everything far too tightly for my liking. Forster's direction on his Bond film was far and away better, IMO.

As for this interview, Campbell's always had a big gob. He promoted Brosnan and GoldenEye by slagging off Dalton (and even talking down Connery for being too "blue collar") to try to make the new boy look good, and he pulled the same trick on Brosnan when Craig became Bond. So, blather like this from him is nothing new.

It is bad form, though.

[The Shark]

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote

Is he any less of a thug in QOS?

Either way, I thought Bond in CR only acted thuggish out of necessity in the infrequent (but drawn out) action sequences. Most of the other times he came off as cool, cocky, charming, witty, masculine, and likeable.

He prefers a slovenly, clueless James Bond to the smarter reserved gentleman of QOS.

I never really thought the Bond in QOS was any more intelligent, or reserved, than in CR. In QOS he came off as a boorish, un-likeable, reckless, dour, gormless oaf, regulated to nothing more than a stunt-man with occasional dialogue.

CR may be far from perfect, but I find it a much more rewarding experience QOS.

Campbell is a complete head.

Just as you are, calling him head. Very disproportionate and immature.

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

Because he's a sentient being with thoughts of his own. Yes he didn't want to direct it, but that doesn't mean he can't criticise another director for ing up the sequel.

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

Wise choice. And no he didn't "lurk" in, he was chosen with some consideration by the producers, as the director of Bond 21.

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.

Is that any worse than having Bond looking like Gollum in a suit, free falling in a wind-tunnel, then poorly CGI-ied onto a moving back? Not to me.

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

What about Forster who directed the ghastly Stay just before QOS?

He's being an really.

No, you are.

Quite frankly, the incandescent rage you express towards those dissenters who criticise QOS is nothing but hilarious.

And no, brining up Campbell's non-Bond films is bitchy, malicious, and deliberately going off on a tangent, since we're discussing Bond. The same way one shouldn't slam Peter Hunt by brining up Gold, in a discussion on OHMSS.

[Richard]

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote nor the character the originating film makers and actors worked so hard to create and sustain. Barbara Broccoli is equally to blame. There were other ways, better ways, to reinvigorate the series. What you saw on the screen was the easy, lazy way.
Richard

Have we seen the same version of Casino Royale or read the same books by Ian Fleming?? Because I think CR is the most faithful movie to the spirit of Fleming in almost 40 years.

Faithful to the outline of the story only, not to its internal meaning. Internally, James Bond is deconstructed and then reconfigured into a very different character. Forget who the director is for a moment and ignore who is the playing the part. Study the character. Note how the motivations of the characters in the book are changed in the film. Step by step, the changes amount to a repudiation of the character Ian Fleming wrote and the originating filmmakers brought to life.

Remember, in the novel the plan to beat LeChiffre at cards is conceived by Head of Station S and passed up the channels to M, who approves the plan only because they have an agent who knows how to gamble. Remember also that Bond advises his superiors the plan may not work without enough funds to break the bank if necessary. In the novel Bond is a scientific gambler with realistic expectations. All this is cut out by the movie so that Bond can be made to look egotistical, reckless, and stupid at the card table. The carefully written strategy of the card game is also thrown out. It could have been a terrific suspense sequence, but it was important to Barbara Broccoli and Martin Campbell for Bond to be reckless and egotistical so that they could stage yet another scene in which Vesper tells him off. How many times does he get told off in the film version?

All the male characters in the film version are reprehensible.

In the books I never saw Bond as a posh suave superspy who never got his clothes dirty or hair out of place,

That's because he isn't a superspy who never got his clothes dirty or hair out of place in the novels. He is never a superspy in the novels. You are confusing the 1970s and 1980s films for the novels. In the novels Ian Fleming goes to great pains to describe both the thought process of the suave, mannered gentlemen and his physical appearance. Entire pages are devoted to the meticulous care James Bond gives to his fine clothes, personal effects, his food and drink. That is his upbringing, not his schooling. The Bond of the novels is not a superspy; he is hard to kill because of his training, wits, and physical stamina. But he is not indestructible, in fact he is often injured and bloodied in those fine clothes. In the novels Bond is always vulnerable but he is also always thinking, reasoning, planning, and standing up to the physical ordeals he is put through. Maybe you should read those books again.

unless you are referring to the Gardner/Benson novels.

Forget the Gardner / Benson novels. They are neither here nor there. I never refer to the Garden / Benson novels.

I also never saw Bond as a clueless thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug in Casino Royale either.

That's exactly what he is in the film. He slouches when he walks, chews with his mouth open, wears ratty clothes (adept behavorial acting by Craig), says cold things like "do you want a clean kill or do you want to send a message?" In the novels, and in the early films, Bond feels for the victims. There are moments in From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, for instance, where Bond is allowed to show grief for a moment over the bodies of Kerim Bey, Tilly Masterson and Paula. This new Bond feels nothing.

All the dialog between M and Bond in the novel is cut by the film and replaced by new dialog that is intended to make her sound intelligent and make him sound stupid. That is the manifest of Barbara Broccoli's agenda. There are several arguments with M and Vesper in the film, which are not in the novel, and which he loses because a) he can't keep up, and b ) he's always wrong. The women have to teach him how to think like a spy (one bombmaker and invading the Embassy) and dress like a gentleman (dinner jackets and dinner jackets). Even his origin story has been changed from the upper class to the lower class, or didn't you notice?

Remember in the book CR, Bond did not like the idea of having to work with a woman.

That's true he didn't, but it is partly the arc of his character that Vesper succeeds in getting under his skin and changing his mind. This plays out in a more sophisticated way in the novel than the gender war and dumbing down of Bond in the film version.

Martin Campbell does a fine job with action, but his view of character and story is at odds with Ian Fleming and the originating films.


Richard

I thought Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were both crap films, for various different reasons. I've never been a fan of Martin Campbell as a director, though. Even before he directed a Bond film. He frames everything far too tightly for my liking. Forster's direction on his Bond film was far and away better, IMO.

As for this interview, Campbell's always had a big gob. He promoted Brosnan and GoldenEye by slagging off Dalton (and even talking down Connery for being too "blue collar") to try to make the new boy look good, and he pulled the same trick on Brosnan when Craig became Bond. So, blather like this from him is nothing new.

It is bad form, though.

Well writ, Royal Dalton.
I'll buy you a drink one of these days.


Richard

Edited by Richard, 31 January 2010 - 04:49 AM.

[The Shark]

The Bond of the novels is not a superspy; he is hard to kill because of his training, wits, and physical stamina, but he is not indestructible, and he is often injured. In the novels Bond is always vulnerable but he is also always thinking, reasoning, and standing up to the physical ordeals he is put through. Maybe you should read those books again.

That's just sounds just like Bond in CR 2006. And yes I've read the books recently, currently on the last few chapters of YOLT.

That's exactly what he is in the film. He slouches when he walks, chews with his mouth open,

Where's that? Is that scene where Bond dresses up as a school boy starts firing his slingshot at M?

wears ratty clothes (adept behavorial acting by Craig)

Only in Madagascar, where he's clearly undercover as a traveller/back packer.

What about Bond's ratty cloths in the finale of DN?

says dumb thing like "do you want a clean kill or do you want to send a message?"

It's blunt and to the point, but hardly dumb.

and has to be taught how to think like a spy and wear a suit by women who are more intelligent than he is.

I kind of agree with you there.

Even his origin story has been changed from the upper class to the lower class, or didn't you notice?

Since when is Bond in CR's a lower class man with a working class past?

None of that is implied or said in the script.

[jaguar007]

Richard, I was not confusing the books with the Bond films from the 70 and the 80s, I was just referring that you were. Obviously you were not but the point I was making is that you criticize the Bond in CR where he is closer to the Bond from Fleming's books than he has been since 1969 (with the exception of 1987). Many of the things you criticize about Bond in CR is actually how Fleming's Bond was, but not the movie Bond in the 70s and 80s.

I have to agree with Shark, the only time Bond wore ratty clothes was in the Madagascar scene where he wore what he needed to blend in. Every other scene he was dressed very well, stylish and it looked good. Where he asks M if she wants a clean kill, that is how he is talking to his superior, it does not mean what is going on in his head. Re-read TLD, Bond is sent out to kill a sniper.

You must also remember that in the movie, Bond is in 2006, not 1956. There are going to be changes to make the situation modern. If Fleming were alive today writing about Bond, I'm sure there would be more differences to Bond in the books.

[tdalton]

Richard, I was not confusing the books with the Bond films from the 70 and the 80s, I was just referring that you were. Obviously you were not but the point I was making is that you criticize the Bond in CR where he is closer to the Bond from Fleming's books than he has been since 1969 (with the exception of 1987). Many of the things you criticize about Bond in CR is actually how Fleming's Bond was, but not the movie Bond in the 70s and 80s.

I have to agree with Shark, the only time Bond wore ratty clothes was in the Madagascar scene where he wore what he needed to blend in. Every other scene he was dressed very well, stylish and it looked good. Where he asks M if she wants a clean kill, that is how he is talking to his superior, it does not mean what is going on in his head. Re-read TLD, Bond is sent out to kill a sniper.

You must also remember that in the movie, Bond is in 2006, not 1956. There are going to be changes to make the situation modern. If Fleming were alive today writing about Bond, I'm sure there would be more differences to Bond in the books.

Very well put.

[Richard]

... the point I was making is that you criticize the Bond in CR where he is closer to the Bond from Fleming's books than he has been since 1969 (with the exception of 1987). Many of the things you criticize about Bond in CR is actually how Fleming's Bond was, but not the movie Bond in the 70s and 80s.

I don't agree, and the weight of evidence in the recent films proves you wrong. The cinematic James Bond has never been further way from the novels than in the film Casino Royale. Casino Royale puts a lot of distance between the novels and the early films. It begins in the script writing. Study the writing. Fleming's Bond knew who his parents were. Fleming's Bond was Eton-educated and a Naval commander before he was recruited into the Secret Service. This background is reversed, if not repudiated, in the debate between Bond and Vesper on the train. Every component of the writing is like a value judgment, a condemnation of what Ian Fleming wrote. Listen to the dialog every time Vesper, and M in both films, tell him off. Look at all the stupid things he does to justify their scorn.

I have to agree with Shark, the only time Bond wore ratty clothes was in the Madagascar scene where he wore what he needed to blend in. Every other scene he was dressed very well, stylish and it looked good.

He's dressed in a cheap suit until Vesper lectures him on dinner jackets. Bond isn't wearing a backpack in pre-title so this idea of him disguised as a backpacker doesn't persuade me. The slouch is in the performance until the mid-section of the film, after the dinner jacket change. It returns after Vesper is killed when Bond whines into the cell phone. The cheap suit is replaced by a better suit and then back to the cheap suit again after the staircase fight. He chews with his mouth open in the first dinner table scene with Vesper at the Casino, and perhaps a second time. Craig is very subtle with his anti-gent behavorials, and his performance is layered with them.

Craig's Bond is so clueless he tries to revive a drowned woman by massaging her chest instead of pressing her lungs from the back. At first I thought this was an oversight on the part of the film makers because they don't know how to administer CPR, or that Craig wanted to see if he could get away with feeling up Even Green on camera, but then I realized, no, it's in character, this Bond has been that clueless for over two hours already.

Where he asks M if she wants a clean kill, that is how he is talking to his superior, it does not mean what is going on in his head. Re-read TLD, Bond is sent out to kill a sniper.

Of course it means that's what goes on in his head. Why else would he say it. No need to re-read TLD, Bond does several kills in the novels. The fascinating contradiction of a civilized man with cultivated tastes who is also a killer when necessary is lost in Casino Royale because he's played as a stone cold grunt with no feelings and no class whatsoever.

You must also remember that in the movie, Bond is in 2006, not 1956. There are going to be changes to make the situation modern. If Fleming were alive today writing about Bond, I'm sure there would be more differences to Bond in the books.

If Fleming were writing today there would still be civility and mutual respect between M and Bond. M would stay back at the office, not chase after Bond in the field to constantly harangue him. Bond would still be the subject of the story, not M. There would still be an inner decency and a moral compass in Bond instead of a callous willingness to "send a message" and kill every suspect. There would still be professionalism and skill in his spycraft instead of incompetence and thoughtlessness. Men and women would be equals, and there would be no hypocritical disdain for the mutual attraction between Bond and the female lead. They would not be "damaged goods." And most important, there would be no gender war in his books. Bond would not be a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" just because he likes women, and the female lead would be allowed to have a sexual adventure of her own without being killed off for it like in a slasher movie. The militant feminist tone of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is utterly misguided and sours the entertainment value for many of us.


Richard

Edited by Richard, 31 January 2010 - 08:42 AM.

[Jim]

Some very interesting points there, and I would welcome responders to pause before they weigh in.

Some of the notions in tone that you have perceived I would suggest are also endemic in the Brosnan films, GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough in particular.

I suspect that I enjoyed the last two films more than you did, though.

[Santa]

They would not be "damaged goods."

Fleming always wrote his Bond girls as 'damaged' in one way or another. He seems to have had a bit of a thing for the bird with a broken wing.

[jamie00007]

How on earth can anybody criticize the Craig movies for being "feminist"? Thats ridiculous.

It was the Brosnan era that had that problem. That was the era of the equal opportunity, action hero Bond girl. The era where females had to be Bond's equal in every way, sometimes even tougher than him. The era that gave Bond a female boss, a female main villain, a female henchman, a changed Moneypenny dynamic complete with sexual harassment jokes, lines about Bond being a "misogynist dinosaur" and a Bond who was continually being fooled or made a fool of by women. A sensitive new age Bond who gets emotional and caresses a computer monitor with some womans image on it who hes never even met.

Craig's Bond was a welcome to return to the Bond of old. A Bond who, when the action is about to start says "Get the girl out of here" rather than fighting alongside her. A Bond who thinks nothing of using a woman for information, who doesnt believe women can take care of themselves and need to be rescued, and a Bond who can fall hard for someone against his own judgement. And the movies give us women who are not empowered action heroes that can take out ten guys twice their size, it gives us beautiful and smart women, but women who are damaged, who are led astray by their emotions, women who are used and abused by their men and women in need of rescue.

No, its hardly the Craig movies that are on the feminist crusade. That was the Brosnan movies, and thankfully the Craig movies seem to be trying to make up for that.

If Fleming were writing today there would still be civility and mutual respect between M and Bond. M would stay back at the office, not chase after Bond in the field to constantly harangue him. Bond would still be the subject of the story, not M. There would still be an inner decency and a moral compass in Bond instead of a callous willingness to "send a message" and kill every suspect. There would still be professionalism and skill in his spycraft instead of incompetence and thoughtlessness. Men and women would be equals, and there would be no hypocritical disdain for the mutual attraction between Bond and the female lead. They would not be "damaged goods." And most important, there would be no gender war in his books. Bond would not be a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" just because he likes women, and the female lead would be allowed to have a sexual adventure of her own without being killed off for it like in a slasher movie. The militant feminist tone of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is utterly misguided and sours the entertainment value for many of us.

You know, you could just about apply that to every single Bond era. An M who goes into the field and who constantly argues with Bond? That M has been in every single Bond era since You Only Live Twice. As for "Bond would still be the subject of the story, not M", ever seen TWINE?

"There would still be an inner decency and a moral compass in Bond instead of a callous willingness to "send a message" and kill every suspect."

Seems an odd thing to say, since the Craig movies have less killing than most Bond movies, and almost every body Bond kills is trying to kill him first. What, you think Connery's Bond would have arrested the people trying to kill him? Ever seen Dr No? Now surely it would have made more sense for Bond to take Dent in for questioning, but that is not Bond. Where was the "moral compass" for that scene or any number of similar scenes in the early movies? And if anything Fleming's Bond was even more cold blooded.

"the female lead would be allowed to have a sexual adventure of her own without being killed off for it like in a slasher movie."

Oh yes, because the Craig movies are the first Bond movies to have a Bond girl killed off after Bond sleeps with them. Oh wait, that happens in at least half of the movies since Goldfinger.

As for being "damaged goods", nearly all of Fleming's women were damaged goods, including the first Bond girl in the books and the first Bond girl in the movies.

Edited by jamie00007, 31 January 2010 - 10:36 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

I would urge a slightly wider and more informed take on what "feminism" means before labelling this and that as "feminist". Having looked at feminist film studies in some depth in my past, the notion of what "feminism" in cinema implies has very little to do with rights for women and some hackneyed, lazy notion of "equality". "Feminism" in cinema involves a much wider discourse of discussion and debate - one being how men are presented / created / nurtured on film too. Feminism film theory could (I don't say does though) easily read a whole lot of notions into something like THE USUAL SUSPECTS. It is not solely about the female characters and how they hold themselves.

For the record, Germaine Greer (herself once labelled a "feminist") is a big Bond fan and tends to heap praise on the films when asked upon their release. And why...? She sees them as the two hour excursions into entertainment that they are. To label one film or another or even characters within it as being pro-women or anti-women is completely missing the point of cinema and - dare I say it - women.

The militant feminist tone of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is utterly misguided and sours the entertainment value for many of us.

Sorry but there is no "militant feminist" tone in ANY Bond film. That is patronising to say the least and demonstrates a scant regard and experience of feminism as a framing theory to discuss - in this instance - cinema. Just because something is different does not make it "militant"...? And I would personally suggest that there is nothing new to the characterisation of both the men and women in SOLACE and ROYALE when compared to every other Bond film that came before.

[marktmurphy]

That's pretty candid of Campbell. I've got to agree with him: Quantum of Solace was a movie in search of an idea, and they lost their way on the way to it. There's no concept to it: Bond goes nowhere.

Sadly I understand that Edge of Darkness is a bit poo.

[Aris007]

Anyone watch his piece of crap Zorro sequel that looked like an 80's Roger Moore Bond spoof with acting horses etc.?

....or need I remind you of "Vertica Limit"?

Should I remind you that we're on a James Bond forum? What the hell has Zorro to do with Bond? Roger Spottiswoode has directed "Stop or my mom will shoot!" What does that mean? If the producers thought that way only Martin Scorsese would direct Bond! Martin Campbell did a wonderfull job in CR and GE and that's it!

[DamnCoffee]

I completely agree with Aris here. It's just like saying "Urghhh, Craig starred in Tomb Raider, he was , he shouldn't be Bond."

So Campbell has directed some stinkers, so what? Everyone has had some bad work.

[Satorious]

I personally agree with Campbell's comments (fanboys can spit venom as much as they want) but I see no reason why he (or anyone of reasonably stature in the franchise) can't voice an opinion. At least he watched QOS, unlike Mr Brosnan. He's not specifically having a go at Forster which many on here seem to suggest, if anything he's having a go at the screenwriters for not developing Bond's journey enough. This could be seen as a fair argument, obviously not everyone will agree (especially on a Bond forum).

I think if you ask the general movie-going public whether they prefer QOS or CR - the vast majority would come back and say CR is the better film, many of my friends even went so far as to call QOS disappointing. This, despite QOS's successful box-office performance, is what EON will listen too (it's the target market they need to attract) - so it's safe to assume that Bond 23 will not be in the same style as QOS.

[double o ego]

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.

No offense but by your logic, you can't say much either. Your just a fan and I'm sure you've said plenty of negative things about past Bond movies. Campbell is an experienced director with arguably 2 of the more successful Bond movies to date. I think it's afir for him to voice his opinion on how he feels.

The fact is, despite QoS making serious money at the BO, many people were dissapointed and also believe the film could and should have been better.

I for one am annoyed with QoS simply because there are so many opportunities in the film to make the story and scenes great but they fumble it and they could have done a much better job clarifiying certain aspects of the film.

I don't agree that QoS completely lost it's way, I however, do feel that, it should have done a better job than it did finding its way.

[Harmsway]

Richard: Fleming's Bond was Eton-educated and a Naval commander before he was recruited into the Secret Service. This background is reversed, if not repudiated, in the debate between Bond and Vesper on the train.
Actually, it's not.

Richard: He's dressed in a cheap suit until Vesper lectures him on dinner jackets.
No. He's been wearing Brioni suits. Hardly cheap. I have a cheap suit in my closet from a department store. I wish I could afford even the less-expensive things Bond was wearing in CASINO ROYALE. And while his dinner jacket may not have been a "dinner jacket," as Vesper puts it, we have no reason to believe what he had was particularly cheap, either.

Richard: Craig's Bond is so clueless he tries to revive a drowned woman by massaging her chest instead of pressing her lungs from the back. At first I thought this was an oversight on the part of the film makers because they don't know how to administer CPR, or that Craig wanted to see if he could get away with feeling up Even Green on camera, but then I realized, no, it's in character, this Bond has been that clueless for over two hours already.
Interesting, but I'll stick with the belief that it was oversight. And, if not, a willing decision to flaunt reality because it is more effective to keep her facing up than have her facing down.

Richard: If Fleming were writing today there would still be civility and mutual respect between M and Bond.
Yes, and Bond's relationship with M is one of the most wearying aspects of contemporary Bond. You'll get no real disagreement from me there.

But I'll say this: I don't think a Bond film's quality is measured in how well it lives up to Fleming, either. You're right that CASINO ROYALE takes some detours from its source material (though I don't agree with everything you say), but it's another thing to prove that these detours aren't, in some way, satisfying on their own. Fleming stopped owning Bond a long time ago.

[Loomis]

Since when is Bond in CR's a lower class man with a working class past?

None of that is implied or said in the script.

Well, there's the line about his being at a fee-paying school by the grace of someone's charity, although that doesn't necessarily mean that his roots are "working class".

Neither am I convinced that we see him only in "cheap" suits prior to Vesper. Or that someone needs to be seen permanently strapped to a rucksack in order to pass as a backpacker. (Perhaps this prop was out of shot, at Bond's feet, and he abandoned it when he set off in pursuit of the bomber.)

Although I confess that I do always raise an eyebrow at that low-cut sweater thing he wears at the bar in the Bahamas, showing off acres of bare chest. Not sure that "a gentleman" would dress that way in an exclusive establishment.