197 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

I don't agree with his comments. But this slagging off of Campbell from you is getting tiring.

Ok, so the teaser sequence in Goldeneye ends in a silly note...so what? I remember sitting there with my dad watching it in theaters and when he said "Yeah right!" I had a huge grin on my face because to me that's what Bond represented, silly OTT action sequences that are only slightly believable. Sure now I feel differently about what I want from my Bond films, but to me that sequence accomplished what it was meant to. I didnt care that it didnt look realistic, and I gather most of the people who saw the film back in 95 didnt care as well.

Indeed.

One might say the freefall in QOS is equally as stupid. Craig-Bond's parachute - after some pretty poor close up CGI - opens not far from the ground and all he lands with is a bit of a thud. And after a bit of a heavy sigh, gets up.

Don't suppose Hilde would equate this with Goldeneye-style silliness. After all, it was directed by Forster.

[HildebrandRarity]

I didnt care that it didnt look realistic, and I gather most of the people who saw the film back in 95 didnt care as well.

I cared. And then we had that absolutely ghastly score to deal with...not to mention Judy's M plowing into James with her 'mysogonist dinosaur' quip followed by the 'come back alive' nonsense. Hideous!

[JimmyBond]

Don't suppose Hilde would equate this with Goldeneye-style silliness. After all, it was directed by Forster.

I do think the QoS sequence works better because not only are the actors in a wind tunnel, the sequence is cut up into several different angles to try and mask the fack that the stunt is faked. The real crime of the QoS sequence though is that they didnt do the stunt for real with stuntmen and cut that footage with the footage of Craig and Olga in the wind tunnel.

I'm not sure what the reasoning was, but having it be one continuous shot of Bond falling into the plane in front of a "really really obvious" fake background doesnt help the sequence out at all.

I didnt care that it didnt look realistic, and I gather most of the people who saw the film back in 95 didnt care as well.

I cared. And then we had that absolutely ghastly score to deal with...not to mention Judy's M plowing into James with her 'mysogonist dinosaur' quip followed by the 'come back alive' nonsense. Hideous!

Whoa whoa hang on, I thought we were just talking about the merits of the plane stunt. Plus what you're describing isnt really Campbell's doing, he was just directing the script given to him.

[HildebrandRarity]

Don't suppose Hilde would equate this with Goldeneye-style silliness. After all, it was directed by Forster.

No. It was well crafted in my opinion and James Bond didn't look like a frail little Fairey.

Plus what you're describing isnt really Campbell's doing, he was just directing the script given to him.

HA!

If it was true then, it was true in 2006.

It was the script, not Campbell.

As I have maintained, Campbell was lucky he got the Casino Royale script which he got!!!

[David Schofield]

Don't suppose Hilde would equate this with Goldeneye-style silliness. After all, it was directed by Forster.

No. It was well crafted in my opinion and James Bond didn't look like a frail little Fairey.

No, it looked just as silly. Crappy CGI, crappy conclusion. Crappy concept.

Craig looked more like a falling fairy :I've never thought he was that big, rugged, that bulky that the majority of fan boys drool over. But he did have more macho hair than Brosnan, I'll give you that.

[Richard]

Without James Bond, he'd be nothing and would only have stink-fests to his name (other than the first Zorro).

I agree, except my opinion of Campbell's Zorro is lower than yours'. He makes quite a buffoon out of Don Diego and his alter ego in the first half. It's a form of ridicule that Campbell would later apply to another iconic character, James Bond. After Don Diego learns his lessons and finally becomes the iconic Zorro, it is hard to enjoy him, he's been such a dork.

I hate Campbell's bathroom humor scenes, his idiot becomes smart stories, and his vertical action scenes. The choreography never changes and the characters are all the same.

Campbell has been feeding off Bond and we all know that Bonds have been considerably successful in each of the five decades.

It's rather precious of him to take a cheap dig at a movie he was too gutless to helm knowing that he wouldn't have a Fleming Original and Love Story to work with, especially in light of the garbage upon garbage he offered up on the decade...not to mention directing the only Fairey Bond/Tinkerbell Bond moment in franchise history when he made Pierce look like a frail, pouty, Fairey boy as he fluttered and flew around in GoldenEye pre-titles.

Tell me, how did Campbell get away with GoldenEye's pre-title scene? Bond jumps over a dam and enters into a small utility building. Inside it grows into a megaplex. Outside, the sluice below the dam is gone and now it's a runway leading to a cliffside. Not only does the exterior of the building not match the interior, but the exterior landscape changes from one place to another. Cheats like this only call attention to themselves and break the fourth wall.

I wish Campbell had never touched Zorro or Bond. More to the point, I wish the producers would surrender control to someone else, someone who knows how to tell stories. Michael G. Wilson is a no talent hack who's been screwing up good scripts since the 1970s to keep his name active in the WGA so that he can gobble up the high pay. But he is hardly noticeable compared to Barbara Broccoli. She is a whacko whose creative controls are largely responsible for taking all the fun out of the movies. Between the two producers and plodding mediocrities like Campbell, the Bond films will never find their way back to what they once were.

Before anyone says, "Oh, but the last Bond film made millions and millions!" understand the amount of money a Bond movie makes proves nothing. These films are events, like the Superbowl. Everybody turns out to see the event and hopes for the best regardless of how it will turn out. By the time they find out, the money has been paid.


Richard

Edited by Richard, 02 February 2010 - 10:02 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Plus what you're describing isnt really Campbell's doing, he was just directing the script given to him.

HA!

If it was true then, it was true in 2006.

It was the script, not Campbell.

As I have maintained, Campbell was lucky he got the Casino Royale script which he got!!!

Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to compare Campbell's two films because they both had different goals. GE was aiming to be a pastiche, a way to reintroduce audiences to Bond. It succeeded in that regard. Casino Royale had different aims, so Campbell directed it differently. While I'm not of the camp calling for his return, I do think his work on Royale was a huge improvement over his work in GE and helped elevate the film to the classic status that it so richly deserves.

[Zorin Industries]

SO many people appear to be movie editors yet so few have probably done it....(and fan trailers using other people's work and efforts do not count).

[Jim]

Michael G. Wilson is a no talent hack who's been screwing up good scripts since the 1970s to keep his name active in the WGA so that he can gobble up the high pay. But he is hardly noticeable compared to Barbara Broccoli. She is a whacko whose creative controls are largely responsible for taking all the fun out of the movies. Between the two producers and plodding mediocrities like Campbell, the Bond films will never find their way back to what they once were.

Richard

You have delivered this sort of comment unto us before; it seems to be a major theme running through what you post here.

Is there something personal here, or is it just rudeness? Would be useful to know.

[Trident]

Michael G. Wilson is a no talent hack who's been screwing up good scripts since the 1970s to keep his name active in the WGA so that he can gobble up the high pay. But he is hardly noticeable compared to Barbara Broccoli. She is a whacko whose creative controls are largely responsible for taking all the fun out of the movies. Between the two producers and plodding mediocrities like Campbell, the Bond films will never find their way back to what they once were.

Richard

You have delivered this sort of comment unto us before; it seems to be a major theme running through what you post here.

Is there something personal here, or is it just rudeness? Would be useful to know.

Second that.

1) It would be most useful for categorising this

2) It's tremedously tiresome and trite

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm rather content that richard is around!

Makes me look like an angel.

[Zorin Industries]

I wish Campbell had never touched Zorro or Bond. More to the point, I wish the producers would surrender control to someone else, someone who knows how to tell stories. Michael G. Wilson is a no talent hack who's been screwing up good scripts since the 1970s to keep his name active in the WGA so that he can gobble up the high pay. But he is hardly noticeable compared to Barbara Broccoli. She is a whacko whose creative controls are largely responsible for taking all the fun out of the movies. Between the two producers and plodding mediocrities like Campbell, the Bond films will never find their way back to what they once were.

Before anyone says, "Oh, but the last Bond film made millions and millions!" understand the amount of money a Bond movie makes proves nothing. These films are events, like the Superbowl. Everybody turns out to see the event and hopes for the best regardless of how it will turn out. By the time they find out, the money has been paid.


Richard

I've got to ask... WHY then do you still fork out your own money to no doubt see their work at the cinema (more than once) and on DVD?! I think that is where the "plodding mediocrity" really lies.

And whilst everyone is entitled to their views I would suggest your comments are able to be backed up with hard evidence as some people in this world have better lawyers than others.

Michael G. Wilson is a no talent hack who's been screwing up good scripts since the 1970s to keep his name active in the WGA so that he can gobble up the high pay. But he is hardly noticeable compared to Barbara Broccoli. She is a whacko whose creative controls are largely responsible for taking all the fun out of the movies.

I hate to tell you but the Bond management do not need the money.

Your comments on the Bond management are pitiful, pathetic, inaccurate to the point of comedy and demonstrate nothing but your occupations and creative shortcomings. Me senses a little jumped up screenwriter with no credits but plenty of animosity because of it. There is very little in your recent outbursts that demonstrate any real insight into how Bond films are written or by whom (and having "corresponded" with Richard Maibaum does not count...Zorin remembers these things...), what they are paid for it (which is neither your business or, it seems, your experience) yet you dismiss films that you have clearly hated so much that you have had to watch them countless times. "Mediocre" doesn't come into it.

[HildebrandRarity]

[Zorin Industries]

It's too easy.

And yes, this one does make you look good Rarity... which in turn makes me look like a christian girl guide selling cupcakes out of her garage to raise funds for a local puppy hospital.

[HildebrandRarity]

[The Shark]

Further to my post above...

I find it ludicrous to have to sit there with a stop watch to see if Shark is right about the length of cuts being equal as opposed to variant. Why?

Here we go again... Don't get mad at me for this. Remember you were the one who asked me to name the scenes so you could watch them.

Have a cookie. It might improve your mood.

A...because it's pure sillyness to watch a movie like that (and I won't);

I have, and it happened unintentionally.

B...because he only specified two scenes (and I quite like them just the way they are, including the Tosca stuff); and

To be fair it's more the whole film.

C...well, so what? So what if the edits don't have varying lengths? Where is stated so ... and what's the name of the rule book?

It's a sort of basic unspoken editor's rule. It helps the editing to be more engaging, interesting, and less monotonous if there is some considerable organic variation in the pacing and rhythm.

To suggest the above being the basis of the editing being 'lazy' is ... well, it's being overly nit-picky.

I'd say perceptive is a better word.

Without James Bond, he'd be nothing and would only have stink-fests to his name (other than the first Zorro).

Original Edge of Darkness TV series?

[HildebrandRarity]

I meant cinema, not tv, Shark.



He only has that first Zorro on his cv of reasonable note...so, without James Bond, he's left with piles of garbage.

That's one film in, what, about two decades?

You've heard the saying about people in glass houses and the other one about biting the hand that feeds?

It's gutless to not take on a project when you know it's going to be tough to live up to expectations and then pan it when you already know that the acclaim numbers are not as strong.

We already know that Q0S's acclaim numbers were not as strong as CR's...but to say what he did - when he was too much of a chicken to helm the much tougher follow-up - illustrates that he's a classless little coward.

I doubt i'm the only one who feels that way.



This is what he should have said:

"Casino Royale's acclaim was going to be tough to follow up - naturally so because it was an original Fleming and a genuine love story. I'm glad I was on the project because it was a very good script - helped by the fact that it was a Fleming. In addition, I understand that Daniel insisted on a good script before signing on...so i'm greatful for that, eventhough I didn't want him for the role originally. I'm greatful to the producers for selecting Daniel over my prefered choice. They were right. Lastly, I understand that the acclaim numbers for Quantum were not as high - but I knew Royale was going to be a tough act to follow, especially given the time element and the lack of an original Fleming and the absense of a genuine love story."

[Jim]

I meant cinema, not tv, Shark.



He only has that first Zorro on his cv of reasonable note...so, without James Bond, he's left with piles of garbage.

That's one film in, what, about two decades?

You've heard the saying about people in glass houses and the other one about biting the hand that feeds?

It's gutless to not take on a project when you know it's going to be tough to live up to expectations and then pan it when you already know that the acclaim numbers are not as strong.

We already know that Q0S's acclaim numbers were not as strong as CR's...but to say what he did - when he was too much of a chicken to helm the much tougher follow-up - illustrates that he's a classless coward.

This is now getting tedious

[Dekard77]

Is it so bad that Campbell voiced his opinion? Don't we do that on daily basis in forums ?

Judi Dench or rather her characterization of M doesn't bore well most of the time. One minute she is blasting Bond the next she is giving motherly advice. Sometimes her presence itself is a joke as I know it's lecture time for Bond.
I do agree with the posts where Bond is constantly lectured about his ego and shows less of his sophistication which I am used to seeing in RM and SC. Bond women held their own for most part and made them very interesting. Lately though it's all about reminding the audience that women are in charge otherwise it will be embarrassing for the to be in the movie.

If QOS had a bit more dialogue and less action the film would have been a classic. I like it to a great extent but too much of action does spoil the movie. Forster had a good eye for dialogue and visuals but was rather lost with the action, except the Opening and Opera scenes.

Most of my buds who saw CR and QOS told me that the new Bond is more of thug than smooth secret agent. I guess we can live that since he is suppose to be in the early stages of his career. Craig macho image combined with good looking suits makes up for the criticisms from his female leads.

Edited by Dekard77, 02 February 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[The Shark]

This is what he should have said:

"Casino Royale's acclaim was going to be tough to follow up - naturally so because it was an original Fleming and a genuine love story. I'm glad I was on the project because it was a very good script - helped by the fact that it was a Fleming. In addition, I understand that Daniel insisted on a good script before signing on...so i'm greatful for that, eventhough I didn't want him for the role originally. I'm greatful to the producers for selecting Daniel over my prefered choice. They were right. Lastly, I understand that the acclaim numbers for Quantum were not as high - but I knew Royale was going to be a tough act to follow, especially given the time element and the lack of an original Fleming and the absense of a genuine love story."

While you have a gun pointing to his head?

[MrKidd]

I agree - aside from revitalizing the franchise twice and directing (arguably)the best bond film for god knows how long - that Martin Campbell has done absolutely nothing. He's completely crap and his opinion on Bond is worthless. It's like that Neil Armstrong guy..you heard from him since he landed on the moon?? I haven't. Waste of time that fella. Didn't have much do to with it anyway. And while I'm at it, can someone please tell me what's so great about the Beatles - they were really only good in the 60s. And don't get me started on Michael Jackson - best selling album ever but that's only because people bought a load of copies - and Barack Obama, yeah, historical president and all that but he couldn't lose could he? He only won because more people voted for him than the other guy.

Memo to those slagging off Martin Campbell: Get a grip

Edited by MrKidd, 02 February 2010 - 04:30 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Mr Kidd, you're not comparing a paint-by-numbers, only-as-good-as-the-script movie director to Neil Armstrong, Barak Obama, The Beatles and Michael Jackson, are you?

Are you?



It's not as if Campbell is Hitchcock or Kubrick or Spielberg or, heck, even Cam...Cam...Cameron, is it?

[MrKidd]

Not as such, no Hilly - but I am making a point - albeit in an exaggerated way (I thought it humorous but ho-hum )

For instance, I'm not a fan of QoS and Daniel Craig MAY never make another Bond movie again, who knows..but he's done CR. He WAS Bond - and an amazing one at that -so can rightfully claim an opinion on the character. Same with Mr C; he may or may not have done much aside Bond (debateable but whatever) - but what he has done is of merit and deserves to be recognized. Everyone should be so lucky as to be talented enough to produce just one thing of such worth in their lifetime..

Edited by MrKidd, 02 February 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Everyone should be so lucky as to be talented enough to produce just one thing of such worth in their lifetime..

I agree.

Campbell is competent and, in the case if CR, was lucky too.



Cheers

[DamnCoffee]

This thread is really getting beyond a joke. It should've stayed locked. All it's doing is fueling a stupid and pointless argument.

[coco1997]

Mr Kidd, you're not comparing a paint-by-numbers, only-as-good-as-the-script movie director to Neil Armstrong, Barak Obama, The Beatles and Michael Jackson, are you?

Are you?



It's not as if Campbell is Hitchcock or Kubrick or Spielberg or, heck, even Cam...Cam...Cameron, is it?

I'd take "Quantum of Solace" over the Obama Presidency any day.

[HildebrandRarity]

This thread is really getting beyond a joke. It should've stayed locked. All it's doing is fueling a stupid and pointless argument.

Quite right, Mharkin.

I for one vote to deep six the pig.

And, for my part, i'll refrain from commenting further.

Cheers, Mharkin.

[MrKidd]

oh ok then - but what do we argue about then?

Oooo - just seen Oscars announced. Yaaayyy, Inglourious Basterds for best film. Anyone..?



agreed this thread has run its course

[Richard]

You have delivered this sort of comment unto us before; it seems to be a major theme running through what you post here.

Is there something personal here, or is it just rudeness? Would be useful to know.

It is not rudeness.
It is disgust.
Disgust with the latest Bond films and the two bozos responsible for them.


Richard

[Harmsway]

This is what he should have said:

"Casino Royale's acclaim was going to be tough to follow up - naturally so because it was an original Fleming and a genuine love story. I'm glad I was on the project because it was a very good script - helped by the fact that it was a Fleming. In addition, I understand that Daniel insisted on a good script before signing on...so i'm greatful for that, eventhough I didn't want him for the role originally. I'm greatful to the producers for selecting Daniel over my prefered choice. They were right. Lastly, I understand that the acclaim numbers for Quantum were not as high - but I knew Royale was going to be a tough act to follow, especially given the time element and the lack of an original Fleming and the absense of a genuine love story."

Hilarious.