33 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Further to the "I thought Quantum completely lost it's way" thread, I'd like to point out that Casino Royale's success with critics had very little to do with a paint-by-the-numbers director like Martin Campbell and, in fact, he was fortunate to be involved with the project.

The fact is Mr Campbell DIDN'T WANT Daniel Craig as James Bond!

Regardless, here is the order in which I rank those responsible for the success of the film:

1 & 2 - Wilson and Broccoli:

...for their vision; For deciding to go a different route; for letting Pierce Brosnan go and for hiring Daniel Craig to help them take that new route; For hiring Paul Haggis to accompany P&W.

The Bond films have been, by and large, "Producer Films" and it all starts from the top, i.e. Wilson and Broccoli in this case.


3 - Ian Fleming:

...for providing the spine of the story; For providing "an original Fleming"; For providing the ingredients of a genuine love story (a rarity in Bond films).


4 - Daniel Craig:

- for insisting on a good script before he signed on to take the role; For having the acting chops to make it work; For having the discipline/focus to hit the gym hard to get his body to look the part.


5, 6 & 7 - Paul Haggis, Purvis & Wade:

- for fleshing out the Fleming original, etc.


So...that brings us to the 'paint-by-numbers'-type of director who proved he was only as good as the material/project provided, as illustrated by his work preceeding Casino Royale...and it was some truly abysmal and ghastly stuff too! [The type of stuff that had many on these very forums worried for Bond 21 when Campbell was first announced back in the summer of 2005.]

You see, Campbell was no where near the top of the totem pole in terms of the people involved with Casino Royale's critical success...so it's rather precious of him to pan the follow up.

The fact is that Mr Campbell was lucky to be on that project. Lucky that Broccoli/Wilson decided to take a different road, lucky that he was getting in on a Fleming Original, lucky that Craig and Haggis were on board, lucky there was a proper script, lucky it wasn't a Zorro 2 and those other two pieces of before it.

You are nothing more than a reasonably competent 'paint-by-numbers' director, Mr Campbell.

Kindly don't forget that.

Taking the low road by speaking out of turn on a project you were too gutless to take on does you little - if any - credit.

Kind Regards,

Hildebrand

[DamnCoffee]

This isn't a thread asking who was responsible for the sucess of Casino Royale, this is just a bashing thread towards someone who criticized your precious Bond movie.

How the do you know how much Martin Campbell brought to the table anyway? You know absoloutely nothing about the production process, for all you know he could've insisted on loads of stuff.

[zencat]

I'd put Campbell very near the top. Maybe even at the top.

[DamnCoffee]

As would I, Zencat.

[zencat]

BTW, you omitted Stuart Baird from your list. A very important part of the CR team.

[HildebrandRarity]

What about this stinker he did in 2000:

http://www.rottentom...vertical_limit/

?

...or this one from 2003:

http://www.rottentom...beyond_borders/

It's even MORE of a stinker, with Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen.

It' got a big 14 (out of 100) on RT!

And the one that made us all fear in dread on CommanderBond.net the year in which he was announced as director:

http://www.rottentom...egend_of_zorro/

I don't know how many of you were on this site when that Zorro movie came out...but I can certainly tell you that many of us here were fearful that Campbell would make a total pig of it.

The combined Rotten Tomatoes scores of these three Campbell masterworks are LESS than what Quantum got!

Fancy that, eh?

The guy ought to feel lucky that Broccoli and Wilson and Fleming and Haggis and Craig came along and saved his sorry after the howlers he'd been making.

Campbell would be NOTHING without James Bond and Eon. NOTHING.

All he'd be left with are Vertical Limit, Beyond Borders and the Legend of Zorro!

He didn't even want Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Pathetic!

[DamnCoffee]

Oh yeah! I love it when review sites make up my mind for me!

If I want to see a movie, I'll make my own mind up. Unlike some, I'm not that influenced by other people's thoughts. Who cares how many bad movies he's done? Casino Royale is a modern masterpiece.

[dinovelvet]

What about this stinker he did in 2000:

http://www.rottentom...vertical_limit/

?

...or this one from 2003:

http://www.rottentom...beyond_borders/

It's even MORE of a stinker, with Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen.

It' got a big 14 (out of 100) on RT!

Well why don't you tell us. What about them? I seem to recall that Forster made Stay, a 27% critical flop that tanked. What does this line of argument prove?

Campbell brought genuine verve and passion to CR, I was completely surprised as I didn't really like his work on Goldeneye.

[HildebrandRarity]

We're not discussing Forster's master works or his stinkers.

We're discussing a guy who would be nothing without James Bond as proven by Vertical Limit, Beyond Borders and Legend of Zorro!

[DamnCoffee]

Actually, we're discussing who was responsible for Casino Royale's critical success, apparently.

[HildebrandRarity]

Actually, we're discussing who was responsible for Casino Royale's critical success, apparently.

How right you are!

[dinovelvet]

We're not discussing Forster's master works or his stinkers.

We're discussing a guy who would be nothing without James Bond as proven by Vertical Limit, Beyond Borders and Legend of Zorro!

Well you've somehow forgotten to mention The Mask of Zorro in there. I don't know if that's on the list of things we can or can't discuss, though.

[HildebrandRarity]

By all means add in Mask Of Zorro...a movie not in the same decade.

What i'm saying is that during this decade, Campbell was helming stinkers...and i've named them...and Eon saved his sorry Matilda .

The fact that Daniel Craig wouldn't be James Bond if Campbell had his way says it all.

[jaguar007]

So how many stinkers did Terrence Young make before Dr. No?


Also, how do you know he did not want Daniel Craig as Bond? I know there were some rumors that there were other people he wanted more than Craig, but that does not mean he did not like Craig for the role.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, it has been documented here on Commander Bond that Campbell wanted someone else.

This isn't me making up rumours. It's documented fact.

Again, we're not discussing Terrence Young. And I don't recall Terrence Young panning the Bond movies directly following his.

Indeed, Terrence was high up on the Dr No Totem Pole, and defined James Bond's on screen personna.

[DamnCoffee]

All he said was that he found it difficult to imagine Craig in the role, because he always pictured Bond as being dashing, like Sean, Roger or Pierce. When the origin story called to be gritty and dark, Campbell then had no trouble seeing Craig as Bond.

[HildebrandRarity]

All he said was that he found it difficult to imagine Craig in the role, because he always pictured Bond as being dashing, like Sean, Roger or Pierce. When the origin story called to be gritty and dark, Campbell then had no trouble seeing Craig as Bond.

...which proves my point that Casino Royale wasn't Campbell's vision.

Indeed, Campbell lacked vision and needed Broccoli and Wilson to show him the way.

Broccoli insisted on Daniel Craig being Bond #6...and Craig insisted on a good script before he signed on for the role...which he did after reading the script and knowing Haggis would be involved!

Casino Royale was a success inspite of Campbell, not because of him.

Surely you can see that?

With all due respect, you were not on these forums when we were dreading the possibilities for Casino Royale following the release of Legend of Zorro (which did nothing to reverse his Vertical Impact/Beyond Borders reputation (which was anything but high at the time, in case you don't know.))

Cheers.

[Loomis]

Hilly,

If Campbell is a director with no particular talent to speak of, why was he chosen for CASINO ROYALE?

Broccoli and Wilson had their pick of directors. It would seem that they could even have landed the mighty genius Tarantino had they wanted him. And I'm sure they could have bagged Forster for CASINO ROYALE.

Why, then, did they (as I understand it) give Campbell first refusal on TOMORROW NEVER DIES, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY? Why was he (again, as I understand it) offered QUANTUM OF SOLACE?

If Campbell has nothing to offer, it's odd that Broccoli and Wilson constantly seem so keen to secure his services.

They didn't hire him because he was cheap. There are plenty of better bargains out there.

They didn't hire him because they like him (although, clearly, they must also like him). A charming personality on its own won't land your backside in the Bond director's chair.

They hired him because he's good.

Do you really think that CASINO ROYALE somehow directed itself? Do you honestly believe that Campbell had nothing to do? That he'd simply turn up on set and putter about drinking coffee and shooting the breeze with everyone all day long before returning to his hotel room, having accomplished nothing?

No one is saying that Campbell was singlehandedly responsible for CASINO ROYALE. Film is a collaborative venture.

But to dismiss the man's contribution seems bizarre and unfair.

[[dark]]

Casino Royale was a success inspite of Campbell, not because of him.

Hold on, you've gone from arguing Campbell was not a key figure in Casino Royale's success to claiming he was actually a liability. That his direction was abysmal and yet somehow the end product was still the most acclaimed Bond film in decades. This is surely an impossibility.

The man deserves at the very least some credit. There's simply no way he didn't contribute to Casino Royale's success.

(Frankly, I'm with zencat et al - Campbell totally gets Bond. And I'd welcome him back to the franchise any time.)

[danslittlefinger]

Babs and MGW for knowing their vision and sticking to it.
Campbell for knowing his subject.
Craig for knowing his character.

[HildebrandRarity]

Loomy old pal, I never said Campbell was useless. I said he was a "reasonably competent paint-by-the-numbers director" who is "only as good as the material" and that he was 8th on the totem pole.

Ok. Let's be generous and put him ahead of P+W:

1= Broccoli
1= Wilson
3. Fleming
4. Craig
5. Haggis
6. Campbell

Happy?

We already established that Craig wasn't his choice, it was Broccoli insisting!

I also said that it's really precious to pan a film he didn't want to direct, having directed total and complete stinkers like VL, BB and Zorro 2 in the three projects before CR.

Yes he has been offered Bond gigs...but that't the way that family works:

- Glen got offered four gigs after FEYO just before Campbell came along.

- Terrence got gigs after DN.

- Others as well. Notably Hamilton and Gilbert.

That's the way the Broccoli 'family' has always worked. Historically.

So why would it be surprising to see him being offered similar gigs by the family if he's competent enough?

[jaguar007]

I agree that the GE pre title sequence free fall was one of the worst moments in Bond cinema history, but rest of the film is considerably better (although I do think it is vastly overrated). However Campbell did direct what is considered by the public at large to be the two best Bond movies in the last 30 years.

I think he does know how to properly pace and blend the serious with the right touch of humor for Bond. I mentioned that I think GE is overrated, I think the two main problems with that movie is the music score and Pierce Brosnan's performance ( I actually think it is the worst of his four performances as Bond, he seemed totally uncomfortable and out of his league in that movie).

[HildebrandRarity]

Casino Royale was a success inspite of Campbell, not because of him.

Hold on, you've gone from arguing Campbell was not a key figure in Casino Royale's success to claiming he was actually a liability. That his direction was abysmal and yet somehow the end product was still the most acclaimed Bond film in decades. This is surely an impossibility.

Look at you.

Re-read my top post.

Where did I say he was a "liability"?

I made that "inspite of" comment because he didn't want Craig as James Bond.

I thought that was simple enough to understand. No?

I agree that the GE pre title sequence free fall was one of the worst moments in Bond cinema history, but rest of the film is considerably better (although I do think it is vastly overrated).

I mentioned that I think GE is overrated, I think the two main problems with that movie is the music score and Pierce Brosnan's performance ( I actually think it is the worst of his four performances as Bond, he seemed totally uncomfortable and out of his league in that movie).

I agree.

[[dark]]

Casino Royale was a success inspite of Campbell, not because of him.

Hold on, you've gone from arguing Campbell was not a key figure in Casino Royale's success to claiming he was actually a liability. That his direction was abysmal and yet somehow the end product was still the most acclaimed Bond film in decades. This is surely an impossibility.

Look at you.

Re-read my top post.

Where did I say he was a "liability"?

I made that "inspite of" comment because he didn't want Craig as James Bond.

I thought that was simple enough to understand. No?

Then surely you mean "Daniel Craig was signed as Bond in spite of Martin Campbell."

It's a sweeping statement to claim simply because Campbell was unconvinced about Craig as Bond (as were many of us on these forums before Casino Royale came out) and because he apparently "lacked vision" (i.e. had no vision... apparently) that his other contributions were null and void.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, [dark], i've decided to be more generous and moved Campbell up to 6th, ahead of P&W.

Hope everyone is happy.

As for concerns, well...we were more concerned about whether Campbell could do a better job than he did on Zorro in 2005 than about Craig.

Only the craignotbond gang were concerned about Craig.

No one had seen the screen test...unless they allowed you to get a peek.

By all accounts, Craig was outstanding in the screen test.

[Loomis]

Yes he has been offered Bond gigs...but that't the way that family works:

- Glen got offered four gigs after FEYO just before Campbell came along.

- Terrence got gigs after DN.

- Others as well. Notably Hamilton and Gilbert.

That's the way the Broccoli 'family' has always worked. Historically.

So why would it be surprising to see him being offered similar gigs by the family if he's competent enough?

Ah, but, as I understand it, Campbell was given an eye-watering salary for CASINO ROYALE. They made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

What I'm saying is that they went out of their way to secure his services for CASINO ROYALE. It wasn't a case of "Oh, well, we may as well give the job to good old Marty." They had to make a special effort and go to a lot of trouble (as I'm led to believe). And you don't do that unless you really, truly want someone. I doubt that Eon had to kill the fatted calf to get John Glen to keep coming back. I don't expect that it took silly money to lure Lewis Gilbert to the MOONRAKER set.

If my source is good, and I think it is, getting Campbell back for CASINO ROYALE was.... not easy.

And you don't go to trouble and expense unless it's something you really believe to be worthwhile.

Which tells us that Eon considers Campbell a real prize asset. As opposed to just another run-of-the-mill jobbing hack with no particular skills to offer.

[DamnCoffee]

100% in agreement with Loomis, here.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes he has been offered Bond gigs...but that't the way that family works:

- Glen got offered four gigs after FEYO just before Campbell came along.

- Terrence got gigs after DN.

- Others as well. Notably Hamilton and Gilbert.

That's the way the Broccoli 'family' has always worked. Historically.

So why would it be surprising to see him being offered similar gigs by the family if he's competent enough?

Ah, but, as I understand it, Campbell was given an eye-watering salary for CASINO ROYALE. They made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

What I'm saying is that they went out of their way to secure his services for CASINO ROYALE. It wasn't a case of "Oh, well, we may as well give the job to good old Marty." They had to make a special effort and go to a lot of trouble (as I'm led to believe). And you don't do that unless you really, truly want someone. I doubt that Eon had to kill the fatted calf to get John Glen to keep coming back. I don't expect that it took silly money to lure Lewis Gilbert to the MOONRAKER set.

If my source is good, and I think it is, getting Campbell back for CASINO ROYALE was.... not easy.

And you don't go to trouble and expense unless it's something you really believe to be worthwhile.

Which tells us that Eon considers Campbell a real prize asset. As opposed to just another run-of-the-mill jobbing hack with no particular skills to offer.

I'm under the impression he got the going rate for a projet of that kind and for a director that had been directing Jolie and Bandaras and Zeta-Jones and the like...and that he was also kind of desperate to get a proper gig after the critical and commercial bombs he'd helmed.

What's the 'eye-watering' sum?

What's your source?

I bet you he got no more than $4 million, $5 million tops.

It may have been 'eye-watering' to him, given that all the stinkers through the decade were trashing his market value...

Tell us more!

Links too, please!



He would be no more a prize asset than a reasonably competent James Bond helmer like Terrence Young or Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert or even John Glen following the success of FYEO, Octopussy and TLD.

I can definitely see him being a more prized asset than the dreaded cross-dressing Lee Tamahori (who knew all about James Bond) or the out-of-his-depths Michael Apted (who knew jack about successfully marrying 'drama' and 'action')... for quite obvious reasons.

It was hardly rocket science to figure that out!

[Loomis]

To quote Marvin Gaye, I heard it through the grapevine.

Section 26, paragraph five.

But the source was as kosher as the chief rabbi. Furthermore, I have it on stupefyingly good authority that Eon holds Campbell's abilities in considerably higher esteem than you do.

BTW, you may be interested to know that both Apted and Tamahori were also asked back for a second Bond film. It would appear to be true that Eon - for whatever reason(s) - likes to keep directors around.

However, I've never heard of any Bond director in modern times being made a fuss of by Eon the way Campbell's been made a fuss of by Eon.

[HildebrandRarity]

To quote Marvin Gaye, I heard it through the grapevine.

Section 26, paragraph five.

But the source was as kosher as the chief rabbi. Furthermore, I have it on stupefyingly good authority that Eon holds Campbell's abilities in considerably higher esteem than you do.

BTW, you may be interested to know that both Apted and Tamahori were also asked back for a second Bond film. It would appear to be true that Eon - for whatever reason(s) - likes to keep directors around.

However, I've never heard of any Bond director in modern times being made a fuss of by Eon the way Campbell's been made a fuss of by Eon.

Grapevine, eh?









Grapevine. Er...okey dokey.


You seem to be full of contraditions, Loomy. On the one hand they offered Campbell other Bond gigs (like their patriarch and his partner used to)...but on the other hand, they asked back the least critically successful ones (Tamahori and Apted) too...then on the third hand they love to keep directors around...and finally on the fourth hand Campbell is special (because he was around on two re-boots following two way too long delays and eagerly awaited films.)

Wait a minute! I ran out of hands already.

Grapevine!

LOL!

Is Grapevine like...um, like the new Wiki?

LOLOLOL!!!!