113 replies to this topic

[0077]

Perhaps EON will be successful in getting Campbell to come back to direct Ashton Kutcher in his James Bond debut in the film of Jeffrey Deaver's Project X?

That's not funny.

[Trident]

But I've also heard he's the one director they don't ask back.

Surely the very fact that Campbell directed CASINO ROYALE proves this view to be false.

I'm just telling you what I've heard. I also know Eon explored other directors for CR. They did not go right for Campbell. Not sure how big a roll Sony played in his selection, but Sony likes Campbell.

BTW, at the USC event, Babs was openly asking Forster to come back. She kept saying, "We would love to have you back" and "We're trying to talk him into coming back." Considering how insanely tight lipped they are about things, I thought this was pretty remarkable.

This is indeed remarkable. Would that Forster comeback have been viewed as a possibility to make up on the deficiencies and lacks QOS turned out to have, despite the best efforts of Forster? Wasn't Tamhori also wanted back by EON, despit DAD's shortcomings, or do I completely mix that?

[Aris007]

Perhaps EON will be successful in getting Campbell to come back to direct Ashton Kutcher in his James Bond debut in the film of Jeffrey Deaver's Project X?

That's not funny.

Correct! That's creepy!

[Loomis]

Wasn't Tamhori also wanted back by EON, despit DAD's shortcomings, or do I completely mix that?

No, I believe Tamahori was indeed asked back.

(Of course, I'm not an insider, but I'm going by info from good sources close to the Bond films.)

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, Campbell seems to cover his bases now that EDGE OF DARKNESS has tanked. GREEN LANTERN, of course, could reverse the opinion that Campbell only delivers with Bond but, you know...

I like Campbell´s work very much. But he´s 70-ish now, right? Would he really be called back for re-booting Bond again with a new actor in... well, three to six years?

[0077]

Well aside from Campbell (I think he's in his mid 60's) Who else could there be?

[zencat]

Wasn't Tamhori also wanted back by EON, despit DAD's shortcomings, or do I completely mix that?

No, I believe Tamahori was indeed asked back.

(Of course, I'm not an insider, but I'm going by info from good sources close to the Bond films.)

I also heard he was asked back, but it was very early on, planning stages for Bond 21. Who knows what kind of film they were thinking about at that stage.

BTW, I think Tamahori did a good job as director. He seemed to be able to handle it. I think DADs problems were elsewhere.

[Harmsway]

Off-topic, I know, but is A SINGLE MAN worth seeing?

It is.

Anyway, Campbell coming back for BOND 23 would have me quite excited indeed. Like a few others here, Mendes' selection does nothing for me. If the EON franchise is going to aim for "prestigious" directors, I'd rather they look to more interesting talents than folks like Forster or Mendes.

[plankattack]

But they're nearly all "asked" back aren't they? In fact the only one who consciously didn't seem to be "asked" back in recent years was Spottiswode, who, all things considered, didn't do the worst job (as much I hate TND, I couldn't imagine having to have been the guy in that hot-seat, so to speak).

I'm with all those who do feel that Bond does need a director who, to some extent, can handle the scope of a Bond (or any other big-budget franchise flick). The idea of Mendes does intrigue me - the fact that Bond, after 22 films, can attract the interest of pretty much any director, is testament to the series new-found stature. But on the other hand there is a certain skill-set that comes with blockbusters, in the same way that directing a documentary, or a small independent, has it's own techniques.

Do I want Campbell back? It wouldn't upset me, but again, he's no Terence Young. Or Peter Hunt. They were directors who left their mark - other than that (and this isn't a knock on Campbell) Bond directors are almost supposed to be unseen and unheard. I mean, why else would you keep asking John Glenn back (hadn't taken a completely unfair, below-the-belt shot at him in a while! )

[Loomis]

Wasn't Tamhori also wanted back by EON, despit DAD's shortcomings, or do I completely mix that?

No, I believe Tamahori was indeed asked back.

(Of course, I'm not an insider, but I'm going by info from good sources close to the Bond films.)

I also heard he was asked back, but it was very early on, planning stages for Bond 21. Who knows what kind of film they were thinking about at that stage.

Right. I got the info from your good self, in fact!

I strongly suspect that, even at that very early stage, BOND 21 was envisaged as a reboot (maybe CASINO ROYALE, but maybe not) and not just another sequel starring Brosnan.

I base this on comments made by Tamahori in an interview with Sight & Sound at the time DIE ANOTHER DAY hit cinemas, when he stated mysteriously that the director of "the next film" would have an unprecedented degree of creative freedom. Leading one to suspect that something out of the ordinary was planned for BOND 21 (which ended up being the case).

I like Campbell´s work very much. But he´s 70-ish now, right? Would he really be called back for re-booting Bond again with a new actor in... well, three to six years?

Possibly. 70 is the new 55, especially when one is a millionaire Hollywood director. I've always thought Campbell looks pretty fit and healthy, and somewhat younger than his years.

Off-topic, I know, but is A SINGLE MAN worth seeing?

It is.

Good. I'll be renting it and letting y'all know my verdict.

Anyway, Campbell coming back for BOND 23 would have me quite excited indeed. Like a few others here, Mendes' selection does nothing for me. If the EON franchise is going to aim for "prestigious" directors, I'd rather they look to more interesting talents than folks like Forster or Mendes.

Indeed.

[Trident]

I strongly suspect that, even at that very early stage, BOND 21 was envisaged as a reboot (maybe CASINO ROYALE, but maybe not) and not just another sequel starring Brosnan.

I base this on comments made by Tamahori in an interview with Sight & Sound at the time DIE ANOTHER DAY hit cinemas, when he stated mysteriously that the director of "the next film" would have an unprecedented degree of creative freedom. Leading one to suspect that something out of the ordinary was planned for BOND 21 (which ended up being the case).

In that case I suppose a comeback might have really made some sense. I didn't like DAD and Tamhori did not particularly impress me. My opinion was that, should he come back he really wouldn't do much different from his first go with which he seemed content enough at the time, so why bother at all? The world did not exactly need DAD PART II.

But if indeed the reboot already was a realistic possibility, then Tamahori would surely have had reason to put his mark on a new era of Bond and deliver a completely different film. I must say that would have had me interested...

[jaguar007]

While Campbell may not be the best director out there, at least he understands what modern audiences expect in a good Bond film.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

"YEEEEAHHHHH!! Hope he's back"

[Royal Dalton]

Campbell won't direct another film while Craig's still Bond. He only does debuts.

[DaveBond21]

BTW, I've heard conflicting things about Campbell and Eon. I've heard they've asked him back for every film. But I've also heard he's the one director they don't ask back.

Ditto. In fact, the one I know they have asked is an odd choice considering...

I like the dots at the end of your post.

But I think dramatic music would have been better...

[Double-Oh Agent]

While Campbell may not be the best director out there, at least he understands what modern audiences expect in a good Bond film.

Exactly. And of those that have directed Bond films before, he is clearly the best choice of them. He is two for two with a pair of home runs in his efforts. Can't ask for a better average than that.

I'm excited to hear that Martin Campbell is open to do another 007 film. That can only be good news for Bond fans. However, I don't anticipate him getting back in the director's chair until we get the debut of Bond #7.

[Aris007]

While Campbell may not be the best director out there, at least he understands what modern audiences expect in a good Bond film.

Seconded! Campbell isn't an Oscar worthy director, but knows how to make a good Bond film. He doesn't have a certain recipe like Gilbert for instance with fancy locations over the top action scenes and so. He knows how to cut and adjust the film to the actor. If you see GE and CR are different films just because the actor is different, while Gilbert had the same story type going on Connery and Moore.

[Zorin Industries]

To give Campbell credit and criticism in equal measure... GOLDENEYE is really badly directed. Far too many shots are dull mid shots, it looks really pallid, the basic blocking is quite awkward and it is not as stylised or nuanced as it thinks it is.

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

[Harmsway]

There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

Sure. CASINO ROYALE could have been shaved down by 15 or 20 minutes quite easily. But, for the most part, it's a case of too much of a good thing, and the same critique could be made in regards to ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

[Loomis]

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

I guess the "point" about the parkour chase (apart from kickstarting the trail that 007 follows to the Bahamas) is to show that Bond is too much of a hothead (cue the famous bollocking from M about blunt instruments and the bigger picture). By the time this sequence is reprised in Miami, we see that Bond has learned to operate slightly more shrewdly.

But one could certainly argue that nothing is really "needed" until the train scene. CASINO ROYALE could have opened with the black-and-white PTS and then gone straight to Bond and Vesper on the train after the opening credits (obviously, a few extra lines of expositionary dialogue would have been required to explain who this fellow Le Chiffre is whom Bond is going to play cards against).

Then again, is the PTS really needed? The parkour sequence could have been a long, action-packed PTS in the Brosnan fashion, with the rest of the film "as is". There are plenty of ways that CASINO ROYALE could have been trimmed or rearranged.

Still, I love it as it is.

[Lachesis]

Imo GE and CR are very consistent in that stylistically they deliver a Bond vibe in spades (moreson than anyone since Peter Hunt imo), the action is exciting and coherent without feeling stale, the locations and actors have enough space to work their magic. However both these films also demonstrate a wild inconsistency in pacing, its a problem I find acute in CR the more times I view it so can only believe Campbell really needs someone to hold a tight reign as to the final running time.

[dodge]

To give Campbell credit and criticism in equal measure... GOLDENEYE is really badly directed. Far too many shots are dull mid shots, it looks really pallid, the basic blocking is quite awkward and it is not as stylised or nuanced as it thinks it is.

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

I disagree entirely but will limit my counter to the parkour chase seen. I was narratively needed because it was fresh--almost no one had even heard of parkour before then--and it was a welcome revelation to see a younger, fit Bond in full action mode...while actually mistaking mistakes and learning, shall we say, on the run. My only wish is that it had been filmed more straightforwardly so that we could see each component of the chase in its full glory.

[Colossus]

I rhink it's safe to say Campbell has taken the title of best action director since 1995 (took it from John McTiernan that same year) and i cant wait for Green Lantern.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Campbell isn't an Oscar worthy director, but knows how to make a good Bond film.

He may not, but I don't care if he gets or doesn't getsan Oscar. He's an EXCELLENT director in Bond and beyond (Zorro, Edge of Darkness), IMO. Both GoldenEye and Casino Royale kicked IMO. And when I saw the fight scene between Gibson and his daughter boyfriend in EoD, it reminded me a lot to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and I said: "Hell, yeah, Campbell is the best!"

[Judo chop]

the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport.

It was narratively needed because it was fresh--almost no one had even heard of parkour before then--and it was a welcome revelation to see a younger, fit Bond in full action mode...while actually mistaking mistakes and learning, shall we say, on the run.

Excellent point, Dodge! And one that’s too often forgotten, I think, among the heavier-hitting critics. I forget it myself sometimes.

Bond, if he’s going to stay on top, fresh, important, needs to be showing us something new at every turn. It’s a huge responsibility, and a sole one, since no other franchise bears it. The Brosnan era is going to look more and more stagnant the farther we distance from it, because it didn’t do this. (Bungee jump is about all it’s got.) We can’t sit down with our kids 30 years from now, throw an arm over their shoulder and proudly say, “No one had ever seen a CGI puppet surfing before this happened.”

The POINT of the Parkour chase, is that it is Parkour. It is neat and new and exciting, and so it is Bond.

Bring me some more of that good stuff, I say. If you can get it to make sense to the story or the character, fine. Great. If not, shove it in a PTS and that’s what the title credits are for.

[DaveBond21]

Personally, I'd love to see Martin Campbell direct Bond 23, with Daniel Craig playing 007.

I sometimes wish he'd directed Quantum of Solace.

[Professor Dent]

I would welcome Martin Campbell back as a director.

[Trident]

...Then again, is the PTS really needed? The parkour sequence could have been a long, action-packed PTS in the Brosnan fashion, with the rest of the film "as is". There are plenty of ways that CASINO ROYALE could have been trimmed or rearranged.

Still, I love it as it is.

Oh, that PTS is definitely needed. I'd argue it's practically half the film. And lending considerable gravitas to the second half (which indeed would start at the train). But take the PTS from away from CR and you lose much more than a few minutes of ingenius cinematography. The whole balance of that film revolves around that first mass centre.

[Zorin Industries]

To give Campbell credit and criticism in equal measure... GOLDENEYE is really badly directed. Far too many shots are dull mid shots, it looks really pallid, the basic blocking is quite awkward and it is not as stylised or nuanced as it thinks it is.

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

I disagree entirely but will limit my counter to the parkour chase seen. I was narratively needed because it was fresh--almost no one had even heard of parkour before then--and it was a welcome revelation to see a younger, fit Bond in full action mode...while actually mistaking mistakes and learning, shall we say, on the run. My only wish is that it had been filmed more straightforwardly so that we could see each component of the chase in its full glory.

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

[Safari Suit]

It's not always about getting from Point A to Point B ya know. Was the parachute jump in TSWLM needed narratively? Not really, and that's one of the defining moments of the series. Innovative stunts are a large part of the public appeal of the Bond movies.