189 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

Ummm...I dont think Pierce got a bad rap simply because none of his films were strict adaptions of Fleming material. Fleming stories though are timeless, he has a brilliant audacity for story-telling and the films based on his books stand out for that. I mean the whole cate adn mouse game in FRWL, come on a Russian clerk falling in love with a photo of a British spy. Or even the spy who is sent to bankrupt the brothel owner so he falls fowl of his own employers. Great stroies.
I will be the first to admit that when Fleming material is not readily availbe the producers do feel this awful need to be topical and interesting, sometimes strangely develving into the political. Which isn't what Bond is about. For instance the plot of QOS is interesting, but still dosent stack up to say CR, TLD, TB and GF.
Having said this Brosnan didn't get a bad rap becasue his material was not based on Fleming. He seems only now to be getting a bad rep since Craig came in and stole the show. Pierce was still great and in many regards very similar to Craig. He had a particular strong relationship with the women in his stories. He too was more introverted, while these moments are merely reflective in the Brosnan movies, they are more prominent in the Craig movies. For instance when Bond sits on the beech in GE and contemplates the idea of having to kill his best friend, or in TND, when after seeing Paris married he goes back to his hotel to get drunk on his own, and then there is the whole twisted (and brilliant) relationship he has with Electra. Though with Craig it is more prominent, with his Bond it is less what hes saying and more what he isn't. Like the whole concept in CR that Bond has a huge probelm with actually killing people, in lesser hands (say Brosnan for instance) these scenes would have passed by without incident but Daniel really makes them stand out. So in many regards Brosnan's stories dicated the traits of Daniel's.
The only bad rap Brosnan gets is simply becasue Craig was better, not that his stories lacked any Fleming elements, it was more the way the stories were told. Lets just be thankful Daniel Craig is still in the part.

[Jim]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

[Jump James]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Wow, he actually said that? Wonder how that will affect any future he has with EON?

[Dustin]

Don't think he was indeed hoping to come back, would have been an odd way to ask for another chance. Campbell passed on QOS when Eon wanted him, so I'd say he's done with Bond for good. No reason why he should hold back on his view of QOS any more.

[00 Brosnan]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Wow, he actually said that? Wonder how that will affect any future he has with EON?

Yes, EON wanted him for QoS. I wouldn't say he'll never direct another Bond film, but probably not anytime soon. He just doesn't seem interested. However even if those comments he made about QoS are true, EON would still welcome him back in a heartbeat. Both of his Bond films (GE and CR) are two of the best rated films in the series.

[iBond]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Wow, he actually said that? Wonder how that will affect any future he has with EON?

I don't think he's in any rush to do another Bond film.

[David Schofield]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Wow, he actually said that? Wonder how that will affect any future he has with EON?

Yes, EON wanted him for QoS. I wouldn't say he'll never direct another Bond film, but probably not anytime soon. He just doesn't seem interested. However even if those comments he made about QoS are true, EON would still welcome him back in a heartbeat. Both of his Bond films (GE and CR) are two of the best rated films in the series.

Indeed. Campbell's still in a very strong position.

Fact is GOLDENEYE got the franchise back on the rails. And by comparison with his CASINO ROYALE, QOS really is a pile of and a blown opportunity, as he rightly observes.

[Dustin]

You think he would return to Bond? Why ever? He's done anything he wanted with the character, what more could the wish for? If a character isn't interesting - and maybe a challenge - any more for a director it's only reasonable to go separate ways. I don't see Campbell returning and I don't see Eon asking him to.

[jaguar007]

I don't see Campbell returning and I don't see Eon asking him to.

Apparently he had been asked to do every Bond film after GE (I don't know if he was ever approached for Bond 23)

[iBond]

I mean, the man directed two great films. Who knows...maybe when they get the Bond after Craig...he will direct their debut just as he did with Brosnan and Craig. Who knows what the future will bring...

[jaguar007]

I mean, the man directed two great films. Who knows...maybe when they get the Bond after Craig...he will direct their debut just as he did with Brosnan and Craig. Who knows what the future will bring...

If Craig does 2 more films (2012 and 2014) and they stay on schedule they are looking at 2016 to introduce a new Bond. Campbell will be 76 at that point.

[Capsule in Space]

The one thing about Campbell that sticks out is that his two films are the ones that have M emasculating Bond the most. I am not sure whether that is a coincidence, or not. If Campbell views Bond as a character that needs to be cut down to size then I would be against having him direct another Bond feature.

[00 Brosnan]

The one thing about Campbell that sticks out is that his two films are the ones that have M emasculating Bond the most. I am not sure whether that is a coincidence, or not. If Campbell views Bond as a character that needs to be cut down to size then I would be against having him direct another Bond feature.

I think that has more to do with both films being "debuts" and I don't necessarily mean for Brosnan and Craig.

In GoldenEye, Judi Dench was playing a new M and in Casino Royale Bond is a young, arrogant, & newly promoted agent. In both situations it is easy to see why M would feel the need to establish herself as Bond's superior and put him in his place.

[Miles Miservy]

I don't feel Pierce was robbed of any Fleming elements. Die Another Day has many connections to the Moonraker novel, arguably more than the 1979 film does.

Die Another Day was a remake of Diamonds Are Forever in the same spirit that The Spy Who Loved Me was a remake of You Only Live Twice or For Your Eyes Only was a remake of From Russia w/Love. Along that vein, I can detect similarities between A View to a Kill and Goldfinger (replace gold w/microchips & the plots seem identical). The more things change, and so forth...

Both Denise Richards and Halle Barry had some very bad dialogue (actually I think Halle had worse dialogue) but I think Barry was better at delivering the lines. At least she came across like she knew it was crap but was going to have fun with it. For all the open space in her little head, Denise came across like she was trying to play an important and serious role, and she just does not have the talent to play an important and serious role.

Also part of my problem is the CHristmas Jones character at all. She seems like an afterthought just so TWINE would not have a downbeat ending. You can take her out of every scene and the movie would play exactly the same with the exception of the romantic "fireworks" ending.

Watching Denise Richards struggle to convey the phrase "Instant Catastrophic Meltdown..." is just as painful to endure Roger Moore's explanation of Tanya Roberts' outfit as the fault of Womens' Lib taking over the teamsters.

The one thing about Campbell that sticks out is that his two films are the ones that have M emasculating Bond the most. I am not sure whether that is a coincidence, or not. If Campbell views Bond as a character that needs to be cut down to size then I would be against having him direct another Bond feature.

Martin Campbell is a much better director than Lee Tamahori. I felt this guy was way out of his depth. He relied too heavily on CGI, thereby cheapening the movie. I also felt that the technique of speeding up the film to move the scene along was inappropriate and made some parts of the film look like an MTV video.

[iBond]

Pierce Brosnan played Bond the way he thought it should be. He brought his own style to the role and it ended up being like a little bit of his own, mixed with Sean and Roger. I think it played out very well in the end. His seriousness in Die Another Day, especially in the beginning of the film, really sold it for me...for the most part anyway.

[Capsule in Space]

Martin Campbell is a much better director than Lee Tamahori. I felt this guy was way out of his depth. He relied too heavily on CGI, thereby cheapening the movie. I also felt that the technique of speeding up the film to move the scene along was inappropriate and made some parts of the film look like an MTV video.

I agree with you. Lee Tamahori is second to last on my list of favorite Bond film directors. Forster was the worst in my opinion.

I like the premise of Die Another Day, and I like some of the characters, but I don't like how the film was executed.

I agree with iBond that Pierce Brosnan's performance is one of the film's highlights.

[iBond]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Well, at least he's not afraid to be honest and what does he have to lose?

Edited by iBond, 11 June 2011 - 06:35 AM.

[Jim]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Well, at least he's not afraid to be honest and what does he have to lose?

The opportunuity to do another one.

[iBond]

Well, I'm sure if they wanted to they would be able to pull him into doing it. That is...if he has any interest.

[SecretAgentFan]

And after EDGE OF DARKNESS and GREEN LANTERN he might want to do it again - but isn´t he already deep in his 70´s?

[Napoleon Solo]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Wow, he actually said that? Wonder how that will affect any future he has with EON?

Campbell is 70 and has done two Bond films with Eon. Eon hasn't done three movies the past 10 years. Campbell: 1) may figure he's done with Bond 2) may figure he doesn't have much of a future with any one production company.

[iBond]

I think Cambell has had his run with the Bond movies. If anything, they should have brought him back with this new and upcoming one. I wonder how well Green Lantern is going to do.

[00 Brosnan]

There is no doubt that if Campbell agreed to do another Bond film any time soon EON would be all over him.

[David Schofield]

There is no doubt that if Campbell agreed to do another Bond film any time soon EON would be all over him.

Quite agree.

Particularly if Mendes upcoming take on Bond is as, erm, "unusual" and devisive as Forster's was...

[Dustin]

Doubt both assumptions. There is no indication Eon would like to hurry back to playing it safe. They had plenty of opportunities to do so. Hiring Mendes to me suggests they don't consider the meaning of traditionalism for their series in the same way part of the fanbase does. I don't exactly see why this should change. Campbell delivered two fine entries for their property, but there are lots of other directions they can go to from 23 onwards. No reason to turn back to him.

Campbell also has most likely little reason to come back to Bond. What is there he hasn't been able to do in his two films? What could tempt him and how could he top his previous entries? Truth is, there is little left that Campbell would be the right man to direct in terms of artistic or cinematic value. Campbell's professional future lies elsewhere and I suppose nobody knows that better than Campbell himself.

[FLEMINGFAN]

Interesting retrospective piece on GoldenEye in the minty fresh Total Film for this month, concluding with Mr Campbell's observation that Quantum of Solace was "a lousy film" and "they blew it completely".

Lewis Gilbert stated, more or less, the same opinion about QUANTUM several times, once in the presence of Michael Wilson. Priceless!

[Mr. Blofeld]

Lewis Gilbert directed arguably two of the worst films in the series, with TSWLM being quite a happy fluke, in my opinion; he's got no room to complain when he's the same bloke who put the "double-taking pigeon" into practice...

[The Shark]

Lewis Gilbert directed arguably two of the worst films in the series, with TSWLM being quite a happy fluke...

Nah, MOONRAKER rules.

[Capsule in Space]

I like Moonraker. At the same time I admit that it is an odd Bond outing with going to outer space and all of the hijinks with Jaws, etc.

However, at least it has a coherent beginning, middle, and end. It also takes time to establish characters, and it is beautifully filmed. Forster's Quantum of Solace doesn't have any one of those qualities.

Lewis Gilbert is a proven director with decades of experience. He brought out perhaps the best performance of Roger Moore's career (The Spy Who Loved Me), and perhaps the best performance of Michael Caine's career (in either Alfie or Educating Rita).

Therefore, I take stock in what Lewis Gilbert says, and I bet Michael Wilson does too.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Gilbert was much better with smaller films, or at least smaller, interpersonal scenes (the Bond-Anya hotel room revelation, for instance); when it was time for the big, BIG moments of action, etc., he was completely dwarfed by it and just... well, got lost in it.

Action has to go someplace, not just be mindless "action"; that's the sins YOLT and MR commit -- at least TSWLM's big armada scenes are purposefully going someplace (i.e., to gain control of the Liparus and get the hell out of there), and it's nicely situated towards the middle-end of the picture, but YOLT and MR? They just completely lose the thread of the whole thing.