148 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

What I suspect people feel uncomfortable with is Campbell's timing. QOS is now three years ago. Ample time for the director Campbell to make up his mind about it and voice his opinion

Well, as you say, had Campbell commented on QOS before this, we probably would have heard about it.

And while it has been 3 years, had he made the comments when the film had just been released - people would be even more upset because it might have an effect on the box office.

But I will once again call in to question anyone's belief that Campbell put down QOS to be "hip" or because he thought it would generate more ticket sales for Green Lantern.

Please show me someone, anyone on this planet, that makes a ticket purchase decision based on what the film's director said about another film from 3 years ago.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Thanks Charlie! Pity your book is far of my range, but yes, you're right!
Does any Campbell hater here dare to criticize Benson or Amis for bashing Gardner?

Hell, CAMPBELL WAS BLOODY RIGHT! And I think he represented the toughts of the classic and old generation of Bond fans (Graham Rye, Paul Scrabo, etc.). The action in Casino Royale and GoldenEye had a sense. Here, Bond goes in and out kicking just for revenge - and to help the Bolivians to have enough water!

...well, that was incoherent.

Certainly much more incoherent than QOS ever was... and what's your beef with Bolivia? You're an Argentinian; you're not competing with them for water, I hope?

How many times must I tell it: Bond is not out for revenge in this flick; that's what the people against him in the film are framing it as. If you say he's out for revenge, Nico, you are actively siding with Quantum, and, therefore, hate James Bond.

Q.E.D.

[Dustin]

Thanks Charlie! Pity your book is far of my range, but yes, you're right!
Does any Campbell hater here dare to criticize Benson or Amis for bashing Gardner?

Hell, CAMPBELL WAS BLOODY RIGHT! And I think he represented the toughts of the classic and old generation of Bond fans (Graham Rye, Paul Scrabo, etc.). The action in Casino Royale and GoldenEye had a sense. Here, Bond goes in and out kicking just for revenge - and to help the Bolivians to have enough water!

Well, one supposes at least the Bolivians have a vastly different opinion about the value of that action, won't they?

And 'Campbell was bloody right' is about as right or wrong as 'Campbell is a bloody traitor, like all the bloody Campbells since the days of the Bruce'. It's entirely beside the point as it is his opinion - and yours - and opinion can't be right or wrong as such, it's entirely subjective and personal.

As far Benson and Amis are concerned I think I've read a fair amount of bashing of those two around here on the way they treated Gardner at the time. Amis's critique at least was substantial in the way he perceived his Bond and rejected Gardner's version and he made his point quite elaborately, if perhaps too much from the angry-old-man point of view. Benson admitted he was too harsh in his judgement and only realized how hard a task the continuations are, once he sat in front of his own.

As far as I am aware none of the two bashed Gardner in order to promote one of their own works.

[Dustin]

What I suspect people feel uncomfortable with is Campbell's timing. QOS is now three years ago. Ample time for the director Campbell to make up his mind about it and voice his opinion

Well, as you say, had Campbell commented on QOS before this, we probably would have heard about it.

And while it has been 3 years, had he made the comments when the film had just been released - people would be even more upset because it might have an effect on the box office.

But I will once again call in to question anyone's belief that Campbell put down QOS to be "hip" or because he thought it would generate more ticket sales for Green Lantern.

Please show me someone, anyone on this planet, that makes a ticket purchase decision based on what the film's director said about another film from 3 years ago.

No, I don't think there's a direct connection there. But Campbell's comments are definitely phrased to get him more attention than he'd have gotten had he just said something like "No, I didn't really like QOS, would have made a different film, not that well shot and directed..." or some such. He must have made up his mind about the film a long time ago but chose to get worked up over it right now, and in a way that was guaranteed to make at least some minor headlines for two and a half days, the Eon connection and bashing of the previous film being the main focus of attention there. Being a seasoned hand and knowing which side of the bread the butter is supposed to be there is no conclusion than to assume he knew exactly what he said and that he was unlikely to have to face up to anybody from Eon ever again. Well, there is no such thing as bad publicity and Campbell surely knows this too. It's not so much about a definite ticket purchase rather than remaining in the public perception for as long as possible.

[doublenoughtspy]

As far as I am aware none of the two bashed Gardner in order to promote one of their own works.

So you think Campbell made his comments about QOS not because it was his honest opinion, but because he thought it would help promote Green Lantern?

If you re-read the interview, you'll see that he doesn't bring up QOS, the interviewer does.

He calls QOS lousy, then heaps praise on Mendes and expresses confidence the next one will be better.

The interviewer doesn't let it go, and digs and wants specifics about what he doesn't like about QOS.

If someone can find me a published interview with Campbell where he praises QOS, then I will concede that his reversal would be an attempt to help promote Green Lantern.

Until that happens, I'll not assign a mercenary motive for him stating his opinion.

And I will happily remind people that directors are usually only interviewed when they are promoting a new film. I wish it weren't the case.

[Skudor]

QOS is no better or worse than most other Bond films. It is, however, refreshingly different.

[Dustin]

As far as I am aware none of the two bashed Gardner in order to promote one of their own works.

So you think Campbell made his comments about QOS not because it was his honest opinion, but because he thought it would help promote Green Lantern?

Not at all, I feel sure he's not making that up. He merely had his reasons to keep mum about it for a given time.

If you re-read the interview, you'll see that he doesn't bring up QOS, the interviewer does.

He calls QOS lousy, then heaps praise on Mendes and expresses confidence the next one will be better.

The interviewer doesn't let it go, and digs and wants specifics about what he doesn't like about QOS.

If someone can find me a published interview with Campbell where he praises QOS, then I will concede that his reversal would be an attempt to help promote Green Lantern.

Until that happens, I'll not assign a mercenary motive for him stating his opinion.

And I will happily remind people that directors are usually only interviewed when they are promoting a new film. I wish it weren't the case.

Well, as far as I'm aware every interview is prepared by a general overview of where the journey goes, which questions to avoid, which themes to tackle. There is no chance Campbell was surprised he was asked about QOS. And there is no chance he was tricked into speaking his mind about it.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

How many times must I tell it: Bond is not out for revenge in this flick; that's what the people against him in the film are framing it as. If you say he's out for revenge, Nico, you are actively siding with Quantum, and, therefore, hate James Bond.

Of course he's not out of revenge. He loves the Bolivians so much that M assigned him to avoid Greene sucking the place out!
Oh, and I have nothing against Bolivia. They're better workers than us Argentineans! And yes, I'm with Quantum because the evil James Bond didn't care for us and cares for our neighbour country. I'm jealous!

But leaving the irony aside, I prefer the world's greatest secret agent to fight terrorism and arms dealers rather than an ecologist trying to suck water out of Bolivia.

@Dustin, Amis and Benson's comments were, as Campbell's, much after the book was released.

[SecretAgentFan]

Excellent point Nicolas. It's an accepted fact that continuation authors have put down other continuation author's work (and in research for my OHMSS book I came across an interview where Fleming denigrated Amis' work, the details of which I provide in the first chapter).

But Martin Campbell does the same thing and suddenly people want to pull out their daggers.

I disagree, doublenoughtspy. I don´t see why it´s okay for Campbell to trash another film - just because continuation authors have done so.

And so what if Green Lantern isn't great? Does that mean Campbell's opinion about QOS, and it is an opinion for Christ's sake, should change? That makes no sense.

Also, I respect Campbell´s or anyone´s opinion about QOS. But the way he uttered that opinion IMO was just bad form. If he were a great director who has lots of masterpieces under his belt, I would not have posted in this thread. But Campbell is IMO hit and miss, and GREEN LANTERN proves that. Granted, he did not say that GREEN LANTERN is better than QOS - but at least Campbell gave the impression that he did the great CR and Forster just did a lousy film. That is arrogant and pointless - but IMO he wanted to remind the press that he did a great film (even if GREEN LANTERN wasn´t of high quality). He could have said that he himself did not like QOS or, even better, he could have pointed out exactly what he did not like. But just dismissing it as "lousy" is not enough for me but the equivalent of someone saying "sucks".

SecretAgentFan, I'm not sure why you use the word colleague. Campbell and Forster don't collaborate. They compete.

I´m a screenwriter and I do consider other writers my colleagues. Of course, we compete - but we all are in the same profession. And the directors I have worked with also think of themselves as colleagues.

[doublenoughtspy]

I disagree, doublenoughtspy. I don´t see why it´s okay for Campbell to trash another film - just because continuation authors have done so.

Film criticism is allowed, is it not? Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I would rather have his honest opinion, in words he chose, rather than some corporate-speak designed to offend no one.

Also, I respect Campbell´s or anyone´s opinion about QOS. But the way he uttered that opinion IMO was just bad form. If he were a great director who has lots of masterpieces under his belt, I would not have posted in this thread. But Campbell is IMO hit and miss, and GREEN LANTERN proves that. Granted, he did not say that GREEN LANTERN is better than QOS - but at least Campbell gave the impression that he did the great CR and Forster just did a lousy film. That is arrogant and pointless - but IMO he wanted to remind the press that he did a great film (even if GREEN LANTERN wasn´t of high quality). He could have said that he himself did not like QOS or, even better, he could have pointed out exactly what he did not like. But just dismissing it as "lousy" is not enough for me but the equivalent of someone saying "sucks".

It was a press junket for Green Lantern, not a Bond retrospective.

I think we are falling victim to some political correctness here. Why would he have to qualify his statements that "he himself did not like QOS"? He called it lousy, does he have to qualify that it is his opinion? Would it have been better had he said "In my opinion, which I hope will not offend anyone, and I apologize in advance if it does, the film was not to my personal liking."

Campbell's track record is completely irrelevant. Whether he directed Citizen Kane or was the 3rd assistant janitor on a pørn film - he is allowed to state an opinion. As you point out, at no time did he say "QOS is nowhere near as good as Green Lantern", nor did he say "The film didn't live up to my masterpieces."

Now you say that his words imply that, but I certainly don't see that. So once again, it boils down to opinion.

Listen, I completely understand that he could have been more diplomatic. Forster probably isn't pleased. But as a film historian, when I interview people, I want an honest answer, not one designed to prevent people's feelings from being hurt.

[Dustin]

If anything Campbell's opinion about QOS is probably the most informed one we are going to ever get. He's a director of not one but two veritable entries in the franchise and he certainly knows how the inner works of that mechanism - the great and unique Bond series by the great and unique Eon - does function on every single one of its various levels.

And he's surely to be applauded for the unwavering steadfastness with which he speaks his mind. It cost him years to bring up the courage and face our furious outrage.

Well, life is lived forwards. And understood backwards.

Edited by Dustin, 30 June 2011 - 07:09 PM.

[Jim]

Man has a view and he expressed it shock.

It may be expressed in a slightly uncouth manner but were we expecting substantial erudition?

I don't happen to agree with his view - or he doesn't happen to agree with mine. Stuff it, we'll never meet.

[Publius]

But leaving the irony aside, I prefer the world's greatest secret agent to fight terrorism and arms dealers rather than an ecologist trying to suck water out of Bolivia.

If it was oil out of Brazil, would you be happier? Ultimately it's the same thing, a SPECTRE-like international crime syndicate is taking control of a country's supply of a surprisingly scarce* natural resource to make millions that they will then reinvest in their malicious global enterprises (which include terrorism and arms dealing). Fundamentally it's a lot smarter than the plots to hold the UK and US hostage that you see in other Bond films, and I think the shadowy nature of their operation makes them more frightening.



*Actually, there is plenty of water on the planet for everybody (just as there is enough food), but the issue is lack of access. That said, water is far more important to our survival than oil, and that lack of access affects billions directly, to say nothing of how those dire economic situations complicate local politics, which in turn complicates the foreign policies of the world's major powers. You got a taste of all that in QOS, but as always fiction pales in comparison to reality.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Why don't they just call the goddamn 911 instead of getting the British Secret Service in that?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Why don't they just call the goddamn 911 instead of getting the British Secret Service in that?

Because, if you'd paid attention to the plot, you'd know that everybody except Bond was either in cahoots with Quantum or being manipulated by those in cahoots with Quantum (M, Leiter, etc.); "the goddamn 911", as you so eloquently put it, would've been patently useless in this type of situation.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Oh, dear Blofeld. The thing is I felt si dizzy because of that Parkinson sufferer cameramen that I really couldnt pay that much attention to the plot.

Just wondering why don't we get Bond in my country to deal with the corrupt government we have.
Oh, we have elections in some months! BOND FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Hey, I was just thinking to remove all action forces in the world (SWAT, etc), and call Bond to solve all the trouble in every country.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Hmmmmm, looks like I'm running rhetorical rings around you!

What a desperate farce; the movie trusts you to pay attention, use your intellect, and you refuse to use it, resorting only to bad political slogans?

[coco1997]

What a desperate farce; the movie trusts you to pay attention, use your intellect, and you refuse to use it, resorting only to bad political slogans?

And here we go again...

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I didn't clearily understand the whole thing until I read some reviews after watching the film - like many friends (Bond fans or not) of mine.

I didn't understand, for instance, Yusef was seducing female agents by giving them the famous necklace in order to corrupt them.

Being the film directed by Campbell, I'm sure nobody would have wondered about so much things in the film (Mathis being innocent, Bond going from Breganz to Bolivia without a penny, etc.)

[Righty007]

What a desperate farce; the movie trusts you to pay attention, use your intellect, and you refuse to use it, resorting only to bad political slogans?

Why do you continually attack people with these condescending and arrogant remarks? <--- See I can do the eye rolling face too!

For 8 years now, I've enjoyed coming to the CommanderBond.net Forums during my free time, to wind down after a long day at work and/or school by discussing an entertaining subject - James Bond. But the carefree spirit of the forums is severely diminished for me (and I'm sure many others feel the same way) when I come across these nasty posts written by a know-it-all kid that thinks he's better than everyone else.

It was cute the first couple times: Aw, that post was kinda rude but he's just a kid. He'll grow out of it.

Fast-forward 4 years: Wow, he's still doing it and it's getting really obnoxious and offensive.

I once wrote a 10+ page research paper on cyberstalking and cyberbullying (this occurs only between minors) and I can tell you that a lot of your behavior qualifies under the cyberstalking category (for instance, you're like Nicolas Suszczyk's shadow around these forums and it's really creepy; I highly doubt he likes it). While I'm personally not threatened by you, I'm sure if you harass the right person they'll have no problem filing a report with the ICCC.

KNOCK IT OFF.

Thanks, mon ami. <--- See I can do the winky face too!

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Err, no I don't like it Chris, but I got used to it.
I've got a degree in Bond teaching to schoolboys in this forum.

I've even learnt some things from them

[blueman]

Clean-up on aisle seven, err.

[Mr. Blofeld]

So we're now supposed to take the word of an ivory-towered, 20 year old, prep-school elite, born in Road Island with a silver spoon in his mouth

Ivory-towered? Silver-spooned? I'm not George Bush, Grav!

I'll back down, but I'm sick of being incoherently yelled at and piled upon; you think I'm cyberstalking, Chris? Who the hell has been messing with my rep on posts completely unrelated to this mess? I can think of only three people...

[Righty007]

I'll back down, but I'm sick of being incoherently yelled at and piled upon; you think I'm cyberstalking, Chris? Who the hell has been messing with my rep on posts completely unrelated to this mess? I can think of only three people...

(1) Incoherently yelled at? Our yelling (can one even yell via written text?) has been very coherent.

(2) Piled upon? It does not qualify as being "ganged up on" when you attack multiple people and they react around the same time. That's just you being a dick to multiple people and having to deal with multiple pissed off people at the same time.

(3) Claiming that somebody is cyberstalking you is a serious charge so you should have evidence/proof before labeling people. Re-read my post again because I said a lot of your behavior qualifies as cyberstalking; I never outright charged you with the offense.

(4) Perhaps the same person that has been giving me -1s is the same person that has been attacking your reputation score? Just a thought.

[singleentendre]

QoS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Green Lantern, js

[DR76]

So we're now supposed to take the word of an ivory-towered, 20 year old, prep-school elite, born in Road Island with a silver spoon in his mouth.

"Road Island"? Exactly where is that?

[Mr. Blofeld]

"Road Island"? Exactly where is that?

He's making fun of my home state, Rhode Island; don't worry, I can take what any bully dishes.

[coco1997]

So we're now supposed to take the word of an ivory-towered, 20 year old, prep-school elite, born in Road Island with a silver spoon in his mouth.

"Road Island"? Exactly where is that?

Gravity already confessed it was s joke.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sure... and you're posting from the fine state of Georgia, home of numerous monuments to bastards who betrayed their country!

See, I can take it and dish it; now, let's end it.

[Jim]

This still?

Do calm down everyone.