The What if thread...M had been re-cast for CR 2006? page 60

1568101161

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Excellent discussion there about the music of James Bond. Thanks to Barry showing the way music has been so important to the films. What if scenario's with music might be good to highlight again in a future subject.

    Lets turn back to a director what if. I am not sure if this one came close to happening but lets speculate and have fun!

    Martin Campbell is responsible for introducing two new actors in the role of James Bond. Pierce Brosnan in GE and Daniel Craig in CR. Both films were critically well received and audiences loved both films. I know on these very boards there was chatter after CR that Campbell come back to direct Craig's second film. Martin came out and said that it takes too much energy and focus to do one Bond let alone 2 back to back. So we never got a follow up Campbell film to CR. But what if Campbell had returned to the director's chair? Lets take a different tack for this "what if".

    Lets say Campbell came back to direct a follow-up. What film would you have liked to see Campbell direct? Brosnan in a follow-up to GE (TND?) or Craig in a follow-up to CR (QOS)? What say you Mi6...what if Martin Campbell had returned to the directors chair to direct a follow-up to one of his introductions of a new Bond? Would the series been better for it? What actor would benefit more from his experienced hand directing a follow-up?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,047
    thedove wrote: »
    Excellent discussion there about the music of James Bond. Thanks to Barry showing the way music has been so important to the films. What if scenario's with music might be good to highlight again in a future subject.

    Lets turn back to a director what if. I am not sure if this one came close to happening but lets speculate and have fun!

    Martin Campbell is responsible for introducing two new actors in the role of James Bond. Pierce Brosnan in GE and Daniel Craig in CR. Both films were critically well received and audiences loved both films. I know on these very boards there was chatter after CR that Campbell come back to direct Craig's second film. Martin came out and said that it takes too much energy and focus to do one Bond let alone 2 back to back. So we never got a follow up Campbell film to CR. But what if Campbell had returned to the director's chair? Lets take a different tack for this "what if".

    Lets say Campbell came back to direct a follow-up. What film would you have liked to see Campbell direct? Brosnan in a follow-up to GE (TND?) or Craig in a follow-up to CR (QOS)? What say you Mi6...what if Martin Campbell had returned to the directors chair to direct a follow-up to one of his introductions of a new Bond? Would the series been better for it? What actor would benefit more from his experienced hand directing a follow-up?

    Using one of my suggestions! I think QOS would have been more connected with CR, but better edited. Maybe Stuart Baird would have come back.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I would say 'Bravo Mr Campbell,go for it ' ,,,
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 15,785
    I think Pierce's hair and overall look would be closer to GE had Campbell done TND. Also, he may have corrected that typo and kept the title as TNL. I can't picture him letting such a mistake slide. I could see him throwing a cursing fit over that error.
    Craig's 2nd outing may not be one that often gets ranked so low had Campbell returned. Honestly, several people I know think it's the series' worst film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think Pierce's hair and overall look would be closer to GE had Campbell done TND. Also, he may have corrected that typo and kept the title as TNL. I can't picture him letting such a mistake slide. I could see him throwing a cursing fit over that error.
    Craig's 2nd outing may not be one that often gets ranked so low had Campbell returned. Honestly, several people I know think it's the series' worst film.

    Unbelievable....

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited September 2019 Posts: 2,721
    TND could have been better with Campbell at the helm, I'd happily trade him in the director's chair over Spottiswoode. But on the other hand I've grown to really enjoy QoS' outlier status and much of that has to do with Forster's work so I'd prefer to keep him.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Put me in the camp of appreciating QOS for what it is. I like that Forster attempted to do something a bit different. I think the film is better for it.

    I would love to have seen Campbell directing a follow-up to GE. I think his steady hand and understanding of action for story would have vastly improved TND. I think he might have been able to stop TND from becoming the shoot'em up action movie it became. Pierce would have provided a more relaxed and multi leveled performance as well.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I prefer TND over GE, vastly. And I prefer QOS over CR, but not by much. I also think Campbell was a far better director in the 2000s than in the previous decade, so all in all-give him QOS rather than TND.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    If Campbell had done Bond 22 it would have turned out to be a VERY different film. My understanding is that the idea of making it a direct sequel was a decision made very late in the process, and the original work by P&W was thrown aside by Forster in favor of a new script by Haggis, which was barebones by the time he delivered it before the strike.

    His direction for TND might have been more inspired than Spottiswoode, but he'd still would have had to deal with the script issues going on.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Yes there is some symmetry to Brosnan's and Craig's second outings as Bond. TND script re-writes weren't related to a strike, or were they?

    I like the pace of both of his movies, though I did think CR could have trimmed down a bit between the torture and Venice.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    How would Martin Campbell handle writing duties with Crag. Unknown.
  • Posts: 17,241
    If choosing Campbell for TND or QOS, I'd definitely go for the former. Although I've never been a fan of the way the Craig era developed, I find QOS a little bit interesting in its own way. It's a very "tight", shorter film – and in that sense I find it works alright. Not my favourite Bond film by a long shot, but I prefer parts of it to some parts of CR. That's not to say Campbell couldn't have delivered a better film than Forster. Maybe it would have been preferable too have him directing QOS, given that QOS ended up a direct follow-up to CR.

    TND is a film I've always felt could have done with another director, and Campbell would have been the obvious choice, IMO. GE felt like a really good introduction to a 90's Bond, but it went wrong with TND, and I feel the Brosnan era suffered from it. Had Campbell done TND, the Brosnan era would have got some sort of consistency early on, and could potentially have developed into something even better than what we got.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    John Woo was offered GE, but I really wish he had done TND instead. It felt like the kind of movie trying to capture the Hong Kong actioners of that era, but it was sooooo lacking in style. Spottiswoode having Brosnan hold two guns in the climax like Chow Fat Yun didn’t seem all that cool the way it was executed.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,888
    Even with the script issues , exasperated by the writers strike, Campbell’s understanding of the character, as established in CR, and his solid sensibilities as a veteran director, comfortable with action and character development, Qos would have been significantly improved .
    Also, he would not have allowed the action to be edited as it was.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    I think between the two movies TND needed his hand a bit more. The stuff after Berlin is a bit rough and rather boring. I think Campbell would have been better able to get some tension and some interesting action out of that half of the movie. To me it was a wasted opportunity as up until Paris dies I think Brosnan was doing a great job. Then it seems he takes a back seat to Michelle and the guns and guns and guns that highlight the taking of the stealth ship.

    I rather like QOS the way it is. Yes it's quirky and a little different but I like the tight story and the way some of the scenes are handled. I especially liked the opera and the Quantum meeting.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Hard to say exactly what it would have been like. On both his films Campbell had a new actor and clean slate. I like both TND and QOS for the most part, but if I had to pick one for him I’d pick TND which has some room for improvement.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,888
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    What a shame...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    I’d say he’s a very serviceable Bond director at best, but he is an extremely reliable one, especially in regards to kicking off an actor’s tenure. Many regard his films as being the best of both Brosnan and Craig’s. Though I personally think SKYFALL is Craig’s best, I don’t blame anyone for thinking CR is.

    However, I think he somewhat lucked out on the material he got to work with. There’s a number of non-Bond films that didn’t exactly hit the highs of GE and CR, to put it mildly. I never finished GREEN LANTERN, but I had hopes Campbell would give it the same good kickstart as his Bonds, and that was quickly deflated.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    I’d say he’s a very serviceable Bond director at best, but he is an extremely reliable one, especially in regards to kicking off an actor’s tenure. Many regard his films as being the best of both Brosnan and Craig’s. Though I personally think SKYFALL is Craig’s best, I don’t blame anyone for thinking CR is.

    However, I think he somewhat lucked out on the material he got to work with. There’s a number of non-Bond films that didn’t exactly hit the highs of GE and CR, to put it mildly. I never finished GREEN LANTERN, but I had hopes Campbell would give it the same good kickstart as his Bonds, and that was quickly deflated.

    It's difficult for me because I find Skyfall to be objectively amazing, personally I find it a bit boring. Goldeneye is one of my favourite Bond films, but that's largely to do with the fact that it was my first when I was a kid, but IMO it holds up.

    I love Goldeneye and think it and Casino Royale are both incredible Bond films, therefore its hard to not associate Campbell with these successes. Had he directed follow ups I'm sure they also would have been amazing.

    Having said that, I also really love Tomorrow Never Dies and Quantum of Solace so, six of one, half dozen of another.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I'm not sure Campbell, as good as he has been for Bond, would have made much of a difference. Both TND and QOS had huge script problems, due to writers strikes, and got rewritten on the fly. I think those would have been two cases where actually allowing more than two years between films may have helped.

    I understand why EON wanted to strike while the iron was hot, though. The two preceding them where both huge hits.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    All things considered, TND turned out reasonably well considering the issues. It wasn't anything special, but they clearly just decided to go for a slightly Moore-ish film mixed with typical 90's action excess. Not a great film, but a watchable one.

    Unfortunately I can't say the same about the rushed, shaky and anemic mess that was QOS.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,377
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    Blasphemy. He reinvigorated the franchise twice.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited September 2019 Posts: 5,185
    In a perfect world, Campbell and Brosnan could have been Young/Connery 2.0.
    Goldeneye was such an incredible start, and TND broke that streak with it's blandness. The Brosnan era never found it's footing after that.

    Craig is doing fine on his own, and QoS only needed a better Editor.
    But TND needed a lot more than that, and Campbell would have delivered.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2019 Posts: 5,921
    Brolin was a serious contender at least up until the Connery Bond film was getting a lot of traction. Once that was clear, Cubby knew he needed Moore for OP no matter how much the price would be. There was no chance in hell Cubby was going to try to establish a new actor in the role while Connery's shadow was looming.

    But here's the thing that has always flummoxed me. For a brief period FYEO was at one point considered for the debut of a new actor. Ultimately, and to the relief of John Glen, it was decided Moore would come back and it may have been his final film. Then in OP they start seriously looking into new actors for the role, and the only reason Moore came back was so to give OP an edge against NSNA. You would assume then that OP would therefore become Moore's swan song. What better way to end your run then having your film beat Connery's at the box office?

    As far as I have looked into, I cannot see any indication that EON was considered hiring a new actor for AVTAK. Not a word of that, let alone a test screening. So that begs the question... Why did EON go straight to Moore for AVTAK instead of looking into a new actor? Was this their way of performing a symbolic victory lap over having beaten NSNA at the box office? Moore was always willing to come back providing Cubby paid up, and Cubby clearly did. It was only months later after AVTAK that Moore had made it clear he was done once and for all.

    IMO, AVTAK really should have been the debut of a new actor. I always imagined had Dalton been approached that we would have gotten this film but more in line with the tone of TLD. The comedic/camp elements would have been toned down considerably. Instead of having two old men fighting two equally old men in an underground facility "it's all wrapped up" we might have gotten a much more serious brawl out as we'd see in TLD with Necros.

    Forgive the tangent, but Moore coming back for AVTAK has always been one of those big "WHY WOULD EON DO THIS?" questions for me.

    AVTAK is a strange one. I don't love it but I do love the soundtrack. I like the casting and some of the harder-edged moments.

    But I don't know why--with this film--they tacked away from the short stories that served them well in FYEO and OP, and would again in TLD and LTK. For AVTAK, they easily could have given us a mashup of, for example, FAVTAK and THR.

    The film, and particularly the plot, just seem so tired and frankly on auto pilot, like, "Oh Moore's doing another one, let's crank it out."

    Even though TLD was written for Moore (and the initial scenes would have had some interesting resonance for his eighth film!), at least Eon tried harder with that script and went back to Fleming.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I'm not sure Campbell, as good as he has been for Bond, would have made much of a difference. Both TND and QOS had huge script problems, due to writers strikes, and got rewritten on the fly. I think those would have been two cases where actually allowing more than two years between films may have helped.

    I understand why EON wanted to strike while the iron was hot, though. The two preceding them where both huge hits.

    TND didn't have a writers strike. What happened was that there was already a script that would focus on Brittain handing Hong Kong to China, but then EON felt the story would be dated so they decided to start from scratch, and that carried over onto filming.
    echo wrote: »

    Even though TLD was written for Moore (and the initial scenes would have had some interesting resonance for his eighth film!), at least Eon tried harder with that script and went back to Fleming.

    The idea that TLD was written for Moore is a myth. In fact, Wilson's first pitch was that it would be about Bond's beginnings, but Cubby didn't believe in the concept and so it was scrapped (only to be revived for CR 20 years later). In fact, the film was written with no actor in mind as no one was cast yet, so Wilson basically wrote Bond with less emphasis on humor; a one size fits all kind of Bond for whoever got cast. Once Dalton was finally cast, they did what they could to try to tailor the script to Dalton's strengths.

    I think it's most apparent with the Pushkin interrogation scene. There's simply no way Moore would have played the scene the way Dalton did, let alone the bit where he aggressively rips off a woman's clothing just to distract a guard.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I'm not sure Campbell, as good as he has been for Bond, would have made much of a difference. Both TND and QOS had huge script problems, due to writers strikes, and got rewritten on the fly. I think those would have been two cases where actually allowing more than two years between films may have helped.

    I understand why EON wanted to strike while the iron was hot, though. The two preceding them where both huge hits.

    TND didn't have a writers strike. What happened was that there was already a script that would focus on Brittain handing Hong Kong to China, but then EON felt the story would be dated so they decided to start from scratch, and that carried over onto filming.
    echo wrote: »

    Even though TLD was written for Moore (and the initial scenes would have had some interesting resonance for his eighth film!), at least Eon tried harder with that script and went back to Fleming.

    The idea that TLD was written for Moore is a myth. In fact, Wilson's first pitch was that it would be about Bond's beginnings, but Cubby didn't believe in the concept and so it was scrapped (only to be revived for CR 20 years later). In fact, the film was written with no actor in mind as no one was cast yet, so Wilson basically wrote Bond with less emphasis on humor; a one size fits all kind of Bond for whoever got cast. Once Dalton was finally cast, they did what they could to try to tailor the script to Dalton's strengths.

    I think it's most apparent with the Pushkin interrogation scene. There's simply no way Moore would have played the scene the way Dalton did, let alone the bit where he aggressively rips off a woman's clothing just to distract a guard.

    I do think some of the scene's would have made sense with Moore, though. Bond seems incredibly world weary in the Prague scenes with Saunders and sniper Kara. That would have really struck a cord if Moore had played it. I think the myth that TLD had at least been partially written for Moore may have some truth. EON probably went back to the storyboard for the meat and potatoes of the plot once Dalton signed on.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited September 2019 Posts: 4,548
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    Blasphemy. He reinvigorated the franchise twice.

    He had his moments--the opening shot in GE, the pull back from Bond and Vesper in the shower in CR. But he's a workman-like director with little vision. As much as I love CR, too much of his work in that film looks like made-for-TV drama. In fact too much of it, (like the pan up, at the Skyfleet prototype in the hangar, with Arnold's bombastic score) is unintentioanlly hilarious, thirteen years later.

    @ 1:31. LOL. This is really bad, cringe-worthy filmmaking. It really is. Overall, though, screw it: it's Bond, and Craig is fanstastic. I just will punt on the idea that Campbell is "the man."

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,999
    Yeah I’m not a fan of that moment either. And I think he lets David Arnold get too bombastic at really inappropriate points like when Bond makes a run for the bank in Venice.

    Though as far as workman directors go I think he’s a step up from John Glen.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited September 2019 Posts: 2,721
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'm never going to understand the love Campbell gets on these boards. LOL

    Come on, we're talking about him taking over for Roger Spottiswoode, not Terence Young.

    Besides I'd say most Bond directors would be described by cinephiles as 'workmanlike directors'
Sign In or Register to comment.