›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
edited November 2015 in Bond Movies Posts: 24,120
Introduction

We spend most of our time on this forum debating Bond film related topics. Sometimes, however, such debates tend to dry out fairly quickly and then we have another thread wasted on hardly any more than ten posts. This thread focuses on such short but nonetheless interesting debates. I will advance a new thesis every few days and our members can comment and debate all they want. As soon as a particular debate has gone quiet, I will bring forth the next thesis and so on.


Rules

I don’t need to create new rules so I’ll just remind our members of our forum’s policy and what we consider good conduct during discussions and debates. Anyone who crosses the line either too often or too far will be asked to withdraw from the thread and might, in fact, be served a general warning.

Please, boys and girls, let’s be nice to one another. ;-)

Thanks in advance!
«134567…190

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2011 Posts: 24,120
    Let's get started with our first discussion.

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 001</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Martin Campbell saved the Bond franchise twice</b></font>

    Over to you!
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,274
    And your arguments for the thesis?
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Well he did bring it back to the mainstream after first a finacial failure and then later a critial failure. Plus it's tough to establish a new actor as Bond. You're pretty much pulling double duty. I wouldn't say he "saved" the franchise but he did contribute in a huge way.
  • karatemanchan37karatemanchan37
    Posts: 584
    I disagree, because Campbell did not have a hand in crafting the story (which was what "saved" both films in the first place), nor did he had any influence in choosing Pierce or Daniel to be the next great Bond.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    karatemanchan37 wrote:
    I disagree, because Campbell did not have a hand in crafting the story (which was what "saved" both films in the first place), nor did he had any influence in choosing Pierce or Daniel to be the next great Bond.

    True but he must have had a hand in something otherwise they wouldn't have choosen him to reintroduce Bond in CR.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,120
    Zekidk wrote:
    And your arguments for the thesis?

    Uhm... I bring up a thesis, and not necessarily one I agree with myself. It's up to our members to provide us with arguments either pro or contra. I don't participate immediately myself, in order not influence anyone.

  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    Did he SAVE the Bond franchise twice? No but I believe he had a MAJOR part in in the success of both GE and CR.

    Goldeneye could be pointed to the great script they had from Cain, Feirstein, and France. Along with the combined efforts of Campbell, Wilson, and Babs, along with Brosnan being the Bond that the public wanted at the time.

    I put Casino Royale's success on many people as well. I think Campbell deserves more credit here than he does with GE, but he can't get the full credit. Wilson and Babs made the bold move to not hire Brosnan and reboot the series. They could of simply said "let's make Casino Royale and have Pierce do that as his last film." But they didn't, they made the bold choice to reboot. Campbell and Craig deserve much credit but it's the combined efforts of all of these fine people.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Yes I agree with alot of what has been said. In both cases (GE and CR) the Bond series had begun to falter, a few years had passed and slowly but surely the publicity machine kicked in and Bond was relaunched with a new actor, a new exciting direction and plenty of clever marketing. The fact Campbell directed both was good but not absolutely crucial. The people turned out to see Brosnan take on the role in 1995 (he was popular in the USA which was crucial), and equally they were fascinated to see if the much maligned Daniel Craig would be as bad as the nay sayers were..erm..saying. And of course he was quite the opposite, so all was well in the world of Bond.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Campbell did a good job introducing a new performer twice to the 007 franchise, but without a team-effort he wouldn't have been anywhere. I blame EON as well for the good stuff they brought here.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2011 Posts: 15,710
    I disagree - Campbell had minimal imput in GE and CR. The big decisions on the direction the series would go for GE and CR (ie. the casting of the new Bond) were all done by EON. Campbell was the perfect director for such films where EON was the decision maker for almost every decision, because Campbell is a good director, but he just directs what's on the script, without asking any questions and always finishes on schedule and with budget. So IMO I think Campbell was just the talented little puppy EON needed as director for GE and CR - a talented director who could make a good/great film, but who wouldn't ask any questions or give any disagreeing opinions on all the big decisions EON would take. Marc Forster had a much bigger involvement in QOS, and Lee Tamahori had a much bigger involvement in DAD. Campbell was just the perfect guy - talented, but just does what he is told.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I read that trying to make GE as good as it can be became an obsession for Campbell in 1995 so I'm not sure whether I agree that he simply "did what he told". He put his heart into that film (and CR of course).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2011 Posts: 15,710
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I read that trying to make GE as good as it can be became an obsession for Campbell in 1995 so I'm not sure whether I agree that he simply "did what he told". He put his heart into that film (and CR of course).

    IMO he wanted the films 'as good as it can be' on the directing side... Campbell is a very good director and action director, so he probably wanted the look of the film to be as perfect as possible. IMO, as I said, he was just there to do as he was told, EON called all the big shots, and he just tried to make the film look as good as it can be (Campbell loves finding the 'perfect shot', as Mendes does).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,120
    I somewhat agree with the thesis. Both times Campbell came on board, the stakes were high. After a rather impressive hiatus and with the introduction of a new actor, Campbell had to shoulder quite a bit of pressure. On the other hand, one could argue that the fresh, clean start was a gift for Campbell. Still, he made it happen and to raving reviews. Wouldn't another director have been able to make it happen? I don't think so. As many here have mentioned, EON pulls the strings and no doubt Cambell had to do as ordered. But that doesn't mean I disrespect the man for his work on Bond. In fact he's my favourite Bond director. But I must stress the Bond part. I've seen two of his non-Bond films and I must admit I was rather dissapointed.

    So, did he save the franchise? Depending on one's interpretation of "to save a franchise", I'd say yes.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I suppose this is a bit like saying Brosnan and Craig saved the series. Both great films but it seems unfair to pin their success on one person. Filmmaking is always a collaborative effort.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I somewhat agree with the thesis. Both times Campbell came on board, the stakes were high. After a rather impressive hiatus and with the introduction of a new actor, Campbell had to shoulder quite a bit of pressure. On the other hand, one could argue that the fresh, clean start was a gift for Campbell. Still, he made it happen and to raving reviews. Wouldn't another director have been able to make it happen? I don't think so. As many here have mentioned, EON pulls the strings and no doubt Cambell had to do as ordered. But that doesn't mean I disrespect the man for his work on Bond. In fact he's my favourite Bond director. But I must stress the Bond part. I've seen two of his non-Bond films and I must admit I was rather dissapointed.

    So, did he save the franchise? Depending on one's interpretation of "to save a franchise", I'd say yes.

    His career outside of Bond has been a mixed bag. The only REALLY good film I've seen of his was the first Zorro. Vertical Limit is so-so but it's noteable for having Natayla in the cast.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited December 2011 Posts: 1,310
    I can't say that he SAVED the Bond franchise singlehandedly. Naturally there are many other aspects of a movie's production apart from the director. However, I think we can see that he for sure knew what he was doing when it came to Bond. He did happen to helm the two most loved modern Bond films (and in my opinion, the two best).

    I can't say HE was the only reason for the two resurgences, but Martin Campbell was a driving force for sure.

    Once again Dimi, a fantastic thread. I'm looking forward to this one!!!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,710
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Wouldn't another director have been able to make it happen? I don't think so. As many here have mentioned, EON pulls the strings and no doubt Cambell had to do as ordered.

    A director like Tamahori or Forster would have challenged some of EON's decisions, he would give his opinion, ask questions... No, EON really needed a director like Campbell who doesn't ask questions, doesn't give his opinion and just do as he is told.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I can only go along with similar feelings in that Campbell gave us two damn fine Bond adventures in Goldeneye and Casino Royale, new Bonds for both parts, a fresh feeling to an extent, one man doesn't make a movie but he has done some fine work, I'm not too hot on his other work outside of the Bond series to be honest apart from that he was involved in the aforementioned Professionals series for a brief time
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I don't think Campbell saved the franchise. We were so starved after the long wait after LTK and Brosnan was such a popular choice for Bond. Even Ron Howard (my least favorite director) would have had a hit with GE
    As for CR, the actor the material and all was top notch quality. If Campbell was all that I wish he could have guided the rest of the Brosnan age. Maybe we would have had some decent films.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    edited December 2011 Posts: 1,497
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Wouldn't another director have been able to make it happen? I don't think so. As many here have mentioned, EON pulls the strings and no doubt Cambell had to do as ordered.

    A director like Tamahori or Forster would have challenged some of EON's decisions, he would give his opinion, ask questions... No, EON really needed a director like Campbell who doesn't ask questions, doesn't give his opinion and just do as he is told.

    I agree. Campbell didn't go too far "outside the box" the way Tamahori or Forster did. But you know what? Maybe that was for the better. I look at QOS as having a definite director's stamp on it, like Forster was trying to do something different with the franchise, but the results ended up a mixed bag. Sometimes it's best just to stick to the script.

    So did Campbell save the franchise twice over? In a minimal indirect way yes: as DC007 points out, he essentially does the job; no more, no less. I agree with what others have already said: EON, the writers, and the timing of when the films arrived, had more influence in "saving" the series. But Campbell was nonetheless important in that equation too, just not <i>that</i> important.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I think with Bond a director can't go too far "outside the box" as that risks alienating the public. Bond is afterall made for the public and isn't an independent series.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes". Campbell did save the franchise twice or at least he played a big part in saving it. True there are many other important figures involved but ultimately its Campbell at the helm. He is the captain so to speak. Imagine a lesser director filming the scenes between Brosnan and Sean Bean or the PTS of Royale. Those scenes were pretty much spot on and were each critical parts of GE and CR. Likewise, the action within each film. Compare the action in GE and CR to that of the subsequent films and one can easily see that Campbell's stands out by a mile.

    So...yes. He did save the franchise to an extent. A major part of each film's success can be attributed to him.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think with Bond a director can't go too far "outside the box" as that risks alienating the public. Bond is afterall made for the public and isn't an independent series.

    You wouldn't know it by QOS

    BAIN123 wrote:
    Compare the action in GE and CR to that of the subsequent films and one can easily see that Campbell's stands out by a mile.

    That has a lot to do with the second unit, namely Alexander Witt in CR (who you will be happy to know is returning for SF)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Yes I suppose you're right there but isn't it all supervised by the director?
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Yes I suppose you're right there but isn't it all supervised by the director?

    Supervision yes, but the workmanship of it lies on the second unit, as it's their specialty. OHMSS being a perfect example.

    But to be clear, I'm not making an argument against Martin Campbell. I actually think he does some standout work in GE as well as the PTS in CR that you mention. I'm more critiquing the other director's work in their attempts to make their films something else than a Bond film. I think, Forster, strayed too far, from the bare bones of the series. Yes, QOS looks great in a lot of places, and it's not a bad idea to try to freshen things up a bit in a 40+ year old series. But sometimes the combination of art-house film meets Bond doesn't always work. In Campbell's case, he does a very good serviceable job for Bond. I think he knows the character and understands the history of the series. So in a way you could say he was just the right director to 'save' the series. But I really think it was timing, a new actor, having a good source material, that made a bigger impact.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    I'm glad we all have a place to mass debate over Campbell.

    I sees it as quite simple. It was a matter of supply and demand.

    The public demanded/no begged for a Bond film. They had waited too long for one.

    And Campbell through Eon supplied it.

    The movies were going to be a success no matter what, even if they were two DAD's, they were going to be a financial success. Critically I think GE is a better Bond movie than CR, which is not a Bond movie.

    He was a director at the right time for a Bond film to be a success. I think Babs could have directed those movies and they would have still been a success.



  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I think Campbell did a great job of introducing two new James Bond's which too be fair is pretty admirable.

    If you also leave out inflation both films i believe were the most successfully box office wise in terms of takings. So i don't have any issues with what campbell did as i enjoyed both films
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited December 2011 Posts: 5,745
    RogueAgent wrote:
    I think Campbell did a great job of introducing two new James Bond's which too be fair is pretty admirable.

    If you also leave out inflation...

    If you leave out inflation you have no argument.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,120
    Interesting debate, gentlemen. I'll bring up a new topic soon.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,120
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 002</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>The cinematic James Bond cannot keep modernizing. They need to go back to Bond’s roots – explore the ‘50s and ‘60s once more.</b></font>

    Debate!
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 002</b></font>

    I thought it was a moot.

    Anyway No. Because Bond is timeless and can easily be tweaked to fit the modern threat of the time, For Example; In the early 1960's and '80's it was russia, but now its the Terrorist. to tie it into the last Thesis/Moot they said that in the 1990's but the producers & the director proved them wrong. If Bond has updated itself for 50 years, it can do it for at least 50 more.

Sign In or Register to comment.