Bond Director Cambell Finally speaks on Solace

[ophir]

Originally Posted by bondfreak9879

Maybe that's changing?

But do you want it to?

[bondfreak9879]

I like thought-provoking movies. I don't like when the movies over and I can just go "Well, that was good!" or "Eh, not that great.". I like it when I have to really think about what I just saw, and to realize things afterwhile from the film. Call me crazy, but I like that!

[Gale Weathers]

Originally Posted by ophir

But do you want it to?

Nope. Bond movies need to stick to the formula. random opening, titles, M and Q, random bond girl gets killed, real bond girl gets f'd, villain has absurd plot twist, bond saves bond girl, bond kills villain. sex.

[pegsman]

I kind of agree with you, but at the same time they have to move with the times. And as Dylan says they are a-changing. Casino Royale would never have been the huge success that it was if it had been starring Brosnan and been directed by someone who just follows the rules.

[Gale Weathers]

and Brosnan isn't HALF as sexy as Craig is. Duh! One of my co-workers criticized Casino Royale saying that it was trying too hard to be a Jason Bourne movie. :s

[bondfreak9879]

The new direction the series has taken since Royale is EXACTLY what the series needed. They haven't done anything wrong yet, in my opinion. Besides that terrible Quantum theme... I love Jack White, but that was just... not good. It's slightly growing on me, but I don't think it ever truly will.

[Gale Weathers]

The Quantum them will never be as low on the list as View to A KILL. LOL

[ShakenNStirred]

Originally Posted by Gale Weathers

Nope. Bond movies need to stick to the formula. random opening, titles, M and Q, random bond girl gets killed, real bond girl gets f'd, villain has absurd plot twist, bond saves bond girl, bond kills villain. sex.

AMEN!

“I like thought-provoking movies. I don't like when the movies over and I can just go "Well, that was good!" or "Eh, not that great.". I like it when I have to really think about what I just saw, and to realize things afterwhile from the film. Call me crazy, but I like that!”-

I enjoy thought-provoking films too- but I don't necessarily want that from a Bond film. I want an engaging Bond film, but I don't want it to be an apparently deep, cynical film giving me an update on current affairs- as I say, we have numerous 24 hour news channels that fulfil that function. I think that there are a number of films that tick that box, e.g. Inception. Bond has its own function- to provide enjoyable, fairly formulaic escapism that, to an extent, reflects the times they are made in, and passes an enjoyable 2 hours for much of the family.

“The new direction the series has taken since Royale is EXACTLY what the series needed. They haven't done anything wrong yet, in my opinion. Besides that terrible Quantum theme... I love Jack White, but that was just... not good. It's slightly growing on me, but I don't think it ever truly will.”

I agree to some extent- CR was a step in the right direction, but QoS took aspects of CR too far or included aspects that just weren't part of what distinguishes the cinematic James Bond from other films. Although I do enjoy QoS, it is one of my least favourite Bond films, and judging from what critics, dedicated fans (Gale Weathers aside) and casual viewers have said; QoS seems to have been heading in the wrong direction on a number of fronts. Just take these highest-rated reviews on IMDb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/usercomments

I think they give a good indicator to public reception to QoS. I hope, and am fairly confident, that MGW & BB have taken into account these views and criticisms and will act on them regarding Bond 23. I don't envy them though- they have to take what made CR succeed yet extinguish what was criticised in QoS...

[bondfreak9879]

I think it all comes down to popular demand. More dedicated Bond fans, who have been with the series for so long, like us, have a harsher opinion on where the series is headed, considering the formula we know and care about deeply. I love the classic Bond films, the set formula for them all, the cookie cutter spy film. They're some of the best films made in the genre. That being said, popular demand now is far different from what it once was. Bond really did have to rely on the success of the Bourne films to find a new layout and blueprint for what the films had to be to meet the popular demand. The uber-technical Die Another Day formula never could have lasted to meet what the public, many are new to the Bond series, wanted to see. Give the people what they want! A Bond movie without a darkness to it couldn't thrive the way the Craig era will in this generation.

[JAMESHOT]

It looks like Cambell is not getting great reviews himself, his 300 million dollar comic caper of The Green Lantern is getting mixed reviews from the critics and some are calling it the 2011 summer flopbuster. But it is good to hear what a Bond director thinks of the other Bond films especially when the last one was a direct sequel to his film C.R. He said the film was a mess .

It's really was too bad he didn't direct Solace so we could of seen his vision of the film, Perhaps it might not of been a mess But he seems to think Mendes will get it back on track directing 23.

What really made the film a mess as Cambell says ? Here's the most popular ones I hear.

The troubled scrip ? there never was a solid script even when shooting began and most stuff was made up day to day even by Craig and some of the other actors and Marc Forster's buddy Joshua Zetumer was brought in for day to day polishes on it. All this after Purvis,Wade and Haggis had their pens on it.

Problems with pre production director Roger Michell cited unease with a muddled pre-production phase and the lack of a script he refuses to direct.

Marc Forster as Director ?
The Bourne style action editing and too many close ups ?
The theme song ?
The gunbarrel at the end of the movie ?
The subtitles used in some scenes ?
The so called homages from past Bond films ?

[Gale Weathers]

Martin Campbell has had his share of duds, thats for sure. I'll leave it at that....

I think one thing we can all agree on is Quantum of Solace is better than 90% of the other NON-Bond action movies out there. As far as Spy/Espionage stories go, there are few better (maybe a few Hitchcock movies, who I have always felt would've made an excellent Bond director) than 007.

Quantum may lie in that grey area, that area where Bond fans have varying spots on their ranking lists for it. Its not so horribly, dreadfully, Die Another Day-ey bad that we just automatically plop it at the bottom of the pile, and its not so unbelievably, amazingly, From Russia With Love-ey that we raise it to the top of our list. There are a handful of movies, Goldeneye, The World is Not Enough, Thunderball, The Man with the Golden Gun, that we have differing opinions on. They appear sporadically throughout Bond fans "list the Bond movies in order of your favorite" pages.

Quantum of Solace was, at the very least, decent. I will have to say the same, however, for Casino Royale. These two movies were damn enjoyable in the movie theater. I never find myself checking my watch during a viewing. These were two good movies. Two movies that were aimed at the general public, not just the baby boomers who grew up on Bond. I think they succeeded.

[bondfreak9879]

Originally Posted by Gale Weathers

Martin Campbell has had his share of duds, thats for sure. I'll leave it at that....

I think one thing we can all agree on is Quantum of Solace is better than 90% of the other NON-Bond action movies out there. As far as Spy/Espionage stories go, there are few better (maybe a few Hitchcock movies, who I have always felt would've made an excellent Bond director) than 007.

Quantum may lie in that grey area, that area where Bond fans have varying spots on their ranking lists for it. Its not so horribly, dreadfully, Die Another Day-ey bad that we just automatically plop it at the bottom of the pile, and its not so unbelievably, amazingly, From Russia With Love-ey that we raise it to the top of our list. There are a handful of movies, Goldeneye, The World is Not Enough, Thunderball, The Man with the Golden Gun, that we have differing opinions on. They appear sporadically throughout Bond fans "list the Bond movies in order of your favorite" pages.

Quantum of Solace was, at the very least, decent. I will have to say the same, however, for Casino Royale. These two movies were damn enjoyable in the movie theater. I never find myself checking my watch during a viewing. These were two good movies. Two movies that were aimed at the general public, not just the baby boomers who grew up on Bond. I think they succeeded.

Here here!

[JAMESHOT]

Originally Posted by Gale Weathers

Two movies that were aimed at the general public, not just the baby boomers who grew up on Bond. I think they succeeded.

I Agree Bond films have always been aimed at the general public not just the fans, But just because Cambell rates one a mess will not affect the overall public view on Bond films and us fans will always have our opinions no matter what he says anyway .Strange he is aiming his new one to the fans only somewhat ?

It's funny Cambell is also quoted as saying last week during the film's press day at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

"I've got too much to worry about than to worry about that. More importantly, obviously, you want the fans to like the movie -- because God help you if they don't." This movie, he insists, was not one made with professional critics in mind. This, Campbell says, is a movie for the fanboys and fangirls who have held the D.C. Comics character in such high regard for the past 71 years and hundreds of issues. As far as Campbell is concerned, they -- not the critics -- will serve as the ultimate judges of whether "Green Lantern" works as a comic-book movie this weekend as they head to the multiplex and vote with their wallets.

[Gale Weathers]

Originally Posted by JAMESHOT

I Agree Bond films have always been aimed at the general public not just the fans, But just because Cambell rates one a mess will not affect the overall public view on Bond films and us fans will always have our opinions no matter what he says anyway.

No one knows or cares who Martin Campbell is. Really, people won't go see his new movie just because HE made it. People will go because of the franchise.

But I wasn't talking about fans. I was talking about the people who went to the new Bond movie because "that was the thing to do". Now there is so much to go see, so much to go to, you have to figure out which movie you want to see based on special effects, or famous actors/actresses.. its a different time.

You have to make a Bond movie, or any franchise movie, for the fans. All you can do is hope for the best.

[pegsman]

That's not quite true, Gale. Director's have a lot of influence on the punters. People will go to a Spielberg or Lucas movie no matter what the critics say. And Campbell has become a name that people know. Other than that I have no ilusions about the future. Broccoli and Wilson make movies by popular demand, and if that means that Bond will be Chinese and travel by time machine in 20 years that's what they'll give us.