Martin Campbell will never direct a Bond movie again

http://collider.com/martin-campbell-interview-green-lantern/91005/
Mainly Green Lantern but mentions Bond at the end.

Would you be willing to come back again and restart Bond in a few years after the latest financial problems?

Martin Campbell: No. I’ve had enough of Bond. [laughs] I’ve done it twice.

No surprise. He was already asked this question several times over the years since CR came out.

I was once disappointed by this, but I'm not sure anymore. I was somewhat disappointed on the direction of James Bond's characterization in Casino Royale and how it ventured away from its literary material. He knows how to sustain a nice shot and I understand that a lot of Bond's characterization stems from the script, but I think he should have said something to try veer away from the rookie-bond concept. I loved his work on Goldeneye though.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/campbell-slams-bond-bosses_1221946

Filmmaker Martin Campbell has criticised bosses of the Bond franchise by blasting Quantum Of Solace as "lousy".

Campbell directed Pierce Brosnan's debut outing as the suave superspy in 1995's GoldenEye before returning to helm Daniel Craig's debut in Casino Royale.

He was mooted as director for the follow-up, Quantum of Solace, in 2008, but the job eventually went to Marc Forster - and Campbell has now taken aim at the movie's producers, accusing them of ruining his good work on Casino Royale.

Campbell tells Total Film magazine, "The truth was it was a lousy film. Casino Royale really set the table for them and I felt they blew it completely. I'm sure Sam (Mendes) will do a good job (directing the next Bond movie). I just hope to God they don't mess it up..."

Well, to be honest, if anything was lousy in the last two films, it's his characterization of James Bond in CR. That's my biggest gripe with Casino Royale. I still like it, but at least Forster recreated Bond like the James Bond from the novels, though carried on that slight "rough around the edges" characterisation from Casino Royale, though in a more polished form, and NOT like a thug.

FieldsMan wrote:

Well, to be honest, if anything was lousy in the last two films, it's his characterization of James Bond in CR. That's my biggest gripe with Casino Royale. I still like it, but at least Forster recreated Bond like the James Bond from the novels, though carried on that slight "rough around the edges" characterisation from Casino Royale, though in a more polished form, and NOT like a thug.

How much of that thug-like characterization was shaped by Campbell is unclear, but I'd reckon is was more the result of Haggis' script. With hundsight, that element feels excessive and unnecessary now, but back in '06 pretty much everyone was raving about it. Thankfully, Campbell did give Casino Royale a glossier, more romantic feel just like with GoldenEye.

Regarding his comments on QOS, it's good to hear his honest opinion. I don't agree that it was a lousy film, but it definitely did not use to full advantage what CR had established.

Quote :

Campbell tells Total Film magazine, "The truth was it was a lousy film.
Casino Royale really set the table for them and I felt they blew it completely.
I'm sure Sam (Mendes) will do a good job (directing the next Bond movie). I
just hope to God they don't mess it up..."

I love this guy! Thank you Martin! Some welcome straight-talk from a bonafide Bond filmmaker on the abomination that was QoS.
Babs, Forster and Haggfish - hang your heads in shame :oops: :pale: You too MGW. "..they blew it completely" :affraid:

And although he does try to put an optimisitc face on his remarks, Campbell clearly believes that B23 could be just as bad as its predecessor," I just hope to God they don't mess it up..."
Ominous.

I don't recall Campbell offering up an opinion on QOS before, but maybe I'm wrong. It's certainly timed to coincide with his new movie, GREEN LANTERN. And even though I refer to the film as QUANTURD OF SOLACE all the time I don't think it's "lousy" by any means. If this is Campbell's true opinion of the film I respect him for having the guts to say it and not be deferential or politically correct, but it's not an opinion I share.

Nice to hear Campbell stating what most of us agree on - that EON messed up big time with QoS after all the hard work they put into CR,

I wonder if Babs and co. share this same view....

jet set willy wrote:

Nice to hear Campbell stating what most of us agree on - that EON messed up big time with QoS after all the hard work they put into CR,

I wonder if Babs and co. share this same view....

Their track record shows that they're receptive and reactionary when it comes to the common criticisms of their films.

GoldenEye was a critical and commercial success, so TND emulated much of its structure and action sequences (especially the PTS). After Serra's divisive score, a safer choice of composer was made for the next film.

TND turned out to have a weak script, was hastily produced, and was overloaded with machine-gun action, especially in the final act. Miccoli reacted by hiring a drama director for TWINE, as well as prioritizing plot and character.

TWINE turned out to be a mixed bag of soap opera relations between Bond, the villain and M, gimicky plot twists, bland action, bland score, and a plethora of innuendo courtesy of Purvis&Wade. Miccoli's reaction? Hire an energetic action-thriller director, bring in some sci-fi elements, put Bond in a North Korean prison for 14 months, and give Halle Berry equal billing to Bond.

Despite the healthy box office performance, DAD was the most excessive and obnoxious Bond outing, prompting Miccoli to fire Brosnan (who could've easily delivered a fifth hit), take a breather, bring back Campbell, and make one of the most controversial casting decisions in cinema history, not to mention reboot the series.

CR was of course the most praised Bond film in decades, earning Craig a BAFTA nomination, and much exceeding DAD's box office. Making a direct sequel seemed the logical thing to do. We all know how QOS turned out - darker and tighter, yet divisive, hastily-produced and under-scripted (just like most second films for each Bond after Connery).

I have no doubt EON drew plenty of conclusions from the common feedback to QOS. However, they've also a penchant for overcompensating for each previous film's weaknesses.

If anyone "blew" the good work done in CR, it was Campbell as much as anyone with that rotten final 20 minutes. Pot kettle black, as Forster didn't give us anything worse than the last 20 minutes of CR, IMO.

jet set willy wrote:

Nice to hear Campbell stating what most of us agree on - that EON messed up big time with QoS after all the hard work they put into CR,

I wonder if Babs and co. share this same view....

Only thing they share is the money :lol!:

GeneralGogol wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Nice to hear Campbell stating what most of us agree on - that EON messed up big time with QoS after all the hard work they put into CR,

I wonder if Babs and co. share this same view....

Their track record shows that they're receptive and reactionary when it comes to the common criticisms of their films.

GoldenEye was a critical and commercial success, so TND emulated much of its structure and action sequences (especially the PTS). After Serra's divisive score, a safer choice of composer was made for the next film.

TND turned out to have a weak script, was hastily produced, and was overloaded with machine-gun action, especially in the final act. Miccoli reacted by hiring a drama director for TWINE, as well as prioritizing plot and character.

TWINE turned out to be a mixed bag of soap opera relations between Bond, the villain and M, gimicky plot twists, bland action, bland score, and a plethora of innuendo courtesy of Purvis&Wade. Miccoli's reaction? Hire an energetic action-thriller director, bring in some sci-fi elements, put Bond in a North Korean prison for 14 months, and give Halle Berry equal billing to Bond.

Despite the healthy box office performance, DAD was the most excessive and obnoxious Bond outing, prompting Miccoli to fire Brosnan (who could've easily delivered a fifth hit), take a breather, bring back Campbell, and make one of the most controversial casting decisions in cinema history, not to mention reboot the series.

CR was of course the most praised Bond film in decades, earning Craig a BAFTA nomination, and much exceeding DAD's box office. Making a direct sequel seemed the logical thing to do. We all know how QOS turned out - darker and tighter, yet divisive, hastily-produced and under-scripted (just like most second films for each Bond after Connery).

I have no doubt EON drew plenty of conclusions from the common feedback to QOS. However, they've also a penchant for overcompensating for each previous film's weaknesses.

Good summary Gogol, so what should we expect for B23 if they overcompensate for QoS's weaknesses?

As General Gogol rightly points out, ever since GE, EON's been jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The attempt to address problems with the previous installment (sometimes these were plain misguided, like with Serra's score - or even worse, like hiring Arnold for more than one film) - and fall into a whole other set of them.

tiffanywint wrote:

Good summary Gogol, so what should we expect for B23 if they overcompensate for QoS's weaknesses?

It'll be the same as with the Brosnan era.... Somewhat disciplined first film with attempts at emotional and personal stuff, wall-to-wall action in the second film, so the third film will awkwardly try to marry the two together and end up with Craig's TWINE. Seriously, look at the scenario we have here: A fanbase baying for the return of all the old stuff (the formula, the gadgets, the saucy trumpets, the Bond theme, the OTT action, the sexual innuendo, etc), yet on the other hand they appoint Sam Mendes to direct it. Go figure. You stick all the stuff the fans want alongside everything the appointment of Mendes represents and you have a film whose drama will be completely undercut by all the gimmicky stuff, while the film's chances of functioning as just a dumb fun action flick will be undercut by awkwardly intercut attempts at emotional and serious drama, often laughably bad in the hands of the current writers. = TWINE.

Lazenby. wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Good summary Gogol, so what should we expect for B23 if they overcompensate for QoS's weaknesses?

It'll be the same as with the Brosnan era.... Somewhat disciplined first film with attempts at emotional and personal stuff, wall-to-wall action in the second film, so the third film will awkardly try to marry the two together and end up with Craig's TWINE. Seriously, look at the scenario we have here: A fanbase baying for the return of all the old stuff (the formula, the gadgets, the saucy trumpets, the Bond theme, the OTT action, the sexual innuendo, etc), yet on the other hand they appoint Sam Mendes to direct it. Go figure. You stick all the stuff the fans want alongside everything the appointment of Mendes represents and you have a film whose drama will be completely undercut by all the gimmicky stuff, while the film's chances of functioning as just a dumb fun action flick will be undercut by awkwardly intercut attempts at emotional and serious drama, often laughably bad in the hands of the current writers. = TWINE.

I fear that may be what we will get :)
TWINE and B23 might make a "good" double bill down the road.

tiffanywint wrote:

Good summary Gogol, so what should we expect for B23 if they overcompensate for QoS's weaknesses?

I think it's fair to predict that B23 will be a smoother, meatier film than QOS. I'd like to think the Bourne-style editing and mood will be gone - but who knows? With people like Mendes, Deakins and potentially Fiennes and Bardem attached, I can't imagine TWINE-level awkwardness and gimicks. The key is obviously the script - if it sucks, then the prestigious cast and crew can only do so much to make up for it.

GeneralGogol wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Good summary Gogol, so what should we expect for B23 if they overcompensate for QoS's weaknesses?

I think it's fair to predict that B23 will be a smoother, meatier film than QOS. I'd like to think the Bourne-style editing and mood will be gone - but who knows? With people like Mendes, Deakins and potentially Fiennes and Bardem attached, I can't imagine TWINE-level awkwardness and gimicks. The key is obviously the script - if it sucks, then the prestigious cast and crew can only do so much to make up for it.

I shall remain dutifully pessimistic, anticipating the worst, until shown otherwise.
Each of the last two films still give me night terrors.
Blue speedos, finger slobbering, Dench hectoring and that's just for starters. Shudder. Best to be prepared for the worst and maybe be surprised.

What they need to rediscover is what made Bond unique in the first place. Bond needs to be an innovator, not an imitator. Brosnan's Bond was a British Ethan Hunt and Craig's Bond is a British Jason Bourne.

Actually no matter how offensive or off-putting B23 might potentially be, it can't possibly be worse than QoS, which I still saw 6 times in theatre and bought both the blu-ray and soundtrack. As a fan of the GF, YOLT, DAF style of Bond, I absolutely cannot imagine a worse Bond film than QoS, yet it still got lots of my money so when B23 comes out, I reserve the right to bitch and moan, rant and rave, yet still spend spend spend. Not willing to protest with my wallet. :bom:

After seeing "Green Lantern," maybe he should stick with Bond.

Or retire.

I'm sorry to hear that MC won't ever do another Bond, if that's really true. He's had mixed fortunes as a director: from the heighs (Zorro1, CR) to the pits (Zorro2, Green Lantern). But many other fine directors have also had mixed bags. If Craig moves on, and if Eon decides on another new direction, pay Campbell whatever he asks for and let him do his brilliant thing.

dodgecunningham wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that MC won't ever do another Bond, if that's really true. He's had mixed fortunes as a director: from the heighs (Zorro1, CR) to the pits (Zorro2, Green Lantern). But many other fine directors have also had mixed bags. If Craig moves on, and if Eon decides on another new direction, pay Campbell whatever he asks for and let him do his brilliant thing.

Eh....lightning rarely strikes the same place twice, much less three times. Best to let Campbell move on to other projects. Not sure if anyone is really capable of pulling a hat trick in the Bond series or any other series for that matter.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Not sure if anyone is really capable of pulling a hat trick in the Bond series or any other series for that matter.

Young did it.