The one thing that troubles me about CR...

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » The one thing that troubles me about CR...

The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256808]

Do, 27 April 2006 23:00

Paul Clarke

....is the director, Martin Campbell. Early reports of MI:III are that it
is easily the best in the series, and if so, the producers of that
series did a smart move by hiring J.J. Abrams to direct. EON are taking
some risky moves with their reboot and hiring of Daniel Craig, moves
that I applaud, by the way, but who do we get as director to shepherd in
this bold new 007 movie? A pretty average filmmaker, all due respect to
Mr. Campbell. It seems that almost everything about CR promises to be
bold, except the uninspiring choice of director. Are EON afraid of
hiring a more top-notch director?

It's the one troubling spot for me in my ongoing optimism for CR...

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as throwing the naysayers a bone."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256809 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 01:42

ants.bull

> A pretty average filmmaker, all due respect to Mr. Campbell

Why don't you try watching Goldeneye sometime - this will clear this
impression up.

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256814 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 09:30

Paul Clarke wrote:
> ...is the director, Martin Campbell. Early reports of MI:III are that it
> is easily the best in the series, and if so, the producers of that
> series did a smart move by hiring J.J. Abrams to direct. EON are taking
> some risky moves with their reboot and hiring of Daniel Craig, moves
> that I applaud, by the way, but who do we get as director to shepherd in
> this bold new 007 movie? A pretty average filmmaker, all due respect to
> Mr. Campbell. It seems that almost everything about CR promises to be
> bold, except the uninspiring choice of director. Are EON afraid of
> hiring a more top-notch director?
>
> It's the one troubling spot for me in my ongoing optimism for CR...

--- It's one of many for me. I would've gone with someone like Ridley
Scott, a cineaste with visual scope and not just another somewhat able
and workmanlike director. If you watch GoldenEye, that's what you see
with Campbell. He's not a bad director, but neither does he really
capture much with a sense of vista or panorama. It's almost as if GE
was done for TV rather than a theatrical screen. What made me see
Scott as capable of doing a visually interesting Bond film was the way
he shot something as mundane as Hannibal, which incorporated a certain
visual breadth to a lot of the scenes, the kind that's reminiscent of
how the early Bonds were shot. Hell, I'd think even Brian de Palma
would make a more intriguing Bond film, complete with his use of slow,
deliberate pans. Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
in that department.

>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as throwing the naysayers a bone."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256816 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 11:36

Barry King

WQ wrote:
> Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
> stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
> That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
> of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
> close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
> in that department.

Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?

Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
he was always my choice for returning Bond director.

--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256817 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 15:06

Barry King wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> > expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> > jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
> > stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
> > That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
> > of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
> > close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
> > in that department.
>
> Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?

--- It was mentioned in one of the reports on one of those Bond sites,
CommanderBond.net, I think, that there'll be use of it. I'm not even
sure how they even arrived at that conclusion, but if I can dig up the
article from there or somewhere I'll post a link to it, it was a couple
of months back that I saw it.

> Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
> told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
> director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
> he was always my choice for returning Bond director.

--- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
film that needs a visual scope. Also, whether his choices or the
editor's, GE could've done with about 15 minutes less and been a
tighter film, without all its needless silly bits, especially with the
Boris character.

>
> --
> Barry King
> --
> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> who cannot read them."
> -Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256818 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 16:15

Paul Clarke

I have of course. And the impression remains still, in spite of my like
of GE.

ants.bull [at] paradise.net.nz wrote:
>>A pretty average filmmaker, all due respect to Mr. Campbell
>
>
> Why don't you try watching Goldeneye sometime - this will clear this
> impression up.
>

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256819 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 16:17

Paul Clarke

I agree, nothing in Campbell's films has used the 'shaky cam' style and
I'm clueless as to where WQ would have gotten this impression from.
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Campbell will apply that
style to CR.

Barry King wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>>Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
>>expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
>>jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
>>stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
>>That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
>>of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
>>close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
>>in that department.
>
>
> Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
>
> Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
> told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
> director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
> he was always my choice for returning Bond director.
>
> --
> Barry King
> --
> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> who cannot read them."
> -Mark Twain
>

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as attributing bad directorial style needlessly."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256820 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 17:49

Jabei

I think Campbell is quite an intelligent director and although I disliked GE
at the time, it turned out to be Citizen Kane compared to the Bond movies
that came after it. I thought from an action point of view the Zorro movies
were very good and I'm not sure there is anyone around at the moment who
could do a much better job that would want to direct it. He's succesfully
introduced a new Bond before - no reason why he shoul;dn't this time.

On the point of Bond directors - I maybe being sacriligious here but were'nt
Young, Hamilton & Gilbert Very Very pedestrian, workmanlike directors?....I
see nothing of any visual flair in their movies that wasn't provided by Ken
Adam. I think Campbell probably has more flair than the three of them put
together. (love their movies though !!! - Better scripts!!!)

"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fup4g.5192$Cv1.4671 [at] edtnps82...
>I agree, nothing in Campbell's films has used the 'shaky cam' style and I'm
>clueless as to where WQ would have gotten this impression from. There is no
>reason whatsoever to suppose that Campbell will apply that style to CR.
>
> Barry King wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>>Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
>>>expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
>>>jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
>>>stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
>>>That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
>>>of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
>>>close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
>>>in that department.
>>
>>
>> Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
>> two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
>> recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
>> any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
>> Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
>>
>> Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
>> Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
>> told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
>> director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
>> he was always my choice for returning Bond director.
>>
>> --
>> Barry King
>> --
>> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
>> who cannot read them." -Mark Twain
>>
>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as attributing bad directorial style needlessly."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256821 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 17:58

Paul Clarke wrote:
> I agree, nothing in Campbell's films has used the 'shaky cam' style and
> I'm clueless as to where WQ would have gotten this impression from.
> There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Campbell will apply that
> style to CR.

--- You can find the complete reference in the link below, but the
relevant extract is:

"In the meantime we can expect lots of handheld cameras and equally
un-Bond lighting/camerawork."

"Handheld cameras" and "unBond camerawork" almost always these days
means jerky/shifty/wobblycam. Unless they use a steadycam, but that
would mean increasing the budget a few hundred thousand dollars or
whatever. Let's see how stingy EON gets. And I'm not sure what they
mean by "un-Bond lighting." Hope it's not that nauseating orangey
tinted look one finds in films like Traffic.

http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3132-1.shtml

>
> Barry King wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> >
> >>Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> >>expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> >>jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
> >>stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
> >>That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
> >>of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
> >>close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
> >>in that department.
> >
> >
> > Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> > two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> > recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> > any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> > Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
> >
> > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> > Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
> > told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
> > director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
> > he was always my choice for returning Bond director.
> >
> > --
> > Barry King
> > --
> > "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> > who cannot read them."
> > -Mark Twain
> >
>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as attributing bad directorial style needlessly."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256822 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 18:12

Eric Grayson

Campbell is one of the ONLY action directors out there today who
DOESN'T rely on the vomit-cam approach. He's to be commended for it.
The Mask of Zorro is one of the best Bond films that was ever made
without Bond. Great action sequences, etc.

I say this because the film is structured as a Bond film--pre credit
sequence, two levels of villains, henchmen, etc. Really Zorro is a
better Bond picture than Goldeneye is.

I'm optimistic on that level. The problem I see is that the script
looks a little dicey to me, but that may just be a problem that will be
fixed in rewrites we haven't seen yet.

Eric

In article <fup4g.5192$Cv1.4671 [at] edtnps82>, Paul Clarke
<jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

> I agree, nothing in Campbell's films has used the 'shaky cam' style and
> I'm clueless as to where WQ would have gotten this impression from.
> There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Campbell will apply that
> style to CR.
>
> Barry King wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> >
> >>Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> >>expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> >>jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
> >>stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
> >>That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
> >>of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
> >>close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
> >>in that department.
> >
> >
> > Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> > two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> > recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> > any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> > Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
> >
> > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> > Of the Brosnan Bonds I thought GoldenEye was the best-directed. It
> > told its story clearly, without undue, distracting flash from the
> > director. Assuming a continued inability to ressurrect Terence Young,
> > he was always my choice for returning Bond director.
> >
> > --
> > Barry King
> > --
> > "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> > who cannot read them."
> > -Mark Twain
> >

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256823 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 20:02

Paul Clarke

Jabei wrote:
> On the point of Bond directors - I maybe being sacriligious here but were'nt
> Young, Hamilton & Gilbert Very Very pedestrian, workmanlike directors?....I
> see nothing of any visual flair in their movies that wasn't provided by Ken
> Adam.

I agree, and that was part of my original point. If EON is running with
a fairly ambitious reboot of the series, why not hire a director with
some distinguishing talent to help them pull it off.

I think Campbell probably has more flair than the three of them put
> together. (love their movies though !!! - Better scripts!!!)

Here's where we part company. I liked GE, but think that Campbell
belongs to that list of workmanlike directors you note above. Though I
would hesitate to call them 'pedestrian.'

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as contributing to the box office take of 'Benchwarmers.'"

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256824 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 20:22

Mac

Paul Clarke wrote:

> I agree, nothing in Campbell's films has used the 'shaky cam' style
> and I'm clueless as to where WQ would have gotten this impression
> from. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Campbell will
> apply that style to CR.

Nothing wrong with handheld cameras, they give an immediacy
a fixed camera cannot. Directors such as Ridley Scott, John
Frankenheimer, Steven Soderbergh and William Friedkin frequently
make great use of handheld cameras.

ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's superb use of camera and
editing techniques is one of the reasons that sets it apart from other
Bond pictures, so I hope CASINO ROYALE takes its cue from there.
The speed-ramping in DIE ANOTHER DAY didn't work simply because
it added nothing to the scenes, it was hollow and empty visual.

Martin Campbell and Phil Meheux brought a visual sheen to
GOLDENEYE that had been absent since the series' pomp. Additionally,
the fight between Bond and Trevelyan inside the dish was certainly
shot handheld and is as good as any of the fights in the Bourne
films, and had the benefit of being shot long before them...
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
Steven Segal's black clothes and pony-tail."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256825 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 20:22

Mac

WQ wrote:

> --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> film that needs a visual scope. Also, whether his choices or the
> editor's, GE could've done with about 15 minutes less and been a
> tighter film, without all its needless silly bits, especially with the
> Boris character.

That's a writing issue. Take out the Boris character and plot holes
appear. Rewrite the Boris character and his function within the
screenplay remains, but he isn't so childish.

Ridley Scott or any A-list director doesn't guarantee a great Bond
film. Scott is one of the best shooters on the planet, but it didn't
help GI JANE; it just looked great.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an
Anthony Pellicano illegal wiretap on a celeb's telephone."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256826 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 20:39

Paul Clarke wrote:
> Jabei wrote:
> > On the point of Bond directors - I maybe being sacriligious here but were'nt
> > Young, Hamilton & Gilbert Very Very pedestrian, workmanlike directors?....I
> > see nothing of any visual flair in their movies that wasn't provided by Ken
> > Adam.
>
> I agree, and that was part of my original point. If EON is running with
> a fairly ambitious reboot of the series, why not hire a director with
> some distinguishing talent to help them pull it off.
>
> I think Campbell probably has more flair than the three of them put
> > together. (love their movies though !!! - Better scripts!!!)
>
> Here's where we part company. I liked GE, but think that Campbell
> belongs to that list of workmanlike directors you note above. Though I
> would hesitate to call them 'pedestrian.'

--- Of the three - Young, Hamilton and Gilbert - Young appears to have
had the most successful directing career, though as with the other two,
his early pre-Bond work was largely a list of unremarkable and
unmemorable films. However, Young, in particular, all of a sudden
magically displayed his true creative directorial skills in the
crafting of the early Bond films. His strength lied in his vision to
take Bond out into the world in globetrotting fashion and accompany it
with a postcard panoramic quality, otherwise the series might've really
begun in pedestrian fashion in what was often the norm back then,
mostly in enclosed rooms and narrow-scoped locations. To truly
appreciate Young's scope, DN, FRWL and TB need to be viewed on a wide
screen in a theater. It's like the film Blade Runner. Seeing it in a
theater was a far different experience than on a TV screen, which
captured none of the film's visual width and also didn't quite suck you
right into the film as much. The same can be said for The Road
Warrior, especially in which the true effect of the opening of that
film is completely absent on a TV screen, not only with respect to the
chase scene at the start but also what precedes it, being how the use
of 35mm film suddenly expands to 70mm. I can still remember the
surprise and wallop I got out of that.

Anyway, getting back to Young, it also helped that Connery was Bond
because his broad physique helped enhance the broad visual qualities of
the series at the start. It's interesting to note that when it comes
to Young, Hamilton and Connery, the three principle people involved in
establishing the first four Bond films, being among the best of the
series, all were Virgos, an earth sign. I guess you needed Virgos in
the forefront to properly ground the series.

>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as contributing to the box office take of 'Benchwarmers.'"

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256827 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 20:57

Tom Zielinski

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1146249570.880934.244850 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Clarke wrote:
>> Jabei wrote:
>> > On the point of Bond directors - I maybe being sacriligious here but
>> > were'nt
>> > Young, Hamilton & Gilbert Very Very pedestrian, workmanlike
>> > directors?....I
>> > see nothing of any visual flair in their movies that wasn't provided by
>> > Ken
>> > Adam.
>>
>> I agree, and that was part of my original point. If EON is running with
>> a fairly ambitious reboot of the series, why not hire a director with
>> some distinguishing talent to help them pull it off.
>>
>> I think Campbell probably has more flair than the three of them put
>> > together. (love their movies though !!! - Better scripts!!!)
>>
>> Here's where we part company. I liked GE, but think that Campbell
>> belongs to that list of workmanlike directors you note above. Though I
>> would hesitate to call them 'pedestrian.'
>
> --- Of the three - Young, Hamilton and Gilbert - Young appears to have
> had the most successful directing career, though as with the other two,
> his early pre-Bond work was largely a list of unremarkable and
> unmemorable films. However, Young, in particular, all of a sudden
> magically displayed his true creative directorial skills in the
> crafting of the early Bond films. His strength lied in his vision to
> take Bond out into the world in globetrotting fashion and accompany it
> with a postcard panoramic quality, otherwise the series might've really
> begun in pedestrian fashion in what was often the norm back then,
> mostly in enclosed rooms and narrow-scoped locations. To truly
> appreciate Young's scope, DN, FRWL and TB need to be viewed on a wide
> screen in a theater. It's like the film Blade Runner. Seeing it in a
> theater was a far different experience than on a TV screen, which
> captured none of the film's visual width and also didn't quite suck you
> right into the film as much. The same can be said for The Road
> Warrior, especially in which the true effect of the opening of that
> film is completely absent on a TV screen, not only with respect to the
> chase scene at the start but also what precedes it, being how the use
> of 35mm film suddenly expands to 70mm. I can still remember the
> surprise and wallop I got out of that.
>
> Anyway, getting back to Young, it also helped that Connery was Bond
> because his broad physique helped enhance the broad visual qualities of
> the series at the start. It's interesting to note that when it comes
> to Young, Hamilton and Connery, the three principle people involved in
> establishing the first four Bond films, being among the best of the
> series, all were Virgos, an earth sign. I guess you needed Virgos in
> the forefront to properly ground the series.

Huh. I always thought it was the perfect combination and timing of talent,
brains, and risk-taking in a Cold War world that offered exotic locations,
beautiful women, and sophisticated entertainment.

But now I think you're right. Surely it was astrology.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that Fleming was a Gemini..."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256828 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 21:02

Mac

WQ wrote:

> --- Of the three - Young, Hamilton and Gilbert - Young appears to have
> had the most successful directing career, though as with the other
> two, his early pre-Bond work was largely a list of unremarkable and
> unmemorable films.

I would argue that it is Gilbert who had the more successful career,
both before and after Bond. Gilbert made CARVE HER NAME WITH
PRIDE, HMS DEFIANT and REACH FOR THE SKY, amongst many
others, before YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
musak in a lift."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256830 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 21:08

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> > film that needs a visual scope. Also, whether his choices or the
> > editor's, GE could've done with about 15 minutes less and been a
> > tighter film, without all its needless silly bits, especially with the
> > Boris character.
>
> That's a writing issue. Take out the Boris character and plot holes
> appear. Rewrite the Boris character and his function within the
> screenplay remains, but he isn't so childish.

--- Not so. I've brought this up before long ago, that I once sat down
and re-edited GE using two of my VCRs, getting rid of anything I found
didn't belong in the film. Excising a number of Boris' scenes was easy
to do without ruining anything. Actually, his character turned out
better when you got rid of all his silly and useless bits. And his
were not the only scenes I edited out. There was one with Brosnan and
Natalya tied up in a jet cockpit with her screaming like a madwoman
behind him which was efficiently removed with no ill effect to anything
leading up to it or leading out of it, resulting in one less
unnecessary hugely embarrasing Bond scene. In all, I managed to pare
down the film by about 15 minutes and the result was a tighter and a
bit more serious GE that worked quite fine. I would've gotten rid of a
few more brief scenes, anywhere from seconds to a minute or so, but I
didn't want to have any background music rudely interrupted, so the
rule of thumb was that if music was there, I couldn't cut it, unless
there was a natural break that would allow for a cut that would still
make sense. I tried to do the same with TND and TWINE, but those films
were simply uneditable because of the structural mess they're in to
begin with, so I guess it's a testament to the strength of GE that most
of what was in the film made structural sense and that it just needed a
little last-minute pruning here and there. It could've been all pruned
from the script before even reaching the cameras, but sometimes one
never knows how something in a script will play off on screen, and
that's where an astute and detached or objective film editor needs to
step in and lay down the law.

> Ridley Scott or any A-list director doesn't guarantee a great Bond
> film. Scott is one of the best shooters on the planet, but it didn't
> help GI JANE; it just looked great.

For a Bond film to look great would be half the Bond film right there.
The other half needs to be in the script. Put the two together and
maybe, just maybe, even someone like Craig would stand a terrific
chance of succeeding in the role. Sure, there's no guaranteee that
Scott = a great Bond flick, but that's so with anyone, and considering
Scott's overall track record and sense for style, I definitely would've
given him a crack at it over Campbell this time around.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an
> Anthony Pellicano illegal wiretap on a celeb's telephone."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256831 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 21:25

Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1146249570.880934.244850 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul Clarke wrote:
> >> Jabei wrote:
> >> > On the point of Bond directors - I maybe being sacriligious here but
> >> > were'nt
> >> > Young, Hamilton & Gilbert Very Very pedestrian, workmanlike
> >> > directors?....I
> >> > see nothing of any visual flair in their movies that wasn't provided by
> >> > Ken
> >> > Adam.
> >>
> >> I agree, and that was part of my original point. If EON is running with
> >> a fairly ambitious reboot of the series, why not hire a director with
> >> some distinguishing talent to help them pull it off.
> >>
> >> I think Campbell probably has more flair than the three of them put
> >> > together. (love their movies though !!! - Better scripts!!!)
> >>
> >> Here's where we part company. I liked GE, but think that Campbell
> >> belongs to that list of workmanlike directors you note above. Though I
> >> would hesitate to call them 'pedestrian.'
> >
> > --- Of the three - Young, Hamilton and Gilbert - Young appears to have
> > had the most successful directing career, though as with the other two,
> > his early pre-Bond work was largely a list of unremarkable and
> > unmemorable films. However, Young, in particular, all of a sudden
> > magically displayed his true creative directorial skills in the
> > crafting of the early Bond films. His strength lied in his vision to
> > take Bond out into the world in globetrotting fashion and accompany it
> > with a postcard panoramic quality, otherwise the series might've really
> > begun in pedestrian fashion in what was often the norm back then,
> > mostly in enclosed rooms and narrow-scoped locations. To truly
> > appreciate Young's scope, DN, FRWL and TB need to be viewed on a wide
> > screen in a theater. It's like the film Blade Runner. Seeing it in a
> > theater was a far different experience than on a TV screen, which
> > captured none of the film's visual width and also didn't quite suck you
> > right into the film as much. The same can be said for The Road
> > Warrior, especially in which the true effect of the opening of that
> > film is completely absent on a TV screen, not only with respect to the
> > chase scene at the start but also what precedes it, being how the use
> > of 35mm film suddenly expands to 70mm. I can still remember the
> > surprise and wallop I got out of that.
> >
> > Anyway, getting back to Young, it also helped that Connery was Bond
> > because his broad physique helped enhance the broad visual qualities of
> > the series at the start. It's interesting to note that when it comes
> > to Young, Hamilton and Connery, the three principle people involved in
> > establishing the first four Bond films, being among the best of the
> > series, all were Virgos, an earth sign. I guess you needed Virgos in
> > the forefront to properly ground the series.
>
>
>
> Huh. I always thought it was the perfect combination and timing of talent,
> brains, and risk-taking in a Cold War world that offered exotic locations,
> beautiful women, and sophisticated entertainment.
>
> But now I think you're right. Surely it was astrology.

--- And to add "credence" to the whole astrology slant, the Connery
fill-in, Lazenby, was also a Virgo! So Bond's first cinematic decade
was rooted or grounded with those born under an earth sign, and one
that's about as earthy as you can get. As for the others: Moore,
Libra; Dalton, Aries; Brosnan, Taurus [earth sign]; and Craig, Pisces -
which is kind of fishy to me.

>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that Fleming was a Gemini..."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256832 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 21:39

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Of the three - Young, Hamilton and Gilbert - Young appears to have
> > had the most successful directing career, though as with the other
> > two, his early pre-Bond work was largely a list of unremarkable and
> > unmemorable films.
>
> I would argue that it is Gilbert who had the more successful career,
> both before and after Bond. Gilbert made CARVE HER NAME WITH
> PRIDE, HMS DEFIANT and REACH FOR THE SKY, amongst many
> others, before YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

You could argue that. It's all a matter of one's familiarty with the
films and their creative and/or financial successes. I'm not at all
that very familiar with any of the three's pre-Bond era films, but
among Young's more notable post-Bond films are The Poppy Is Also a
Flower [actually a TV-movie] and Wait Until Dark, which I was surprised
to learn; among Hamilton's, there was Funeral in Berlin and Force 10
from Navarrone; and among Gilbert's it was Alfie and Educating Rita.
Just going by those, maybe you're right. But I think Young had the
longest career at it.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
> musak in a lift."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256833 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 22:10

Mac

WQ wrote:

> And his were not the only scenes I edited out. There was one with
> Brosnan and Natalya tied up in a jet cockpit with her screaming like
> a madwoman behind him which was efficiently removed with no ill
> effect to anything leading up to it or leading out of it, resulting
> in one less unnecessary hugely embarrasing Bond scene.

How do you explain how they get away from Trevelyan?

>> Ridley Scott or any A-list director doesn't guarantee a great Bond
>> film. Scott is one of the best shooters on the planet, but it didn't
>> help GI JANE; it just looked great.
>
> For a Bond film to look great would be half the Bond film right there.
> The other half needs to be in the script. Put the two together and
> maybe, just maybe, even someone like Craig would stand a terrific
> chance of succeeding in the role. Sure, there's no guaranteee that
> Scott = a great Bond flick, but that's so with anyone, and considering
> Scott's overall track record and sense for style, I definitely
> would've given him a crack at it over Campbell this time around.

"Even someone like Craig"? Hmm. Then again, you could have blown a
significant amount of your budget and still end up with a polished turd
like MOONRAKER.
--
--Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256834 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 22:22

Mac

WQ wrote:

> You could argue that. It's all a matter of one's familiarty with the
> films and their creative and/or financial successes. I'm not at all
> that very familiar with any of the three's pre-Bond era films, but
> among Young's more notable post-Bond films are The Poppy Is Also a
> Flower [actually a TV-movie]

It's notable, but far from his best work. I interviewed the producer
a few years back. THE VALACHI PAPERS is a better film.

> surprised to learn; among Hamilton's, there was Funeral in Berlin and
> Force 10 from Navarrone; and among Gilbert's it was Alfie and
> Educating Rita. Just going by those, maybe you're right. But I think
> Young had the longest career at it.

No, Gilbert started a few years before him and had his most recent film
in theatres a few years ago. Hamilton's FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE is
pretty poor. His camp-classic, THE MIRROR CRACKED (with Brosnan)
is better. Even REMO WILLIAMS, while not entirely successful, was a
decent attempt to get the Murphy/Saphir characters to the big
screen (and was written by Christopher Wood).
--
--Mac

"I could eat a can of Kodak and puke a better movie!"

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256835 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 22:28

Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256836 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 23:15

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > And his were not the only scenes I edited out. There was one with
> > Brosnan and Natalya tied up in a jet cockpit with her screaming like
> > a madwoman behind him which was efficiently removed with no ill
> > effect to anything leading up to it or leading out of it, resulting
> > in one less unnecessary hugely embarrasing Bond scene.
>
> How do you explain how they get away from Trevelyan?
>

--- Good question. I wish I still had a copy of that re-edit to be
able to answer it. I taped over it when I needed a tape for something
else, thinking I'd just get around to re-editing it again, which would
be easier the second time around. And then much later on I went ahead
and erased my TV broadcast of GE for the same reason, thinking I'd just
get around to copying another broadcast version or come across a
duplicable video one day. It still hasn't happened. I should really
overstock myself with blank tapes so I can avoid situations like this
and save myself time with redubbings and re-editings.

But if I recall somewhat from my last viewing of the film, which was
an incomplete one quite a while ago, for some reason it seemed like an
explanation wasn't really necessary. I'm trying to remember why not,
or even if I included Bond's meeting with Trevelyan. I do remember
debating with myself over that part of the film and how much could be
removed without really losing anything. This much I know, the whole
jet cockpit scene I scrapped, but how much of the Trevelyan-Bond
confrontation I edited, I'm not clear on. It's even quite possible I
didn't even include it as I also remember that Trevelyan reappearing at
that point in the film didn't really seem to work for me with whatever
surprise effect it intended to have, nor did it add much to the plot.
Sure, there's some talk about what he's up to or something, but I
didn't seem to care, it didn't feel like it really was that crucial to
have that scene, it seemed like it was just a forced lead-in for the
missile pyrotechnics of the jet cockpit sequence that followed.
Anyway, I think the next time you see Trevelyan is on the train towards
the end of the film, which is where I felt the surprise of his
reappearance would've had more impact, and that consequently there'd be
more of a sense of a climactic showdown between the two. If I rent a
copy of GE this weekend to refresh my memory, I'll get back to you on
this one.

>
> >> Ridley Scott or any A-list director doesn't guarantee a great Bond
> >> film. Scott is one of the best shooters on the planet, but it didn't
> >> help GI JANE; it just looked great.
> >
> > For a Bond film to look great would be half the Bond film right there.
> > The other half needs to be in the script. Put the two together and
> > maybe, just maybe, even someone like Craig would stand a terrific
> > chance of succeeding in the role. Sure, there's no guaranteee that
> > Scott = a great Bond flick, but that's so with anyone, and considering
> > Scott's overall track record and sense for style, I definitely
> > would've given him a crack at it over Campbell this time around.
>
> "Even someone like Craig"? Hmm. Then again, you could have blown a
> significant amount of your budget and still end up with a polished turd
> like MOONRAKER.

--- You think Moonraker, I think Thunderball. Besides, EON doesn't
want to spend the extra bucks on a top director because that just means
extra bucks less for themselves come box office time. I'm not that
profit- or business-minded. I know a Bond film will make money, but
I'd be happier if it ended up being a great Bond film with all the
right people doing it that made money, even if it meant $20 million
less for me. There'll always be another one to cash in on. And that's
the difference between the way EON and I see Bond films.

> --
> --Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256837 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 23:28

Mac wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > WQ wrote:
> >
> >> And his were not the only scenes I edited out. There was one with
> >> Brosnan and Natalya tied up in a jet cockpit with her screaming like
> >> a madwoman behind him which was efficiently removed with no ill
> >> effect to anything leading up to it or leading out of it, resulting
> >> in one less unnecessary hugely embarrasing Bond scene.
>
> Also, what's embarrassing about it? She's trying to wake him so that
> they might have a chance to escape.

--- It was just badly and crudely done. Maybe it was the pitch of her
voice that just got on my nerves compounded by the fact that I really
didn't like her in that movie. I didn't see a real person in her, just
a non-dimensional paint-by-numbers Scriptwriting 101 character instead.
Oh, and yeah, I forgot, another big sequence I edited was that whole
explosion sequence of the underground control room where Natalya and
Boris worked. That was ridiculous how everything just kept exploding
all around her and went on and on and on as she made her escape from
it. Tedious overkill if you ask me. You take all of that out, you
don't miss a thing.

> --
> --Mac
>
> Last film (re)watched: WINCHESTER '73 (Anthony Mann, 1950)

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256838 ]

Fr, 28 April 2006 23:37

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > You could argue that. It's all a matter of one's familiarty with the
> > films and their creative and/or financial successes. I'm not at all
> > that very familiar with any of the three's pre-Bond era films, but
> > among Young's more notable post-Bond films are The Poppy Is Also a
> > Flower [actually a TV-movie]
>
> It's notable, but far from his best work. I interviewed the producer
> a few years back. THE VALACHI PAPERS is a better film.

--- Yeah, I'd have to agree. I remember seeing Poppy when it aired on
TV and felt a little disappointed by it. But then, I was lured into it
by all the time hype surrounding it at the time and it just didn't seem
to quite live up to it. But Valachi Papers was pretty good with
Charles Bronson in it.

> > surprised to learn; among Hamilton's, there was Funeral in Berlin and
> > Force 10 from Navarrone; and among Gilbert's it was Alfie and
> > Educating Rita. Just going by those, maybe you're right. But I think
> > Young had the longest career at it.
>
> No, Gilbert started a few years before him and had his most recent film
> in theatres a few years ago. Hamilton's FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE is
> pretty poor. His camp-classic, THE MIRROR CRACKED (with Brosnan)
> is better. Even REMO WILLIAMS, while not entirely successful, was a
> decent attempt to get the Murphy/Saphir characters to the big
> screen (and was written by Christopher Wood).

--- Saw Force 10 only once, on TV a few years after its theatrical
release, and so my recollection of it is that it wasn't that bad. Not
great, but not bad. If I saw it again today, I might think otherwsie.
Never saw Mirror Cracked, but caught parts of Remo Williams and ...
well ... I just didn't get it. Apparently, neither did a lot of other
people.

---
> --
> --Mac
>
> "I could eat a can of Kodak and puke a better movie!"

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256839 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 01:49

Mac

WQ wrote:

> or even if I included Bond's meeting with Trevelyan. I do remember
> debating with myself over that part of the film and how much could be
> removed without really losing anything. This much I know, the whole
> jet cockpit scene I scrapped, but how much of the Trevelyan-Bond
> confrontation I edited, I'm not clear on. It's even quite possible I
> didn't even include it as I also remember that Trevelyan reappearing
> at that point in the film didn't really seem to work for me with
> whatever surprise effect it intended to have, nor did it add much to
> the plot.

Woah! Not only is it a nicely played scene, it is also critical to
the plot. It's the turning point which propels the film into
the next act as it reveals the true antagonist and sets up a major
character conflict for Bond. It adds another dimension to the
proceedings.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
Pete Doherty in the dock."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256840 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 02:14

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > or even if I included Bond's meeting with Trevelyan. I do remember
> > debating with myself over that part of the film and how much could be
> > removed without really losing anything. This much I know, the whole
> > jet cockpit scene I scrapped, but how much of the Trevelyan-Bond
> > confrontation I edited, I'm not clear on. It's even quite possible I
> > didn't even include it as I also remember that Trevelyan reappearing
> > at that point in the film didn't really seem to work for me with
> > whatever surprise effect it intended to have, nor did it add much to
> > the plot.
>
> Woah! Not only is it a nicely played scene, it is also critical to
> the plot. It's the turning point which propels the film into
> the next act as it reveals the true antagonist and sets up a major
> character conflict for Bond. It adds another dimension to the
> proceedings.

--- If I felt it was expendable, I must've had a good reason for
believing so. I might end up renting it just to see what that reason
was.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
> Pete Doherty in the dock."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256843 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 12:10

Barry King

WQ wrote:
> Barry King wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> > > expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> > > jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. ... I fear the worst for CR
> > > in that department.
> >
> > Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> > two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> > recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> > any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> > Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
>
> --- It was mentioned in one of the reports on one of those Bond sites,
> CommanderBond.net, I think, that there'll be use of it. I'm not even
> sure how they even arrived at that conclusion, but if I can dig up the
> article from there or somewhere I'll post a link to it, it was a couple
> of months back that I saw it.

Thanks for posting the link later in the thread, but it seems like
you're cooking up a mighty large pot of stew from a mighty small bit of
meat. One short, unattributed contention that we should "expect lots
of handheld cameras" from a movie gossip site of (to me at least)
unknown veracity and you spend six weeks bemoaning all the "jerkycam"
we're gonna see. And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
never used it before, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred
shooting style.

Having misgivings about an upcoming film you haven't seen based on the
previous work of the people involved is reasonable and legitimate.
Manufacturing misgivings on the basis of such slim evidence, in
contradiction of those people's previous work, is stretching negative
speculation too damn far.

>
> > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
>
> --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> film that needs a visual scope.

I'm not sure what part of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale requires all this
"visual scope." It's not exactly a Howard Hawks western. As written,
the book is pretty small-scale and intimate. I'm sure that's going to
get expanded considerably in the adaptation into a modern James Bond
film, but I don't think there's inherently any need for more "visual
scope" than Campbell has demonstrated in previous films. Again, I
think you're looking too hard for reasons to dislike the movie.

Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256845 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 13:24

Tom Zielinski

"Barry King" <byron.king [at] mci.com> wrote in message
news:1146305401.093034.158600 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> WQ wrote:
>> Barry King wrote:
>> > WQ wrote:
>> > > Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
>> > > expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
>> > > jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. ... I fear the
>> > > worst for CR
>> > > in that department.
>> >
>> > Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
>> > two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
>> > recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
>> > any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
>> > Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
>>
>> --- It was mentioned in one of the reports on one of those Bond sites,
>> CommanderBond.net, I think, that there'll be use of it. I'm not even
>> sure how they even arrived at that conclusion, but if I can dig up the
>> article from there or somewhere I'll post a link to it, it was a couple
>> of months back that I saw it.
>
> Thanks for posting the link later in the thread, but it seems like
> you're cooking up a mighty large pot of stew from a mighty small bit of
> meat. One short, unattributed contention that we should "expect lots
> of handheld cameras" from a movie gossip site of (to me at least)
> unknown veracity and you spend six weeks bemoaning all the "jerkycam"
> we're gonna see. And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
> never used it before, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred
> shooting style.
>
> Having misgivings about an upcoming film you haven't seen based on the
> previous work of the people involved is reasonable and legitimate.
> Manufacturing misgivings on the basis of such slim evidence, in
> contradiction of those people's previous work, is stretching negative
> speculation too damn far.
>
>>
>> > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
>>
>> --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
>> film that needs a visual scope.
>
> I'm not sure what part of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale requires all this
> "visual scope." It's not exactly a Howard Hawks western. As written,
> the book is pretty small-scale and intimate. I'm sure that's going to
> get expanded considerably in the adaptation into a modern James Bond
> film, but I don't think there's inherently any need for more "visual
> scope" than Campbell has demonstrated in previous films. Again, I
> think you're looking too hard for reasons to dislike the movie.
>
> Barry King

Hear, Hear.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he had another peanut today..."

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256849 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 15:14

Will Traynor

"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Erp4g.5191$Cv1.3024 [at] edtnps82...
>I have of course. And the impression remains still, in spite of my like of
>GE.
>

So, let me get this straight....You liked GE, a Campbell-directed film, but
your "impression" of CR is that it will be no good, because of Campbell. I'm
not following your logic.

> ants.bull [at] paradise.net.nz wrote:
>>>A pretty average filmmaker, all due respect to Mr. Campbell
>>
>>
>> Why don't you try watching Goldeneye sometime - this will clear this
>> impression up.
>>
>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256852 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 17:55

Barry King wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Barry King wrote:
> > > WQ wrote:
> > > > Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> > > > expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> > > > jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. ... I fear the worst for CR
> > > > in that department.
> > >
> > > Why? The only things I've seen by Martin Campbell are GoldenEye, the
> > > two Zorro films and, long ago now, Reilly, Ace of Spies. I don't
> > > recall any undue use of shaky-cam in any of those films. Do you have
> > > any specific reason to believe he's gonna use it extensively on Casino
> > > Royale or are you manufacturing a reason to be pessimistic?
> >
> > --- It was mentioned in one of the reports on one of those Bond sites,
> > CommanderBond.net, I think, that there'll be use of it. I'm not even
> > sure how they even arrived at that conclusion, but if I can dig up the
> > article from there or somewhere I'll post a link to it, it was a couple
> > of months back that I saw it.
>
> Thanks for posting the link later in the thread, but it seems like
> you're cooking up a mighty large pot of stew from a mighty small bit of
> meat. One short, unattributed contention that we should "expect lots
> of handheld cameras" from a movie gossip site of (to me at least)
> unknown veracity and you spend six weeks bemoaning all the "jerkycam"
> we're gonna see. And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
> never used it before, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred
> shooting style.

--- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
"unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film. And you're
also confusing "my implication" of this being Campbell's preferred
shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has never used it before,
with some other poster who said it, not me. This is my constant
complaint about group posters: nobody reads things as they're meant to
be read.

> Having misgivings about an upcoming film you haven't seen based on the
> previous work of the people involved is reasonable and legitimate.
> Manufacturing misgivings on the basis of such slim evidence, in
> contradiction of those people's previous work, is stretching negative
> speculation too damn far.

Again, no manufacturing on my part, Campbell said it himself. And then
when you factor in what jerkcam/unBond lighting really means, you
normally get pretentious artsy-fartsy cinema. I've seen enough films
of that sort to know that much.

> > > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> >
> > --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> > film that needs a visual scope.
>
> I'm not sure what part of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale requires all this
> "visual scope." It's not exactly a Howard Hawks western. As written,
> the book is pretty small-scale and intimate. I'm sure that's going to
> get expanded considerably in the adaptation into a modern James Bond
> film, but I don't think there's inherently any need for more "visual
> scope" than Campbell has demonstrated in previous films. Again, I
> think you're looking too hard for reasons to dislike the movie.

Yes, CR is a small piece of work, but of course EON is expanding it
into a large piece of work, and if they're going to expand it, that
alone is broadening the story. And if EON wants to stick to a
particular style it's had with Bond films since the beginning, or at
least to an allusion of a style, then the film needs to be shot "big".
Remember, Campbell has also said that only the last third of the film
will be somewhat faithful to the book. Even the card game, which will
take place in the second act, will hardly take up a half-hour of screen
time, I'm sure. So I'd say at least three-quarters of the film will be
all concoction, figments of writers' imaginations, which will include
all sorts of characters and situations not found in the book. That's
already the case in the first third of the film. So obviously the
movie won't end up being as small as the book, and that's why if it's
going to be fatter than the book and try to retain any of the elements
that worked for Bond films in the past, then having a visual scope in
the filming it would be one such element. After all, FRWL was a film
with a pretty pedestrian plot, but its visual scope - almost shot like
a travelogue - is what helped beef it up.

>
> Barry King
> --
> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> who cannot read them."
> -Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256853 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 18:59

Mac

WQ wrote:

> --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
> "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
> by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
> nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film.

Ridley Scott uses handheld cameras, 45-degree shutters, colour-drains
and numerous editing and lighting techniques that could be described
as "jerky-cam" and you were saying you wanted him on board the
other day.
--
--Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256854 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 19:18

Tom Zielinski

"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4bhkb9F11kjr6U1 [at] individual.net...
> WQ wrote:
>
>> --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
>> "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
>> by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
>> nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film.
>
> Ridley Scott uses handheld cameras, 45-degree shutters, colour-drains
> and numerous editing and lighting techniques that could be described
> as "jerky-cam" and you were saying you wanted him on board the
> other day.

I had a peanut today.

Tom Zielinski

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256855 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 19:26

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
> > "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
> > by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
> > nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film.
>
> Ridley Scott uses handheld cameras, 45-degree shutters, colour-drains
> and numerous editing and lighting techniques that could be described
> as "jerky-cam" and you were saying you wanted him on board the
> other day.

--- I like his "steadier" films better, Alien, Blade Runner, Someone to
Watch Over Me, Gladiator, Hannibal. In those, he may've used handheld
cameras, but they would seem to be of the steadycam variety so as to
minimize any of that jerky/shifty/wobbly effect, although Gladiator
sometimes had a weird terse jarringness about it sometimes, which
actually wasn't too bad. I don't mind anyone playing around with color
tones and experimenting with editing and lighting, but going dark is
something that few directors can master in color. Scott does it really
well and still does it by assuring you that what you're watching is
still in color, not sepia or sepia-like [Blackhawk Down may be the
exception, but that's only going by the previews since I never saw the
film]. If EON has some notion of going "film noir" with CR, then the
Scott I'd hire would be a Scott who'd make a Bond film that would rely
more or less on what he did with Blade Runner, Someone to Watch Over Me
and Hannibal.

> --
> --Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256856 ]

Sa, 29 April 2006 19:35

Mac

Tom Zielinski wrote:

> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
> news:4bhkb9F11kjr6U1 [at] individual.net...
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>> --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that
>>> the "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as
>>> reported by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see
>>> this jerkcam nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond
>>> film.
>>
>> Ridley Scott uses handheld cameras, 45-degree shutters, colour-drains
>> and numerous editing and lighting techniques that could be described
>> as "jerky-cam" and you were saying you wanted him on board the
>> other day.
>
>
> I had a peanut today.

I want my mommy.
--
--Mac

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256858 ]

So, 30 April 2006 07:09

Barry King

WQ wrote:
> Barry King wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > Barry King wrote:
> > > > WQ wrote:
> --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
> "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
> by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
> nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film.

Uh, no, actually, he didn't. Or if he did you can't prove it by
reading that article.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=18246

"Although the first part is wildly different to the book (there's a lot
more scuba diving!), director Martin Campbell claims the film is very
faithful to the book's third act - which, as readers will know,
contains some rather shocking scenes. In the meantime we can expect
lots of handheld cameras and equally un-Bond lighting/camerawork."

The only statement directly attributed to Campbell in that paragraqph
(or, in fact, anywhere in the article) is that "the film is very
faithful to the book's third act ." That is followed by a
declaration that "we" can expect handheld cameras, but whether this
information comes from Campbell, from the reporter's observations or
from the reporter's imagination is left quite unclear.

> And you're
> also confusing "my implication" of this being Campbell's preferred
> shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has never used it before,
> with some other poster who said it, not me. This is my constant
> complaint about group posters: nobody reads things as they're meant to
> be read.

Gee, if only there was some archive on the internets that would allow
us to determine who said what.....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.james-bond/msg/9009fd 0aea0946ff?hl=en&

"From: WQ
Date: Fri, Apr 28 2006 3:30 am
Groups: alt.fan.james-bond

....Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
in that department. "

Any of that sound familiar? In a discussion of what the original
poster felt to be Campbell's mediocrity as a director, YOU brought up
the "extensive use of the abhorrent jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam
style" as something else to worry about with Campbell. Since it was
this very post to which I originally replied and you subsequently
replied to me, I'm gonna assume we're NOT dealing with a "fake Scojo"
situation here. So how, exactly, am I not "read[ing] things as they're
meant to be read?" My tendency is to read them as they are written.
Is this a mistake in your case?

>
> > Having misgivings about an upcoming film you haven't seen based on the
> > previous work of the people involved is reasonable and legitimate.
> > Manufacturing misgivings on the basis of such slim evidence, in
> > contradiction of those people's previous work, is stretching negative
> > speculation too damn far.
>
> Again, no manufacturing on my part, Campbell said it himself.

Again, find me an actual quote from Campbell to that effect. You're
basing this entire line of attack on one statement in an article by a
reporter described in that very article as a "jammy git."

> And then
> when you factor in what jerkcam/unBond lighting really means, you
> normally get pretentious artsy-fartsy cinema. I've seen enough films
> of that sort to know that much.

Given that it would be entirely at odds with Campbell's directorial
style in previous films, including a Bond film, I think you require
something a bit more solid than unattributed, unsubstantiated
entertainment "news" before declaring as fact that he's turning 007
artsy-fartsy. At minimum, a second source would be nice.

>
> > > > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> > >
> > > --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> > > film that needs a visual scope.
> >
> > I'm not sure what part of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale requires all this
> > "visual scope." It's not exactly a Howard Hawks western. As written,
> > the book is pretty small-scale and intimate. I'm sure that's going to
> > get expanded considerably in the adaptation into a modern James Bond
> > film, but I don't think there's inherently any need for more "visual
> > scope" than Campbell has demonstrated in previous films. Again, I
> > think you're looking too hard for reasons to dislike the movie.
>
> Yes, CR is a small piece of work, but of course EON is expanding it
> into a large piece of work, and if they're going to expand it, that
> alone is broadening the story. And if EON wants to stick to a
> particular style it's had with Bond films since the beginning, or at
> least to an allusion of a style, then the film needs to be shot "big".
> Remember, Campbell has also said that only the last third of the film
> will be somewhat faithful to the book. Even the card game, which will
> take place in the second act, will hardly take up a half-hour of screen
> time, I'm sure. So I'd say at least three-quarters of the film will be
> all concoction, figments of writers' imaginations, which will include
> all sorts of characters and situations not found in the book. That's
> already the case in the first third of the film. So obviously the
> movie won't end up being as small as the book, and that's why if it's
> going to be fatter than the book and try to retain any of the elements
> that worked for Bond films in the past, then having a visual scope in
> the filming it would be one such element. After all, FRWL was a film
> with a pretty pedestrian plot, but its visual scope - almost shot like
> a travelogue - is what helped beef it up.

I'd be more inclined to credit FRWL's heft to a superb script and
stellar cast, but we're dealing with matters of taste, for which there
is notoriuosly no accounting. I think Campbell has shown himself, with
GoldenEye and the Zorro films, to be perfectly capable of directing
exciting adventure films. I'm looking forward to his return to Bond.
Clearly, your mileage varies.

Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256859 ]

So, 30 April 2006 08:14

Barry King wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Barry King wrote:
> > > WQ wrote:
> > > > Barry King wrote:
> > > > > WQ wrote:
> > --- If you read the quote at the site carefully, you'll note that the
> > "unattributed contention" is from Martin Campbell himself as reported
> > by Empire Online. He has said that we can expect to see this jerkcam
> > nonsense, along with "unBond lighting," in the Bond film.
>
> Uh, no, actually, he didn't. Or if he did you can't prove it by
> reading that article.
>
> http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=18246

--- The version I read, and for which I originally posted a link, was
this one:

http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3132-1.shtml

'Empire Online' further reports, "Although the first part is wildly
different to the book (there's a lot more scuba diving!), director
Martin Campbell claims the film is very faithful to the book's third
act - which, as readers will know, contains some rather shocking
scenes. In the meantime we can expect lots of handheld cameras and
equally un-Bond lighting/camerawork."

Looks like my goof. The quotes, which aren't in the Empire Online
version, threw me off into believing Campbell actually said it. But it
does still raise the question of why the use of handheld cameras and
equally un-Bond lighting/cameraw work was even mentioned in the first
place - unless Campbell clued EO into that but EO didn't directly
credit him as saying it. Merely supposition, but again, why was it
even mentioned?

> "Although the first part is wildly different to the book (there's a lot
> more scuba diving!), director Martin Campbell claims the film is very
> faithful to the book's third act - which, as readers will know,
> contains some rather shocking scenes. In the meantime we can expect
> lots of handheld cameras and equally un-Bond lighting/camerawork."
>
> The only statement directly attributed to Campbell in that paragraqph
> (or, in fact, anywhere in the article) is that "the film is very
> faithful to the book's third act ." That is followed by a
> declaration that "we" can expect handheld cameras, but whether this
> information comes from Campbell, from the reporter's observations or
> from the reporter's imagination is left quite unclear.
>
> > And you're
> > also confusing "my implication" of this being Campbell's preferred
> > shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has never used it before,
> > with some other poster who said it, not me. This is my constant
> > complaint about group posters: nobody reads things as they're meant to
> > be read.
>
> Gee, if only there was some archive on the internets that would allow
> us to determine who said what.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.james-bond/msg/9009fd 0aea0946ff?hl=en&
>
> "From: WQ
> Date: Fri, Apr 28 2006 3:30 am
> Groups: alt.fan.james-bond
>
> ...Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's
> expected to be an extensive use of the abhorrent
> jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style of shooting. I get nauseous over
> stuff like that, it's just the lazy director's way of doing things.
> That was my only real beef with the Bourne films, it really robbed you
> of any real feeling of a fight or chase scene with all those frenetic
> close-ups, zippy pans and rapid-fire editing. I fear the worst for CR
> in that department. "
>
> Any of that sound familiar? In a discussion of what the original
> poster felt to be Campbell's mediocrity as a director, YOU brought up
> the "extensive use of the abhorrent jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam
> style" as something else to worry about with Campbell. Since it was
> this very post to which I originally replied and you subsequently
> replied to me, I'm gonna assume we're NOT dealing with a "fake Scojo"
> situation here. So how, exactly, am I not "read[ing] things as they're
> meant to be read?" My tendency is to read them as they are written.
> Is this a mistake in your case?

--- I don't deny the quote you extracted but it still doesn't connect
me to being the original author of the "preferred shooting style"
quote which I know I had never used because I don't know for a fact
that what follows after in the quote is true or not, being that it's
"in spite of the fact that he [Campbell] has never used it [the
jerkycam approach] before." I've only seen maybe three Campbell films
in my entire life, GE, Mark of Zorro and Beyond Borders, so it's not a
statement I would make knowing that little about him. Perhaps you can
track down the original poster by using the key words of the quote -
"Campbell's preferred shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has
never used it before" - and then you'll have your real culprit. It's
one of us in this thread for sure, but I rule myself out.

> >
> > > Having misgivings about an upcoming film you haven't seen based on the
> > > previous work of the people involved is reasonable and legitimate.
> > > Manufacturing misgivings on the basis of such slim evidence, in
> > > contradiction of those people's previous work, is stretching negative
> > > speculation too damn far.
> >
> > Again, no manufacturing on my part, Campbell said it himself.
>
> Again, find me an actual quote from Campbell to that effect. You're
> basing this entire line of attack on one statement in an article by a
> reporter described in that very article as a "jammy git."

--- I guess I've explained my goof on that one already. But you also
admit that by the way the Empire Online quote was written it's unclear
as to who really mentioned handheld cams and unBond lighting/camera
work.

> > And then
> > when you factor in what jerkcam/unBond lighting really means, you
> > normally get pretentious artsy-fartsy cinema. I've seen enough films
> > of that sort to know that much.
>
> Given that it would be entirely at odds with Campbell's directorial
> style in previous films, including a Bond film, I think you require
> something a bit more solid than unattributed, unsubstantiated
> entertainment "news" before declaring as fact that he's turning 007
> artsy-fartsy. At minimum, a second source would be nice.

--- Yes, it would be. Three or four better still.

> >
> > > > > Personally, I'm glad Martin Campbell has returned to the Bond series.
> > > >
> > > > --- As I said, he was good but perhaps a bit too pedestrian for a Bond
> > > > film that needs a visual scope.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what part of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale requires all this
> > > "visual scope." It's not exactly a Howard Hawks western. As written,
> > > the book is pretty small-scale and intimate. I'm sure that's going to
> > > get expanded considerably in the adaptation into a modern James Bond
> > > film, but I don't think there's inherently any need for more "visual
> > > scope" than Campbell has demonstrated in previous films. Again, I
> > > think you're looking too hard for reasons to dislike the movie.
> >
> > Yes, CR is a small piece of work, but of course EON is expanding it
> > into a large piece of work, and if they're going to expand it, that
> > alone is broadening the story. And if EON wants to stick to a
> > particular style it's had with Bond films since the beginning, or at
> > least to an allusion of a style, then the film needs to be shot "big".
> > Remember, Campbell has also said that only the last third of the film
> > will be somewhat faithful to the book. Even the card game, which will
> > take place in the second act, will hardly take up a half-hour of screen
> > time, I'm sure. So I'd say at least three-quarters of the film will be
> > all concoction, figments of writers' imaginations, which will include
> > all sorts of characters and situations not found in the book. That's
> > already the case in the first third of the film. So obviously the
> > movie won't end up being as small as the book, and that's why if it's
> > going to be fatter than the book and try to retain any of the elements
> > that worked for Bond films in the past, then having a visual scope in
> > the filming it would be one such element. After all, FRWL was a film
> > with a pretty pedestrian plot, but its visual scope - almost shot like
> > a travelogue - is what helped beef it up.
>
> I'd be more inclined to credit FRWL's heft to a superb script and
> stellar cast, but we're dealing with matters of taste, for which there
> is notoriuosly no accounting. I think Campbell has shown himself, with
> GoldenEye and the Zorro films, to be perfectly capable of directing
> exciting adventure films. I'm looking forward to his return to Bond.
> Clearly, your mileage varies.

--- Listen, the three films of his I saw I liked too. GE could've been
tightened up a bit more, though, but of the four Brosnan Bonds it's the
only one that more or less worked for me from start to finish, so
that's a plus for him right there. My sense, however, is that there's
just too much mish-mash, for lack of a better term, going into the CR
pot. Going by whatever drips of details and clips we get about the
film, it just seems to me there are a lot of things in it that are at
odds with everything else, that it doesn't feel cohesive or
single-mindedly visionary enough, that EON once again is trying to
craft just another patchwork Bond film but this time with much more
disparate elements. Believe me, you won't find anybody happier than me
if they pull it off and the film ends up ranking right up there with my
Top 7 Bonds of Connerys and a Lazenby, pushing Connery's NSNA off the
list for 7th spot. I doubt if CR will fare better than that, but I'll
still be absolutely delighted if does make No. 7.

>
>
> Barry King
> --
> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> who cannot read them."
> -Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256860 ]

So, 30 April 2006 10:05

Barry King

WQ wrote:
>
> --- I don't deny the quote you extracted but it still doesn't connect
> me to being the original author of the "preferred shooting style"
> quote which I know I had never used because I don't know for a fact
> that what follows after in the quote is true or not, being that it's
> "in spite of the fact that he [Campbell] has never used it [the
> jerkycam approach] before." I've only seen maybe three Campbell films
> in my entire life, GE, Mark of Zorro and Beyond Borders, so it's not a
> statement I would make knowing that little about him. Perhaps you can
> track down the original poster by using the key words of the quote -
> "Campbell's preferred shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has
> never used it before" - and then you'll have your real culprit. It's
> one of us in this thread for sure, but I rule myself out.

I believe this is the quote you're thinking of:

"Thanks for posting the link later in the thread, but it seems like
you're cooking up a mighty large pot of stew from a mighty small bit of

meat. One short, unattributed contention that we should "expect lots
of handheld cameras" from a movie gossip site of (to me at least)
unknown veracity and you spend six weeks bemoaning all the "jerkycam"
we're gonna see. And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
never used it before, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred
shooting style."

That quote, of course, originated with me. The implication to which it
refers is contained in this quote, discovery of whose author I leave as
an exercise for the class:

"Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's expected to be
an extensive use of the abhorrent jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style
of shooting."

You are, of course, right in pointing out that, not having seen every
frame of film Martin Campbell has ever shot, I should not have stated
as "fact" that he has never used "jerkycam." The sentence should no
doubt have read "And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
not used it in any of the four examples of his commercial work that I
have seen, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred shooting
style." Doesn't scan quite as well, but it is more accurate.

Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256862 ]

So, 30 April 2006 15:58

Barry King wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- I don't deny the quote you extracted but it still doesn't connect
> > me to being the original author of the "preferred shooting style"
> > quote which I know I had never used because I don't know for a fact
> > that what follows after in the quote is true or not, being that it's
> > "in spite of the fact that he [Campbell] has never used it [the
> > jerkycam approach] before." I've only seen maybe three Campbell films
> > in my entire life, GE, Mark of Zorro and Beyond Borders, so it's not a
> > statement I would make knowing that little about him. Perhaps you can
> > track down the original poster by using the key words of the quote -
> > "Campbell's preferred shooting style, in spite of the fact that he has
> > never used it before" - and then you'll have your real culprit. It's
> > one of us in this thread for sure, but I rule myself out.
>
> I believe this is the quote you're thinking of:
>
> "Thanks for posting the link later in the thread, but it seems like
> you're cooking up a mighty large pot of stew from a mighty small bit of
>
> meat. One short, unattributed contention that we should "expect lots
> of handheld cameras" from a movie gossip site of (to me at least)
> unknown veracity and you spend six weeks bemoaning all the "jerkycam"
> we're gonna see. And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
> never used it before, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred
> shooting style."
>
> That quote, of course, originated with me. The implication to which it
> refers is contained in this quote, discovery of whose author I leave as
> an exercise for the class:

--- And we'll leave it at that.

> "Something else to worry about with Campbell is what's expected to be
> an extensive use of the abhorrent jerkycam/shiftycam/wobbly cam style
> of shooting."
>
> You are, of course, right in pointing out that, not having seen every
> frame of film Martin Campbell has ever shot, I should not have stated
> as "fact" that he has never used "jerkycam." The sentence should no
> doubt have read "And now you imply, in spite of the fact that he has
> not used it in any of the four examples of his commercial work that I
> have seen, that this is now Martin Campbell's preferred shooting
> style." Doesn't scan quite as well, but it is more accurate.

--- And we'll leave that ... at that, too.

>
> Barry King
> --
> "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
> who cannot read them."
> -Mark Twain

Re: The one thing that troubles me about CR... [message #256877 ]

Mo, 01 Mai 2006 16:45

Paul Clarke

Will wrote:
> "Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Erp4g.5191$Cv1.3024 [at] edtnps82...
>
>>I have of course. And the impression remains still, in spite of my like of
>>GE.
>>
>
> So, let me get this straight....You liked GE, a Campbell-directed film, but
> your "impression" of CR is that it will be no good, because of Campbell. I'm
> not following your logic.

OK, I'll explain again. The producers have shaken up this entry by
starring a new Bond, adapting a Fleming novel for the first time since,
geez, MR, hiring Paul Haggis to polish the script, and are reportedly
going back to Fleming basics and removing the sci-fi/fantasy elements
that took over the second half of DAD.

My point was, why not go all the way and hire a director that's less
workmanlike and can bring some vision to reboot the series
directorially. Instead they've hired Campbell, who did a good but
relatively undistinguished job on GE, IMO.

I am not saying CR "will be no good." Far from it, in fact. I'm on the
record as being one of the posters on this newsgroup that thinks CR will
be great.

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	David Arnold on HOT FUZZ
Nächstes Thema:	Discuss: Rupert Everett as Bond...

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 04:58:33 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09486 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.