26

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Gassy Man wrote:

But the title doesn't bode well for great advances in moviemaking.

This title represents what Bond is now all about (and has been since the Brosnan era). Bond is about making money rather than creative films. The title is a marketing decision rather than a creative one, and thus we can probably expect many parts of the film to be sold to the highest bidder. People have complained to me that Bond is now a fashion show more than anything else. While Bond has always been stylishly dressed, the thought put into the clothing is made more public than it used to be.

27

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Matt S wrote:
Gassy Man wrote:

But the title doesn't bode well for great advances in moviemaking.

This title represents what Bond is now all about (and has been since the Brosnan era). Bond is about making money rather than creative films.

Bond has always been about making money and very little else. Cubby discovered a formula that sold and milked it for years. If anything, Babs has shown a willingness to play with the formula in ways her father never did. The results have been mixed. But let’s not pretend like Bond used to be high-minded cinema. The old films are better, but that’s primarily because Fleming’s source material was good rather than due to the brilliant film making of yesteryear. Casino Royale - the best Bond film since TLD - is proof of that.

Does anyone go to a Bond film expecting “great advances in moviemaking”? Bond hasn’t been in theaters for 60 years because it’s groundbreaking. Quite the opposite, I think.

Last edited by Miles Messervy (27th Aug 2019 03:28)

28

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Miles Messervy wrote:
Matt S wrote:
Gassy Man wrote:

But the title doesn't bode well for great advances in moviemaking.

This title represents what Bond is now all about (and has been since the Brosnan era). Bond is about making money rather than creative films.

Bond has always been about making money and very little else. Cubby discovered a formula that sold and milked it for years. If anything, Babs has shown a willingness to play with the formula in ways her father never did. The results have been mixed. But let’s not pretend like Bond used to be high-minded cinema. The old films are better, but that’s primarily because Fleming’s source material was good rather than the brilliant film making of yesteryear. Casino Royale - the best Bond film since TLD - is proof of that.

Does anyone go to a Bond film expecting “great advances in moviemaking”? Most people, including many on this very forum,  would probably leave unsatisfied even if it happened!

I'm not pretending it was ever anything but about making money, but in the Brosnan era new ways of making money arose.

29

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

On hindsight I think Skyfall is arguably the best Bond film in the past 30 to 40 years to me (with Casino Royale a very close 2nd).

Quantum Of Solace was relatively decent filler, but felt a bit rushed and incomplete (and it wasn't the film's fault). SPECTRE was a solid product and felt more complete, but despite sharing the same cast and crew as Skyfall, felt contrived and lazy ( ie. an apartment building is getting demolished and Bond lands onto a comfy couch, the Roman car chase felt a bit too sedate and was used for info dumping, Bond shoots one fuel valve and Blofeld's entire elaborate, high tech desert complex blows up, etc).

My main fear for No Time To Die is that's going to feel like a tired, passionless, and cobbled together movie like X-Men: Dark Phoenix, due to the delays and shifts in production.

'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'

30

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Matt S wrote:
Miles Messervy wrote:
Matt S wrote:

This title represents what Bond is now all about (and has been since the Brosnan era). Bond is about making money rather than creative films.

Bond has always been about making money and very little else. Cubby discovered a formula that sold and milked it for years. If anything, Babs has shown a willingness to play with the formula in ways her father never did. The results have been mixed. But let’s not pretend like Bond used to be high-minded cinema. The old films are better, but that’s primarily because Fleming’s source material was good rather than the brilliant film making of yesteryear. Casino Royale - the best Bond film since TLD - is proof of that.

Does anyone go to a Bond film expecting “great advances in moviemaking”? Most people, including many on this very forum,  would probably leave unsatisfied even if it happened!

I'm not pretending it was ever anything but about making money, but in the Brosnan era new ways of making money arose.

Actually, I'd love to see "great advances in moviemaking," as would most of the people I know who are fans, the way the Bonds in the Connery era clearly set a standard rather than merely follow them, as they've done pretty much with every Bond since Licence to Kill, including the vastly overrated Skyfall.  The only exception has been Casino Royale, which dared to be a movie about Bond rather than a Bond movie, and that's why it wowed the audiences and critics, establishing a high point.

The reason we don't go into a Bond film anymore expecting "great advances in filmmaking" is because we know the producers are going to play it safe, either by sticking predictably to a paint-by-numbers formula or by copying what other movies are doing, like the vastly overrated Skyfall.

"Great advances in filmmaking" doesn't mean they suddenly turn Bond into an arthouse film -- though Quantum of Solace seemed to have aspirations in this regard -- nor that they toss out all the elements that define Bond.  It means that they take the genre elements and do something fresh and successful with them.  They take risks that pay off.  Editing a movie so that it appears to be having an epileptic seizure is not fresh, as the Bourne movies recently did that; having a villain who has plans within plans within plans is not fresh since The Dark Knight recently did that; making Blofeld Bond's "brother" is not fresh because Austin Powers recently did that.

To each their own about the older films, though I find the movie making far superior to the "TV show with a bigger budget" approach of modern filmmaking, and the Connery Bonds certainly were "high-minded cinema" enough to not only be copied multiple times by other flims but to create an entire genre of their own that ran popular throughout the 1960s.  They created genuine suspense, were sweeping and visually interesting, featured some great toys and gadgets, and were written far more sharply than any Bond films of the past 40 years -- the Dr. No dinner scene puts to shame all of the villain reveals of the last 40 years, including that yammering speech about rats Silva gives in Skyfall.

So, when one refers to "great advances in filmmaking," it mean to establish Bonds as the leader again, and not merely as a tired follower.  It means taking calculated risks that work to establish a new standard for the genre to follow rather than stunt casting and minutia, like giving Madonna a cameo, (gasp) letting a Bond girl be older than Bond, or making Moneypenny Black.  I've not problem with any of these "risks," but they're certainly not the sort of thing that the genre now uses as a benchmark.

31

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

GM, I agree with much of what you are saying, but I still think the common denominator of most of the best Bond films is Fleming’s source material. The dinner scene in Dr No is indeed excellent, but it’s even better in the book. Without being able to rely on Fleming, the sad truth is there is very little hope of Bond regaining it’s cutting edge. That doesn’t mean the films can’t be good or enjoyable, but I think our expectations need to be realistic. If we go into the theatre hoping for something akin to the glory days of Connery, we’re inevitably going to leave disappointed.

32

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

The Fleming books and Connery films are still great, but unfortunately still products of their time (with Fleming novels especially revelling in sexism and racism that would be off putting to a lot of today's audience, even outside of the insipid SJWs).

Bond films changed a lot through the 70s, 80s, and 90s; most of the movies were fun, but more disposable (typical Moore/Dalton/Brosnan films).

Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.

'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'

33

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Colonel Shatner wrote:

Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.

In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.

For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.

Last edited by Miles Messervy (28th Aug 2019 14:55)

34

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Miles Messervy wrote:

GM, I agree with much of what you are saying, but I still think the common denominator of most of the best Bond films is Fleming’s source material. The dinner scene in Dr No is indeed excellent, but it’s even better in the book. Without being able to rely on Fleming, the sad truth is there is very little hope of Bond regaining it’s cutting edge. That doesn’t mean the films can’t be good or enjoyable, but I think our expectations need to be realistic. If we go into the theatre hoping for something akin to the glory days of Connery, we’re inevitably going to leave disappointed.

I wouldn't argue that Fleming wasn't the primary reason, though I think Maibaum proved himself an excellent screenwriter for adapting and often improving on Fleming. 

The problem I have is that no one today is proving capable of either imitating Fleming or matching/exceeding his vision.  That I find remarkable, as Fleming was writing pulp with a marginal literary gloss.  He wasn't writing Shakespeare.

A decade ago, I won a contest to write in Hemingway's style.  It wasn't that hard.  Hemingway had certain habits, and though his style can change from his novels to his short stories and evolved over time, there are certain markers to the language and characterizations that are apparent from just reading a dozen of his works.  I can't believe there aren't professional screenwriters who can't be even better.  Obviously much better.

I think the bigger problem is that they don't try.  They skim the surface of Fleming and then produce something comparatively unsophisticated, perhaps out of fear of alienating audiences believed to be driven more by explosions and shiny objects.  Here, again, they're following trends rather than creating.

35

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Miles Messervy wrote:
Colonel Shatner wrote:

Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.

In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.

For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.

Hear, Hear!  Spot on post!

I'd add that Skyfall was terribly derivative -- The Dark Knight, Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs.  I caught something a few weeks ago, too, that featured a manor house remarkably like the one on Skyfall -- perhaps it was the Albert Finney version of Tom Jones?  The French Connection?  I can't recall as I was flipping through channels, but even the filming was similar, starting with the camera tracking to the gate.

Skyfall's plot is loopy, mostly because of the underdeveloped and contradictory villain (and some of Bond's strategy to theart him).  A noteworthy reason why The Dark Knight is superior is because we saw scenes with the villain extant of those with the hero.  More time was taken to develop the Joker onscreen, even though he's an eminently familiar character.  Silva was a sketch by comparison and not much of one.  He had none of the icy elegance of Dr. No, another villain not revealed until late in the film, nor the calculating logic.

But Skyfall is a curiously uneven film.  Its opening action sequence has lots of activity but not much suspense, and even the fight with the assassin in China works more because it seems like they're dancing.

But sentimentality drives the story, and in this sense, it works.

36

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Gassy Man wrote:
Miles Messervy wrote:
Colonel Shatner wrote:

Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.

In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.

For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.

Hear, Hear!  Spot on post!

I'd add that Skyfall was terribly derivative -- The Dark Knight, Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs.  I caught something a few weeks ago, too, that featured a manor house remarkably like the one on Skyfall -- perhaps it was the Albert Finney version of Tom Jones?  The French Connection?  I can't recall as I was flipping through channels, but even the filming was similar, starting with the camera tracking to the gate.

Skyfall's plot is loopy, mostly because of the underdeveloped and contradictory villain (and some of Bond's strategy to theart him).  A noteworthy reason why The Dark Knight is superior is because we saw scenes with the villain extant of those with the hero.  More time was taken to develop the Joker onscreen, even though he's an eminently familiar character.  Silva was a sketch by comparison and not much of one.  He had none of the icy elegance of Dr. No, another villain not revealed until late in the film, nor the calculating logic.

But Skyfall is a curiously uneven film.  Its opening action sequence has lots of activity but not much suspense, and even the fight with the assassin in China works more because it seems like they're dancing.

But sentimentality drives the story, and in this sense, it works.


I agree with what you said about skyfall lacking suspense, I actually wrote about Dan Romer the new bond composers previous work in another forum before it was closed.

I think this sort of links to that in a sense as Dan Romer appears to be a fan of older scores by the greats such as Berrnard Herrman and Jerry Goldsmith, he also made a drum kit out of stringed instruments which can be found on youtube for Beasts of No nation, which he made with Cary Fukunaga.

In response to earlier in this thread, how it's being said bond is no longer the trend setter, now the trend follower.
Tbh I'm actually ok with that, I find bond movies to actually be a bit of a historical statement, documenting the changes between 1962 to present.

I also have real faith that Cary Fukunaga is a great Director and writer and if he gets the chance to really leave his mark on "No Time To Die" it might be a bond film unlike we have sen before.

To those that have seen Maniac, True Detective
Or beasts or no nation.
I wouldn't really call his style of film making an expected formula or phoning it in to play it safe.
I'd say the complete opposite and this is why I'm excited.
Fingers crossed.

37

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

ajb007/cheers

38

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.

Maniac is fever dream garbage. Beasts of No Nation and True Detective were good, and the guy will know how to direct good action, something the past two Bonds were severely lacking with Mendez who never really directed any action in his life. That is what I'm most excited for. Plot should take a back seat to the action, and hopefully Bond will begin to draw inspiration from John Wick, which is extremely popular right now, as Bond drew inspiration from the Bourne series when those were popular.

Last edited by Shatterfang (4th Sep 2019 20:07)

39

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Shatterfang wrote:

For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.

So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.

Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.

40

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Doubt it will be as good as Casino Royale and Skyfall which imo are the two best JB films but it can be better than SPECTRE that's for sure  ajb007/lol  ajb007/lol

41

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Miles Messervy wrote:
Shatterfang wrote:

For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.

So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.

Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.

Lol, those q's sound pretty rhetorical, but ok. ajb007/lol

'Craig's films are your bottom 5?' - No. I was ranking Craig's tenure by itself. On my list of all the films, CR is #3, SF #8, QoS #18, and SP #25.

'Which includes ranking a film none of us have see' - Yes, as pertaining to the thread title.

'Why am I planning to see NTTD?' - As I have collected all the films and enjoy immensely even the worst on my list.

'Why am I here if I prefer John Wick?' - Well if you followed JW, it is described as a fusion of James Bond and Breaking Bad, which are my two favorite franchises. John Wick is heavily inspired by 007 with the director begging to do a Bond film.

42

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

Miles Messervy wrote:
Shatterfang wrote:

For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.

So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.

Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.

Its true to say that it has had a decidedly difficult gestation. Good even great films have emerged from troubled productions. We just dont know enough about it as yet. While personally not thrilled by having Waltz and  Seydoux in the mix its just impossible to forecast at present. I am taking comfort from the fact that DC looks in tip top shape as pre production footage caused concern.

Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.

43

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

I think within Craig's films it'll be:

Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS

I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.

44

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

005 wrote:

I think within Craig's films it'll be:

Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS

I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.

You have it the other way around in your list though — CR ranked higher than QOS??

45

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".

46

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

005 wrote:

I think within Craig's films it'll be:

Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS

I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.

you've used Greater Than symbols where you mean Less Than!
and you call yourself a scientist!

You're right about the shoehorning of action sequences into Casino Royale.
One good thing about the Climax Mystery Theatre version, was they let the card game play out in real time after talking up how high the stakes were, and it was genuinely suspenseful. In the Craig film, they assumed the audience would be bored, so kept interrupting it with poisonings and stairwell fights, which undermined the stakes of the game.

47

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

caractacus potts wrote:
005 wrote:

I think within Craig's films it'll be:

Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS

I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.

you've used Greater Than symbols where you mean Less Than!
and you call yourself a scientist!

You're right about the shoehorning of action sequences into Casino Royale.
One good thing about the Climax Mystery Theatre version, was they let the card game play out in real time after talking up how high the stakes were, and it was genuinely suspenseful. In the Craig film, they assumed the audience would be bored, so kept interrupting it with poisonings and stairwell fights, which undermined the stakes of the game.

The Climax Mystery Theater version was broadcast live, so they didn't have a ton of options.......

48

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

005 wrote:

I think within Craig's films it'll be:

Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS

I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.

I agree with what you were trying to say (removing NTTD, because I have no idea where it will rank). QoS is the best film of the Craig era. Unlike most modern action / thrillers, it was not bloated or over long. It’s stylish, brisk, has a great score, and features Crag’s Most nuanced performance.

49

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

HowardB wrote:

NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".


Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.

I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.

ajb007/lol

50

Re: Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.

You'veHadYourSix wrote:
HowardB wrote:

NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".


Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.

I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.

ajb007/lol

If you can get past the very difficult pre-production and all the Tab slagging that went along with it, when you just look at the creative team EON ended up with: Fukunaga, the other writers, the DP, etc IMO, the film appears to be in very good hands. Regarding Fukunaga being a better director than Martin Campbell, it's really all relative. Campbell has a long career as a film director, primarily in the action genre and has done some good work, especially with his two Bond films, both of which are credited with breathing new life into and resurrecting the franchise. However, when judging Campbell by his entire resume, he is probably considered a very good "journeyman" director. Fukunaga, much younger and with a much smaller work sampling is considered one of the new hot outstanding young directorial talents and more of an auteur with screen writing credits and his work as a DP. IMO, I would have to say that Campbell is the better "Bond Director" as he has a proven track record with one very good to excellent Bond film (GE) and one truly classic Bond film (CR). Fukunaga, depending on how NTTD turns out has the potential to become part of the great Bond directors club, but we won't know that until April 2020. I for one, hope he can stand with Campbell, Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, and Sam Mendes as just not a good director, but a good director who made a great Bond film.