Viewing Thread:
"Martin Cambell to direct Bond 21"

Good and bad news I'd say. The James Bond franchise has always been famous for giving many directors a chance at Bond. Even good old Tarantino wants to direct his very own Bond film. But instead they've given Martin Cambell the job of bringing in a new James Bond.

So it is bad news in that we haven't got ourselves a new director but the better news is that the one this guy did before was Goldeneye. Which is by far one of the best James Bond films.

So maybe we'll see a new ressurection to the franchise.

Good and bad news I'd say. The James Bond franchise has always been famous for giving many directors a chance at Bond. Even good old Tarantino wants to direct his very own Bond film. But instead they've given Martin Cambell the job of bringing in a new James Bond.

So it is bad news in that we haven't got ourselves a new director but the better news is that the one this guy did before was Goldeneye. Which is by far one of the best James Bond films.

So maybe we'll see a new ressurection to the franchise.

I hope that, along with the director, whichever new actor becomes Bond we see another change in style for the franchise. Perphaps a lean back to the golden area of the series when the stories were actually good and there was a bit of humour in the films. Nowadays we just have ott action, rubbish CGI and awful double-entendre-filled scripts, and poor villains.
We want hollowed out volcano lairs, evil super villains with hideous deformities and quirky henchmen, Bond back in a safari suit and some innovative action and stunt set pieces.

The trouble with James Bond is that once the original source material was used up, finding ideas for new films became harder and harder, but there has to be some script writer out there capable of creating a decent action spy romp, rather than some monkey bashing out a script filled with mindless action and CGI-assisted stunts.

yeah the only truly freak villain we've had in recent years is Robert carlyle, I thought the world is not enough was pretty good, goldeneye immense, and the other 2 brosnans were alright but not great.

Some of the recent films have good things in them - Bond being captured in DAD, the injury in TWISNE - add a bit of 'realism' (schya) to them. But still, I can't really define a really good Bond film. Just the bad ones.

I died a little at all the painful inneundo in the new Bond film.
If that's supposed to be suave and sophisticated, I'd be the king of women by now.

And it must be said - a lot of the old Bond films are just plain terrible.

Cyclone wrote:
> Some of the recent films have good things in them - Bond being
> captured in DAD, the injury in TWISNE - add a bit of 'realism'
> (schya) to them. But still, I can't really define a really good Bond
> film. Just the bad ones.

Goldeneye I think is the best one so far, cant believe how Jude Law is linked with being Bond, he looks twelve. C'mon MGM get Guy Pierce or Christian Bale ffs

I'd back Bale for Bond. But they should consider somebody a bit out there, a bit unexpected. Jeremy Northam for instance. But I guess he'd be like Timothy Dalton mark two. So maybe not.

But not Jude Law, because lets face it, bad guys would just laugh at him. Same goes for Ewan MacGregor. We going to have Yoda as Q?

Perhaps Dougray Scott would do, but he's a bit bland I think. Other than bad guy in Mission Impossible 2, and poncy dude in Ever After or whatever it was, has he ever been in any other movies?

Or perhaps Matthew McFadyen. Tom Quinn from Spooks. He'd be good, has the look, has a sort of ruthless edge and has experience playing spies.

Anyway, just not Jude Law or Hugh Jackman. No ponces, no Americans.

I suppose Campbell ought to make a decent movie, but the script is the main thing.

Less CGI b******t and a good intelligent plot, with naked Bond girls : D

The CGI in Die Another Day was just laughable :-0-D