Jump to content


Photo

New Marc Forster Interview...


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#1 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 23984 posts
  • Location:England.

Posted 12 August 2008 - 02:44 PM

Now on the CBn main page...

Posted Image
Director working against the clock to deliver first cut to producers


http://www.timeout.c...-of-solace.html


:( I feel rather concerened over the hasty editing thing, I really hope this doesn't effect the final quality of the film.


#2 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 02:51 PM

Let the sport commence. :(

#3 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13748 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 12 August 2008 - 02:55 PM

Roll out the usual experts...

#4 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 830 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:04 PM

I particularly like this bit on Babs and Mikey.

"They promised me, and they have kept to their word so far, to fight for my creative vision. I’m thankful for that. But let’s see what happens when I show them the first cut…"

That's great news for future directors, who may have been put off in the past from directing Bond films :(
Come on Haggis, you can do it :)

Edited by BoogieBond, 12 August 2008 - 03:54 PM.


#5 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:05 PM

I find that a wonderfully encouraging interview, especially the talk about taking things a step further than CASINO ROYALE. Hopefully that bears out in the finished film. Nothing I've heard about it makes me think that Forster's comment is accurate, but given the little we know, I'm going to give Forster the benefit of the doubt.

#6 Ace Roberts

Ace Roberts

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Ft. Worth, Texas US

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:19 PM

I wonder when this interview actually took place? It says they finished filming the week before and only had 6 weeks to deliver a first cut. Shouldn't that have already passed by now - or coming up soon?

#7 RevolveR

RevolveR

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:28 PM

I like that Forster is reaffirming his commitment to a character-driven film. I continue to believe in him to deliver on this.

I worry about his ability to do the stellar editing that is required in a timeframe that he is not used to. We know that Bond films can be edited in this span, but Forster himself says that 6 weeks is not what he familiar with. Let's hope he can pull it off.

Edited by RevolveR, 12 August 2008 - 03:30 PM.


#8 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85604 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:30 PM

Now on the CBn main page...

Posted Image
Director working against the clock to deliver first cut to producers


#9 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:35 PM

I like that Forster is reaffirming his commitment to a character-driven film. I continue to believe in him to deliver on this.

I worry about his ability to do the stellar editing that is required in a timeframe that he is not used to. We know that Bond films can be edited in this span, but Forster himself says that 6 weeks is not what he familiar with. Let's hope he can pull it off.


Isn't it the director's job to set and stick to a schedule, including the film editing? Is MF already distancing himself?

#10 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:39 PM

Isn't it the director's job to set and stick to a schedule, including the film editing?

Not when he's subservient to the producers. It's really EON that sets the timetable on a Bond film.

Is MF already distancing himself?

I don't think so. He takes ownership of the film in the interview and is exceedingly courteous to EON.

#11 avl

avl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:39 PM

Another really encouraging piece from Forster. I'm looking forward to the Opera house sequence...

#12 oatesy

oatesy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 218 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:53 PM

Sounds encouraging.

Editing squeeze shouldn't be too much of a problem, Forster has only ever had one editor per film before (always Chesse) and his second here, Richard Pearson, has good form - he's another Bourne veteran

#13 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:55 PM

I like that Forster is reaffirming his commitment to a character-driven film. I continue to believe in him to deliver on this.

I worry about his ability to do the stellar editing that is required in a timeframe that he is not used to. We know that Bond films can be edited in this span, but Forster himself says that 6 weeks is not what he familiar with. Let's hope he can pull it off.


Isn't it the director's job to set and stick to a schedule, including the film editing? Is MF already distancing himself?


No Dodge, producers make the schedules on movies of this size.

#14 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6236 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:56 PM

I like that Forster is reaffirming his commitment to a character-driven film. I continue to believe in him to deliver on this.

I worry about his ability to do the stellar editing that is required in a timeframe that he is not used to. We know that Bond films can be edited in this span, but Forster himself says that 6 weeks is not what he familiar with. Let's hope he can pull it off.


Isn't it the director's job to set and stick to a schedule, including the film editing? Is MF already distancing himself?

I think the film's release date has much (probably almost everything) to do with it.

Forster also discusses Christopher Nolan's work on The Dark Knight in this interview and seems to lament he had a year(!) to cut that movie. I imagine there's far more work to do on that film in terms of editing and special effects than on Quantum of Solace, but it is an epic difference.

#15 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7459 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:11 PM

I can already see where this is going.

Forster is not going to have time to cut what he really believes should be cut, and the released film is going to be a bloated 148 minutes long, full of unnecessary schlock.

But you all needn’t worry… the Special Edition 3-disc DVD release of Quantum of Solace will feature on disc 1 the Director’s Cut of the film, which will be identical to the theatrical release in all ways but for 28 minutes of scenes removed and placed onto disc 2 as a “deleted scenes” special feature. John Glen will explain that process on disc 3.

#16 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:14 PM

But why would they bring a couple of the release dates, i.e. France and Sweden, FORWARD?

That means they're confident...at least Eon are. And the possibility exists that this interview is stale. Wasn't the film in the can in late June/early July? That's a minimum of five weeks ago, possibly seven weeks ago.

Isn't there a possibility, that Wilson and Broccoli have already seen the first cut...which is what gave them the confidence to bring forward those release dates?

#17 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:16 PM

Isn't there a possibility, that Wilson and Broccoli have already seen the first cut...which is what gave them the confidence to bring forward those release dates?

Yes, definitely possible (though given that the UK premiere date was early, anyways, it might be entirely unrelated).

At any rate, there's no real reason to panic about this whole editing thing.

#18 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6236 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:21 PM

But why would they bring a couple of the release dates, i.e. France and Sweden, FORWARD?

I imagine that's unrelated. Given Quantum of Solace premieres on October 29, the film will be done regardless of when it's released in those territories.

#19 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4298 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:35 PM

Isn't this recycled news? I'm sure Forster said much the same thing weeks back.

Anyway, I know for a fact that Judi Dench completed all her looping well over a month ago. So, I can't imagine that they haven't finished cutting the film by now.

#20 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:40 PM

I'm not one for crying wolf, but don't people find it a bit telling that he's saying that he's not used to this short an editing schedule? His movies have been what they've been because he's had "14" or so weeks to edit them. Here he's calling the "6" or so week period crazy.

Is that not a little telling? Does the fact he has two months less-than-normal to slice the film the way he wants it not a concern? I mean you can't rush fine wine nor ask a Michelangelo to hurry a sculpture or painting...not that we're talking a masterwork or a Pinot Noir or a Cabernet Sauvignon.

#21 RevolveR

RevolveR

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:56 PM

I'm not one for crying wolf, but don't people find it a bit telling that he's saying that he's not used to this short an editing schedule? His movies have been what they've been because he's had "14" or so weeks to edit them. Here he's calling the "6" or so week period crazy.

Is that not a little telling? Does the fact he has two months less-than-normal to slice the film the way he wants it not a concern? I mean you can't rush fine wine nor ask a Michelangelo to hurry a sculpture or painting...not that we're talking a masterwork or a Pinot Noir or a Cabernet Sauvignon.



Given the timeframe that was evident before he took the job, don't you think Forster would have known that he'd have much less than 14 weeks before he even signed up for this? I feel like that is something that would have been put on the table and made obvious from the beginning. Him complaining about it at this stage feels a bit like he is covering his own :( incase things don't turn out.

#22 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:01 PM

You guys are making way too much of this, I think. Forster knew what he signed up for, and he's just expressing the stresses of working on a Bond film production as compared to the other stuff he's done. There's nothing wrong with that, and nor does this strike me as being grouchy or complaining or trying to distance himself. He's just being open about the process (I believe Campbell has made similar comments).

And you guys are all ignoring the comment made in the article itself:

If it sounds like he’s making excuses for what’s to come when the film opens at the end of October, it doesn’t feel like that in the moment. Overall, he sounds confident, both of the film and his vision of it, which he says will tip a hat to the groundbreaking designs of Ken Adam in the first Bond films. Several times he mentions what he believes will be at the heart of the new film: character. ‘The great thing is that Daniel and I had an intense relationship, so between us we could always go back to the character.’


#23 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7459 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:03 PM

I'm not one for crying wolf, but don't people find it a bit telling that he's saying that he's not used to this short an editing schedule? His movies have been what they've been because he's had "14" or so weeks to edit them. Here he's calling the "6" or so week period crazy.

Is that not a little telling? Does the fact he has two months less-than-normal to slice the film the way he wants it not a concern? I mean you can't rush fine wine nor ask a Michelangelo to hurry a sculpture or painting...not that we're talking a masterwork or a Pinot Noir or a Cabernet Sauvignon.

Given the timeframe that was evident before he took the job, don't you think Forster would have known that he'd have much less than 14 weeks before he even signed up for this? I feel like that is something that would have been put on the table and made obvious from the beginning. Him complaining about it at this stage feels a bit like he is covering his own :( incase things don't turn out.

There's nothing to suggest in here that he didn't know about the timeframe. He probably knew damn well. But I don't see why foreknowledge would make it any easier for him to do the job. Maybe he feels fine about the time and he's just 'covering' as you say. But I have to side with the worry warts that it does sound... worrying.

Why isn’t it worrying (with a lowercase 'w') when the director says “I have way too little time” and “six weeks for this film is crazy”? I’d love to know.

#24 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:07 PM

Why isn’t it worrying (with a lowercase 'w') when the director says “I have way too little time” and “six weeks for this film is crazy”? I’d love to know.

Because comments about editing to meet a deadline and how it's incredibly stressful, etc. and so forth are incredibly common. Directors often have to edit quickly, especially on big blockbuster films with a locked timetable, and yeah, they're usually pretty worried about getting things done.

I think more than anything, Forster's talking about the lack of time to reflect on the editing of a film (he says as much in the interview, too). He's gotta put it together, but he doesn't have time to step back and then re-examine his work. But that's just the nature of the beast, and he, and any other director, has to put up with it.

I'd be more concerned if he was making comments about being worried about the state of the script as they were filming, etc. Editing? Well, editing's very important, but let's face it... once you've gotten to the editing stage on a Bond film, all the major pieces are in place. Forster could walk off the film at this point and, in all liklihood, we'd be just fine.

#25 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7459 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:13 PM

Why isn’t it worrying (with a lowercase 'w') when the director says “I have way too little time” and “six weeks for this film is crazy”? I’d love to know.

Because comments about editing to meet a deadline and how it's incredibly stressful, etc. and so forth are incredibly common. Directors often have to edit quickly, especially on big blockbuster films with a locked timetable, and yeah, they're usually pretty worried about getting things done.

In the end, things will be fine. He's talking about getting the final cut prepared, but in all truth, if he's unahppy with things do you think EON's not going to let him tweak the editing? The film doesn't have to be locked in the can until months from now, and editing usually goes on until the film's finally put away.

Thank you, Harms. Clear and solid as usual. I never thought hope was lost. I just didn't know how to digest the facts. I can't tell you how nice it is to be able to take a pessimistic thought to the table to be discussed and not feel like a chubby Robert DeNiro lurks behind my chair about to open my head with a bat.

Edit: Speaking of editing, I noticed you edited your thought re: editing.

:(

#26 Eddie Burns

Eddie Burns

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on Planet Earth

Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:01 PM

You mean to say that Nolan had a year to edit TDK and he still came up with a rather poorly edited movie?!? That I find hard to believe. I usually don't take too much notice of these details but TDK definitely had terrible editing. Many scenes felt rushed, or unfinished or unsatisfying.

As for Forster, I think he wants to make the best possible movie. I'd be more worried if he didn't care to be honest. I think its great that both Campbell and Forster demonstrated that they really care(d) about their respective projects. The movies are slowly becoming respected again and that is largely down to what Campbell started in CR and hopefully what Forster will continue in QoS.

#27 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 12537 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:07 PM

You mean to say that Nolan had a year to edit TDK and he still came up with a rather poorly edited movie?!?

A matter of opinion. But yeah, he did have the entirety of a year to lock down his final edit of THE DARK KNIGHT, which really is an exorbitant amount of time.

#28 Joey Bond

Joey Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:41 PM

Getting a bit more worried about the film, but I've learned my lesson to CR to reserve judgement.

Hey, some people work better under pressure. Maybe Forster is one of them.

#29 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2247 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:43 PM

I think it is good that they have a tight schedule and that he can feel the pressure.

After seeing "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", I really think that a film can be over-worked and destroyed during the post-processing... :(

#30 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13748 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:47 PM

You mean to say that Nolan had a year to edit TDK and he still came up with a rather poorly edited movie?!?

A matter of opinion. But yeah, he did have the entirety of a year to lock down his final edit of THE DARK KNIGHT, which really is an exorbitant amount of time.


Quite. Didn't do it much good, did it? As on and on and on it goes...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users