113 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

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...

I think the mold of aging probably crept in even before that script was finalized, but certainly there is a point to be made that too much time to contemplate can be a bad thing, and given the right person a little pressure can be the best thing.

[marktmurphy]

Sounds good- I like the way he talks of the producers wanting a film with artistic vision. Sounds exciting.

[Publius]

I think the mold of aging probably crept in even before that script was finalized, but certainly there is a point to be made that too much time to contemplate can be a bad thing, and given the right person a little pressure can be the best thing.

Wasn't Raiders practically filmed overnight? Despite the time constraints, it doesn't feel rushed and zips along at a healthy pace. Hell, it comes across as pretty damn casual.

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

[Judo chop]

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

Kinda like diarrhea?

[Publius]

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

Kinda like diarrhea?

Right, and TWINE is like being constipated, while DAD is like projectile vomiting (with slow-mo CGI vomit). You tell me which is a more satisfying experience.

[HH007]

Guys, before we go too bugnuts over Forster's statements... every director in the world who has to meet a release date wishes they had more time. I just submitted a short film of my own to a competition and had to fight the clock like a mother[censored]er to get it in by the deadline. I was stressed beyond belief and biting my nails (and smoking like a chimney) the whole way. So I can only imagine what Forster is going through. Let's not be so quick to assume the worst... this is just the way it is... a filmmaker's main enemies are always two things... money and TIME.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

Kinda like diarrhea?

Right, and TWINE is like being constipated, while DAD is like projectile vomiting (with slow-mo CGI vomit). You tell me which is a more satisfying experience.

Let's not forget the nausea that is GoldenEye...

[DaveBond21]

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

Kinda like diarrhea?

Right, and TWINE is like being constipated, while DAD is like projectile vomiting (with slow-mo CGI vomit). You tell me which is a more satisfying experience.

Let's not forget the nausea that is GoldenEye...

I'm amazed. It normally doesn't take that long for a thread that has notihng to do with the Brosnan era to become a Brosnan movie hate-in.

[Judo chop]

Even looking at recent Bond movies, TND was an extremely pressured and chaotic shoot, yet I think it moves better (and more relaxed) than all the other Brosnan films.

Kinda like diarrhea?

Right, and TWINE is like being constipated, while DAD is like projectile vomiting (with slow-mo CGI vomit). You tell me which is a more satisfying experience.

Let's not forget the nausea that is GoldenEye...

I'm amazed. It normally doesn't take that long for a thread that has notihng to do with the Brosnan era to become a Brosnan movie hate-in.

tee hee

[Publius]

I'm amazed. It normally doesn't take that long for a thread that has notihng to do with the Brosnan era to become a Brosnan movie hate-in.

Hey, I'm a fan of Brosnan's Bond and I think his first two films were good to great. I was just trying to defend TND while still running with the grotesque analogy JC was drawing.

[Skudor]

Oh dear Marc. Oh dear. You really shouldn't go around saying things like this. Have you never seen how comments like this are like pouring petrol on the internet and tabloid flames?

Again, talk turns to time – and the lack of it. ‘I wish we would have more time to craft the film properly,’ he regrets. ‘For instance, with “The Dark Knight” Christopher Nolan had a year to cut his movie, to work on the visual effects, to reflect. I don’t have that time and so compromises have to be made.’

Ironically I was just discussing this with my wife yesterday: "poor Forster only has like a month and a half to edit his film where Nolan had a year."

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...’

This is the bit of the article that locks it down for me. Forster is under pressure and has to edit quickly. His choice of words is just a bit too explosive, exaggerated - he's not saying that the editing schedule is really insane, he's just saying it's very, very tough.

[Judo chop]

Forster is under pressure and has to edit quickly. His choice of words is just a bit too explosive, exaggerated - he's not saying that the editing schedule is really insane, he's just saying it's very, very tough.

It would have been nice to actually see and hear him say it. Of course the way it reads, the worried mind immediately paints a picture of an exhausted, baggy-eyed guy under unbearable strain, slouched in his chair kneading his perspiration-beaded scalp and chewing dry aspirin like John McClane.

But I can just as easily imagine him plainly stating the timelines are insane, and doing so upright, confident and proud with a glimmer in the eye and while cracking a smile, suggesting that he genuinely feels that he's already got a great product, that all will be well, and that he might actually be enjoying the pressure a little.

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO, it´s a bit strange that Forster should complain about the short time for editing TO A JOURNALIST. Either he is pissed that EON puts the pressure on him (and he sugarcoats it by saying how much the producers defended him) or he is just careless and a bit overworked.

Either way, he knew what he was getting himself into with the locked release dates. So, no sympathy from me, sorry, Mr.Forster.

What I do believe is that EON likes to put pressure on the editing now so they have a little more time for the director to tell him what they prefer in the final version. (Make no mistake, EON is still a totally producer driven entity.)

In the end, THE DARK KNIGHT definitely needed more editing time because of more VFX. Also, it is a two and a half hour movie. And Nolan has much more creative freedom than EON likes to give their directors. I don´t think that Nolan really took one whole year to edit TDK. If you really compress it to the time spent in the editing room, it probably was closer to three months. But that´s speculation.

Longer time in the editing room only means that you have more time to try out things and to lose perspective. Shorter time means being more focused and more driven to deliver. Should be okay for a Bond film.

[Harmsway]

IMO, it´s a bit strange that Forster should complain about the short time for editing TO A JOURNALIST.

Is it? I've seen plenty of directors do it before, and I appreciate it when they're candid and honest about the ups and downs of the moviemaking process.

[stamper]

Campbell had about as much time as Foster for CR, it's always that way in Bond's world. Who care's, because in the end, the urgency will be on screen. This is looking better and better (better at least that the trailer that stops dead just when it's about to take off).

[Skudor]

As always, the proof will be in the pudding.

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO, it´s a bit strange that Forster should complain about the short time for editing TO A JOURNALIST.

Is it? I've seen plenty of directors do it before, and I appreciate it when they're candid and honest about the ups and downs of the moviemaking process.

I do appreciate this as well. But will EON or Sony? And the press certainly won´t cut him any slack if the movie disappoints just because he did not have as much time to edit it as he liked. It´s just bad PR handling. Saying openly that there is not much time is fine. Complaining about it raises suspicion.

Also, why complain about something that he always knew would be his schedule? It´s not impossible to edit the picture this fast. Does he want to meddle too long? Seems so.

Then again, maybe the journalist just wanted to squeeze a conflict out of the interview where no conflict really is.

[Skudor]

The whole thing strikes me as nothing more than a poor choice of words. Ultimately he's saying it like it is - the schedule is tight, tighter than he would like. He's not saying that it's ruining the film.

[SecretAgentFan]

You´re right. And I don´t want to raise any doubts. I like Forster as a director. And the trailer exuded confidence IMO. I´m looking forward to QOS.

[dodge]

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.

Harms, I still don't know about all this. With one exception that I know of--1941--Spielberg has brought every film he's made on or before schedule. And most of Spielberg's films have had major budget. Clint Eastwood is also famous for never going over schedule or budget. Surely there are many more great or simply fine directors in that club. So, to clarify here: is Eon itself difficult in this regard? Or do you feel it's the unique character of a Bond film? What exactly is that uniqueness--and have all Bond directors suffered as poor Marc has?

As a special favor, may I ask: was Campbell in the same fix with GE and/or CR?

Your trusty pupil,

Dodge

[Harmsway]

With one exception that I know of--1941--Spielberg has brought every film he's made on or before schedule. And most of Spielberg's films have had major budget. Clint Eastwood is also famous for never going over schedule or budget. Surely there are many more great or simply fine directors in that club.

Well sure. But what does that have to do with anything we're talking about? Forster's not going over schedule or over budget on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and never has before to my knowledge. So your point is...?

So, to clarify here: is Eon itself difficult in this regard?

They are difficult in that Bond films, for better or worse, are generally produced on a very tight timetable, which is not the case for most other kinds of movies.

have all Bond directors suffered as poor Marc has?

Well, most of the Bond directors probably didn't care as much as Marc does, purely because I imagine Marc's a seemingly more careful director than any of the previous Bond directors. He's really a craftsman... the other Bond directors (Campbell included), weren't really filmmakers in the same sense. The Bond franchise has generally been manned by for-hire hacks.

There's also the issue that many of the previous Bond directors had been used to such tight scheduling. Forster's enjoyed a really relaxed schedule on his smaller films... so taking this leap into the fast-paced Bond production is clearly something he's not used to.

As a special favor, may I ask: was Campbell in the same fix with GE and/or CR?

Yes. The editing schedule was pretty tight for both of those films, and it's one of the reasons Campbell was so burnt out by the end of his time on CASINO ROYALE. Bond films are produced fast and furious, with little time to breathe.

[Mr_Wint]

Well, most of the Bond directors probably didn't care as much as Marc does, purely because I imagine Marc's a seemingly more careful director than any of the previous Bond directors. He's really a craftsman... the other Bond directors (Campbell included), weren't really filmmakers in the same sense. The Bond franchise has generally been manned by for-hire hacks.

I laughed out loud when reading this. Maybe you should wait for the actual film until you jump to a quick conclusion...? After all, these for-hire hacks did a pretty good job, didn't they?

[Harmsway]

Well, most of the Bond directors probably didn't care as much as Marc does, purely because I imagine Marc's a seemingly more careful director than any of the previous Bond directors. He's really a craftsman... the other Bond directors (Campbell included), weren't really filmmakers in the same sense. The Bond franchise has generally been manned by for-hire hacks.

I laughed out loud when reading this. Maybe you should wait for the actual film until you jump to a quick conclusion...? After all, these for-hire hacks did a pretty good job, didn't they?

What's to laugh at? The quality of the final film has no bearing on my statement. QUANTUM OF SOLACE could be an awful, dismal failure and my statement would still hold.

Yeah, the for-hire hacks did sometimes do a pretty damn good job (see Campbell on CASINO ROYALE). And it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that some of them did a better job than Forster will on QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But they're still for-hire hacks.

And it seems to me that Forster has approached this film in a much more thoughtful, careful fashion than any previous Bond director, regardless of the finished result. That's all I was saying, and I don't think that's a ridiculous comment to make.

[Royal Dalton]

Well, a lot of those so-called hacks were former editors, who knew they didn't need to shoot a lot of wastage in order to cover the shots during the editing process. Thereby saving themselves valuable post-production time.

[Ace Roberts]

And it seems to me that Forster has approached this film in a much more thoughtful, careful fashion than any previous Bond director, regardless of the finished result. That's all I was saying, and I don't think that's a ridiculous comment to make.
[/quote]

Those hacks like Terrance Young and Guy Hamilton never put much thought into their films....

Geezzzz......

Edited by Ace Roberts, 14 August 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[DaveBond21]

And it seems to me that Forster has approached this film in a much more thoughtful, careful fashion than any previous Bond director, regardless of the finished result. That's all I was saying, and I don't think that's a ridiculous comment to make.

I think that is a fair point, but I don't know how you can know how carefully (or recklessly) the likes of Guy Hamilton, John Glen or Michael Apted approached their Bond movies.

[stamper]

How can anyone call Terence Young a hack is beyond me.

As for Campbell, case in point, CR is way better than Indy 4. So we can fairly say that Spielberg is a hack, whereas Campbell's not !

[Harmsway]

I think that is a fair point, but I don't know how you can know how carefully (or recklessly) the likes of Guy Hamilton, John Glen or Michael Apted approached their Bond movies.

Maybe you can't, and I've done them a terrible disservice.

But at any rate, it does strike to me that Forster's concerned because he's used to having that much more time to really focus on the editing process of the film. He doesn't want to rush it, and would instead like some time to let the many choices sit and stew. In his comments, there's seems to be something of a perfectionist. I haven't, as of yet, perceived that same trait in other Bond directors.

How can anyone call Terence Young a hack is beyond me.

He wasn't really up to snuff outside of the Bond franchise.

As for Campbell, case in point, CR is way better than Indy 4. So we can fairly say that Spielberg is a hack, whereas Campbell's not !

I deem Campbell a for-hire hack because it seems that when he's left to his own devices, he hardly displays much talent as a director. Indeed, the quality of the direction in CASINO ROYALE appears to be something of a fluke when one looks at his filmography.

And I wish to say that there's nothing wrong with for-hire hacks, necessarily, or, for that matter, with for-hire hacks working on the Bond franchise. Indeed, as I've said before, I imagine Campbell's CASINO ROYALE will be the better film when measured against QUANTUM OF SOLACE (though I'm open to being proven wrong).

[Ace Roberts]

How can anyone call Terence Young a hack is beyond me.

As for Campbell, case in point, CR is way better than Indy 4. So we can fairly say that Spielberg is a hack, whereas Campbell's not !

I hope everyone realizes I was being sarcastic....movies like Dr. No, From Russia With Love & Goldfinger paved the way for a whole genre - so when I read that Forster has approached this film in a more thoughtful, careful fashion than any of the previous Bond directors - I find that a silly statement. But - everyone has their own opinion and mine isn't worth any more than anyone else's.

[Harmsway]

I hope everyone realizes I was being sarcastic....movies like Dr. No, From Russia With Love & Goldfinger paved the way for a whole genre - so when I read that Forster has approached this film in a more thoughtful, careful fashion than any of the previous Bond directors - I find that a silly statement.

Well, as I've said, how the film is approached doesn't necessarily equal quality. A for-hire workmanlike director like Young or Campbell can still produce better work than the most thoughtful and intentional of directors on a franchise like James Bond.

All my comment really meant to address is why Forster is taking the tight schedule so hard. It's not to suggest that QUANTUM will be great, or that Forster's going to deliver a terrific film. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE will end up inferior to CASINO ROYALE.