44 replies to this topic

[MHazard]

I simply don't understand.

It makes complete sense to me to start the film with the car chase. We're on the tails of Casino Royale. Bond has captured White, and needs to deliver him. It's sensical, and there's plenty of Bond: The Character when he arrives.

Judo, it may have followed logically, but did you really find the car chase very interesting or any better than a zillion car chases in a zillion movies? Why not start with White's interrogation. Or better still why not start with LALD done properly?

I did. I credit Bourne for breathing life back into the car chase during his Supremacy, and I think Quantum's car chase was magnificent. I love the passenger-perspective we are given. It got my adrenaline up. And I think it was all made a bit humorous when Bond opens the trunk to reveal his hidden passenger.

Now, what exactly are you saying, MHaz? (Welcome back, by the way.) Are you saying film car chases by definition aren't interesting at all and should be avoided by Bond altogether? Are you saying that Ian never started a Bond story with one and so EON shouldn't either? Are you saying opening with a car chase could have been fine, but just wasn't done well in this particular case? (If so, I'd be interested to know which car chase of the last 20 years was better, in your opinion.)

Or, are you just saying that they should have filmed LALD and anything else is less than satisfactory?

I'm saying film car chases are by definition not very interesting and should be avoided whether or not Ian wrote one (I believe he wrote two: one in CR and one in MR for what it's worth). I like the African rundown in CR even tho Ian never wrote one. I also like the car chase in GF ( machine guns, ejector seat, etc.) but that's a trick that only works once (and led to too many over the top gadgets). On the other hand, would you really ever want to watch the car chase in DAF again? Or the motorcycle car chase in NSNA? Or the speedboat chase in LALD (which is the same thing only on water). There's nothing you can do to develop a character in a car chase and once you've seen one, you've seen them all. My point was that the difference between CR and QOS is epitomized by the different emphasis in their PTS's. I didn't get anything special about the car chase in QOS except for the nice line when he opens the trunk.

Now, having re-booted the franchise and made it a more Fleming like Bond, I would have preferred that the producers re-adapt one of the early books that bears no resemblance to the "Carry On Bond" movie that stole its title. So, I am a little disappointed that the producers chose to once again break movie Bond away from Fleming Bond (I will not bore you and others by documenting the ways in which QOS twists the CR events and Bond's reaction to them in my view).

Having said all that, I don't hate QOS, I enjoyed it and I intend to see it again. But, just as I enjoy YOLT and NSNA, I view both as flawed films. I also view QOS as a flawed, but enjoyable film. An actor of Craig's talent could have been used to better advantage. But I will say this. I thought QOS a much better film than DMC was a book.

Oh, and it's nice to be back. What passes for my real life intruded for a while.

[double o ego]

I don't think QoS was meant to be a fun Bond film. It's supposed to be a revenge thriller, which sees Bond in an emotional p;ace that we've never seen before.

[Judo chop]

I'm saying film car chases are by definition not very interesting and should be avoided whether or not Ian wrote one (I believe he wrote two: one in CR and one in MR for what it's worth). I like the African rundown in CR even tho Ian never wrote one. I also like the car chase in GF ( machine guns, ejector seat, etc.) but that's a trick that only works once (and led to too many over the top gadgets). On the other hand, would you really ever want to watch the car chase in DAF again? Or the motorcycle car chase in NSNA? Or the speedboat chase in LALD (which is the same thing only on water). There's nothing you can do to develop a character in a car chase and once you've seen one, you've seen them all. My point was that the difference between CR and QOS is epitomized by the different emphasis in their PTS's. I didn't get anything special about the car chase in QOS except for the nice line when he opens the trunk.

So we’re clear, it’s about the combined problems inherent in the general idea of a car chase that:

1) it cannot achieve character development

and,

2) it has already been done and will never done differently and/or better.

I agree that, for ANY action sequence, if both are true, the idea should be dumped. But as I’ve said, in the case of QOS’s car chase, I don’t concur with #2.

I don’t think it’s “seen one, seen ‘em all” for car chases. Are handfight, or gunfight scenes always the same? Are footchase scenes always the same? (Obviously not, since you admit to enjoying the African Rundown.) It sounds to me like you just have something against car chases, MHaz, no matter how hard they may try to break the mould in terms of stuntwork and camerawork, and no matter how much they prove to be a sensible device to the story. (Were you really meaning to tie the QOS car chase to the DAF car chase??!!)

In any event, I’m not sure you have to take your point any further and cry Flemingfoul.

So, I am a little disappointed that the producers chose to once again break movie Bond away from Fleming Bond (I will not bore you and others by documenting the ways in which QOS twists the CR events and Bond's reaction to them in my view).

That wouldn’t be boring at all. I think you should definitely document them. In a separate thread, even.

[dodge]

Loomis, I really am in the dreadful position of not having a single positive thing I can say about this film.

Can you enjoy the dialogue or the acting then? There are performances and there is dialogue in QoS that beats anything said or thought from the Fast and the Furious into humble cream pie.

But I didn't see any acting at all in the film--not even the school of not acting. Forster accomplished the impossible in reducing Dynamite Dan to an expressionless lump--shooting him, moreover, in mostly 1 or 2 second snippets. The Bond girls were as generic as anything in poor Tim Dalton's films. The villain was directed as a bug-eyed fool. Mathis and Leiter? Hard to give a great performance in 3 minutes' screen time. Dame Judy? Not bad but--wouldn't you agree--her shtick is getting old.

No, no, in the garden of screen delights there's not even the ghost of a rose here.

But...I am curious...be kind enough to tell me where you thought any character came even halfway to life. For a fleeting instant, CraigBond did, when he confronted Vesper's boyfriend. Still, though, a couple of seconds do not good performance make.

[dodge]

I simply don't understand.

It makes complete sense to me to start the film with the car chase. We're on the tails of Casino Royale. Bond has captured White, and needs to deliver him. It's sensical, and there's plenty of Bond: The Character when he arrives.

Judo, it may have followed logically, but did you really find the car chase very interesting or any better than a zillion car chases in a zillion movies? Why not start with White's interrogation. Or better still why not start with LALD done properly?

I did. I credit Bourne for breathing life back into the car chase during his Supremacy, and I think Quantum's car chase was magnificent. I love the passenger-perspective we are given. It got my adrenaline up. And I think it was all made a bit humorous when Bond opens the trunk to reveal his hidden passenger.

Now, what exactly are you saying, MHaz? (Welcome back, by the way.) Are you saying film car chases by definition aren't interesting at all and should be avoided by Bond altogether? Are you saying that Ian never started a Bond story with one and so EON shouldn't either? Are you saying opening with a car chase could have been fine, but just wasn't done well in this particular case? (If so, I'd be interested to know which car chase of the last 20 years was better, in your opinion.)

Or, are you just saying that they should have filmed LALD and anything else is less than satisfactory?

I'm saying film car chases are by definition not very interesting and should be avoided whether or not Ian wrote one (I believe he wrote two: one in CR and one in MR for what it's worth). I like the African rundown in CR even tho Ian never wrote one. I also like the car chase in GF ( machine guns, ejector seat, etc.) but that's a trick that only works once (and led to too many over the top gadgets). On the other hand, would you really ever want to watch the car chase in DAF again? Or the motorcycle car chase in NSNA? Or the speedboat chase in LALD (which is the same thing only on water). There's nothing you can do to develop a character in a car chase and once you've seen one, you've seen them all. My point was that the difference between CR and QOS is epitomized by the different emphasis in their PTS's. I didn't get anything special about the car chase in QOS except for the nice line when he opens the trunk.

Now, having re-booted the franchise and made it a more Fleming like Bond, I would have preferred that the producers re-adapt one of the early books that bears no resemblance to the "Carry On Bond" movie that stole its title. So, I am a little disappointed that the producers chose to once again break movie Bond away from Fleming Bond (I will not bore you and others by documenting the ways in which QOS twists the CR events and Bond's reaction to them in my view).

Having said all that, I don't hate QOS, I enjoyed it and I intend to see it again. But, just as I enjoy YOLT and NSNA, I view both as flawed films. I also view QOS as a flawed, but enjoyable film. An actor of Craig's talent could have been used to better advantage. But I will say this. I thought QOS a much better film than DMC was a book.

Oh, and it's nice to be back. What passes for my real life intruded for a while.

You mean none of this is real? Welcome back!

[Judo chop]

But...I am curious...be kind enough to tell me where you thought any character came even halfway to life. For a fleeting instant, CraigBond did, when he confronted Vesper's boyfriend. Still, though, a couple of seconds do not good performance make.

First of all, a couple of seconds DOES make a good performance. If the message can be conveyed in just a couple seconds, then more power to the performance!

But the list has been publicized more than once around here. Bond in any and all of his scenes with Mathis. (Which amounts to a whole lot of a couple seconds strung together.)

Agents fields defines herself right from the get-go as a kind of neo-Bond floozy. She's literally a rebooted version of Goodnight, cheese stripped away leaving a real soul bared. See (with open eyes AND an open heart) Mr. Asterisk's review of the character.

And I think what a lot of people are missing (I say 'missing' because I see it and they don't, and so what other way would I describe it?) is that character is spelled out in their actions and their reactions as much as the performances. When Bond dumps Mathis off, that says something - quite loudly - about the character. When Bond is about to assist in Camille's death, that says something about BOTH characters. And on top of those situational narratives, there is potent acting as well.

Dodge... BEFORE you saw the film, you were pleading to the spoiler gods, in your usual amusing way, to protect you from the influence of positive outputs of the "Zorinians" and the "ACEtoneans" (?). Yet I don't remember you pleading for protection from the Lazenbys and the other folks who think Bond has turned into a fast edited Brosnan flick.

It really seems like you had your defenses up against the positive reviews, and I can't help but think you were already prepared to dislike this film.

[avl]

And I think what a lot of people are missing (I say 'missing' because I see it and they don't, and so what other way would I describe it?) is that character is spelled out in their actions and their reactions as much as the performances. When Bond dumps Mathis off, that says something - quite loudly - about the character. When Bond is about to assist in Camille's death, that says something about BOTH characters. And on top of those situational narratives, there is potent acting as well.

Well put. An example is Camille - and her back story of being left to burn by Medrano. We see her back scar early on but it is not highlighted. Later she tells Bond the Medrano left his mark. Finally we see her complete her revenge and end up full circle in a burning room...

This is elliptic, thematic, symbolic storytelling ... all those good things that Bond film never did and "aren't supposed to do" according to some...

[dodge]

But...I am curious...be kind enough to tell me where you thought any character came even halfway to life. For a fleeting instant, CraigBond did, when he confronted Vesper's boyfriend. Still, though, a couple of seconds do not good performance make.

First of all, a couple of seconds DOES make a good performance. If the message can be conveyed in just a couple seconds, then more power to the performance!

But the list has been publicized more than once around here. Bond in any and all of his scenes with Mathis. (Which amounts to a whole lot of a couple seconds strung together.)

Agents fields defines herself right from the get-go as a kind of neo-Bond floozy. She's literally a rebooted version of Goodnight, cheese stripped away leaving a real soul bared. See (with open eyes AND an open heart) Mr. Asterisk's review of the character.

And I think what a lot of people are missing (I say 'missing' because I see it and they don't, and so what other way would I describe it?) is that character is spelled out in their actions and their reactions as much as the performances. When Bond dumps Mathis off, that says something - quite loudly - about the character. When Bond is about to assist in Camille's death, that says something about BOTH characters. And on top of those situational narratives, there is potent acting as well.

Dodge... BEFORE you saw the film, you were pleading to the spoiler gods, in your usual amusing way, to protect you from the influence of positive outputs of the "Zorinians" and the "ACEtoneans" (?). Yet I don't remember you pleading for protection from the Lazenbys and the other folks who think Bond has turned into a fast edited Brosnan flick.

It really seems like you had your defenses up against the positive reviews, and I can't help but think you were already prepared to dislike this film.

Why, good heavens, Judo, are you deliberately misreading me? I refused to read Zorin's or ACE's reviews because I did not wish to be influenced one way or the other. But I didn't read any other reviews, as I thought I had made clear. I did not refuse to read their reviews because I feared they might cause me to like a film that, you feel, I was predisposed to not like. No such thing. I did not read the positive or the negative reviews. We differ wildly on this one. But you don't hear find me claiming that you only like the film because you're afraid to dislike it!

For the record, I've also posted that I plan to revisit the film and give it a second viewing. Cheesh.

[Judo chop]

Why, good heavens, Judo, are you deliberately misreading me? I refused to read Zorin's or ACE's reviews because I did not wish to be influenced one way or the other. But I didn't read any other reviews, as I thought I had made clear. I did not refuse to read their reviews because I feared they might cause me to like a film that, you feel, I was predisposed to not like. No such thing. I did not read the positive or the negative reviews. We differ wildly on this one. But you don't hear find me claiming that you only like the film because you're afraid to dislike it!

For the record, I've also posted that I plan to revisit the film and give it a second viewing. Cheesh.

Nobody hates the "you think A just because B" approach more than I, dodge. But I did witness you deliberately defending yourself from the POSITIVE reviews of ACE and ZORIN and I did not see you attempting to defend yourself from the negative slurs, of which there are plenty.

I know you were spoiler free going in. I admire the strength of your chastity. And if you were truly open-minded going in to QOS, I'm not going to call you a liar and it's not for me to judge in any event. That's between you and God.

I'm glad you're going to see it again. It seems a lot of folks enjoy it more the 2nd time around. I really, REALLY think QOS is meant to be seen as a whole, and not as a series of parts.

[dodge]

Why, good heavens, Judo, are you deliberately misreading me? I refused to read Zorin's or ACE's reviews because I did not wish to be influenced one way or the other. But I didn't read any other reviews, as I thought I had made clear. I did not refuse to read their reviews because I feared they might cause me to like a film that, you feel, I was predisposed to not like. No such thing. I did not read the positive or the negative reviews. We differ wildly on this one. But you don't hear find me claiming that you only like the film because you're afraid to dislike it!

For the record, I've also posted that I plan to revisit the film and give it a second viewing. Cheesh.

Nobody hates the "you think A just because B" approach more than I, dodge. But I did witness you deliberately defending yourself from the POSITIVE reviews of ACE and ZORIN and I did not see you attempting to defend yourself from the negative slurs, of which there are plenty.
I know you were spoiler free going in. I admire the strength of your chastity. And if you were truly open-minded going in to QOS, I'm not going to call you a liar and it's not for me to judge in any event. That's between you and God.

I'm glad you're going to see it again. It seems a lot of folks enjoy it more the 2nd time around. I really, REALLY think QOS is meant to be seen as a whole, and not as a series of parts.

I respecfully repeat--although I'm surprised that I need to: I did not read ANY, not a single, review. Not from the Pro camp and not from the Cons. There's no need to leave this between me and God, Father Judo--for I have not sinned and don't need to be blessed. I fear you've had too many shots of QoS, straight up, and your poor brain is confused.

[Judo chop]

I fear you've had too many shots of QoS, straight up

Not nearly enough.

and your poor brain is confused.

Without a doubt.

Though there is a good lesson here in all this imbibing.

Do not swirl and sip at QOS. Take it all in one shot and let it’s warmth coat you from the inside out. I'm taking the collar off and not meaning to sound preachy. Really, I'm not. Allow me to say that I believe it to be a film about Bond, and not one about Bond pleasing us. From scene #1, put yourself in the driver’s seat with him and feel his story.

[dodge]

I fear you've had too many shots of QoS, straight up

Not nearly enough.

and your poor brain is confused.

Without a doubt.

Though there is a good lesson here in all this imbibing.

Do not swirl and sip at QOS. Take it all in one shot and let it’s warmth coat you from the inside out. I'm taking the collar off and not meaning to sound preachy. Really, I'm not. Allow me to say that I believe it to be a film about Bond, and not one about Bond pleasing us. From scene #1, put yourself in the driver’s seat with him and feel his story.

Thank you, old chum. I like you so much better without tunic on. Strange thing to say, I know, for a vegetarian--I used to love tunicfish salads. I'm one of the most reasonable souls on this earth, as long I don't feel I'm being poked. Maybe I'm a little hurt that Harmsway, ACE and Zorin sent a blonde to get DLIbraSnow to change his mind. What am I, chopped liver? Why couldn't they send me a broad?!

[Judo chop]

Maybe I'm a little hurt that Harmsway, ACE and Zorin sent a blonde to get DLIbraSnow to change his mind. What am I, chopped liver? Why couldn't they send me a broad?!

Maybe something to do with the fact that your 'ride' is a bicycle?

[dodge]

Maybe I'm a little hurt that Harmsway, ACE and Zorin sent a blonde to get DLIbraSnow to change his mind. What am I, chopped liver? Why couldn't they send me a broad?!

Maybe something to do with the fact that your 'ride' is a bicycle?

How'd you know I ride a bike? Let's gang up on health nuts, eh? Well, trust me when I tell you this: when I've had my quantum of carrot and apple juice, I can ride the girls just fine--and I don't need any Forsterwhirl to enhance my performance.

[dodge]

And I think what a lot of people are missing (I say 'missing' because I see it and they don't, and so what other way would I describe it?) is that character is spelled out in their actions and their reactions as much as the performances. When Bond dumps Mathis off, that says something - quite loudly - about the character. When Bond is about to assist in Camille's death, that says something about BOTH characters. And on top of those situational narratives, there is potent acting as well.

Well put. An example is Camille - and her back story of being left to burn by Medrano. We see her back scar early on but it is not highlighted. Later she tells Bond the Medrano left his mark. Finally we see her complete her revenge and end up full circle in a burning room...

This is elliptic, thematic, symbolic storytelling ... all those good things that Bond film never did and "aren't supposed to do" according to some...

With all due respect to you and your well-put opinion, please don't consider me as one of those who have lists of things that shouldn't be done in Bond films. I don't believe I do. Where we differ here is on whether Marc Forster did his job well. I don't believe he did--and this is coming from someone who can both follow and enjoy a lean, muscular, even elliptical style. Still, since we clearly can't see eye to eye on this, let's part as friends.