887 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

Secondly, why hire Forster if you're going to force Baird on him...Why not just re-hire/convince Campbell to come back and get Baird with him? If you hire Forster, then surely you have to let him hire whoever he feels comfortable with? As long as it's not an outrageous selection. No?

As far as this thread is concerned, I am not arguing who I think Forster should and shouldn't hire. Who knows, maybe Forster/Chesse/Bradley and Pearson are good friends who wanted to work with each other for years? I have no idea. All I am highlighting is the fact that Pearson and Bradley both worked on Bourne Supremacy, and to the minds of many their work on QOS is very reminsicent of that style. This, depsite the fact that Marc Forster has his own, heavily capable regular editor who has never ever adopted such a Bourne reminiscent, frenetic style before on a Forster film.

You had argued (not an exact quote) that perhaps Pearson was "one of the select few in the small action editing gene pool" as though that would therefore make him an obvious and inevitable contender for editing QOS, regardless of the Bourne connection. I posted Pearson's imdb listing to remind us that aside from the two Greengrass films (one of which is Bourne), Pearson's CV is actually pretty light on action movies, especially compared to say someone like Stuart Baird (a renowned action specıalıst who also just edited CR for Eon). If Pearson was indeed hired to focus on the action of QOS or help Forster and Chesse mold with modern action film editing sensibilities, you cannot really argue examples of intense action work on his CV outside of Bourne Supremacy.

Like I said though, who knows why Pearson was chosen to co-edit QOS (and what exactly he contributed)? As it stands, it's quite a coincidence that you have two of the integral action creatives from Bourne Supremacy on a Bond film that is (in the minds of many) often cut and shot like the action from The Bourne Supremacy.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 December 2008 - 08:12 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Once again:

I'm feeling like i'm fighting some battle with people who are entrenched in their position such as the "action is like Bourne but worse"...

There are others on CBn who disagree with the above thesis but haven't bothered wasting their time (here)

I'm done here

Enjoy the mutual hatred society.

[MattofSteel]

Well it was a noble intention, Mr. Burns.

Look, these kinds of discussions can go in circles forever, folks. The base reality is (and I'm NOT suggesting we can't discuss these things) that we're all geeks on the internet, debating about what might have happened behind the scenes of a major film production which is a situation that most of us, probably, have never experienced.

Who knows. I loved the job Stuart Baird did on CR, he also edited one of my other top 5 favourite films of all time, the original Donner Superman. Great editor, far as I'm concerned. But then again, he directed that last Star Trek picture that those fans, for whatever reason, seem to loathe.

Maybe Forster met with Baird. Maybe he's encountered him before. Maybe Baird turned out to be a real ornary cuss that Forster didn't want to spend weeks locked in a dark room with and it was a mere question of the personal relationship. Maybe Marc knows Richard Pearson, and has been looking for an opportunity for them to work together. Or, it's quite possible that Forster, upon entering the spy genre (for the first time), said logically to himself, "Who is the most consistently acknowledged successful editor of these films nowadays, and would his style fit with the kind of film I want to make" - answer, probably Richard Pearson.

You can't deny that the moves blindly fast at an exciting pace. That's undeniable, and it's cool to see that in action. You CAN argue that this editing style fails the film in spots, which it does. And remember all Forster's comments about the painful post-production window, how he desperately wanted more time? I think it's unfair to assume that the film didn't suffer from this restriction, just the same as it would be false to assume the script wasn't in some way affected by the writer's strike.

[tim partridge]

Or, it's quite possible that Forster, upon entering the spy genre (for the first time), said logically to himself, "Who is the most consistently acknowledged successful editor of these films nowadays, and would his style fit with the kind of film I want to make" - answer, probably Richard Pearson.

Based on what other films from his CV? Men in Black 2? Bourne Supremacy is Pearson's only spy genre credit.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 December 2008 - 09:07 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I enjoyed the movie, but I admit that this one has polarised Bond fans alot more than Casino Royale did. This is interesting, and it is something that we QOS fans ought to bear in mind. It confirms that the movie is not as good as CR but does that matter? Maybe not. I think the Bond franchise needed and deserved a serious, frantic movie like QOS and now we have it.

I think all of this makes the prospect of Bond 23 more interesting, not a make or break situation.

Good for you!! Finally a fan of QOS (well, besides MattofSteel) willing to recognize that QOS isn't a sort of masterpiece and has flaws.

[HH007]

I enjoyed the movie, but I admit that this one has polarised Bond fans alot more than Casino Royale did. This is interesting, and it is something that we QOS fans ought to bear in mind. It confirms that the movie is not as good as CR but does that matter? Maybe not. I think the Bond franchise needed and deserved a serious, frantic movie like QOS and now we have it.

I think all of this makes the prospect of Bond 23 more interesting, not a make or break situation.

Good for you!! Finally a fan of QOS (well, besides MattofSteel) willing to recognize that QOS isn't a sort of masterpiece and has flaws.

That's not exactly what he said.

[MattofSteel]

Or, it's quite possible that Forster, upon entering the spy genre (for the first time), said logically to himself, "Who is the most consistently acknowledged successful editor of these films nowadays, and would his style fit with the kind of film I want to make" - answer, probably Richard Pearson.

Based on what other films from his CV? Men in Black 2? Bourne Supremacy is Pearson's only spy genre credit.

Okay, I was considering the spy genre as basically Bourne and Bond inclusively, and if he did Supremacy, he's indirectly responsible for Ultimatum since it's stylistically a copycat - so whatever...I'm just saying, this particular approach was the equivalent of Forster saying "I'm stepping into this genre, perhaps I should get someone who's contributed to one of the most celebrated recent installments."

I'm not vouching for Pearson, here. Just offering a possible thought process of Forster's.

I enjoyed the movie, but I admit that this one has polarised Bond fans alot more than Casino Royale did. This is interesting, and it is something that we QOS fans ought to bear in mind. It confirms that the movie is not as good as CR but does that matter? Maybe not. I think the Bond franchise needed and deserved a serious, frantic movie like QOS and now we have it.

I think all of this makes the prospect of Bond 23 more interesting, not a make or break situation.

Good for you!! Finally a fan of QOS (well, besides MattofSteel) willing to recognize that QOS isn't a sort of masterpiece and has flaws.

That's not exactly what he said.

It's not. FRWL is a masterpiece, so are GF and CR. OHMSS would be if Connery was playing 007 (not that George didn't do a perfectly acceptable imitation).

But to expect every new Bond film to be a masterpiece worthy of the upper echelons of the series is certainly an idea that must have gone out the window at least 30 years ago now. QoS is still great to me, I'd give it somewhere around 8.5 / 10 as a total package.

But yes, I certainly have a problem with people who take a polarized opinion (EITHER one) and then refuse to discuss things subjectively. I suppose I've just described my issues with the internet as a whole. And yet here I still am.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

QOS is a step backwards in every department, just like TND was after GE...

...CGI is blatantly obvious (freefall, ...

What did you make of Brosnan flying like a fairy, like Tinker Bell into the prop at the end of GoldenEye pre-titles?

Am I to suppose that since you like GoldenEye, you love the Fairy-type Bond?

How incredibly mature. Comparing the quality of the CGI with a movie made 13 years ago for a third of the price of QOS. For its budget, QOS should have been perfect in every area and it wasn't. Regardless of the lame effect, the scene in GE made audiences laugh in a good way back when I saw it in theatres (all five times). The scene in QOS was the moment when I felt the audience wasn't buying it and couldn't care less about what was happening on screen. I even heard some yawns.
And if there hadn't been a GoldenEye, these forums wouldn't exist.

Or, it's quite possible that Forster, upon entering the spy genre (for the first time), said logically to himself, "Who is the most consistently acknowledged successful editor of these films nowadays, and would his style fit with the kind of film I want to make" - answer, probably Richard Pearson.

Based on what other films from his CV? Men in Black 2? Bourne Supremacy is Pearson's only spy genre credit.

Add to those "gems" the Will Ferrell vehicle Blades of Glory and you get a notion of the kind of "talent" behind QOS. The final insult is that the guy cut Get Smart prior to QOS. To hire somebody from the competition I can understand. To hire somebody from parodies is sad.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

As I exposed in my earlier posts, I think there's only old stuff, as major inspiration for CR, nothing trendy (at least, no-one prove me wrong yet, by telling me concrete examples of fad's influence in Campbell’s work). And I can't say the same for QOS’s filmmaking style, particularly on the action scenes.

MattofSteel says that we can't expect a classic (like GF or CR) with every Bond, and I agree with that, but I wasn't expecting that, I just hoped for a movie that wasn't mainly a follower to the latest trend of the genre, just like for instance FYEO and TLD managed to be, in its time.

[00Twelve]

As I exposed in my earlier posts, I think there's only old stuff, as major inspiration for CR, nothing trendy (at least, no-one prove me wrong yet, by telling me concrete examples of fad's influence in Campbell’s work). And I can't say the same for QOS’s filmmaking style, particularly on the action scenes.

MattofSteel says that we can't expect a classic (like GF or CR) with every Bond, and I agree with that, but I wasn't expecting that, I just hoped for a movie that wasn't mainly a follower to the latest trend of the genre, just like for instance FYEO and TLD managed to be, in its time.

It's all in how you see it. I honestly don't see QOS as a trend-follower; I see it as taking some inspiration from other contemporary artists and doing their own thing with it. I've gone back and watched the Bourne trilogy since seeing QOS-- the differences vastly outweigh the similarities. Bond is definitely its own thing and not a mere copycat.

I've stated this before-- The early Bond films took such stylistic inspiration from North By Northwest, but we don't hear each other getting indignant about that, now do we? The similarities are every bit as evident and significant as those attributed to QOS in relation to Bourne. I didn't see NBN until long after seeing DN and FRWL, and it blew my mind how many cinematographical and choreographical techniques were originated in Hitch's film, not to mention the specific sequences that inspired similar sequences in Bond. And yet, the Bondian sequences were still original enough that they earned their due credit.

I feel that QOS deserves the same credit. It may have taken some inspiration in the editing and use of handheld camera in the fistfights, but it has still set itself apart IMO.

[SecretAgentFan]

As I exposed in my earlier posts, I think there's only old stuff, as major inspiration for CR, nothing trendy (at least, no-one prove me wrong yet, by telling me concrete examples of fad's influence in Campbell’s work). And I can't say the same for QOS’s filmmaking style, particularly on the action scenes.

MattofSteel says that we can't expect a classic (like GF or CR) with every Bond, and I agree with that, but I wasn't expecting that, I just hoped for a movie that wasn't mainly a follower to the latest trend of the genre, just like for instance FYEO and TLD managed to be, in its time.

It's all in how you see it. I honestly don't see QOS as a trend-follower; I see it as taking some inspiration from other contemporary artists and doing their own thing with it. I've gone back and watched the Bourne trilogy since seeing QOS-- the differences vastly outweigh the similarities. Bond is definitely its own thing and not a mere copycat.

I've stated this before-- The early Bond films took such stylistic inspiration from North By Northwest, but we don't hear each other getting indignant about that, now do we? The similarities are every bit as evident and significant as those attributed to QOS in relation to Bourne. I didn't see NBN until long after seeing DN and FRWL, and it blew my mind how many cinematographical and choreographical techniques were originated in Hitch's film, not to mention the specific sequences that inspired similar sequences in Bond. And yet, the Bondian sequences were still original enough that they earned their due credit.

I feel that QOS deserves the same credit. It may have taken some inspiration in the editing and use of handheld camera in the fistfights, but it has still set itself apart IMO.

Excellent post!

[Eurospy]

It's all in how you see it. I honestly don't see QOS as a trend-follower; I see it as taking some inspiration from other contemporary artists and doing their own thing with it. I've gone back and watched the Bourne trilogy since seeing QOS-- the differences vastly outweigh the similarities. Bond is definitely its own thing and not a mere copycat.

I've stated this before-- The early Bond films took such stylistic inspiration from North By Northwest, but we don't hear each other getting indignant about that, now do we? The similarities are every bit as evident and significant as those attributed to QOS in relation to Bourne. I didn't see NBN until long after seeing DN and FRWL, and it blew my mind how many cinematographical and choreographical techniques were originated in Hitch's film, not to mention the specific sequences that inspired similar sequences in Bond. And yet, the Bondian sequences were still original enough that they earned their due credit.

I feel that QOS deserves the same credit. It may have taken some inspiration in the editing and use of handheld camera in the fistfights, but it has still set itself apart IMO.

Exactly.

And that is a fact. Like it or hate it, it's still a fact. (Besides the Bonds like MR follows Star Wars, LTK follows the trend of the time by having Bond against a drug baron, etc.)

Actually, I've seen that comparison years ago, presented in a non-negative way and had completely forgotten about it.

[MattofSteel]

A film series lasts 40 years because it can ride the "zeitgeist wave," so to speak. Not because it ignores it.

And I'd agree with those saying that while having an eye on recent trends, QoS is very much its own thing. Any spy film can ultimately be compared to any other spy film - that's why they're part of the same genre.

But to call QoS a Bourne copycat or something that "feels nothing like Bond" is, and I'm sorry to hammer down more discriminatingly than normal, utterly wrong.

To me, anyways. Again, this whole thing is subjective.

[tim partridge]

As I exposed in my earlier posts, I think there's only old stuff, as major inspiration for CR, nothing trendy (at least, no-one prove me wrong yet, by telling me concrete examples of fad's influence in Campbell’s work). And I can't say the same for QOS’s filmmaking style, particularly on the action scenes.

MattofSteel says that we can't expect a classic (like GF or CR) with every Bond, and I agree with that, but I wasn't expecting that, I just hoped for a movie that wasn't mainly a follower to the latest trend of the genre, just like for instance FYEO and TLD managed to be, in its time.

It's all in how you see it. I honestly don't see QOS as a trend-follower; I see it as taking some inspiration from other contemporary artists and doing their own thing with it. I've gone back and watched the Bourne trilogy since seeing QOS-- the differences vastly outweigh the similarities. Bond is definitely its own thing and not a mere copycat.

I've stated this before-- The early Bond films took such stylistic inspiration from North By Northwest, but we don't hear each other getting indignant about that, now do we? The similarities are every bit as evident and significant as those attributed to QOS in relation to Bourne. I didn't see NBN until long after seeing DN and FRWL, and it blew my mind how many cinematographical and choreographical techniques were originated in Hitch's film, not to mention the specific sequences that inspired similar sequences in Bond. And yet, the Bondian sequences were still original enough that they earned their due credit.

I feel that QOS deserves the same credit. It may have taken some inspiration in the editing and use of handheld camera in the fistfights, but it has still set itself apart IMO.

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

[Judo chop]

And I'd agree with those saying that while having an eye on recent trends, QoS is very much its own thing. Any spy film can ultimately be compared to any other spy film - that's why they're part of the same genre.

To echo both Matt’s and 00twelve’s fine thoughts above, it seems to me that the folks so tenaciously holding to this copycat view, have come to their conclusions by looking at a single, solitary aspect of QoS…

The gal-bleepin’ camerawork.

Just the camerawork. And only some of it, in fact. SOME of the camera work looks the same – ie. it’s ‘shaky’ – and therefore Bond is a Bourne copycat. As if the wobble factor of a camera stand alone amounted to the musculoskeletal, circulatory, respiratory AND central nervous system of a film.

It’s just ONE aspect of a film for heaven’s sake! Do us aaaaall a favor and look beyond, for there is much to see that is NOT Bourne influenced.

[MattofSteel]

And I'd agree with those saying that while having an eye on recent trends, QoS is very much its own thing. Any spy film can ultimately be compared to any other spy film - that's why they're part of the same genre.

To echo both Matt’s and 00twelve’s fine thoughts above, it seems to me that the folks so tenaciously holding to this copycat view, have come to their conclusions by looking at a single, solitary aspect of QoS…

The gal-bleepin’ camerawork.

Just the camerawork. And only some of it, in fact. SOME of the camera work looks the same – ie. it’s ‘shaky’ – and therefore Bond is a Bourne copycat. As if the wobble factor of a camera stand alone amounted to the musculoskeletal, circulatory, respiratory AND central nervous system of a film.

It’s just ONE aspect of a film for heaven’s sake! Do us aaaaall a favor and look beyond, for there is much to see that is NOT Bourne influenced.

Thank you. Exactly.

There's so much more - and as I've said, yes, a Bourne influence undoubtedly exists, but it's a MINOR piece of the recipe which is largely informed by a "classic Bond" aesthetic as presented by Cubby Broccoli, Terrence Young, Ken Adam, John Barry, and Sean Connery.

My only objection to the Bourne copycat argument is that those in possession of such a view far too often (not always, but often) blindside themselves to the elements which are definitively Bond-like and would NEVER appear in a Bourne movie. For example,:

Actual jokes. "Time to get out."

An agent driving the hell out of a company Aston Martin to save his life, whilst being
chased by overly flashy Alfa Romeos.

An agency safehouse in the cisterns of Sienna (as opposed to an office building somewhere in the city.)

The ENTIRE opera sequence.

The idea of "interludes" at Mathis' villa, or the Virgin executive lounge on the plane.

Any and everything to do with Fields, including a blatantly comic seduction scene that
is played with no other intention than to say, "Pay attention, some classic Bond aesthetic happening here."

The ENTIRE party scene.

The ENTIRE idea of the Grand Andean hotel.

The location, design, and total premise of Perla des las Dunas.

These are just a few examples. Sure - the first half hour or so moves with the pace of Bourne, and Bond "spies" in clever, resourceful, and brutal ways like Bourne.

But that's what a spy movie is.

(And not forgetting, of course, that Bond did all this first, 40 years ago).

[honeyjes]

As I exposed in my earlier posts, I think there's only old stuff, as major inspiration for CR, nothing trendy (at least, no-one prove me wrong yet, by telling me concrete examples of fad's influence in Campbell’s work). And I can't say the same for QOS’s filmmaking style, particularly on the action scenes.

MattofSteel says that we can't expect a classic (like GF or CR) with every Bond, and I agree with that, but I wasn't expecting that, I just hoped for a movie that wasn't mainly a follower to the latest trend of the genre, just like for instance FYEO and TLD managed to be, in its time.

It's all in how you see it. I honestly don't see QOS as a trend-follower; I see it as taking some inspiration from other contemporary artists and doing their own thing with it. I've gone back and watched the Bourne trilogy since seeing QOS-- the differences vastly outweigh the similarities. Bond is definitely its own thing and not a mere copycat.

I've stated this before-- The early Bond films took such stylistic inspiration from North By Northwest, but we don't hear each other getting indignant about that, now do we? The similarities are every bit as evident and significant as those attributed to QOS in relation to Bourne. I didn't see NBN until long after seeing DN and FRWL, and it blew my mind how many cinematographical and choreographical techniques were originated in Hitch's film, not to mention the specific sequences that inspired similar sequences in Bond. And yet, the Bondian sequences were still original enough that they earned their due credit.

I feel that QOS deserves the same credit. It may have taken some inspiration in the editing and use of handheld camera in the fistfights, but it has still set itself apart IMO.

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

Don’t understand the logic, NBN came out in 1959, Dr No & From Russia with Love 1962 and 63 respectively so please explain why NBN’s influence is so different from Bourne.
So now Eon aren't allowed to recruit who they feel are the best because they've worked on another cinematic phenomenon, didn't some of them work on Indy too, I guess Gary Powell should also be tarred and feathered.

[Daddy Bond]

Also, I must admit, I am a bit confused by those who say that QoS was wall to wall action with little time to take in the scenery. What film were they watching? Yes, there were brutal, intense action scenes, but there were also TONS of moments where the film slowed down, took a deep breath, presented us with great scenery and long shots/establishing shots and great emotional moments rarely presented in a Bond film.

[Agent Carter]

edit


"If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

Eddie Burns, you wanted constructive debate. stamper, nothing personal - but that's the best I've got."




Thanks! Great great I have even more respect for QOS now than before. Great rebuttal.


JEFF

[Eurospy]

Also, I must admit, I am a bit confused by those who say that QoS was wall to wall action with little time to take in the scenery. What film were they watching? Yes, there were brutal, intense action scenes, but there were also TONS of moments where the film slowed down, took a deep breath, presented us with great scenery and long shots/establishing shots and great emotional moments rarely presented in a Bond film.

Exactly. The movie goes a great deal beyond the first act action sequences.

[tim partridge]

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

Don’t understand the logic, NBN came out in 1959, Dr No & From Russia with Love 1962 and 63 respectively so please explain why NBN’s influence is so different from Bourne.
So now Eon aren't allowed to recruit who they feel are the best because they've worked on another cinematic phenomenon, didn't some of them work on Indy too, I guess Gary Powell should also be tarred and feathered.

Bond of the movies didn't exist before NBN. What else were they going to draw on cinematically? By contrast, Bond of the movies had been established for forty years plus when QOS was made and Bond had already influenced the creation of Bourne (both the books and cinematically speaking). Plus, it's not like, oh I don't know, they hired the same editor and second unit director of NBN to repeat their work on DR NO, was it?

As for who Eon hire: they can hire whoever they want. As far as this thread is concerned there was an argument that "it would not make sense" for Forster to request a Bourne look/feel from Dan Bradley. I am arguing that given the addition of Mr. Pearson and the onscreen results, it actually does make sense that Forster may have requested the Bourne look/feel in the action and editing. To answer your question though (only because you asked), as an audience member I feel a bit shortchanged that the Bond folks feel the need to borrow key creative personnel and their concepts directly from their biggest competitor (Bourne). I am paying to see Bond, am I not?

I'd also argue that traditionally the creative personnel on Bond have been off-Hollywood international or largely UK derived talent. There's always been something slightly "home-made" about most of the Bonds compared to any other action blockbuster, which is part of the charm. It's sad to see that all go in favour of the ubiquitous, Hollywood equivalents. This concern is purely historical, though.

Edited by tim partridge, 11 December 2008 - 05:34 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

No creative media exists in a vacuum.

Bond's very introduction in 1962 was borrowed from Juarez.

But QOS did such wholesale borrowing from Bourne that practically every critic brings it up. I would say 50% of the reviews I've read, both in print and online, mention Bourne influences at least once.

I challenge you to find a Dr No review that mentions Juarez or FRWL reviews that say it might has well have been part of Hitchcock's oeuvre rather than Young's.

[Judo chop]

But QOS did such wholesale borrowing from Bourne that practically every critic brings it up. I would say 50% of the reviews I've read, both in print and online, mention Bourne influences at least once.

Aside from 'very Bourne-like jittery camera work during action sequences', what would those influences be?

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Also, I must admit, I am a bit confused by those who say that QoS was wall to wall action with little time to take in the scenery. What film were they watching? Yes, there were brutal, intense action scenes, but there were also TONS of moments where the film slowed down, took a deep breath, presented us with great scenery and long shots/establishing shots and great emotional moments rarely presented in a Bond film.

Exactly. The movie goes a great deal beyond the first act action sequences.

I agree but I wouldn't say it's a good thing. The pacing in QOS [those who read my review will know that I really disliked the film and that I think the film is a complete artistic disaster to the series...but I digress] is AWFUL. The first third is almost wall to wall action with the flimsiest of scenes in between [or parts of scenes,to me it looked like much was missing], then for the rest of the film there are only two action scenes [the plane chase and the final fight] and because I wasn't invested in the characters and gripped by the plot one bit I was actually getting bored. QOS really is the worst paced film of the whole series.

I mention something else which I think I mentioned once before but no one seems to find it as ridiculous as I do. This is supposedly a 'realistic' Bond film ,and yet they have M follow Bond EVERYWHERE. She's easily the most vulnerable head of a spy network ever. It was silly enough in TWINE when she came out into the 'field' but here she's everywhere! I don't know why they bothered having any other Bond girls in the film!

[Judo chop]

This is supposedly a 'realistic' Bond film ,and yet they have M follow Bond EVERYWHERE. She's easily the most vulnerable head of a spy network ever. It was silly enough in TWINE when she came out into the 'field' but here she's everywhere! I don't know why they bothered having any other Bond girls in the film!

Where in the field is she again?

1) At the hotel to TAKE BOND INTO CUSTODY.

2) At the end, to wrap up the story.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or am I forgetting something?

[doublenoughtspy]

Where in the field is she again?

1) At the hotel to TAKE BOND INTO CUSTODY.

2) At the end, to wrap up the story.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or am I forgetting something?

So Mitchell's apartment is really MI6 H.Q.?

Come on.

[tim partridge]

But QOS did such wholesale borrowing from Bourne that practically every critic brings it up. I would say 50% of the reviews I've read, both in print and online, mention Bourne influences at least once.

Aside from 'very Bourne-like jittery camera work during action sequences', what would those influences be?

Not just "jittery camera work" but also that whole geography absent crossing of the line during the action, all on tight, long lenses being shaken around. Add to that the very aggressive, Bourne style editing during the action scenes but also (curiously) during the dramatic dialogue scenes, which I repeat is a style Marc Forster and Matt Chesse have never ever employed on any of their films together outside of QOS. Coincidentally they hook up with a Bourne editor and second unit director and here you have it.

[Judo chop]

Where in the field is she again?

1) At the hotel to TAKE BOND INTO CUSTODY.

2) At the end, to wrap up the story.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or am I forgetting something?

So Mitchell's apartment is really MI6 H.Q.?

Come on.

Ah, there's one I forgot. Of course Mitchell's apt is not MI6 HQ. Mitchell WAS, of course, her personal bodyguard of 5 years though, and without a hint prior turns out to be part of the mysterious unknown-until-yesterday Quantum.

Totally unreasonable that she'd want to be there to investigate first hand?
Sort of unreasonable?
Reasonable?

Come on. This ain't TWINE.

[doublenoughtspy]

Totally unreasonable that she'd want to be there to investigate first hand?
Sort of unreasonable?
Reasonable?

Come on. This ain't TWINE.

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.

M in the field 3 times is worse than TWINE.

[Judo chop]

But QOS did such wholesale borrowing from Bourne that practically every critic brings it up. I would say 50% of the reviews I've read, both in print and online, mention Bourne influences at least once.

Aside from 'very Bourne-like jittery camera work during action sequences', what would those influences be?

Not just "jittery camera work" but also that whole geography absent crossing of the line during the action, all on tight, long lenses being shaken around. Add to that the very aggressive, Bourne style editing during the action scenes

Ok, so that is just 'action scenes' repeated. Yes, we know that.

but also (curiously) during the dramatic dialogue scenes

When? When is the camera during the dramatic dialogue scenes even remotely close to what occurs in the last two Bourne films?

Though, again, we're still talking camera work, whether it be during action, during dialogue, or the style of editing. Camera, camera, camera...

My point: As if that's all a film is about.

Totally unreasonable that she'd want to be there to investigate first hand?
Sort of unreasonable?
Reasonable?

Come on. This ain't TWINE.

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.

M in the field 3 times is worse than TWINE.

Well, to each his own, Doublenought. I don't count M appearances against the film. Just the unreasonable ones. I'm sorry you don't care for it.