39 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

It’s probably the best action scene present in the film.

I agree. It's certainly my favorite. Albeit the Opera scene could give it a run for it's money.

[Harmsway]

Are we evaluating its purposefulness based on film in general, or based on Bond films?

Film in general.

I love the way you argue, Harms!!! “It’s not that you’re making an erroneous point, Judo. It’s just that you’re in the wrong argument.”

I think you do kind of have to re-prime yourself for the next bit of adrenaline rush after a bit of downtime. I say the titles are ‘bad’, but I really just mean inappropriate. The titles are so melancholy compared to the bits on either side. Perhaps that was also intentional, but IMO it was the wrong move. A sequence that kept the heart rate moving just a bit would have been better.

I daresay any title sequence would have had a similar effect. Maybe to a lesser degree, but the titles are still interrupting a moment that shouldn't be interrupted.

The Main Titles usually serve as a device to cover some sort of time lapse, which grants them their somewhat organic place in the overall structure of a Bond film. But here, we're interrupting moments that immediately follow each other (we could honestly cut from "Time to get out" to Bond plunking Mr. White in the interrogation chair, and it would work pretty darn well). That's why it doesn't feel quite right, and why it's even more inappropriate given the overall arc of the action build-up.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

those ticket buyers probably also liked the Aston chase.

I also liked the car chase, but I took it out just to see what it would look like.

[Judo chop]

we could honestly cut from "Time to get out" to Bond plunking Mr. White in the interrogation chair, and it would work pretty darn well.

...and then finally cutting to the titles sequence right after Bond fires into the camera while dangling from the rope.

In fact, after only seeing the trailer, that's exactly where I thought the TS was coming.

It'd have been a long PTS - not the popular choice these days, I know - but probably better paced overall.

[blueman]

I really liked the gun barrel at the end of the film, wouldn't mind if the next one did that too.

Why??
I mean, do you think there's a good reason to put the gunbarrel at the end, or you just like it because it's different to the previous ones, and hence you enjoy it for pure aesthetics??

It worked for the film quite well I thought.

If QOS had been less about Bond's personal story and only concerned with Bond on the job as per usual, then putting the barrel at the beginning would've been the better choice. But that's not the film that was made.

And, just love the opening Forster shot/put together, thought it fit the story he filmed very well. Guess I don't see anything wrong with making a Bond film that goes a bit outside the box as long as it's as good as QOS, lord knows there's been enough trashy "formula" Bond films so as to make slaving to said formula almost a joke (and if that's your Bond power to ya, there's bunches of such DVD titles to warm your cockles with).

As for putting the barrel at the end again - why not? Sometimes a good new trend comes about by bucking an established one, and I can see another Bond film working out that way even if it's more traditionally Bond on the job. But I can understand your complaint if you think QOS is just different to be different and not that good a film. With the last two, I'm very liking the differences, hope EON continues such brashness (yeah it could result badly, but see the formula comment above ).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I really liked the gun barrel at the end of the film, wouldn't mind if the next one did that too.

Why??
I mean, do you think there's a good reason to put the gunbarrel at the end, or you just like it because it's different to the previous ones, and hence you enjoy it for pure aesthetics??

It worked for the film quite well I thought.

If QOS had been less about Bond's personal story and only concerned with Bond on the job as per usual, then putting the barrel at the beginning would've been the better choice. But that's not the film that was made.

And, just love the opening Forster shot/put together, thought it fit the story he filmed very well. Guess I don't see anything wrong with making a Bond film that goes a bit outside the box as long as it's as good as QOS, lord knows there's been enough trashy "formula" Bond films so as to make slaving to said formula almost a joke (and if that's your Bond power to ya, there's bunches of such DVD titles to warm your cockles with).

As for putting the barrel at the end again - why not? Sometimes a good new trend comes about by bucking an established one, and I can see another Bond film working out that way even if it's more traditionally Bond on the job. But I can understand your complaint if you think QOS is just different to be different and not that good a film. With the last two, I'm very liking the differences, hope EON continues such brashness (yeah it could result badly, but see the formula comment above ).

I didn't have any problem with the change in the gunbarrel for CR, because I thought that was justified for the story, it was a way to explain- or develop- the origin of that Bond trademark, just like this same movie shows other beginnings of Bond's icon like the DB5, "Bond James Bond", etc.

But I didn't find any powerful justification for the change in QOS of the gunbarrel (as I explained further in my earlier post), I thought it was different mainly just for the sake of being different.

Anyhow, if you ask me about continuing with this change for future movies, I wouldn't be that annoying, because that could start a new tradition, and that would be fine with me. Actually, I had the same problem with the 3-D bullet from DAD, if that would have started a new tradition , I would have approved, but it didn't.

P.D.: I don't like that much Bond movies that are absolutely faithful to the formula. I prefer films like CR, which twist the formula, but still keep it in some- a little distorted- way.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 13 February 2009 - 09:03 PM.

[plankattack]

P.D.: I don't like that much Bond movies that are absolutely faithful to the formula. I prefer films like CR, which twist the formula, but still keep it in some- a little distorted- way.

Standing O for Mr Beech!!

[byline]

And I also really don’t understand the apathetic sentiments towards the car chase. It makes such complete sense to me. It’s a Bond film. It’s a PTS. It’s a car chase. It’s connective tissue between White’s estate and the interrogation cell. It makes all the sense in the world. It couldn’t make more sense if it tried.

Touché.

For what it's worth, I loved the film exactly as it was structured. The only thing I would have changed would have been to extend a few shots and hold them a bit longer; not so much the action, but in some of the more dramatic moments. But that's it. Everything else worked beautifully . . . for me, anyways.

[Captain Tightpants]

Why is the video called "Classic Cut"? It sounds like the way I might order a steak, but that edit of the film is by no means a filling meal.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

"Classic Cut". Well, because it's the classic way the Bond films started, with the gb at the begining.