142 replies to this topic

[CaptainPower]

The interesting thing is....Forster who seemed against the idea of Bond 23...seems open to it...maybe the mixed reception of the film isn't doing his career any favors...the producers tend to offer the director gig to the guy who last did it, he has first refusual on it, so if Babs and Mikey went back to Marc, there is a real possibility that Forster would take on another. Remember Campbell was offered all Bond films after GE but turned them all down till CR, so really it was a matter of time before he returned. Spottiswoode has said he turned down the TWINE, but I've read reports that he wasn't even offered it after falling out with the prods on the film. Apted was said to have offered and accepted the Bond 20 gig but MGM weren't impressed with TWINE and didn't think he was up to doing the sequel. I doubt Tamahori was asked to return, even Babs and Mikey can't fool themselves, DAD sucked.
Forster seems most likely to go back to Bond. I'll bet money on a 2011 release after he does another smaller film inbetween.

What was "said" and what actually happened in these matters are very different.

And since when did SOLACE get a "mixed reception"? On CBN maybe but not elsewhere. Let's just see what twenty years does for QUANTUM OF SOLACE....

Your right, it was universally lauded. Everyone loved it

At best most people thought it was "okay".

Edited by CaptainPower, 10 March 2009 - 03:19 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

The interesting thing is....Forster who seemed against the idea of Bond 23...seems open to it...maybe the mixed reception of the film isn't doing his career any favors...the producers tend to offer the director gig to the guy who last did it, he has first refusual on it, so if Babs and Mikey went back to Marc, there is a real possibility that Forster would take on another. Remember Campbell was offered all Bond films after GE but turned them all down till CR, so really it was a matter of time before he returned. Spottiswoode has said he turned down the TWINE, but I've read reports that he wasn't even offered it after falling out with the prods on the film. Apted was said to have offered and accepted the Bond 20 gig but MGM weren't impressed with TWINE and didn't think he was up to doing the sequel. I doubt Tamahori was asked to return, even Babs and Mikey can't fool themselves, DAD sucked.
Forster seems most likely to go back to Bond. I'll bet money on a 2011 release after he does another smaller film inbetween.

What was "said" and what actually happened in these matters are very different.

And since when did SOLACE get a "mixed reception"? On CBN maybe but not elsewhere. Let's just see what twenty years does for QUANTUM OF SOLACE....

Your right, it was universally lauded. Everyone loved it

At best most people thought it was "okay".

I would beg to differ (and don't have an emoticon to back that up).

[Loomis]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE did indeed get a mixed reception outside CBn. Some critics loved it, others merely liked it, and others hated it. Professional reviewers aside, if you look at things like AICN, the IMDb user reviews and various blogs, it appears that, once again, some people loved, it others merely liked it, and others hated it. Same goes for people I know: some loved it, others liked it, others hated it.

Just like most things, really. Zorin, why do you wish to believe that there is absolute unanimity of opinion re: QUANTUM OF SOLACE outside CBn? Because there patently isn't.

[MarkA]

I would say it was the most polarizing film. About him doing another I personally think he will take some convincing. He indicated he would not have done the film if Brosnan was Bond, and was only convinced by Craig's enthusiasm, passion and knowledge of the character of Bond.

[Zorin Industries]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE did indeed get a mixed reception outside CBn. Some critics loved it, others merely liked it, and others hated it. Professional reviewers aside, if you look at things like AICN, the IMDb user reviews and various blogs, it appears that, once again, some people loved, it others merely liked it, and others hated it. Same goes for people I know: some loved it, others liked it, others hated it.

Just like most things, really. Zorin, why do you wish to believe that there is absolute unanimity of opinion re: QUANTUM OF SOLACE outside CBn? Because there patently isn't.

But I don't judge the reaction to any film based on what AICN and IMDB say about it.

All I am suggesting is that because some people on CBN disliked the film does not say it was a failure - in fact the very opposite in my humble opinion.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

it’s hard for me to watch.’

Strange that he can't watch the crapfest he just created. I mean, all the four elements are there! What more can he ask for...?

Anyway, nice to get some new info on Bond 23:
1) "more women"
2) "more humour"
3) "more things people were craving for"
4) "No Marc Forster"

Sounds quite good

I agree with you IN EVERY ASPECT. Ha, he says he'd like to come back. No problem, if we like to have the series frozen for lots of years and James Bond being a Jason Bourne clone, we will call him.

Have a seat, Mr Forster. And wait for a million years.

As Dan says: "But the good news is... you're in the desert".

[Zorin Industries]

Nicholas Suszczyk :

I agree with you IN EVERY ASPECT. Ha, he says he'd like to come back. No problem, if we like to have the series frozen for lots of years and James Bond being a Jason Bourne clone, we will call him.



Can I ask then why your own website (and one you link from your members dossier) features a great many QUANTUM OF SOLACE photos, examples of merchandise and carefully edited music samples?

Just curious...

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Because there are aspects I like about Quantum of Solace. Dave Arnold's OST is great, and so is the script. What I don't like is Forster and Dan Bradley work on the film, and I think the editors aren't working well.

PS. And the site is not mine, it's from a Bond fan site by lots of people who think like me.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

Oh, really??!! I think the plot comprise only water (and perhaps oil, if you stretch it), but it isn't about any natural resource. And when fire has been a natural resorce??

?!?!?!?!?! Fire is both natural and a resource that is harnessed by humanity!!! Therefore it's a natural resource. QED
C'mon Mr A-B don't be argumentative for the sake of it!!!
Either way the four elements is an Aristotlean notion about causality and balance which relates, I guess, to notions of balance and order within the universe. Again it can work for Bond.

Well, if you stretch enough your imagination, almost anything could work for Bond. But then you could go for a somewhat forced interpretations.

I think Forster has developed a mise en scene that suits the plot's main concerns.

I admire your wishful thinking.

[CaptainPower]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE did indeed get a mixed reception outside CBn. Some critics loved it, others merely liked it, and others hated it. Professional reviewers aside, if you look at things like AICN, the IMDb user reviews and various blogs, it appears that, once again, some people loved, it others merely liked it, and others hated it. Same goes for people I know: some loved it, others liked it, others hated it.

Just like most things, really. Zorin, why do you wish to believe that there is absolute unanimity of opinion re: QUANTUM OF SOLACE outside CBn? Because there patently isn't.

But I don't judge the reaction to any film based on what AICN and IMDB say about it.

All I am suggesting is that because some people on CBN disliked the film does not say it was a failure - in fact the very opposite in my humble opinion.

Who is suggesting it was a complete failure? It was a financial success and many people did like it. But others didn't. Just like Casino Royale. Just because someone states they don't like it, and neither did others, does not mean they are launching an all-out war against the film.

[Eddie Burns]

Clearly from this interview, he doesn't think his movie is great and even goes further by criticizing his own work. He acknowledges the introduction of Camille and the ensuing dialogue was clunky. Well, that's what you get with an underdeveloped script Marc. But don't worry, some CBners believe the dialogue in QoS is one of the best ever, ever, ever! Lol! I can't see why people think this. In terms of dialogue, this movie falls flat on so many levels. The airplane scene, Mathis' death, the aforementioned Camille introduction, Greene's dialogue about his piano teacher etc. etc.

At the end of the day, he made the Bond movie 'he wanted to make' but he hardly left a stamp since his movie wouldn't be out of place at a Bourne fanboy convention. I think he succeeded in making a different kind of Bond movie, but I'm sure it must hurt that it wasn't as critically acclaimed as that other movie with that Aussie hack director...what's his name again?

By the way, what the hell are Eon smoking?! Hiring a director who has never worked with a second unit, let alone an action movie? For the sequel to CR? I wouldn't have cared if they went this way for B23/24 if they had made a quality sequel. But does that mean I could direct a Bond movie? I've never worked with a second unit and never done an action film...hell I've never done a film before but c'mon Eon...push the boat out, why only go halfway?

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 11 March 2009 - 03:18 AM.

[Sniperscope]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

A lot of that nostalgia is in the aesthetics of the film: Bond's appearance, especially the pocket handkerchiefs, hairstyle, his Steve McQueen look with the sweater and sunglasses when he visits Mathis. Fields' obviously Hepburnesque look at the cocktail party. The DC10. The Modernist desert hotel. The homage to GF and FRWL. The bleak, literally cold war look of the closing sequence. The grandiose title-cards.
Those sorts of things bring a 60s vibe...

Edited by Sniperscope, 11 March 2009 - 05:47 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Me neither, but I see it all the way through CR. Possibly some would argue that the 60's nostalgia is- through a very subtle way- in the set design and with some supposed Flemingsque elements, but I definitely can't see this, and it seems to me more like fanboy's (and director's) wishful thinking, like many other so called gigantic achievements of this movie.

[Sniperscope]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Me neither, but I see it all the way through CR. Possibly some would argue that the 60's nostalgia is- through a very subtle way- in the set design and with some supposed Flemingsque elements, but I definitely can't see this, and it seems to me more like fanboy's (and director's) wishful thinking, like many other so called gigantic achievements of this movie.

Just cause you can't see it don't mean it's not there Mr A-B.
Why on earth are you so continually dismissive of the artistry and effort that goes into the overall construction of a film. "Wishful thinking"? You seem to have this notion that everything on screen is some kind of happy accident! Directors, set-designers, writers, cinematographers - these people leave nothing to chance. Everything is storyboarded, sketched, plotted, designed and considered. It's not "fanboyism" on our part or "wishful thinking" on theirs- these people are professionals who take their vision and art seriously and attempt to put it into reality on the screen.

Edited by Sniperscope, 11 March 2009 - 05:57 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Me neither, but I see it all the way through CR. Possibly some would argue that the 60's nostalgia is- through a very subtle way- in the set design and with some supposed Flemingsque elements, but I definitely can't see this, and it seems to me more like fanboy's (and director's) wishful thinking, like many other so called gigantic achievements of this movie.

Just cause you can't see it don't mean it's not there Mr A-B.
Why on earth are you so continually dismissive of the artistry and effort that goes into the overall construction of a film. "Wishful thinking"? You seem to have this notion that everything on screen is some kind of happy accident! Directors, set-designers, writers, cinematographers - these people leave nothing to chance. Everything is storyboarded, sketched, plotted, designed and considered. It's not "fanboyism" on our part or "wishful thinking" on theirs- these people are professionals who take their vision and art seriously and attempt to put it into reality on the screen.

Well, first of all Forster it self admited that "I don’t story board the movie entirely, I only storyboard action sequences or visual effects sequences", I know that other people should have storyboarded the rest of the movie, but anyhow...

I don't discuss that Forster had a 'vision' for this movie, what I'm reluctant to believe is that this vision really had to do with Bond, and not with the aspiration of a director of make the first Bond movie that could appear like an arthouse film. Particularly, when I see that QOS is infested with plenty of meaningless metaphores, that seems to be there just for the sake of it. And yes!! there are a whole lot of movies where this kind subtleties are totally justified- and in fact help to the film's development-, it just happens that I don't think that is the case of this Forster's work.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 11 March 2009 - 06:39 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Because there are aspects I like about Quantum of Solace. Dave Arnold's OST is great, and so is the script. What I don't like is Forster and Dan Bradley work on the film, and I think the editors aren't working well.

Okay. But who do you think took that script and turned it into a film? A screenplay is not just penned then instantly becomes a word for word mirror of what the writers originally wrote. If you like SOLACE's script that is probably actually more to do with Marc Forster's interpretation of it than anyone who wrote it.

Eg. "BOND and CAMILLE cross the DESERT towards the township".....

One of the writers may have written something like that. However, it was Forster who would have decided how to shoot that, light that, cut it, grade it, score it (or not) and decide how the scene should work in order for the next scene to work.

Even the dialogue would have been filtered to suit what Forster needed it to achieve in each and every scene.

Yes, the story elements are credited to the writer/s, but Forster has to decide if that works for his film. For example, the Tosca scenes were originally based (in the script) in a UN type meeting. Forster found Bregenz and its floating opera and realised THAT is where the scene should be set. The writers will then accommodate that on the next rewrite, but already it is Forster working in parallel to the script and creating very fine results indeed.

And it is slightly the same with the music. David Arnold would not just turn up with the score written and see it slapped onto the film. The director (and those editors you don't rate) would have changed the pace, removed some suites, added others, diminished some over-loud strings, shrunk the brass.... etc. The CD soundtrack version would theoretically be more Forster than Arnold.

[Zorin Industries]

Clearly from this interview, he doesn't think his movie is great and even goes further by criticizing his own work. He acknowledges the introduction of Camille and the ensuing dialogue was clunky. Well, that's what you get with an underdeveloped script Marc. But don't worry, some CBners believe the dialogue in QoS is one of the best ever, ever, ever! Lol! I can't see why people think this. In terms of dialogue, this movie falls flat on so many levels. The airplane scene, Mathis' death, the aforementioned Camille introduction, Greene's dialogue about his piano teacher etc. etc.

At the end of the day, he made the Bond movie 'he wanted to make' but he hardly left a stamp since his movie wouldn't be out of place at a Bourne fanboy convention. I think he succeeded in making a different kind of Bond movie, but I'm sure it must hurt that it wasn't as critically acclaimed as that other movie with that Aussie hack director...what's his name again?

By the way, what the hell are Eon smoking?! Hiring a director who has never worked with a second unit, let alone an action movie? For the sequel to CR? I wouldn't have cared if they went this way for B23/24 if they had made a quality sequel. But does that mean I could direct a Bond movie? I've never worked with a second unit and never done an action film...hell I've never done a film before but c'mon Eon...push the boat out, why only go halfway?

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Yes. You could well be the only one as QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a stylistic, editorial, physical, musical, architectural throwback to the days of Hunt and Young more than any other Bond film.

Eon Productions do not hire directors because they are great with their second unit (which incidentally they don't have to be as someone else is doing the stunt direction - hence the phrase "second" unit). Eon Productions hired someone like Marc Forster because he is able to tell small human stories on a grand scale (eg. THE KITE RUNNER, FINDING NEVERLAND) which is exactly what the producers wanted to achieve with the next film after CASINO ROYALE. Furthermore, Marc Forster and the producers realised early on that there was no point making an all-out action-fest as firstly they didn't want the films to stagnate as they admitted they did action and story wise with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY and secondly what worked so effectively in ROYALE (i.e. what the audiences responded to) were the moments and scenes where people just talk or better still don't talk. That was a brave move on Eon's part in 2006 and it paid off for them very well.

YES, the dialogue in SOLACE is vastly superior to what we have been fed over the years with the latter day Bond films. As someone with a wee bit of experience of such things, the dialogue is deliberately sparse, honest and holds just a whiff of stylisation. Just because you "don't see it" doesn't imply it is rubbish. Who said the script for SOLACE was "underdeveloped"? Did I miss the email that gave us all the various drafts and incarnations of the script since the middle of production on ROYALE when SOLACE was first drafted and started its production journey?

And NO director - when asked - thinks their "movie is great". They are the first to "criticize" it. So it has nothing to do with what you think of SOLACE but what a director thinks of his finished work (which, for a director, is NEVER finished).

[Loomis]

Some very good points, Zorin.

[Zorin Industries]

Some very good points, Zorin.

Have you been smoking those Jamaican woodbines again? (!). You NEVER agree with the Z of I....!

But thank you...

[Joe Bond]

Once again I agree with you Zorin and Sniperscope. Mr. A-B what you said is your opinion of the movie and thats fine that you don't like the film but you should respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with it. I see the 60's nostalga through the set design and if you see a production still of the axe fight between greene and Bond it will seem very reminiscent of the Dr. No lair design plus I see it in the witty humor, the way it has summer color tones like of the Connery Bonds compared to very winter color tones of CR and some of the Brosnan movies, like other people who have said on this thread the costume design especially in Bond's tux which looks like its straight out of a Connery Bond film, action that is quick but effective, and while the editing is not perfect it resembles the quick editing of films like FRWL and OHMSS. I fail to see your point about Sniperscope's wishful thinking about the metaphor between the action scenes being taken place in 4 natural elements because the main plot is about a natural resource because if this is wishful thinking then most film historians or critics who make inferences in layered movies (like Hitchcock's Vertigo) would be not correct since its there wishful thinking their expressing. Personally I think QoS is more of a traditional Bond film than CR but Forster was able to hide this by giving the film a dark tone which turned some people off and this is what makes QoS a bold step forward for Eon and the Bond series in my opinion.

[Loomis]

Some very good points, Zorin.

Have you been smoking those Jamaican woodbines again? (!). You NEVER agree with the Z of I....!

Heh. Nah, I assure you I'm not under mi sensi at the moment. But, yes, you're right. I guess if they made a film of my time at CBn it would be called YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE ZORIN.

But thank you...

No, thank you. For defending the unduly-maligned (but not perfect - sorry ) QUANTUM OF SOLACE over these past few months. You and the ACEmeister, in particular, have helped me appreciate this rather fine Bond flick for what it is.

[MattofSteel]

Thank goodness this thread received a necessary injection of brains.

[Judo chop]

Well said, MattofSteel. And with that, I take my leave.

[Santa]

At the risk of dropping this thread back in the mire, I think the colour of the car is the least of his worries...

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Yes, the story elements are credited to the writer/s, but Forster has to decide if that works for his film. For example, the Tosca scenes were originally based (in the script) in a UN type meeting. Forster found Bregenz and its floating opera and realised THAT is where the scene should be set. The writers will then accommodate that on the next rewrite, but already it is Forster working in parallel to the script and creating very fine results indeed.

I'm quite sure that he also decided that sloppy intercut with Scarpia's assasination and Carvadossi's excecution (the scenes aren't even in order - Scarpia dies before Carvadossi), with the shootout in the dinner room. Every people I've saw the film with (including me) didn't understand anything there. You've said that Quantum of Solace is a comeback to Young and Hunt times as Bond directors, but I'd bet every penny that Young and Hunt would have never allowed that rare intercut.
Without that, we'd had (as Graham Rye said) a really thrilling action scene instead of a misunderstood.

[Joe Bond]

Yes, the story elements are credited to the writer/s, but Forster has to decide if that works for his film. For example, the Tosca scenes were originally based (in the script) in a UN type meeting. Forster found Bregenz and its floating opera and realised THAT is where the scene should be set. The writers will then accommodate that on the next rewrite, but already it is Forster working in parallel to the script and creating very fine results indeed.

I'm quite sure that he also decided that sloppy intercut with Scarpia's assasination and Carvadossi's excecution (the scenes aren't even in order - Scarpia dies before Carvadossi), with the shootout in the dinner room. Every people I've saw the film with (including me) didn't understand anything there. You've said that Quantum of Solace is a comeback to Young and Hunt times as Bond directors, but I'd bet every penny that Young and Hunt would have never allowed that rare intercut.
Without that, we'd had (as Graham Rye said) a really thrilling action scene instead of a misunderstood.

I respect your opinion Nicolas but until you mentioned I didn't notice that the scenes were out of order but it does not matter to me or anyone else who is not familiar with the Tosca and I feel that the intercut was not sloppy and I thought the reason it was used was to show the irony of the violence of the play that was going on that an equally violent action was acutally occuring for real in the dinner room so for me it shows the irony that when the violence on stage on off so thats what connects them. As for your comment about Hunt and Young not using intercuting but I don't see how this is relevent since intercuting was not used that much in their time and those filmakers did not use them as much during any of their movies, Bond and non-Bond films alike, and Forster seems to like to use intercuting and he used it quite a bit in QoS and I found it to be an interesting change in the way Bond films are shot and felt it worked a lot.

This is the film Forster wanted to make and he even says that he could not please all of the fans and some like it and some don't that just happens when someone's vision of a film doesn't jive with 100% of what the fans wanted and the reason I feel CR is so well liked by fans is because it catered to people who liked new and interesting takes on a Bond movies, like myself, and also to people who like the element of Bond enjoying himself like he did for the majority of the film and the fact that it was technically still shot and edited in the same style as previous Bond films and some just like it because it was a good movie by itself so when QoS tries to be really dark and not have a Bond who is enjoying himself and has tried some new editing and storytelling techniques then its going to turn off some fans who were expecting a more traditionally shot Bond film and there may be some who just dislike the film. I think now that CR is the superior film overall but I think QoS is very good Bond film in the traditional sense and for me feels like it has the quality of a Connery Bond film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Once again I agree with you Zorin and Sniperscope. Mr. A-B what you said is your opinion of the movie and thats fine that you don't like the film but you should respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with it. I see the 60's nostalga through the set design and if you see a production still of the axe fight between greene and Bond it will seem very reminiscent of the Dr. No lair design plus I see it in the witty humor, the way it has summer color tones like of the Connery Bonds compared to very winter color tones of CR and some of the Brosnan movies, like other people who have said on this thread the costume design especially in Bond's tux which looks like its straight out of a Connery Bond film, action that is quick but effective, and while the editing is not perfect it resembles the quick editing of films like FRWL and OHMSS. I fail to see your point about Sniperscope's wishful thinking about the metaphor between the action scenes being taken place in 4 natural elements because the main plot is about a natural resource because if this is wishful thinking then most film historians or critics who make inferences in layered movies (like Hitchcock's Vertigo) would be not correct since its there wishful thinking their expressing.

C'mon, let's face it Forster is nowhere near the level of Hitchcock!! So when film historians or critics, and no simple fans like us, make inferences in layered movies from the likes of Hitchcock, Fellini or Buñuel (which generally didn't happened with their reviews of QOS) I think they have more solid arguments to do it- I'm not saying that this people are something like the unrefutable 'voice of god', only that they're more prepared to go beyond wishful thinking-.

Regarding the 60's nostalgia, and particularly the color palette... I don't see any 'winter' tone for CR, except for the Maime airport sequence and M's flat, which had a blue filter. All the rest of the movie, as Meheux pointed out in the "Filmmaker Profiles" had warm colours, whereas I definitely didn't see that kind of tones in QOS, more like natural ones (or as I would say a somewhat faded tones).

[plankattack]

but I'd bet every penny that Young and Hunt would have never allowed that rare intercut.

Be careful with your cash. I mean, you have watched TB, right?

[MattofSteel]

Yeah, I wouldn't call the Tosca sequence any less watchable than the Junkanoo (sp?) escape. The only reason the cross-cutting stood out at all for me was the quantity. When Forster used it during the Palio, I thought to myself "Ah, that's cool. Nice parallel metaphor. Cool visual effect. And I bet those tunnels are unstable, probably shaking and loud - seems like a layer of description Fleming would write that adds to the danger." Or something like that.

Then during the Opera I thought "Also cool, but he's doing it again?" Half expected the boat chase to cut away to 3 sharks battling a sting ray

[Zorin Industries]

I'm quite sure that he also decided that sloppy intercut with Scarpia's assasination and Carvadossi's excecution (the scenes aren't even in order - Scarpia dies before Carvadossi), with the shootout in the dinner room. Every people I've saw the film with (including me) didn't understand anything there. You've said that Quantum of Solace is a comeback to Young and Hunt times as Bond directors, but I'd bet every penny that Young and Hunt would have never allowed that rare intercut.
Without that, we'd had (as Graham Rye said) a really thrilling action scene instead of a misunderstood.

Who says a piece of editing on a Tosca scene has to be temporally correct? The very act of editing a film destroys real time anyway. Fortser can edit the film any way he and his editors desire. And Hunt and Young intercut the growing drama of separate scenes (not parallel moments) all the time. The bell shed fight in OHMSS is deliberately staccato and choppy, throwing out the familiar devices of editing an action scene at the time. Hunt did it on the Red Grant train fight too. "Intercutting" can exist within one piece of action as well as compare two geographically separate scenes in a film. Hunt particularly pioneered that almost singlehandedly in the 1960's. Hitchcok famously stated that a film needs a beginning, middle and an end...but not necessarily in that order. The likes of Peter Hunt knew that long ago when sat at their editing machines.

And I personally don't give a wrecked Aston's exhaust pipe what Graham Rye thinks of QUANTUM OF SOLACE when he thinks detailing every spoiler and plot point as well as a snipey (and highly bitter and blinkered) "don't see it" agenda constitutes anything remotely resembling a film review.

Personally I think QoS is more of a traditional Bond film than CR but Forster was able to hide this by giving the film a dark tone which turned some people off and this is what makes QoS a bold step forward for Eon and the Bond series in my opinion.

THANK YOU!!!