Too much flash-cutting in 'Quantum of Solace' for Sir Roger Moore
#31
Posted 22 March 2009 - 05:19 AM
#32
Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:54 AM
#33
Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:16 AM
Having seen CR no less than seven times, I left the theatre very dissapointed after QoS. It concerns me that EON might be unable to deliver another film of CR's quality when they don't have strong Fleming material to base it on (given their refusal to, say, "remake" YOLT as "Shatterhand", as many here have suggested).
In my eyes, the next film should have the kind of feeling we saw in The Living Daylights: a fairly down-to-earth plot that provides adventure and excitement (which QoS didn't for me), some humour (yet no Moore/Brosnan-ish "gags"), with a great central performance. Bond should be humane, but needs to be a bit more sympathetic than he was in QoS. Bring back Martin Campbell or get Alfonso Cuaron to direct, and dwell a bit more on "Fleming-ish" details, like CR did (it would be wonderful to see a scene where Bond describes his pleasure of a good meal, as an example).
In all fairness, I've only seen QoS once, as it will not be released on DVD over here until Wednesday. I expect it to improve greatly on subsequent viewings, and I also expect the action to look better on a smaller screen. In my experience, action sequences with this kind of editing always does (certainly did with Batman Begins and the Bourne films), as it's easier to "get the whole picture" of what's going on on a TV.
I didn't think the film was rubbish, but it was not among the better entries of the series either. I think the reviews giving it three out of five stars are correct in their judgement, for the most part. There were some action scenes I think worked beautifully (like the one where Bond hangs upside down on the ropes, trying to grab the gun), but the problem is there are way too many of them for such a short film.
#34
Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:21 AM
#35
Posted 22 March 2009 - 03:21 PM
Benson's book with the mountain clib (crap the name escapes me now) is a great example of something like that.
#36
Posted 22 March 2009 - 03:31 PM
I believe I read about a Benson book where the climax was on a big, snowy mountain (might be the one you mention), that could make an interesting finale for a film too.
#37
Posted 22 March 2009 - 03:49 PM
#38
Posted 22 March 2009 - 09:13 PM
#39
Posted 17 June 2009 - 12:51 AM
In addition, Marc Forster announced (warned?) that he felt his editing schedule was too tight before he began the process last year.
#40
Posted 17 June 2009 - 08:16 AM
Yes, he did. However, you would think if the editing schedule was too tight for him that there would have been fewer edits and thus a more normal cut of the action scenes. Instead, there are significantly more edits, so it would appear that if the tight editing schedule did affect Forster, it wasn't during his cutting of the action scenes.I agree with Sir Roger. I also love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the editing during the action scenes was indeed too chopped up. I'd love to see the car chase at the start re-edited and also the Siena footchase, because I bet they had two classic chases on their hands before the editing began.
That is likely very true, but after the end product, you can't tell. I know from what I heard about the car chase leading up the film that I was expecting something really great--possibly along the lines of Bullitt, The French Connection, and Ronin--but the super-quick editing left me completely underwhelmed and disappointed.
In addition, Marc Forster announced (warned?) that he felt his editing schedule was too tight before he began the process last year.
#41
Posted 17 June 2009 - 10:03 AM
I agree. It is "not one of the finest action sequences in Bond history".Is the car chase not one of the finest action sequences in Bond history?
How did you just agree with a question?
I agree.
#42
Posted 17 June 2009 - 10:22 AM
#43
Posted 17 June 2009 - 10:48 AM
Have you edited a film before?Yes, he did. However, you would think if the editing schedule was too tight for him that there would have been fewer edits and thus a more normal cut of the action scenes. Instead, there are significantly more edits, so it would appear that if the tight editing schedule did affect Forster, it wasn't during his cutting of the action scenes.I agree with Sir Roger. I also love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the editing during the action scenes was indeed too chopped up. I'd love to see the car chase at the start re-edited and also the Siena footchase, because I bet they had two classic chases on their hands before the editing began.
That is likely very true, but after the end product, you can't tell. I know from what I heard about the car chase leading up the film that I was expecting something really great--possibly along the lines of Bullitt, The French Connection, and Ronin--but the super-quick editing left me completely underwhelmed and disappointed.
In addition, Marc Forster announced (warned?) that he felt his editing schedule was too tight before he began the process last year.
And EVERY director will say he or she never had enough time to cut a film.
And quite why a 82 year old would like fast cuts and quickfire action is beyond me. Of course he is going to not like it.
#44
Posted 17 June 2009 - 11:36 AM
Have you edited a film before?Yes, he did. However, you would think if the editing schedule was too tight for him that there would have been fewer edits and thus a more normal cut of the action scenes. Instead, there are significantly more edits, so it would appear that if the tight editing schedule did affect Forster, it wasn't during his cutting of the action scenes.I agree with Sir Roger. I also love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the editing during the action scenes was indeed too chopped up. I'd love to see the car chase at the start re-edited and also the Siena footchase, because I bet they had two classic chases on their hands before the editing began.
That is likely very true, but after the end product, you can't tell. I know from what I heard about the car chase leading up the film that I was expecting something really great--possibly along the lines of Bullitt, The French Connection, and Ronin--but the super-quick editing left me completely underwhelmed and disappointed.
In addition, Marc Forster announced (warned?) that he felt his editing schedule was too tight before he began the process last year.
And EVERY director will say he or she never had enough time to cut a film.
And quite why a 82 year old would like fast cuts and quickfire action is beyond me. Of course he is going to not like it.
Zorin does have a point view that does render Rog's comment irrelevant but I'm 37 & my Wife 38 and we didn't like it.
I guess I must be too old for this kind of thing, I understand the idea of making the Car Chase like they did but myself like Rog and others aren't preferable to this sequence.
It was such a shame for me because I love the way that camera tracks across the lake and into the chase, the soundtrack dropping out but then it's just confusing for me and the roof top chase was worse, my Wife couldn't understand what was going on and said so.
I think it's fair to say that approach will definitley be approached with more caution with Bond 23 if at all.
#45
Posted 17 June 2009 - 12:38 PM
Look, Bond 22 was NOT made for the average 80 year old. The average 80 year old can't afford to carry the costs of a 007 production entirely on their own backs.
There is not a single Roger Moore James Bond film that has the acting and pace of Quantum, arguably one of the finest Bond films ever.
The world has changed since the late 70s when Moore ought to have retired from the role...but he kept going for the pay cheques, irrespective of any semblence of quality control.
What he says about Quantum carries little to no weight with me.
#46
Posted 17 June 2009 - 12:57 PM
There is not a single Roger Moore James Bond film that has the acting and pace of Quantum
That is true, but I consider every single last one of Moore's Bond outings (well, with the possible exception of A VIEW TO A KILL) to be vastly superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
#47
Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:12 PM
There is not a single Roger Moore James Bond film that has the acting and pace of Quantum
That is true, but I consider every single last one of Moore's Bond outings (well, with the possible exception of A VIEW TO A KILL) to be vastly superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
I can see TSWLM and Moonraker being somewhat superior in a Bond-And-Beyond way (because I love TSWLM and Moonraker), but the others?
LOL
FYEO is a complete joke, for example.
LALD's production quality is the z and the JWPepper sceenes are cringe-worthy.
As for your beloved TMWTGG, it's the only 007 film where we're pulling for the villian moreso than Bond himself. And the JWPepper sceenes are cringe-worthy. Terrible.
#48
Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:39 PM
That is all only your opinion, HB. Other fans, film historians, critics and audiences have suggested otherwise.There is not a single Roger Moore James Bond film that has the acting and pace of Quantum
That is true, but I consider every single last one of Moore's Bond outings (well, with the possible exception of A VIEW TO A KILL) to be vastly superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
I can see TSWLM and Moonraker being somewhat superior in a Bond-And-Beyond way (because I love TSWLM and Moonraker), but the others?
LOL
FYEO is a complete joke, for example.
LALD's production quality is the z.
As for your beloved TMWTGG, it's the only 007 film where we're pulling for the villian moreso than Bond himself.
#49
Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:41 PM
#50
Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:45 PM
Absolutely. Of course. I for one though prefer a bit of informed opinion mixed in with the good old "I like, I hate" opinion.The forums are about opinion.
#51
Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:59 PM
That is true, but I consider every single last one of Moore's Bond outings (well, with the possible exception of A VIEW TO A KILL) to be vastly superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
I seem to recall that you were rather fond of AVTAK and, like me (I think), considered FYEO to be Moore's weakest film. Have you changed your opinions on these films.
#52
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:07 PM
I agree with Sir Roger. I also love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the editing during the action scenes was indeed too chopped up. I'd love to see the car chase at the start re-edited and also the Siena footchase, because I bet they had two classic chases on their hands before the editing began.
In addition, Marc Forster announced (warned?) that he felt his editing schedule was too tight before he began the process last year.
Indeed. I'm fine with the chases as they are now, but I was watching the film again yesterday and during the car chase I couldn't help but think "You know, they've probably got the footage archived somewhere, from before it got all spliced up. I'd like to see that. Wonder if it's even possible..."
#53
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:12 PM
#54
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:14 PM
As for your beloved TMWTGG, it's the only 007 film where we're pulling for the villian moreso than Bond himself.
Arguably, yes, that is true. But I don't view that as a negative.
That is true, but I consider every single last one of Moore's Bond outings (well, with the possible exception of A VIEW TO A KILL) to be vastly superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
I seem to recall that you were rather fond of AVTAK and, like me (I think), considered FYEO to be Moore's weakest film. Have you changed your opinions on these films.
Uh, I dunno. I guess. Maybe. Dunno.
#55
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:15 PM
#56
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:16 PM
#57
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:17 PM
People love to recycle old drivle...like OLD MAN Roger's drool.
Look, Bond 22 was NOT made for the average 80 year old. The average 80 year old can't afford to carry the costs of a 007 production entirely on their own backs.
There is not a single Roger Moore James Bond film that has the acting and pace of Quantum, arguably one of the finest Bond films ever.
The world has changed since the late 70s when Moore ought to have retired from the role...but he kept going for the pay cheques, irrespective of any semblence of quality control.
What he says about Quantum carries little to no weight with me.
You really need to learn to take criticism of films you like better.
#58
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:45 PM
Well as far as I'm concerned it's a shame if you have because I much prefer AVTAK to FYEO, and frankly could do with more people in my corner on that one.
I'm in your corner.
I saw FYEO at the theatre back in the summer of '81 and it was the biggest dissapointment of my Bond life.
You really need to learn to take criticism of films you like better.
Touche'
#59
Posted 17 June 2009 - 05:40 PM
Well, it happens to be one of my favorite Bond films (though I would not rank it as high as "Quantum of Solace"). I saw "For Your Eyes Only" in the theatre and was pleasantly surprised. IMO, it's Moore's best Bond performance, though I can easily see Timothy Dalton taking over at that point, and making the film that much better. Just my opinion, of course.FYEO is a complete joke, for example.
Edited by byline, 17 June 2009 - 05:45 PM.
#60
Posted 17 June 2009 - 06:08 PM
Well, it happens to be one of my favorite Bond films (though I would not rank it as high as "Quantum of Solace"). I saw "For Your Eyes Only" in the theatre and was pleasantly surprised. IMO, it's Moore's best Bond performance, though I can easily see Timothy Dalton taking over at that point, and making the film that much better. Just my opinion, of course.FYEO is a complete joke, for example.
What I meant is that for a supposedly 'serious' film/premise, the gags are played to the hilt with things like the Citroen chase, Bibi's ice cream, and the Parrot-saving-the-planet idea.
Moore looked old. On the verge of being Bibi's and Milena's Grand Pa.
The production values looked cheap in certain areas, too.
But it's a Bond film, so it has it's good moments too.