Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Curse of the sequel?


49 replies to this topic

#31 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:36 PM

I personally find Martin Campbell's direction to be dull, easy and devoid of any emotional or physical palette.

Generally I would say that's true, but I don't find that to be the case in CASINO ROYALE. In fact, I more and more find CASINO ROYALE to be the more visually engaging Bond film of the two of 'em.

His best film is indeed CASINO ROYALE but Forster would have given that the necessary nuances and crafted a much better film.

No, I'm not sure he would have. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was, in some ways, as much worse-off for Forster's involvement as it was well-off for Forster's involvement. And honestly, I think he would have likely mangled CASINO ROYALE.

#32 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:40 PM

CR better under Forster?

Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is that I would not take the risk finding out.

(Unless of course I had the option to reverse the decision. B) )

#33 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:40 PM

I personally find Martin Campbell's direction to be dull, easy and devoid of any emotional or physical palette.

Generally I would say that's true, but I don't find that to be the case in CASINO ROYALE. In fact, I more and more find CASINO ROYALE to be the more visually engaging Bond film of the two of 'em.

His best film is indeed CASINO ROYALE but Forster would have given that the necessary nuances and crafted a much better film.

No, I'm not sure he would have. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was, in some ways, as much worse-off for Forster's involvement as it was well-off for Forster's involvement. And honestly, I think he would have likely mangled CASINO ROYALE.

Can I ask why? He didn't "mangle" QUANTUM OF SOLACE so why would it be that he would have ruined ROYALE. Remember that not everyone didn't like SOLACE. Eon have asked Forster to return and I would rather follow their inclinations than those of the man at home spouting the likes of "Solace was rubbish - the cutting between the camera shots was too fast"... (which incidentally was sort of the point).

#34 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:47 PM

Remember that not everyone didn't like SOLACE.

How can we forget?

#35 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:47 PM

He didn't "mangle" QUANTUM OF SOLACE so why would it be that he would have ruined ROYALE.

His lack of sense for pacing, at least as far as Bond was concerned. He argued that CASINO ROYALE was too slow for his liking, well, as far as I'm concerned, Bond should always have something of a relaxed pace, and the last thing we need is a Bond film that plays like a "bullet."

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a rushed film. Both narratively speaking, and in the editing room (it's often terribly over-edited, and I'm not really talking about the action sequences). Characterization is often reduced to a few to sound-bites, and scenes and locations are rarely given any time to breathe. Whatever nuance is there is hurt by the fact that Forster never lets us dwell on much of anything.

And, honestly, I think Forster is a bit more occupied with style than story, which shows in the finished product. On a narrative level, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is nowhere near as interesting as CASINO ROYALE was.

Remember that not everyone didn't like SOLACE.

I don't dislike QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I definitely like it, and I think its novelty will grow as the years go on. But I do think it's substantially inferior to CASINO ROYALE, and that Marc Forster's work on the film has both positive and negative aspects.

#36 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:54 PM

He didn't "mangle" QUANTUM OF SOLACE so why would it be that he would have ruined ROYALE.

His lack of sense for pacing, at least as far as Bond was concerned. He argued that CASINO ROYALE was too slow for his liking, well, as far as I'm concerned, Bond should always have something of a relaxed pace, and the last thing we need is a Bond film that plays like a "bullet."

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a rushed film. Both narratively speaking, and in the editing room (it's often terribly over-edited, and I'm not really talking about the action sequences). Characterization is often reduced to a few to sound-bites, and scenes and locations are rarely given any time to breathe. Whatever nuance is there is hurt by the fact that Forster never lets us dwell on much of anything.

Remember that not everyone didn't like SOLACE.

I don't dislike QUANTUM OF SOLACE mind you. I like it. I just think it's substantially inferior to CASINO ROYALE, and that Marc Forster's work on the film has both positive and negative aspects.


ALL Bond films should be "bullets". A "relaxed pace" turns the films into travelogues with brass - not action thrillers that need to move fast.

I really like and rate CASINO ROYALE but it has big gaps of dull exposition, inane pacing and repetitive set pieces (the parkour chase was only in there because it was a parkour chase - it held no narrative relevance... the story point of MOLLAKA is then repeated all over again in Miami). Also Forster would have known how to successfully blend a cerebral card game with the physicality of the films. Campbell wrongly equates "pace" with a fight scene and he always had.

#37 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 03:57 PM

A "relaxed pace" turns the films into travelogues with brass - not action thrillers that need to move fast.

I'd argue Fleming, and the early Connery films, were closer to the former than the latter, and I have significantly more interest in "travelogues with brass" than "action thrillers that need to move fast."

Not that I mind action, but admittedly, my "ideal" Bond film would probably have very little action at all. It's not action that makes Bond worthwhile.

#38 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:06 PM

He argued that CASINO ROYALE was too slow for his liking, well, as far as I'm concerned, Bond should always have something of a relaxed pace, and the last thing we need is a Bond film that plays like a "bullet."

I agree. I much prefer how the Connery films handle things. Casino Royale took a leaf out of this book, and for doing so was a massive success. They're even better when you have a lazy predator like Connery swaggering around the place. Craig’s of the same ilk, so I hope they get back to this style of film. It suits him perfectly.

#39 H.M.S Ark Royal

H.M.S Ark Royal

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 58 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:14 PM

And, honestly, I think Forster is a bit more occupied with style than story, which shows in the finished product.


I share your opinion. It's a shame : splendid locations, but we can't see them. Everything's going too fast. This film was made like a video clip. Period. Cubby, what did they do to your legacy ?

#40 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:23 PM

And, honestly, I think Forster is a bit more occupied with style than story, which shows in the finished product.


I share your opinion. It's a shame : splendid locations, but we can't see them. Everything's going too fast. This film was made like a video clip. Period. Cubby, what did they do to your legacy ?

I don't think QOS has done anything that has been a detriment to Cubby's legacy. Some of the films post 96 have been a bit hit and miss but they have all made money, and the public have liked them. Nothing there that wouldn't have been good enough for Cubby IMO.
I know the fast editing is very subjective and if people don't like it OK, that is fine. I just wonder how relaxed people felt in the early sixties when watching Dr No, or the train fight in FRWL or GF. Parts of those films must have felt like bullets when they were released.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 17 April 2009 - 04:25 PM.


#41 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:45 PM

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a rushed film. Both narratively speaking, and in the editing room (it's often terribly over-edited, and I'm not really talking about the action sequences). Characterization is often reduced to a few to sound-bites, and scenes and locations are rarely given any time to breathe. Whatever nuance is there is hurt by the fact that Forster never lets us dwell on much of anything.

As much as I enjoy "Quantum of Solace," I do agree with this. One of the reasons I enjoyed "Casino Royale" so much was precisely because it harked back to a more classic style of storytelling which allowed me to see inside the characters. The flash-editing technique used throughout "Quantum" deprives me of that opportunity.

So few films are done in the classical style nowadays that they stand out as exceptions; what's old is new again. That's one of the reasons I enjoyed "Casino" so much, because it was actually refreshing to see scenes drawn out, giving us time to reflect on what's happening with the characters. I agree that "Quantum" suffers, as a result. But, as a continuation of "Casino," I don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't continue on into the next film (or longer).

#42 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 17 April 2009 - 06:36 PM

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a rushed film. Both narratively speaking, and in the editing room (it's often terribly over-edited, and I'm not really talking about the action sequences). Characterization is often reduced to a few to sound-bites, and scenes and locations are rarely given any time to breathe. Whatever nuance is there is hurt by the fact that Forster never lets us dwell on much of anything.

As much as I enjoy "Quantum of Solace," I do agree with this. One of the reasons I enjoyed "Casino Royale" so much was precisely because it harked back to a more classic style of storytelling which allowed me to see inside the characters. The flash-editing technique used throughout "Quantum" deprives me of that opportunity.

So few films are done in the classical style nowadays that they stand out as exceptions; what's old is new again. That's one of the reasons I enjoyed "Casino" so much, because it was actually refreshing to see scenes drawn out, giving us time to reflect on what's happening with the characters. I agree that "Quantum" suffers, as a result. But, as a continuation of "Casino," I don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't continue on into the next film (or longer).


Loved Quantum, but yes.

Fast editing I don't have a problem with, as long as the narrative and emotional impact doesn't suffer. At numerous points in QOS, it does. I'd call "over-editing" a very accurate term to describe what I found could have been changed.

Assuming, of course, that their ultimate goal is to produce something as aesthetically similar to people's "ideal Bond" each and every time out. Which, clearly in this case, it wasn't. And frankly, I think the series is stronger for it.

#43 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 06:38 PM

Dunno I agree about all that:

Bond and Mathis on the plane leaps to mind, that scene is unrivaled in the series IMO (there's also the lead-in scene directly preceding it at Mathis's villa).

The intitial interrogation of White has some nice layering (and there's also the scene directly preceding it between Bond and M that's a bit of alright).

Bond and Camille have one of the most fascinating Bond/Bond girl relationships in the series, not unlike some others we've gotten but the depth shown in QOS is again unprecedented IMO (no Bond director except maybe Hunt has handled such delicate material as well as Forster in the sink hole scene).

Bond and Fields has a great arc to it from first meeting to Bond avenging her death by leaving Greene in the middle of a desert with a can of oil.

And then there's Greene. Great villain lots of creepy scenes, love the one where he tells Bond off at the party.

Medrano is IMHO the best minor villain in the series: wants to be a dictator, and is a practiced sadist. The reveals on him are as well-done and substantial as for Greene, unnervingly quiet moments contrasted with fits of violence.

Beam is a nice minor character as well, very rounded IMO with an easy sense of entitlement within a position of power.

Even the Foreign Minister guy who has the tough-guy scene with M towards the end comes across as more than a fill-in.

All together, these are some of the most memorable and realistic characters - both big ones and small ones - ever presented in a Bond film. That only happens when there's an intelligent script and the director is giving the actors room to do their thing. Most Bond films sound like cartoons, limp dialogue with hammy readings, they just can't escape the cliches. This far into the series and with all that's gone under the bridge, we're damn lucky to have a director like Forster breathe life into the basics - character, motivation, plot - instead of just marking time with them til the next Q-adjusted chase scene. Anyways, 2 cents on all that. B)

#44 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 06:51 PM

Bond and Mathis on the plane leaps to mind, that scene is unrivaled in the series IMO (there's also the lead-in scene directly preceding it at Mathis's villa).

It's a nice scene - it's lovely to see Bond drunk for once - but even then, I think it's edited too tightly. Mathis' dialogue about pills is admittedly quite good, though. Still, I would hardly go calling the scene "unrivaled." It's a nice, brief moment, but it's hardly anything worth calling home about.

The intitial interrogation of White has some nice layering (and there's also the scene directly preceding it between Bond and M that's a bit of alright).

The intitial interrogation of Mr. White is quite rushed, though that's more a fault of the screenplay than anything else. Let's face it, the whole concept of Bond interrogating Mr. White was much more exciting in theory than it was in the finished film, where it was essentially reduced to a brief set-up for an action setpiece.

Bond and Camille have one of the most fascinating Bond/Bond girl relationships in the series, not unlike some others we've gotten but the depth shown in QOS is again unprecedented IMO (no Bond director except maybe Hunt has handled such delicate material as well as Forster in the sink hole scene).

In concept, their relationship is very interesting. In execution, it just falls flat, since it's all skeleton and no meat. Their relationship is ultimately cut down to a few sound bite-full "weighty" conversations, and never given time to satisfactorily breathe.

Bond and Fields has a great arc to it from first meeting to Bond avenging her death by leaving Greene in the middle of a desert with a can of oil.

In theory, yes, but not in execution. Fields is largely a non-entity in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Nor was she even that interesting conceptually, or really fit in with the overall tone of the narrative.

And then there's Greene. Great villain lots of creepy scenes, love the one where he tells Bond off at the party.

I don't like Greene at the party. It's all "trailer dialogue," so to speak.

Medrano is IMHO the best minor villain in the series: wants to be a dictator, and is a practiced sadist. The reveals on him are as well-done and substantial as for Greene, unnervingly quiet moments contrasted with fits of violence.

Medrano's fine, for yer standard nasty rogue general. Neither particularly memorable or particularly bad, but hardly worth praising to the skies. He's a simple character, simply conceived and simply sketched.

Most Bond films sound like cartoons

Because they are cartoons. And that's not a bad thing.

#45 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 06:52 PM

He didn't "mangle" QUANTUM OF SOLACE so why would it be that he would have ruined ROYALE.

His lack of sense for pacing, at least as far as Bond was concerned. He argued that CASINO ROYALE was too slow for his liking, well, as far as I'm concerned, Bond should always have something of a relaxed pace, and the last thing we need is a Bond film that plays like a "bullet."

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a rushed film. Both narratively speaking, and in the editing room (it's often terribly over-edited, and I'm not really talking about the action sequences). Characterization is often reduced to a few to sound-bites, and scenes and locations are rarely given any time to breathe. Whatever nuance is there is hurt by the fact that Forster never lets us dwell on much of anything.

Remember that not everyone didn't like SOLACE.

I don't dislike QUANTUM OF SOLACE mind you. I like it. I just think it's substantially inferior to CASINO ROYALE, and that Marc Forster's work on the film has both positive and negative aspects.


ALL Bond films should be "bullets". A "relaxed pace" turns the films into travelogues with brass - not action thrillers that need to move fast.

I really like and rate CASINO ROYALE but it has big gaps of dull exposition, inane pacing and repetitive set pieces (the parkour chase was only in there because it was a parkour chase - it held no narrative relevance... the story point of MOLLAKA is then repeated all over again in Miami). Also Forster would have known how to successfully blend a cerebral card game with the physicality of the films. Campbell wrongly equates "pace" with a fight scene and he always had.


Agreed with you on all counts, Harms.

I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE but find CASINO ROYALE packs much more of a wallop emotionally and artistically.

#46 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 08:13 PM

Bond and Mathis on the plane leaps to mind, that scene is unrivaled in the series IMO (there's also the lead-in scene directly preceding it at Mathis's villa).

It's a nice scene - it's lovely to see Bond drunk for once - but even then, I think it's edited too tightly. Mathis' dialogue about pills is admittedly quite good, though. Still, I would hardly go calling the scene "unrivaled." It's a nice, brief moment, but it's hardly anything worth calling home about.

The intitial interrogation of White has some nice layering (and there's also the scene directly preceding it between Bond and M that's a bit of alright).

The intitial interrogation of Mr. White is quite rushed, though that's more a fault of the screenplay than anything else. Let's face it, the whole concept of Bond interrogating Mr. White was much more exciting in theory than it was in the finished film, where it was essentially reduced to a brief set-up for an action setpiece.

Bond and Camille have one of the most fascinating Bond/Bond girl relationships in the series, not unlike some others we've gotten but the depth shown in QOS is again unprecedented IMO (no Bond director except maybe Hunt has handled such delicate material as well as Forster in the sink hole scene).

In concept, their relationship is very interesting. In execution, it just falls flat, since it's all skeleton and no meat. Their relationship is ultimately cut down to a few sound bite-full "weighty" conversations, and never given time to satisfactorily breathe.

Bond and Fields has a great arc to it from first meeting to Bond avenging her death by leaving Greene in the middle of a desert with a can of oil.

In theory, yes, but not in execution. Fields is largely a non-entity in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Nor was she even that interesting conceptually, or really fit in with the overall tone of the narrative.

And then there's Greene. Great villain lots of creepy scenes, love the one where he tells Bond off at the party.

I don't like Greene at the party. It's all "trailer dialogue," so to speak.

Medrano is IMHO the best minor villain in the series: wants to be a dictator, and is a practiced sadist. The reveals on him are as well-done and substantial as for Greene, unnervingly quiet moments contrasted with fits of violence.

Medrano's fine, for yer standard nasty rogue general. Neither particularly memorable or particularly bad, but hardly worth praising to the skies. He's a simple character, simply conceived and simply sketched.

Most Bond films sound like cartoons

Because they are cartoons. And that's not a bad thing.

Guess I prefer Forster's work on all those "theories" to, well, every other Bond director's efforts save Hunt's. Agree with you that nearly all of the films are indeed cartoons, but the better ones - like QOS - go beyond that, towards what Fleming achieved in the novels. To each their own, though, where you see thorns I see beautiful roses aplenty. B)

#47 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 08:28 PM

Agree with you that nearly all of the films are indeed cartoons, but the better ones - like QOS - go beyond that, towards what Fleming achieved in the novels.

Well, I do think Fleming's novels are mighty cartoonish, no matter how you slice it. I don't really think QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the kind of flick Fleming would have responded to.

To quote Loomis: "I think Fleming would have absolutely loathed QoS as a film. He wouldn't have understood it, indeed he wouldn't have sat through it for more than a few minutes, after which he'd have angrily repaired to the bar for a few good stiff belters." B)

#48 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 17 April 2009 - 09:50 PM

Bond and Mathis on the plane leaps to mind, that scene is unrivaled in the series IMO (there's also the lead-in scene directly preceding it at Mathis's villa).

While I like the scene on the plane and find it to be very effective, the preceding scene is, IMO, over-edited. I was fine with the whole thing till they cut to Gemma's face, and then Bond downing his glass of wine . . . and then out. Even though I get what was happening, and I think I get the intent behind it, too, it was just too quick to have any real emotional resonance for me.

#49 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 11:53 PM

I think Fleming would've loved QOS, I think he would've recognized it's updated but inherently thrilleresque qualities. JMHO.

#50 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:13 AM

I think Fleming would've loved QOS, I think he would've recognized it's updated but inherently thrilleresque qualities. JMHO.

Don't forget that Fleming didn't take his Bond novels too seriously- unlike Forster-, and that Fleming's work isn't precisely what you might call high literature.

And one question... (I don't want to sound rude but) if you state that "nearly all of the films are indeed cartoons", why do you call yourself a bond fan, when you seem to dislike that important aspect of the series??

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 April 2009 - 09:16 AM.