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

Slowing Down QoS


74 replies to this topic

#61 General G.

General G.

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 81 posts
  • Location:No. 13 Sretenka Ulitsa

Posted 25 May 2010 - 02:04 PM

...What's wrong with the editing?

I like the film -- it's in my Top 10 Bonds (I rate it a "7" out of a possible 10) -- but the editing is a bit... frantic.

It works in the PTS, but the Siena foot chase is horribly botched. (A crying shame, really.)

#62 dutch_pepper

dutch_pepper

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:17 PM

...What's wrong with the editing?

I like the film -- it's in my Top 10 Bonds (I rate it a "7" out of a possible 10) -- but the editing is a bit... frantic.

It works in the PTS, but the Siena foot chase is horribly botched. (A crying shame, really.)


Yeah, you're right. Maybe they could release a sort of a 'directors cut' version. Oops sorry an 'editors cut' B)....

#63 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 26 May 2010 - 01:21 PM

I'm led to believe that if you play QoS backwards, you can hear Satan say "a Dry Martini, stirred not shaken" ...

Well, anyhow, I guess all's already been said about QoS editing. But please just let me remind you that each film is its own piece of art, with its own purpose and its own way of expressing views and interests. In that regard, QoS was neither better nor worse than any other Bond film. It has its own agenda, that's all. You may like or dislike it, but saying that it shall bring about the end of Bond is ridiculous.

As for myself, I see nothing wrong with the editing. It's an artistic choice, and actually I quite buy it. I like the way things are edited, precisely because it's a bit of a much needed shake-up of the franchise. I would have loved the movie to be just a bit longer, say 10 mn. more, to allow for some deeper characterisation of the villain and his motivations, but on the whole I find it a great Bond film. I can't tell why people say there's no great lighting nor great set (please check again, and you'll see the Talamone scene, the Opera fight scene, the hotel scenes, etc.). As for the PT, it's just great as it is: it's a car chase, with Whams and Bangs! I mean, honestly, would you prefer your car chase to be run at the speed of a French civil servant on strike?! You're immediately thrown into the action, and I actually the fact that you cannot get it all at fisrt sight is intended: go on and try to drive at that speed, and you'll tell me if you can grasp everything potentialy in your sight.

Just my thought, of course. But QoS editing is precisely what makes it the blow it is: fast, mean, out with a vengence.

#64 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 02:04 PM

Thank you Messervy. Well said.

#65 volante

volante

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1926 posts
  • Location:GCHQ

Posted 26 May 2010 - 02:25 PM

Thank you Messervy. Well said.


I would like to echo that.

I watched QOS on Monday evening; still punched the air when he shoots the Alfa off the road. Still held by breath when he slids off the roof and leaps to the other side. Still tried to guide his hand to the Walther as he dangles from the rope.
Love the smile when Mathis is accused of only buing cheap wine. Love the "I do hope so" comment when it is assumed Miss Fields has handcuffs. Still want to say Oh out loud when Felix reveals "Just what we agreed"
And (although I was on my own) said "go on" When Bond says "This man and I have some unfinished business"

The editing reflects Bond, on the edge; and out for revenge.

#66 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 02:29 PM

Thank you Trident. Well said.

#67 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:40 PM

Thank you Messervy. Well said.


I would like to echo that.

I watched QOS on Monday evening; still punched the air when he shoots the Alfa off the road. Still held by breath when he slids off the roof and leaps to the other side. Still tried to guide his hand to the Walther as he dangles from the rope.
Love the smile when Mathis is accused of only buing cheap wine. Love the "I do hope so" comment when it is assumed Miss Fields has handcuffs. Still want to say Oh out loud when Felix reveals "Just what we agreed"
And (although I was on my own) said "go on" When Bond says "This man and I have some unfinished business"

The editing reflects Bond, on the edge; and out for revenge.

You and Messervy make some very good points. Oh gee, now I'm going to have to watch "Quantum" again! B)

#68 Donovan

Donovan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 10:04 AM

The technical problem I have with the editing isn't the quick pace of it, it's that the screen direction is a cluster (you know the rest). You can have some very effective rapid editing. I liked the editing in GoldenEye, for instance. Terry Rawlings by reputation has been a fast cutter for decades.

But when you blow the screen direction, you lose your audience. They may not be able to put their finger on what exactly isn't working for them, but the brain is telling them, "whoa, what the hell is going on?"

I don't care if it's in the name of art, that's filmmaking 101.

#69 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 04 June 2010 - 02:30 AM

Even though I love QOS as is, I liken this experiment to those Star Wars fans who edited Phantom Menace to have a minimum of... well, a certain irrelevant but needlessly noisy character.

As a purely individual exercise, I think it's fine to tweak an existing work to experience it a slightly different way, something more to your personal liking and not far from what easily could have been the official version.

I remember when You Know My Name was leaked, I originally thought it sounded better at a somewhat slower pace. Nothing wrong with playing editor/producer in small doses, especially if you really think the final product was off just a bit.

All that said, I'm extremely glad we got what we did and don't intend to ever touch it. I'd rather enjoy it for what it is.

#70 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 07 June 2010 - 03:29 AM

I remember when the PTS and the Siena footchase finished, the audience around me seemed to let out a sigh. Not the kind of sigh that says "Wow, that was amazing", but more "I'm glad that's finished, I've got a headache".

#71 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 07 June 2010 - 11:30 AM

I remember the audience was ... just me, actually!
When I went to the theater to watch QoS for a second time, I was actually alone (note: it was in the middle of the afternoon, weeks after QoS launch). It was so enjoyable to have this great film on this big screen just for myself, with noone to sigh "God, what a bloody headache" and noone to ask the operator for slowing down the pace!...

#72 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 07 June 2010 - 08:55 PM

The technical problem I have with the editing isn't the quick pace of it, it's that the screen direction is a cluster (you know the rest). You can have some very effective rapid editing. I liked the editing in GoldenEye, for instance. Terry Rawlings by reputation has been a fast cutter for decades.

But when you blow the screen direction, you lose your audience. They may not be able to put their finger on what exactly isn't working for them, but the brain is telling them, "whoa, what the hell is going on?"

I don't care if it's in the name of art, that's filmmaking 101.

Absolutely!

I remember when the PTS and the Siena footchase finished, the audience around me seemed to let out a sigh. Not the kind of sigh that says "Wow, that was amazing", but more "I'm glad that's finished, I've got a headache".

I remember much the same feeling in my theater. And I was in a packed Cinerama Dome, opening night, loaded with Bond fans.

Having lived with this movie for a few years, and having watched it several times now, I honestly believe QOS was unreleasable in the form it exists today. I think the editing of the major action sequences is that horrendous. IMO, they should have brought in a new editor to recut at least the foot chase and boat chase. And if there was time, the PTS and airplane sequence.

BTW, this is not unprecedented at all. New editors are brought in all the time to recut a movie that isn't working or certain sequences that lack impact. It baffles me why this wasn't done. I honestly don't know how any of the filmmakers involved could have signed off on these cuts, especially if they ever screened it with an audience.

#73 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 08 June 2010 - 12:34 AM

BTW, this is not unprecedented at all. New editors are brought in all the time to recut a movie that isn't working or certain sequences that lack impact. It baffles me why this wasn't done. I honestly don't know how any of the filmmakers involved could have signed off on these cuts, especially if they ever screened it with an audience.


Perhaps the test audience liked the film the way it was. It's not unprecedented, even in the world of Bond. In fact if you recall Licence to Kill scored through the roof and then ended up under performing at the box office.

#74 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:21 AM

The technical problem I have with the editing isn't the quick pace of it, it's that the screen direction is a cluster (you know the rest). You can have some very effective rapid editing. I liked the editing in GoldenEye, for instance. Terry Rawlings by reputation has been a fast cutter for decades.

But when you blow the screen direction, you lose your audience. They may not be able to put their finger on what exactly isn't working for them, but the brain is telling them, "whoa, what the hell is going on?"

I don't care if it's in the name of art, that's filmmaking 101.

Absolutely!

I remember when the PTS and the Siena footchase finished, the audience around me seemed to let out a sigh. Not the kind of sigh that says "Wow, that was amazing", but more "I'm glad that's finished, I've got a headache".

I remember much the same feeling in my theater. And I was in a packed Cinerama Dome, opening night, loaded with Bond fans.

Having lived with this movie for a few years, and having watched it several times now, I honestly believe QOS was unreleasable in the form it exists today. I think the editing of the major action sequences is that horrendous. IMO, they should have brought in a new editor to recut at least the foot chase and boat chase. And if there was time, the PTS and airplane sequence.

BTW, this is not unprecedented at all. New editors are brought in all the time to recut a movie that isn't working or certain sequences that lack impact. It baffles me why this wasn't done. I honestly don't know how any of the filmmakers involved could have signed off on these cuts, especially if they ever screened it with an audience.


I agree. I am sure that these sequences looked excellent before they were edited.

#75 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:30 AM

The editing works for me in most places, and is only occassionally overdone (in the quieter scenes there are far too many cuts). However, each camera angle is interesting to look at, and there is a marvelous sense of motion to the film which is what I appreciate most about it.