99 replies to this topic

[sorking]

Yes, the amount of rope that it stretched (at least it seems like that, but hard to tell) kinda kills my theory that Bond push the boat off. But then, as Dent pointed out, the direction the boat is pulled back at doesn't make sense.

It's pulled forward and down, not back. When the front end of their boat pushes in that direction, Bond - who is still headed directly forward at the same speed as ever - emerges out from under. Aside from the missing anchor (ahem) the angles and directions work fine.

[QOS007]

If Campbell would have been directing this movie, questions like this wouldn't be asked...

It was difficult for me to find what Bond was doing in some scenes of this film. In Casino Royale, I understood every single move Bond did.

THANK YOU!
Martin Campbell would have directed it instead of Marc Forster, we would have had a better movie. Forster didn't seem to have his heart in it and that is what has taken away from the movie

[sorking]

If Campbell would have been directing this movie, questions like this wouldn't be asked...

It was difficult for me to find what Bond was doing in some scenes of this film. In Casino Royale, I understood every single move Bond did.

THANK YOU!
Martin Campbell would have directed it instead of Marc Forster, we would have had a better movie. Forster didn't seem to have his heart in it and that is what has taken away from the movie

And thus was my point categorically made.

Ah, go on then: Campbell breaks the 180 line constantly at key action moments in GoldenEye. Nobody's perfect. We'd have had a QoS with simpler, but much longer, action and half as much subtlety in the drama and the script. A better movie? Unlikely. Just different. And with action scenes more to some people's tastes...and not to others.

Which is to say, yep, it's all about taste, not right and wrong. For me, Campbell would never have got the script into shape - the more power he has, the less grasp of a three-act structure is present. But if you prefer the guy, fine enough. It's all taste.

A missing shot in an action scene is a lot clearer-cut, though. We could take the same techy pops at any one of the previous movies, too. On its own it proves nothing beyond what it is.

[MattofSteel]

Just saw it again on the big screen. Got nothing. Consulting clips...elsewhere...

It just doesn't make sense unless there's a shot missing of Bond anchoring the other end of the rope on something below, and behind the bow of the second boat. The front of it gets yanked backward and down incredibly violently, enough to flip the entire thing over.

[Bondian]

You should know by now there are two different cuts of this movie. Depending on what part of the world you live in establishes what cut you'll see

Obviously. There's two version floating around in the UK and USA.

[tim partridge]

Ah, go on then: Campbell breaks the 180 line constantly at key action moments in GoldenEye.

Where?

[The*SPY*]

I would have to relook at the scene, but at one point Camille swings a hook into someguy on another boat. Could that have been the other end of the rope that ends up flipping the boat?

[MattofSteel]

I thought she hit him with a big stick.

[byline]

I thought she hit him with a big stick.

Attagirl! I must say, I really like Camille. She may surpass Vesper as my all-time favorite Bond girl!

Back to the original topic: I've got nothin'. I tried to work it out on my second viewing tonight, but I feel like I need to watch it in slow-motion to figure out what's happening.

[Judo chop]

Maybe a giant squid from beneath capsized the boat?

[avl]

Maybe a giant squid from beneath capsized the boat?

I hate squids. Just sayin'

[joshkhenderson]

Maybe a giant squid from beneath capsized the boat?

I hate squids. Just sayin'

Bond is a squddie.

[DavidSomerset]

Wilson and Broccoli on the "award winning director", Marc Forster, and they have been impressed with his methods. “Marc is the most prepared director we have ever worked with. He has a plan of every set and location and he works with the lighting cameraman [Roberto Schaefer] to map out every shot detailing where the camera will go for each sequence. That is all done right at the beginning of the film for the entire movie and he sticks to it. His first assistant, Michael Lerman, is likewise extremely prepared and takes the shots and puts in how much time they will take hour by hour, like the goal for each day. It is amazing to see them work together.”

So probably we are blind or lacking IQ here. Probably there was a invisible Boat Overturning Gadget that Q Branch gave 007, and that scene was left on the cutting floor.
Q: Now pay attention, 007
Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?
Q: OK, press here and the boat will be overturned. An take this chill pill. I have pills for everything.

[marktmurphy]

Heaven forfend that people who think it's a disappointing piece of work actually give examples, eh? After all, if one can't communicate an action sequence (or perhaps even decide how the mechanics even work) in an action film, what hope has one for the plot?

Yes, that's right Markt. If one clip of an action scene falls short (or even fails catastrophically - however severe you wish to make it sound) that means we should LOSE HOPE for the entire plot of the film.

Whose sense of logic has gone bye-bye here?

In theory, yes- it shouldn't be true. In practice however it holds true- smaller bad things do actually point to larger bad things in Quantum of Solace.

The logic of not being able to do a fairly simple thing being a sign of not being able (or willing) to do a larger one is pretty sound, actually. Would you hire a mechanic who can't tighten a nut to rebuild your car?

[Publius]

I would have to relook at the scene, but at one point Camille swings a hook into someguy on another boat. Could that have been the other end of the rope that ends up flipping the boat?

Good point. That's what I remember as well.

[Judo chop]

Heaven forfend that people who think it's a disappointing piece of work actually give examples, eh? After all, if one can't communicate an action sequence (or perhaps even decide how the mechanics even work) in an action film, what hope has one for the plot?

Yes, that's right Markt. If one clip of an action scene falls short (or even fails catastrophically - however severe you wish to make it sound) that means we should LOSE HOPE for the entire plot of the film.

Whose sense of logic has gone bye-bye here?

In theory, yes- it shouldn't be true. In practice however it holds true- smaller bad things do actually point to larger bad things in Quantum of Solace.

The logic of not being able to do a fairly simple thing being a sign of not being able (or willing) to do a larger one is pretty sound, actually. Would you hire a mechanic who can't tighten a nut to rebuild your car?

Here I go stepping into another one of Markt’s labyrinth of tangenting arguments. Oh what the hell…

No, I wouldn’t watch a film by a director who didn’t know how to unscrew a lens cap or pronounce the word ‘action’ in his native language.

That’s about all your analogy is worth.

Name me the greatest Bond film ever made, and I'll find you a loose nut.

I would have to relook at the scene, but at one point Camille swings a hook into someguy on another boat. Could that have been the other end of the rope that ends up flipping the boat?

Good point. That's what I remember as well.

Wait... so Camille hooks one end of a rope to one baddie's boat, and then Bond hooks the other end onto another boat and... flipperoo?

I hope so.

[Publius]

Name me the greatest Bond film ever made, and I'll find you a loose nut.

I hope somebody's brave enough to say DAD, because I always love a good Lee Tamahori joke.

[MattofSteel]

Wilson and Broccoli on the "award winning director", Marc Forster, and they have been impressed with his methods. “Marc is the most prepared director we have ever worked with. He has a plan of every set and location and he works with the lighting cameraman [Roberto Schaefer] to map out every shot detailing where the camera will go for each sequence. That is all done right at the beginning of the film for the entire movie and he sticks to it. His first assistant, Michael Lerman, is likewise extremely prepared and takes the shots and puts in how much time they will take hour by hour, like the goal for each day. It is amazing to see them work together.”

So probably we are blind or lacking IQ here. Probably there was a invisible Boat Overturning Gadget that Q Branch gave 007, and that scene was left on the cutting floor.
Q: Now pay attention, 007
Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?
Q: OK, press here and the boat will be overturned. An take this chill pill. I have pills for everything.

Stuff in question is second unit. Wilson talked to the Toronto Star about how two action scenes in the film are 'exclusively Forster developed and shot - the fight vs. Slate and the final confrontation at Perla des las Dunas.

Interesting, I find, that those came across to me as by far and away the two best action sequences in the film.

[DavidSomerset]

....
Stuff in question is second unit. Wilson talked to the Toronto Star about how two action scenes in the film are 'exclusively Forster developed and shot - the fight vs. Slate and the final confrontation at Perla des las Dunas.

Interesting, I find, that those came across to me as by far and away the two best action sequences in the film.

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.
And coming to the 2nd unit, aren't these fight scenes storyboarded to the last detail? Probably they missed the page where they had the flipping part.
That one scene doesn't diminish the fact that this is a great Bond flick.

[Judo chop]

That one scene doesn't diminish the fact that this is a great Bond flick.

No. Definitely not.

[MattofSteel]

....
Stuff in question is second unit. Wilson talked to the Toronto Star about how two action scenes in the film are 'exclusively Forster developed and shot - the fight vs. Slate and the final confrontation at Perla des las Dunas.

Interesting, I find, that those came across to me as by far and away the two best action sequences in the film.

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.
And coming to the 2nd unit, aren't these fight scenes storyboarded to the last detail? Probably they missed the page where they had the flipping part.
That one scene doesn't diminish the fact that this is a great Bond flick.

Totally agree.

I will never argue Forster's a better action director than Campbell - because he's not, and it would make my life if Campbell returned for Bond 23 (with Frogley, Gassner, Haggis, and Arnold retained) - but Forster's better at it than a lot of people give him credit for.

Remember, he had NO experience with this stuff in the past. Just because I've used tools doesn't mean I know how to build a house. I'd say for a rookie, he pulls off the action surprisingly well.

[DavidSomerset]

.... but Forster's better at it than a lot of people give him credit for.

Remember, he had NO experience with this stuff in the past. Just because I've used tools doesn't mean I know how to build a house. I'd say for a rookie, he pulls off the action surprisingly well.

Yes, Forster did a great job in the development of the character arc for Bond. Also the part where M starts trusting Bond, rather than thinking of him as a spoilt schoolboy was great. And yes, his way of shooting action scenes was better than a Ratner or a McG. Atleast he didnt make it a faux emotional drama like TWINE...

[marktmurphy]

Here I go stepping into another one of Markt’s labyrinth of tangenting arguments. Oh what the hell…

How about 'sod off'? Hope that's not too complicated for you?
What's your problem? You started by being hugely aggressive, sarcastic and just generally unpleasant before I even typed a word to you.

No, I wouldn’t watch a film by a director who didn’t know how to unscrew a lens cap or pronounce the word ‘action’ in his native language.

That’s about all your analogy is worth.

Name me the greatest Bond film ever made, and I'll find you a loose nut.

You've misunderstood the whole point. I'm not saying that this one flaw makes the film a terrible one; just that's it's one of many flaws and many disappointments in the whole thing. Sorking was trying to say that many people are using this substantial error as a stick to bring the whole movie down by: I'm agreeing that you can't do that, of course you can't, but it is one of the many bits of straw that broke my back whilst watching it.
If people were to say 'it's rubbish' without bringing any evidence to the table you'd have a go; it seems if they do you have a go anyway. Several action scenes with crappy or even nonsensical resolutions in an action movie- yeah, that's a pretty big flaw. Not enough to make the whole film terrible, but add it to all the other disappointments and you get a generally deflating film.

And that's all your argument is worth. Next time, try to understand what we're talking about before wading in with sarcasm and hyperbole.

[Judo chop]

Here I go stepping into another one of Markt’s labyrinth of tangenting arguments. Oh what the hell…

How about 'sod off'? Hope that's not too complicated for you?
What's your problem? You started by being hugely aggressive, sarcastic and just generally unpleasant before I even typed a word to you.

No problem here. I thought you were the type who could take what you give. You entered the conversation with sarcasm – “heaven forfend that people who think it’s a disappointing piece of work actually give examples, eh?” - and I took a cue from you. But I’m not being aggressive. Aggressive to a point, maybe, but not toward you.

You've misunderstood the whole point. I'm not saying that this one flaw makes the film a terrible one; just that's it's one of many flaws and many disappointments in the whole thing.

Sorking was trying to say that many people are using this substantial error as a stick to bring the whole movie down by: I'm agreeing that you can't do that, of course you can't, but it is one of the many bits of straw that broke my back whilst watching it.
If people were to say 'it's rubbish' without bringing any evidence to the table you'd have a go; it seems if they do you have a go anyway. Several action scenes with crappy or even nonsensical resolutions in an action movie- yeah, that's a pretty big flaw. Not enough to make the whole film terrible, but add it to all the other disappointments and you get a generally deflating film.

And that's all your argument is worth. Next time, try to understand what we're talking about before wading in with sarcasm and hyperbole.

Sorking’s point I get fully. It’s yours I don’t get.

As a reminder: You said, paraphrased, “what hope can we have for the plot of the film if an action sequence is bad”. Which is where I entered, and sarcastically stated that I consider that to be flawed reason. One does not lead to the other. Especially since we’re talking about separate functions in the film. Why would an editing flaw lead to writing flaws?

To which you said “smaller things do point to bigger things in QoS”. That sounds like you’re trying to keep the theory of ‘chain of causality’ alive. No?

But now you are clearly saying “no”. It wasn’t clear to me before (can you understand why?), but now I see. I’m reading now that what you really think is that this particular action sequence is failed, and that you find other things in QOS which also failed, which has led you to a feeling of general disappointment in the film. Ok. But in this thread we’re talking about the boat scene in particular. As you’ll see when you read my posts on the point, I find the boat scene, in particular the flipping portion, to be failed. But I find it to be one of only a very few flaws in the film, and so I love the film entire.

As far as the mechanic analogy, I was being playful, again because I thought you appreciated sarcasm. (This latest post of yours at least demonstrates your proficiency with the art, if not your appreciation for it.) Of course I would not trust a mechanic who couldn’t tighten a nut. I assume your point was that then we shouldn’t trust Forster to put together a solid film because he couldn’t ‘tighten’ an action scene. And I responded saying, essentially, that a mechanic who couldn’t tighten a nut was more akin to a director who couldn’t operate a camera than to one who botched a second’s clip in an action sequence.

I have taken your advice and am trying to ‘understand what we’re talking about before wading in with sarcasm and hyperbole’.

How’d I do?

[sorking]

Ah, go on then: Campbell breaks the 180 line constantly at key action moments in GoldenEye.

Where?

Given that the last time I gathered a bit of research before replying I was accused of making the point by HAVING to check, I'll just do this one from memory and go for the first example in the movie:

During the pre-title sequence, as Bond dives onto the conveyor belt and fires at the contained canisters. He shoots into the left of frame, as per the direction the entire sequence has played out in...

...at which point we cut to a close-up, and then a wide, of the contained canisters bursting out...on the right of screen.

The camera position, which until then had been on one side of the room, inexplicable changes to the other side. The counter-action happens in the same screen direction as the original action. Thus a 180 break.

It happens again a few moments later during the plane escape - one shot of the plan has it going right to left, the very next its left to right.

I've no problem 'forgiving' these. No doubt they're caused by the complexities of FX and multiple-unit shooting. The audience realigns itself and carries on after a clunky - but likely unavoidable in the edit - moment.

Anyway, that's two in the PTS alone. Doesn't make him any more or less capable than Forster. Doesn't prove anything aside from what it is.

Sorking was trying to say that many people are using this substantial error as a stick to bring the whole movie down by:

You'll show me where I said 'substantial', BTW. Because to me it was one error about defeating one enemy in an otherwise relatively clear-cut sequence.

Edited by sorking, 21 November 2008 - 12:00 AM.

[tim partridge]

Ah, go on then: Campbell breaks the 180 line constantly at key action moments in GoldenEye.

Where?

Given that the last time I gathered a bit of research before replying I was accused of making the point by HAVING to check, I'll just do this one from memory and go for the first example in the movie:

During the pre-title sequence, as Bond dives onto the conveyor belt and fires at the contained canisters. He shoots into the left of frame, as per the direction the entire sequence has played out in...

...at which point we cut to a close-up, and then a wide, of the contained canisters bursting out...on the right of screen.

The camera position, which until then had been on one side of the room, inexplicable changes to the other side. The counter-action happens in the same screen direction as the original action. Thus a 180 break.

It happens again a few moments later during the plane escape - one shot of the plan has it going right to left, the very next its left to right.

I've no problem 'forgiving' these. No doubt they're caused by the complexities of FX and multiple-unit shooting. The audience realigns itself and carries on after a clunky - but likely unavoidable in the edit - moment.

Goodness, you are quite observant!

At least Campbell gets over 95% of it right, enough to allow for the inevitable cockups and compromises that you mention.

Anyway, that's two in the PTS alone. Doesn't make him any more... capable than Forster.

Bit of a stretch.

[sorking]

Ah, go on then: Campbell breaks the 180 line constantly at key action moments in GoldenEye.

Where?

Given that the last time I gathered a bit of research before replying I was accused of making the point by HAVING to check, I'll just do this one from memory and go for the first example in the movie:

During the pre-title sequence, as Bond dives onto the conveyor belt and fires at the contained canisters. He shoots into the left of frame, as per the direction the entire sequence has played out in...

...at which point we cut to a close-up, and then a wide, of the contained canisters bursting out...on the right of screen.

The camera position, which until then had been on one side of the room, inexplicable changes to the other side. The counter-action happens in the same screen direction as the original action. Thus a 180 break.

It happens again a few moments later during the plane escape - one shot of the plan has it going right to left, the very next its left to right.

I've no problem 'forgiving' these. No doubt they're caused by the complexities of FX and multiple-unit shooting. The audience realigns itself and carries on after a clunky - but likely unavoidable in the edit - moment.

Goodness, you are quite observant!

So you get the answer you asked for and you mock it?!

At least Campbell gets over 95% of it right, enough to allow for the inevitable cock-ups and compromises that you mention.

Anyway, that's two in the PTS alone. Doesn't make him any more... capable than Forster.

Bit of a stretch.

Indeed. Forster, after all, is responsible for The Kite Runner, Finding Neverland an Stranger Than Fiction. Movies that speak to the nature of being, and the importance of human relationships. Campbell lensed a ghastly sequel to his own Zorro, the dreadful Vertical Limit, the crass No Escape and is in the middle of making a bound-to-be-ghastly remake of The Birds.

Which is to say: it's easy to get smug about 'who's better'. I prefer Campbell as an action director, as it goes, but I think Forster knocks him into a cocked hat when it comes to substance and artistic merit. So QoS is beaten in one respect, but not in another. And "95%" is a crazy, made-up number - this thread is, as you'll have noticed, about a one-shot flaw in QoS. The kind of flaw my example proves NO filmmaker is immune to.

Edited by sorking, 21 November 2008 - 01:54 AM.

[tim partridge]

There's a big difference between occasionally crossing the line and actually failing to communicate a crucial story point. Type "can't direct action to save his life" into Google and I am pretty sure you'll see Marc Forster/QOS mentioned lots on the first response page!

I agree that Forster is a very versatile and visual craftsman outside of Bond. Very different to Martin Campbell. I see Campbell more as a classic Terence Young/John Glen kind of for hire craftsman, while Forster is from the more sophisticated Guy Hamilton/Lewis Gilbert camp. Even if he got the Bourney editing and action wrong (baring in mind his other movies don't look like that at all), at least Forster brought back rich mise en scene to Bond for the first time since 1979. Actually, on that front I'd certainly rate Forster miles above Hamilton, but obviously below Gilbert. I do think that, like Hamilton, Forster's artistic freethinking gets the better of his judgement (at worst they both seem to make a point that making a straight Bond movie is below them). For example, I could completely see Hamilton doing the MK12 thing back in his day.

BTW- no mocking on my part, I am entirely sincere and quite impressed with your analysis (and from memory too)! I checked out the scene you mentioned and there it was, shot for shot. Spot on. Please except my apologies if I came off as mocking.

Campbell is actually remaking his own groundbreaking EDGE OF DARKNESS BBC series, into a multi million dollar Mel Gibson thriller.

[sorking]

There's a big difference between occasionally crossing the line and actually failing to communicate a crucial story point. Type "can't direct action to save his life" into Google and I am pretty sure you'll see Marc Forster/QOS mentioned lots on the first response page!

Hilarious as that is (and it's really not, sorry), it's a judgement call - for many, the 'what just happened' nature of a line-cross is egregious and confusing.

And for me one missing shot is a disappointment, but not proof that the rest of the sequence - or the half-dozen others - didn't work in toto. So my simple point stands: a single flaw isn't enough to crucify any director. Most of what's more widely debated is about taste, not competence. For every person who concurs with your suggestion, I can find two who don't.

But then, I don't consider Hamilton sophisticated, rather crass-but-often-well-suited. Slack on action, interesting on tone. Though I concur on Glen and Young as craftsmen (albeit it, in the latter case, one who had sharp eye on the measure of his leading character) . Gilbert may have been a solid drama director elsewhere, but those talents escaped him on Bond. And fair enough - he wasn't aiming for drama. He made gorgeous-but-shallow fun movies. More power to his colourful elbow.

I disagree that Forster saw the franchise as beneath him. But rather that he needed convincing that it had gained the substance that had been so lacking for so long. DAD, let's face it, IS beneath a director of Forster's merits and priorities. Lest we forget, Campbell also needed convincing to return, certain that the Bond thing had been done already. Both directors were brought back on similar promises.

BTW- no mocking on my part, I am entirely sincere and quite impressed with your analysis (and from memory too)! I checked out the scene you mentioned and there it was, shot for shot. Spot on. Please except my apologies if I came off as mocking.

Campbell is actually remaking his own groundbreaking EDGE OF DARKNESS BBC series, into a multi million dollar Mel Gibson thriller.

Apologies more than totally accepted. The straight-faced smiley threw me. As to the memory: that's a masters degree in cinema and a career in TV for you. It's a curse as much as a blessing!

And yeah, can't imagine Edge of Darkness working very well. But then, I feel the same about the State of Play movie...

Edited by sorking, 21 November 2008 - 03:03 AM.

[MattofSteel]

I'm just going to go with, "overall he does a great job for a non-action director tackling action for the first time, but there are a few glaring moments where the editing fails him utterly."