887 replies to this topic

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

OK, I heard things... don't ask me from whom... I was curious about why QOS was half the movie it was, so I went out, gave a few well connected phone calls, and got answers...

- So you know, that 20 seconds long chase that opens the movie ? There's like, two cars chasing Bond ? Originally, there were three. They erased the third car in all the remaining shots.

- So you know, the editing, what of it ? What gives ? It appears Mr Foster edits all his movies this way first, ie the movie is supposed to play like a fast forward version, so that he can point out what scenes works best, and where it's important to extend, give breath, so that the movie can find it's balance.

- So, er, why are none of his past movies cut that way ? It's because he always have the time to cut properly the movie, but didn't had that luxury here. The movie was good enough for the producers, who had a date to meet. So they just took it out of his hands, and said "fine ! date is more important than the movie being good". (that's me extrapolating, not actual words I was told)

- What about the ending ? Bond finds out the man who hired the bodyguard he threw off the roof at the opera, and kills him. This scene was supposed to end Quantum for good (he was apparently the head). Thus Bond would have gotten his Quantum of Solace. I asked about Mr White, but suddenly people hang up on me. I have no idea why...

So, I know that there never was before a 007 movie "director's cut" apart from unrated versions of LTK or GE. I know the QOS DVD / BR (which was completed before the movie came out) will be the TC (theatrical cut).

But I'm asking here EON, to please, let Mr Foster go back and edit properly this movie. Hopefully, it will play like a movie rather than half a movie (and i'll eat all my words against Foster not knowing what he was doing, well, he should have told them to stick it and get the thing right the first time in my humble opinion. Of course money rules it all).

Massive shame if it's true, although considering that the editors are on the dailies all the way through the process and Forster still had 6 weeks (a LOT can be done in that time), I'd say the finished film isn't so far off his original intent. But I guess we'll never know unless someone asks him, will we?

And also, QoS had TWO main, credited editors as opposed to CR's one - and while Baird and Campbell would have been operating under a similar (if not identical) timeframe as Forster, Chesse, and Pearson, there's nothing about CR I would consider unrefined as a victim of time restrictions.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

When a movie is about what its title implies...and people don't know what 'quantum' and 'solace' means then it's not "you" who has the problem.

There are a lot of critics that have/had no idea what those two words mean/meant. I suppose anyone can buy a journalism/English degree these days.

So, I'm confused as to which side you're implying (I might be failing to read it). Are you saying it's the producers' fault for picking a name no one knows that obscures the film's intended meaning, or are you saying it's not the producer's fault that the public isn't up to snuff on their definitions?

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just curious.

It's not the producers' fault that there are a number of stupid journalists out there.

That's what I thought. And no, it's not. I wanted to be a journalist about two years ago, and now I just have absolutely no motivation to do so. I apologize to generalize, but I seem to be consistently fed up with the media in all forms lately. Political coverage tends to sour it quickly, as well.

I find that, among those who find QOS to be flawless, perfect, etc, there's a tendency to either excuse or praise Forster for both problems and achievements that all previous Bond helmers have experienced. I found the man to be rather whiny, playing the "artiste" at every possible turn. "I didn't have enough time to edit the film properly, blah, blah". Previous directors when interviewed about the editing process have stated that they worked on a short deadline but they have done so in good nature rather than complaining. Hamilton had to edit half of Goldfinger on his own while Hunt did the first half, probably without even the luxury of an assistant and on a moviola, which meant ACTUALLY cutting the film physically.
Forster has been praised for delivering a stylish, emotional film. I found Royale to be much more satisfying in both areas but then again, they've sold this particular film on that angle and people only notice things when told to do so. Innovative editing? This is probably the LEAST innovative editing in the whole series as it so obviously follows a trend (six years ago people cringed at the Wagner's editing excesses in DAD and by comparison the look like a class act). Editing should never be so ditracting it averts you from noticing important details and there's instances in the film where you have to watch it at least a second time to understand things. That's not good film-making by any definition. Some of Chessé's disolves are embarrassingly bad.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

Given its unusual title, they should have included a quote from the short story somewhere in the movie. This title is supposed to mean something (as opposed to, say, LALD, which was so irrelevant that the reference in the novel wasn't carried into the film). In the end, they could have named LTK QOS instead and it would have made as much sense.

[HildebrandRarity]

They could have picked half of the Bond movie titles out of a hat and renamed that half.

OHMSS could have been attached to almost any Bond movie, for example. Q0S could have been named OHMSS because there's nothing in that title that makes it unique.

What's your point?

[Harmsway]

OK, I heard things... don't ask me from whom... I was curious about why QOS was half the movie it was, so I went out, gave a few well connected phone calls, and got answers...

Hoorah. More "I talked to a guy" kinds of "info posts." I'm dubious about anything your "sources" have to say, especially since what you suggest about the ending flies in the face of what we've heard from Forster and others.

[HildebrandRarity]

OK, I heard things... don't ask me from whom... I was curious about why QOS was half the movie it was, so I went out, gave a few well connected phone calls, and got answers...

Well, if we can't ask "from whom," how on earth can we trust what you say?

Especially since what you suggest about the ending flies in the face of what we've heard from Forster and others.

I heard things too...don't ask me from whom...Daniel Craig is getting a $10 Million dollar bonus for leading the best 2nd outing by a Bond in 45 years. And that they are willing to pay him an additional $20 Million to lock down their option for him to be in Bond 24.

So, DC will be laughing all the way to the bank while stamper and his 4 or 5 friends here on CBn slag off endlessly about how a movie - which was suppose to "tank" - is no good.

[MattofSteel]

Massive shame if it's true, although considering that the editors are on the dailies all the way through the process and Forster still had 6 weeks (a LOT can be done in that time), I'd say the finished film isn't so far off his original intent. But I guess we'll never know unless someone asks him, will we?

And also, QoS had TWO main, credited editors as opposed to CR's one - and while Baird and Campbell would have been operating under a similar (if not identical) timeframe as Forster, Chesse, and Pearson, there's nothing about CR I would consider unrefined as a victim of time restrictions.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

When a movie is about what its title implies...and people don't know what 'quantum' and 'solace' means then it's not "you" who has the problem.

There are a lot of critics that have/had no idea what those two words mean/meant. I suppose anyone can buy a journalism/English degree these days.

So, I'm confused as to which side you're implying (I might be failing to read it). Are you saying it's the producers' fault for picking a name no one knows that obscures the film's intended meaning, or are you saying it's not the producer's fault that the public isn't up to snuff on their definitions?

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just curious.

It's not the producers' fault that there are a number of stupid journalists out there.

That's what I thought. And no, it's not. I wanted to be a journalist about two years ago, and now I just have absolutely no motivation to do so. I apologize to generalize, but I seem to be consistently fed up with the media in all forms lately. Political coverage tends to sour it quickly, as well.

I find that, among those who find QOS to be flawless, perfect, etc, there's a tendency to either excuse or praise Forster for both problems and achievements that all previous Bond helmers have experienced. I found the man to be rather whiny, playing the "artiste" at every possible turn. "I didn't have enough time to edit the film properly, blah, blah". Previous directors when interviewed about the editing process have stated that they worked on a short deadline but they have done so in good nature rather than complaining. Hamilton had to edit half of Goldfinger on his own while Hunt did the first half, probably without even the luxury of an assistant and on a moviola, which meant ACTUALLY cutting the film physically.
Forster has been praised for delivering a stylish, emotional film. I found Royale to be much more satisfying in both areas but then again, they've sold this particular film on that angle and people only notice things when told to do so. Innovative editing? This is probably the LEAST innovative editing in the whole series as it so obviously follows a trend (six years ago people cringed at the Wagner's editing excesses in DAD and by comparison the look like a class act). Editing should never be so ditracting it averts you from noticing important details and there's instances in the film where you have to watch it at least a second time to understand things. That's not good film-making by any definition. Some of Chessé's disolves are embarrassingly bad.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

Given its unusual title, they should have included a quote from the short story somewhere in the movie. This title is supposed to mean something (as opposed to, say, LALD, which was so irrelevant that the reference in the novel wasn't carried into the film). In the end, they could have named LTK QOS instead and it would have made as much sense.

I agree that his whining at times seemed unprofesional, but I never priased nor excused him for/from anything. Let's avoid putting words in people's mouths. And if you were just using my quote as a basis to make an observation, then I apologize.

I never suggested his restriction wasn't manageable, rather my whole point was that this was no drastically different than what we've seen before, so the idea that the film is woefully unfinished in terms of editing is tough to swallow.

Regarding the name being in the movie, I didn't particularly care. "So you live to die another day" is the most awkwardly forced line from the Brosnan era, Tomorrow Never Dies wasn't even in it, and "The World is Not Enough," "A View to a Kill," and "Living Daylights" were practically throwaways, to name a few.

To the best of my knowledge, and I may need correcting, whenever Fleming used a "phrase" as his title, he rarely referenced it in the text. And people seem to take him as the bible around here.

[Sniperscope]

The subtle imagery of Bond and Camille walking through the water-starved town

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I saw anything subtle about it. That dripping pipe was bludgeoning us over the head with it. But welcome to CB.n!

Yes, some very overt symbolism there. The one, solitary point in the film where I kind of said "Uh, yeah. We get it. More of Agent Fields please?"

Too bad I didn't get my wish

LOL points well taken! (although the water dripping was before they got to the town if memory serves) I was meaning that the images in all those sequences were a bit rare for a Bond film - exploring the crushing poverty of the region with Bond and Camille wandering through like a couple of shell-shocked tourists... Forster really has an eye for the locations and you all know that Bond films don't usually take on that kind of "reality." In the past it's been picture-postcards with very little thought paid to the very real effect politics play on the lives of the average Joe.
BTW Don't figure all the Fields admiration... Gemma A delivered her fairly silly lines terribly and failed to really give anything to her (admittedly) limited character. As doomed Bond girls in the last two films Solange is more impressive in both looks and characterisation...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The subtle imagery of Bond and Camille walking through the water-starved town

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I saw anything subtle about it. That dripping pipe was bludgeoning us over the head with it. But welcome to CB.n!

Yes, some very overt symbolism there. The one, solitary point in the film where I kind of said "Uh, yeah. We get it. More of Agent Fields please?"

Too bad I didn't get my wish

LOL points well taken! (although the water dripping was before they got to the town if memory serves) I was meaning that the images in all those sequences were a bit rare for a Bond film - exploring the crushing poverty of the region with Bond and Camille wandering through like a couple of shell-shocked tourists... Forster really has an eye for the locations and you all know that Bond films don't usually take on that kind of "reality." In the past it's been picture-postcards with very little thought paid to the very real effect politics play on the lives of the average Joe.

That's one of the things that I really dislike about QOS. While I feel Forster's work is overall a proper Bond film, I think this display of 'realism' isn't very much bondesque, and it goes against the tradition of the EON series (yes, I'm talking about the movies, not about the novels).

[Sniperscope]

The subtle imagery of Bond and Camille walking through the water-starved town

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I saw anything subtle about it. That dripping pipe was bludgeoning us over the head with it. But welcome to CB.n!

Yes, some very overt symbolism there. The one, solitary point in the film where I kind of said "Uh, yeah. We get it. More of Agent Fields please?"

Too bad I didn't get my wish

LOL points well taken! (although the water dripping was before they got to the town if memory serves) I was meaning that the images in all those sequences were a bit rare for a Bond film - exploring the crushing poverty of the region with Bond and Camille wandering through like a couple of shell-shocked tourists... Forster really has an eye for the locations and you all know that Bond films don't usually take on that kind of "reality." In the past it's been picture-postcards with very little thought paid to the very real effect politics play on the lives of the average Joe.

That's one of the things that I really dislike about QOS. While I feel Forster's work is overall a proper Bond film, I think this display of 'realism' isn't very much bondesque, and it goes against the tradition of the EON series (yes, I'm talking about the movies, not about the novels).

Good point about the novels and I have often been more partial to the literary Bond than the filmic, but I the tone was already set in CR with regards to a kind of "realism" (particularly the opening scene in Africa and the stairway battle) and Forster takes it a logical step further (such as the random shooting of bystanders at the horse race). Bond existing in this kind of shades-of-grey world is the most compelling aspect of the Craig era, especially in contrast to the glossy fluff of the Brosnan period. The fantasy escapism of previous films had gone too far, often to the point of self-parody, and was rich fodder for Austin Powers and Johnny English... I think some traditions have to evolve if Bond as both a character and "genre" wants to remain vital in the 21st century...

Edited by Sniperscope, 17 December 2008 - 07:33 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

the tone was already set in CR with regards to a kind of "realism" (particularly the opening scene in Africa and the stairway battle) and Forster takes it a logical step further (such as the random shooting of bystanders at the horse race). Bond existing in this kind of shades-of-grey world is the most compelling aspect of the Craig era, especially in contrast to the glossy fluff of the Brosnan period

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

While CR is the right balance between escapism and realism. QOS seem more like the other EXTREME to the "glossy fluff of the Brosnan period". And the fact is that I don't think that any extreme is really good for the series .

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 17 December 2008 - 08:12 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

[byline]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

And yet wasn't it interesting that nearly every shot -- even the ones of Bond going to Mathis's villa and the desert scenes -- appeared darker than most of "Casino Royale"? "Casino" seemed to have a lot of oversaturated color to heighten the vibrancy of this heady new Bond, whereas this is contrasted in "Quantum" with Bond's darkened perception of the world and his place in it. This seems to have been a deliberate style choice; on first viewing, I didn't like it, but subsequent viewings have turned me around. Now it seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Edited by byline, 17 December 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

And yet wasn't it interesting that nearly every shot -- even the ones of Bond going to Mathis's villa and the desert scenes -- appeared darker than most of "Casino Royale"? "Casino" seemed to have a lot of oversaturated color to heighten the vibrancy of this heady new Bond, whereas this is contrasted in "Quantum" with Bond's darkened perception of the world and his place in it. This seems to have been a deliberate style choice; on first viewing, I didn't like it, but subsequent viewings have turned me around. Now it seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

The look of the film was indeed a bit different, chalk that up to the difference between Phil Meheux and Roberto Schaefer. Meheux's photography was quite saturated and vibrant, Meheux' approached it in spots but definitely had a bit of a "washed out" feel to aspects of it. I think that's more contingent on the colour scheme of the film to go alone with it - lots of light browns and greys, very arid in spots - a sort of reflection of the desert where Bond and Camille find themselves.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

So, why did it get a nomination for best editing? Audiences seem to like it. Most of the fans who voted on the CBn poll also like it.

Actually more people I've spoken to disliked it than liked it. On the IMDB it's about 50/50,which isn't really good for a film. Of course loads of people on CBn liked it-Bond fans [because they're fans] are more likely to like a Bond film especially a current one. And as I've said before just because a film is a big commercial success doesn't mean it's universally liked.

[blueman]

So QOS is a reviled blockbuster? Okay.

[Eddie Burns]

Erm...I thought Bond wasn't out for revenge? Some people either have it completely wrong or just interpreting what they want to see.

Blueman...DAD was a blockbuster, doesn't mean it's universally liked. QoS has done well but the increase in production costs meant that they were expecting it to outdo CR by a reasonable margin. It won't. So in that regard it's a failure. I mean no one pays more and expects less in return, do they?

[Mr_Wint]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

And yet wasn't it interesting that nearly every shot -- even the ones of Bond going to Mathis's villa and the desert scenes -- appeared darker than most of "Casino Royale"? "Casino" seemed to have a lot of oversaturated color to heighten the vibrancy of this heady new Bond, whereas this is contrasted in "Quantum" with Bond's darkened perception of the world and his place in it. This seems to have been a deliberate style choice; on first viewing, I didn't like it, but subsequent viewings have turned me around. Now it seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

The look of the film was indeed a bit different, chalk that up to the difference between Phil Meheux and Roberto Schaefer. Meheux's photography was quite saturated and vibrant, Meheux' approached it in spots but definitely had a bit of a "washed out" feel to aspects of it. I think that's more contingent on the colour scheme of the film to go alone with it - lots of light browns and greys, very arid in spots - a sort of reflection of the desert where Bond and Camille find themselves.

Indeed, QOS captured the feel of a desert very well; Flat, repetitive, featureless and potentially dangerous to your health if you get exposed to it for a long time.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

And yet wasn't it interesting that nearly every shot -- even the ones of Bond going to Mathis's villa and the desert scenes -- appeared darker than most of "Casino Royale"? "Casino" seemed to have a lot of oversaturated color to heighten the vibrancy of this heady new Bond, whereas this is contrasted in "Quantum" with Bond's darkened perception of the world and his place in it. This seems to have been a deliberate style choice; on first viewing, I didn't like it, but subsequent viewings have turned me around. Now it seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

The look of the film was indeed a bit different, chalk that up to the difference between Phil Meheux and Roberto Schaefer. Meheux's photography was quite saturated and vibrant, Meheux' approached it in spots but definitely had a bit of a "washed out" feel to aspects of it. I think that's more contingent on the colour scheme of the film to go alone with it - lots of light browns and greys, very arid in spots - a sort of reflection of the desert where Bond and Camille find themselves.

Indeed, QOS captured the feel of a desert very well; Flat, repetitive, featureless and potentially dangerous to your health if you get exposed to it for a long time.

Good one!

[byline]

Erm...I thought Bond wasn't out for revenge? Some people either have it completely wrong or just interpreting what they want to see.

IMO, Bond started out seeking revenge. Then, as events progressed, he learned how little solace revenge really offered, so he sought his solace in not seeking revenge, but in keeping Yusef alive so that he could give M the big picture she was looking for. So there was a progression throughout the film. There's a fair bit that's up for interpretation, but I don't think that is.

[Eddie Burns]

Yeah, all well and good but Craig has come out and said that Bond is not out for revenge (in so many words), can't dig up the quote now but it's out there 100%.

Honestly. I don't think people know for sure what it's about. The whole angst and dark theme seems to have convinced people that Fleming is alive in this movie. Which then leads to all sorts of interpretations that eventually encroach fanboyism territory. That is overanalysing EVERYTHING. For CR it was fine because it was based on Fleming material, so one does get a pass. But for a movie that had a script that was made as they went along, coupled with a director whose only interest was to put in as "much action as possible", this over-complicating of the story/character by some seems far fetched. Just because it's dark doesn't automatically mean it's Fleming.

If Forster wasn't allowed to do the action that he wanted, he wouldn't have got near the franchise. I'm surprised no one has caught on to that. His motivation lay in the action, the character was secondary. He's made that clear without saying as much.

Whatever anyones opinion, it all boils down to how easy you are to please. I think Bond fans settle for whatever they get and seek ways of justifying their choices. The fact that a better Bond movie could and should have been made is irrelevant because of this notion that we should all be happy to be given another chance to line Eon's pockets. Despite their lack of thought and effort behind the scenes.

I'm just disappointed the reboot is now over. They really didn't think it through, did they?

Edited by Eddie Burns, 18 December 2008 - 02:58 AM.

[MattofSteel]

Yeah, all well and good but Craig has come out and said that Bond is not out for revenge (in so many words), can't dig up the quote now but it's out there 100%.

Honestly. I don't think people know for sure what it's about. The whole angst and dark theme seems to have convinced people that Fleming is alive in this movie. Which then leads to all sorts of interpretations that eventually encroach fanboyism territory. That is overanalysing EVERYTHING. For CR it was fine because it was based on Fleming material, so one does get a pass. But for a movie that had a script that was made as they went along, coupled with a director whose only interest was to put in as "much action as possible", this over-complicating of the story/character by some seems far fetched. Just because it's dark doesn't automatically mean it's Fleming.

If Forster wasn't allowed to do the action that he wanted, he wouldn't have got near the franchise. I'm surprised no one has caught on to that. His motivation lay in the action, the character was secondary. He's made that clear without saying as much.

Whatever anyones opinion, it all boils down to how easy you are to please. I think Bond fans settle for whatever they get and seek ways of justifying their choices. The fact that a better Bond movie could and should have been made is irrelevant because of this notion that we should all be happy to be given another chance to line Eon's pockets. Despite their lack of thought and effort behind the scenes.

I'm just disappointed the reboot is now over. They really didn't think it through, did they?

Eddie, I've given you a lot of credit up until this point because you represent your views well, but you're really starting to reach with some of this stuff.

I personally have never suggested that dark/angsty equates Fleming. Quite the opposite, and in terms of overanalyzing, people felt that the film was soulless and empty and I merely felt that providing an interpretation as I saw it might help to create a more subjective view of the film, for everyone, including myself.

And I know you weren't attacking me personally with any of that.

But to suggest this is encroaching on "fanboyism," well, what else is a site like CBN for? We're all people that have logged in under false aliases to nitpick James Bond apart. Some want to discuss QoS in fine detail, others want to unilaterally bash the film, and others blindly support it because, yes, they'll eat whatever EON throws at them. But that's what a fan site is.

I'm just not comfortable with some of the claims you make toward's Forster's behind-the-scenes approach or attitudes. To say they "made the film up as they went along" is absolute bollocks. Obviously, the script was not completed to the level they wanted it, but those two situations hardly equate to one another. And to say Forster was merely trying to cram action with total disregard to the secondary objective of character is also a bit much. Some people saw very defined, concise character arcs in a totally appropriate amount. It's a Bond movie, for goodness sakes - their primary purpose is to entertain. Only recently has there been any consideration of the depth behind them, and even if QoS is lacking compared to CR in terms of scale, it's still miles and miles ahead of virtually every other film in the series to date.

I'm not an EON apologist by nature, and I'm certainly not a person who's easy to please. But I just can't get behind the idea that this film was simply thrown up at the screen to see what stuck, I mean just watching the damn thing to me reveals more than that. But making judgements about the filmmakers' work ethic and intent based on a snippet of interviews and behind the scenes interviews, coupled with the thousands and thousands of hours they put into it that we didn't see, is going a bit far, no?

I'm not trying to villify you or anything, I just don't want this to turn into every other QoS discussion that seems to be happening. This thread has been too good for that!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yes, but then again, "the crushing poverty" as you call it, it's in some way disguised (with an exotic feel) by the colorful cinematography, among other things, in CR's Madagascar. That didn't happened in QOS.

That's my point. Forster takes it one step further into a more realistic direction. But of course QoS has abundant colourful cinematography. Bond's visit to Mathis' vila is especially vibrant and Bondesque, as is the Opera sequence and the boat chase. The hotel desert sequences were also exceptionally beautiful and formed a neat visual metaphor for Bond and Camille's quests for revenge.

And yet wasn't it interesting that nearly every shot -- even the ones of Bond going to Mathis's villa and the desert scenes -- appeared darker than most of "Casino Royale"? "Casino" seemed to have a lot of oversaturated color to heighten the vibrancy of this heady new Bond, whereas this is contrasted in "Quantum" with Bond's darkened perception of the world and his place in it. This seems to have been a deliberate style choice; on first viewing, I didn't like it, but subsequent viewings have turned me around. Now it seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Sniperscope, where did you see "abundant colourful cinematography" in QOS?? Even several fans of this movie have describe it as muted, but definitely not colourful. CR it's the one that really deserved your (cited) depiction.

This is one the things that I don't like about this flick, its so called naturalistic photography seems too depressing (and not glamorous enough) for a Bond movie, IMO.

You can tell me that the first Young's movies weren't that colourful, but then again, I think QOS is even more muted and shows more "crushing poverty" (or should I say realism), particularly in "Bolivia" and "Haiti"-which occupy most of the film's length-, than any entry in the series before, even counting the likes of LTK or DN.

P.D: Anyway, I don't think that QOS is the worst of the EON series, that title is deserved for LTK.

[Sniperscope]

P.D: Anyway, I don't think that QOS is the worst of the EON series, that title is deserved for LTK.

Funnily enough one of the Bond films I thought QoS resembled most was LTK which I always rather liked since it was the first one I ever saw at the cinema!
I'm not too worried that you and I disagree over the whole colourful cinematography issue and you do seem rather fixated on the "crushing poverty" quote of mine. Still, I will stand by the fact that there is a lot of colourful images which are often used in pretty stark contrast with a very dark palete in other scenes. Perhaps my notion of colourful is at variance with yours! I am not suggesting QoS was some kind of harlequin's ball but we're not talking The Dark Knight here either! The richness of colours in the desert scenes appealed to me. So what? Perhaps deserts don't appeal to you but really we're arguing our own tastes here and that's always going to go around in circles!
Also to continue on Eddie Burns who seemed to pick at my notion that QoS is about revenge, well I'm sorry but for me the film is. When Bond says "We had a mutual friend" or some such before killing the man responsible for Mathis' murder then I am baffled as to how revenge does not play a part. When Bond leaves Greene in a desert with a can of oil for water after Fields had been killed in a like manner then I am equally baffled as to how this cannot be defined as revenge. I really couldn't care less what Craig says about his interpretation of the character - that's an intentional fallacy and I am not bound by what he says. For me as an independent viewer with my own perception, as faulty as it may be, then it's a tale of revenge. Others may see it differently and that is of course their right!

Edited by Sniperscope, 18 December 2008 - 07:42 AM.

[00Twelve]

...really we're arguing our own tastes here and that's always going to go around in circles!

A brilliant summary of the thread.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

P.D: Anyway, I don't think that QOS is the worst of the EON series, that title is deserved for LTK.

I will stand by the fact that there is a lot of colourful images which are often used in pretty stark contrast with a very dark palete in other scenes. The richness of colours in the desert scenes appealed to me.

I don't want sound repetitive, but while I can totally accept that you prefer a different type of cinematography for a Bond movie, I have to insist in telling you that until now, no fan of the movie considered QOS as colorful, some like it for its (muted) naturalistic feel, other like myself don't. And I think, according to the examples that you gave, that you're confusing locations that in the real world should be colorful, for a colorful photography treatment (or slightly oversatured, like some posters have said) equivalent to the one of CR.

I don't want to seem patronizing, but that's the only way that I can find to understand your perception.

Oh, and the 'fixation' on your quote about the "crushing poverty" is because you seem the be the only fan willing to recognize the appearance of big poverty in the movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 18 December 2008 - 07:49 AM.

[Sniperscope]

It seems we're not destined to be friends on this Mr A-B but if you back track a way you will see that I described the film as naturalistic but it also had abundant colourful cinematography. Cinematography has perhaps a different notion for you but for me it encompasses the essential elements of mise en scene. It is in effect the overall art of shooting a film. You really do like lifting isolated comments and making a fuss over them. The scenes that I listed are, for me, colourful. I do not mean oversaturated, which I think you'll agree is unrealistic and plastic. Realism can be colourful! Do you only live in a monochrome world because it's "real"?
In my more recent post I suggest that these scenes form strong juxtapositions to the darker ones which are, granted, more prevalent. I don't see this as being a very controversial assertion.
At this point, amigo, both you and I are sounding repetitive ("crushing" bores perhaps?) and there is really little need to prolong this circular debate!

Edited by Sniperscope, 18 December 2008 - 08:40 AM.

[Eddie Burns]

Yeah, all well and good but Craig has come out and said that Bond is not out for revenge (in so many words), can't dig up the quote now but it's out there 100%.

Honestly. I don't think people know for sure what it's about. The whole angst and dark theme seems to have convinced people that Fleming is alive in this movie. Which then leads to all sorts of interpretations that eventually encroach fanboyism territory. That is overanalysing EVERYTHING. For CR it was fine because it was based on Fleming material, so one does get a pass. But for a movie that had a script that was made as they went along, coupled with a director whose only interest was to put in as "much action as possible", this over-complicating of the story/character by some seems far fetched. Just because it's dark doesn't automatically mean it's Fleming.

If Forster wasn't allowed to do the action that he wanted, he wouldn't have got near the franchise. I'm surprised no one has caught on to that. His motivation lay in the action, the character was secondary. He's made that clear without saying as much.

Whatever anyones opinion, it all boils down to how easy you are to please. I think Bond fans settle for whatever they get and seek ways of justifying their choices. The fact that a better Bond movie could and should have been made is irrelevant because of this notion that we should all be happy to be given another chance to line Eon's pockets. Despite their lack of thought and effort behind the scenes.

I'm just disappointed the reboot is now over. They really didn't think it through, did they?

Eddie, I've given you a lot of credit up until this point because you represent your views well, but you're really starting to reach with some of this stuff.

I personally have never suggested that dark/angsty equates Fleming. Quite the opposite, and in terms of overanalyzing, people felt that the film was soulless and empty and I merely felt that providing an interpretation as I saw it might help to create a more subjective view of the film, for everyone, including myself.

And I know you weren't attacking me personally with any of that.

But to suggest this is encroaching on "fanboyism," well, what else is a site like CBN for? We're all people that have logged in under false aliases to nitpick James Bond apart. Some want to discuss QoS in fine detail, others want to unilaterally bash the film, and others blindly support it because, yes, they'll eat whatever EON throws at them. But that's what a fan site is.

I'm just not comfortable with some of the claims you make toward's Forster's behind-the-scenes approach or attitudes. To say they "made the film up as they went along" is absolute bollocks. Obviously, the script was not completed to the level they wanted it, but those two situations hardly equate to one another. And to say Forster was merely trying to cram action with total disregard to the secondary objective of character is also a bit much. Some people saw very defined, concise character arcs in a totally appropriate amount. It's a Bond movie, for goodness sakes - their primary purpose is to entertain. Only recently has there been any consideration of the depth behind them, and even if QoS is lacking compared to CR in terms of scale, it's still miles and miles ahead of virtually every other film in the series to date.

I'm not an EON apologist by nature, and I'm certainly not a person who's easy to please. But I just can't get behind the idea that this film was simply thrown up at the screen to see what stuck, I mean just watching the damn thing to me reveals more than that. But making judgements about the filmmakers' work ethic and intent based on a snippet of interviews and behind the scenes interviews, coupled with the thousands and thousands of hours they put into it that we didn't see, is going a bit far, no?

I'm not trying to villify you or anything, I just don't want this to turn into every other QoS discussion that seems to be happening. This thread has been too good for that!

Why compare this reboot era with what's gone on before Mattofsteel? I'm simply judging it on it's own merits. We all knew Bond's character would be explored as a result of the reboot so saying that we should be grateful for whatever character narration we get in QoS because previous era's didn't have it is just ridiculous. The character development was poor in QoS, whatever existed of it, imo. I'm saying it could have been better handled. Comparing it to OP or TMWTGG is pointless because that was the 70's/80's and this is a reboot era.

It's obvious to me Eon bundled the reboot idea and according to Craig, the reboot is finished. So much for thought and effort. They really have run out of ideas and I believe that will be more obvious with the coming movies. They're just out of touch.

As for making it up as they go along and the emphasis on action, these aren't things I grabbed from mid air. They've come out of the respective horses' mouths. That is exactly what Forster/Craig said in regards to how they shot the movie. The majority of the movie was shot in sequence because they made it up as they went along. Don't blame me for repeating what I hear. You also shouldn't be in denial of something that is actually a fact. All I know that for a sequel to CR to be approached in such a manner is baffling. Like I said, it all comes down to whether one is easy to please or not. How many times will this happen before people open their eyes and demand better I wonder?

I apologize for the "fanboyism" remark as I didn't mean to cause offence. As a matter of fact I'd wish you had worked on the script as your attempt at explaining the character arc was supreme. The problem is that it doesn't translate on screen for me. All I see is a thin story, a thin arc, padded with pointless action. That's all I see. Maybe the intention was there, but the execution was flawed. But intention alone just isn't enough, hence why I think some are desperate to see things that aren't really there.

All I've heard from Forster is action with little talk of character. Forster was curious about how an action film was made, that's the main reason he took the job. Not to make a better movie than CR (he doesn't think that highly of Bond to try), not because he was interested in the characters development in the reboot era, not to make his mark on the series or genre. It was an experimental project for him. Anyone that denies this is frankly blind. "I wanted to put in as much action as possible" is what he said in Japan. Now how the hell can anybody tell me that character was first and foremost on his mind? Come on guys, smarten up! QoS should nor have been an action movie, but it was because we had an arthouse director wanting to do an action film. The very fact that the contradiction of arthouse/action doesn't strike you as odd then I guess I'm the only one. Please just step out of your Bond shells and look at this objectively.

I firmly believe Eon don't have a plan and don't know where they're going. Maybe this reboot idea was too much for them to handle, creatively at least. Now it's over? Back to Q and Moneypenny and submarine lairs? Already? Oh wait... It's gritty so it'll be different. Whatever. I, good Sirs, expected better. I don't think I should be blamed for that. Eon are just jokers.

[byline]

It's obvious to me Eon bundled the reboot idea and according to Craig, the reboot is finished. So much for thought and effort. They really have run out of ideas and I believe that will be more obvious with the coming movies. They're just out of touch.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Of course, we won't know till the next film comes out, but my take on Craig's comments was that this phase of the story dealing with Vesper is over. The reboot (or, I think, more accurately, the retcon) will continue because this is Bond in present day. So perhaps some of the old iconography will remain in place. This is Bond, after all. But I'm guessing that we will continue to see spinoffs from Quantum, and Craig's take on Bond will be consistent with the one we've seen in his first two films; it's just that he may grow to be more comfortable in his own skin, more hardened to the realities of his world, and less fixated on past mistakes than he was up until his confrontation with Yusef. So I believe the retcon will continue, but it may feel more familiar, with some of the old iconography to punctuate the character.

[The Dove]

I'm wondering if I should start taking bets that this thread will keep going til Bond 23 comes out in 2010 (or 2011).. Its quite amusing!!

[MattofSteel]

Why compare this reboot era with what's gone on before Mattofsteel? I'm simply judging it on it's own merits. We all knew Bond's character would be explored as a result of the reboot so saying that we should be grateful for whatever character narration we get in QoS because previous era's didn't have it is just ridiculous. The character development was poor in QoS, whatever existed of it, imo. I'm saying it could have been better handled. Comparing it to OP or TMWTGG is pointless because that was the 70's/80's and this is a reboot era.

But I'm not using that as a crux of my argument, I'm using it to qualify QoS as still being very much a member of the "reboot" film family, in that it's obviously more tonally and emotionally (in terms of character depth) closer to CR than any of its predecessors. I'm well aware that movies today have more of an onus on their plate to challenge the audience and characters emotionally, and I fully realize that those old films wouldn't hold water in modern cinema on that basis.

I'm just saying that QoS doesn't fall so far from the "reboot" attitude (if at all) in my opinion, as it seems to have in yours.

It's obvious to me Eon bundled the reboot idea and according to Craig, the reboot is finished. So much for thought and effort. They really have run out of ideas and I believe that will be more obvious with the coming movies. They're just out of touch.

I'm curious at this point as to how you define "reboot." Is it just CR? Is it every film going forward in the Craig era? Are you referring to "Bond timeline 2?"

And in this respect, I'm afraid I have to utterly disagree with you. These are the same people (henceforth "EON") that made Casino Royale, which repositioned the character and the brand, in a larger sense, perfectly. QoS is not a tonal or, really, hugely stylistic departure from its predecessor. Yes, there's more special effects as required by a handful of stunts. Yes, the editing is a bit choppier. But these aren't constants to the franchise, they were techniques used as the story, or the filmmakers' intent, required of them.

I have to say, that up to this point (post-QoS), the entire concept of the "reboot" has been handled masterfully by EON - and that's irrelevant to the quality of QoS' script or editing. The brand, the universe, and the character are 100% solidified - that's the producer responsibility in such a situation. Pearson won't edit the next Bond film, and you can bet your balls they'll be working from a better script.

-We've got a unanimously praised powerhouse playing James Bond.

-Stylistically the universe hasn't been this strong in years, with a combination of set design, tone, and music all contributing to something wonderfully nostalgic and yet safely contemporary.

-The films receive loads of media and public attention, being virtual box office guarantees making back their budgets easily through theatrical runs alone, which isn't considering DVD/Blu Ray sales and merchandising rights including product affiliations, which provides a mind-blowing income on the side.

No, sir. I cannot begrudge the status of this reboot as a whole. Not because of one script that was rough around the edges and a few quick cuts

.

As for making it up as they go along and the emphasis on action, these aren't things I grabbed from mid air. They've come out of the respective horses' mouths. That is exactly what Forster/Craig said in regards to how they shot the movie. The majority of the movie was shot in sequence because they made it up as they went along. Don't blame me for repeating what I hear. You also shouldn't be in denial of something that is actually a fact. All I know that for a sequel to CR to be approached in such a manner is baffling. Like I said, it all comes down to whether one is easy to please or not. How many times will this happen before people open their eyes and demand better I wonder?

We did open our eyes and demand better. And we got Casino Royale.

Forster and Craig have never said that stuff in the sense you're using it, beyond the passing reference from the filmmakers that with a script that wasn't quite complete, they were forced to do something approaching conjecture or improvisation.

They're talking about a line of dialogue here, an emotion in a scene there, probably a few resolutions or narrative chunks to action pieces. They're not talking about re-writing the entire third act, or somethign ludicrous. I don't care if you are EON making James Bond, nobody in this universe starts shooting a $200 million picture without the vast majority of its screenplay/infrastructure in place.

Which is something Haggis said, since I've been paying attention to the filmmakers' talking points as well - something like the script he turned in was "95% complete, lacking a polish." Well, that's obvious. It's unpolished. But he certainly didn't hand them 10 pages listing locations and fight scenes, did he?

No one is blaming you for repeating "what you hear." At the same time, I'm not in denial about anything. To be in denial is to assume that a film isn't organic or a collaborative process during the best of times. CR's script was so well-honed and obviously polished because they had 4 years to write the bloody thing, with the last shooting draft dated Dec 13 (I believe) as opposed to Quantum's deadline which, because of the strike, was a month and a half before that - losing all the time in which a script's specific rewrites reach the height of their intensity.

I apologize for the "fanboyism" remark as I didn't mean to cause offence. As a matter of fact I'd wish you had worked on the script as your attempt at explaining the character arc was supreme. The problem is that it doesn't translate on screen for me. All I see is a thin story, a thin arc, padded with pointless action. That's all I see. Maybe the intention was there, but the execution was flawed. But intention alone just isn't enough, hence why I think some are desperate to see things that aren't really there.

Thanks for the compliment , and I didn't take offence personally and wasn't trying to make it seem like you were dishing it out. I totally appreciate that it didn't translate for you - I've completely agreed the film is too esoteric for itself at times and I realize that just because I love these things enough to dig deep to find stuff, it shouldn't always be necessary. I just don't like the idea that the film's been accused of having nothing behind it, when to me, it's clearly far from "soulless."

All I've heard from Forster is action with little talk of character. Forster was curious about how an action film was made, that's the main reason he took the job. Not to make a better movie than CR (he doesn't think that highly of Bond to try), not because he was interested in the characters development in the reboot era, not to make his mark on the series or genre. It was an experimental project for him. Anyone that denies this is frankly blind. "I wanted to put in as much action as possible" is what he said in Japan. Now how the hell can anybody tell me that character was first and foremost on his mind? Come on guys, smarten up! QoS should nor have been an action movie, but it was because we had an arthouse director wanting to do an action film. The very fact that the contradiction of arthouse/action doesn't strike you as odd then I guess I'm the only one. Please just step out of your Bond shells and look at this objectively.

Talking about the action level without mentioning character is irrelevant, they're mutually exclusive. If he'd said "I toned character down to fit in car chases," then yeah, we'd all be villifying him quite rightly. For the first 8 months during shooting, all we heard from Forster was stuff about character - specifically how he was presenting a closed-off, internalizing Bond who was at odds with the people who didn't understand what he was up to. That's exactly what showed up. He only started talking about action in great amount after the film started screening, and people realized how much there was. I have real trouble with this idea that he didn't care about the characters at all, and focussed only on the film's actions. It's just so clearly...false.

I firmly believe Eon don't have a plan and don't know where they're going. Maybe this reboot idea was too much for them to handle, creatively at least. Now it's over? Back to Q and Moneypenny and submarine lairs? Already? Oh wait... It's gritty so it'll be different. Whatever. I, good Sirs, expected better. I don't think I should be blamed for that. Eon are just jokers.

I firmly believe they've always taken these things one film at a time (Michael Wilson) and they've got a blank canvas to turn Quantum and the franchise into something exciting, new, and yet still with all the requisite elements (Daniel Craig). I think they've rebooted it masterfully, and if were "too hard for them to handle," we wouldn't have two films that I love.

Q, and Moneypenny....Q, and Moneypenny...I am sooooooo tired of hearing this come up in every discussion. Craig's mentioned until he's blue in the face, the characters can't be shoehorned in. You can bet that whenever they do return, it will be with good motivation and to an entertaining effect. Let's avoid speaking presumptively about a film that won't even start the earliest tinges of preproduction until January, yes? (If they show up in #23 at all, which you know they will, due to the very vocal withdrawl some people seem to be feeling.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It seems we're not destined to be friends on this Mr A-B but if you back track a way you will see that I described the film as naturalistic but it also had abundant colourful cinematography. Cinematography has perhaps a different notion for you but for me it encompasses the essential elements of mise en scene. It is in effect the overall art of shooting a film. You really do like lifting isolated comments and making a fuss over them. The scenes that I listed are, for me, colourful. I do not mean oversaturated, which I think you'll agree is unrealistic and plastic. Realism can be colourful! Do you only live in a monochrome world because it's "real"?
In my more recent post I suggest that these scenes form strong juxtapositions to the darker ones which are, granted, more prevalent. I don't see this as being a very controversial assertion.
At this point, amigo, both you and I are sounding repetitive ("crushing" bores perhaps?) and there is really little need to prolong this circular debate!

I agree that seems that we have different perceptions (and tastes) about cinematography and particularly about the meaning of 'colorful'.

Many are qualified CR cinematography as oversatured (and colorful), and I don't see nothing wrong with that as long as that doesn't mean other, than a moderate unrealism or escapism or even a little bit of fantasy, however, the word 'plastic' sounds a little scornful.

I totally agree too, that realism can be colorful, but I just don't see that happening in QOS, I just see muted photography (that can be justified or not for the tone of the plot, but that's another story). Anyway, everyone are entitled to their own opinion, so beyond that, it's pointless to go further with this debate.