887 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Also, no one did more injury to the Bond series than producer Michael G. Wilson, who is most certainly not a woman, and who, among other things, rewrote Richard Maibaum's brilliant scripts (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill) when he should have just left them alone.

How were Maibaum's scripts for TSWLM, FYEO, TLD and LTK "brilliant" before Wilson mangled them? Please explain, for this is the first I've heard of lost masterpiece drafts by Maibaum of those films.

Since Marc Forster, the director himself, thinks the film should be recut

Really? When did he say this?

and since he is in fact recutting the film

You mean there's a "director's cut" of QUANTUM OF SOLACE on the way? First I've heard of it, and this would be extremely unusual - nay, unprecedented - for a Bond film. What's your source for this info?

[Richard]

Since Marc Forster, the director himself, thinks the film should be recut

Really? When did he say this?

and since he is in fact recutting the film

You mean there's a "director's cut" of QUANTUM OF SOLACE on the way? First I've heard of it, and this would be extremely unusual - nay, unprecedented - for a Bond film. What's your source for this info?

I tried to look it up for you, Loomis, but I had to go to another forum to find a link that used to be here:

http://www.torontosu...957816-sun.html

FOSTER WORKING ON BETTER DVD
by Bruce Kirkland

The first Quantum of Solace DVDs and Blu-rays were good, not great, and director Marc Forster knows it.

He is now working on elite versions for his James Bond movie, Forster tells Sun Media.

"With this first DVD (last week's Special Edition on standard DVD, plus the similar Blu-ray), it all happened pretty fast and I didn't really have the time. I was only a little bit involved. But I will be working on the second DVD. I will be much more involved in that, putting pieces on."

Among bonuses, there will be commentaries and new behind-the-scenes featurettes. "It is much more in-depth," Forster promises.

He is, however, in a quandary about exactly how much to reveal.

"It used to be that cinema was magic for us," Forster says, "and we really didn't know how certain things were done. It was the sense of this mystery box.

"Today, because of DVD, people are so aware of how everything is being realized. And I think there are still certain things that should remain a mystery because that makes it interesting."

For example, he is debating whether to include the coda that was shot to extend the current ending. It happens to have that famous introduction, "Bond, James Bond."

"It wasn't cut because of that sentence," Forster explains. "It was cut for other reasons. I think it worked but it is still better how it is. It's not on this DVD and we are still discussing whether we should put it in the next one. On one hand, I think it would be cool for the audience to see it. On the other hand, I think it would be more interesting to keep it a mystery."
Toronto Sun, 1 April 2009.

Shortly after the DVD release, Foster stated in a number of interviews that he didn't have enough time to properly edit Quantum of Solace. Foster discussed the reasons for re-cutting the film at length in some of these interviews, but I can't find them on the main page now. Perhaps some member saved the stories and the links?

There is also this thread:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=54317

which has links to video interviews, and this video interview, linked here:

http://debrief.comma...p...=53596&st=0

Richard

Edited by Richard, 25 May 2009 - 11:56 AM.

[Loomis]

Thanks, Richard. Admittedly, I've yet to check out those video interviews, but from the article you quote I'm not getting the impression that Forster is actually going to be recutting the film. Instead, it looks to me as though he'll be doing what Campbell did on the SE of CASINO ROYALE, namely recording a commentary and adding some deleted scenes as bonus materials.

[HildebrandRarity]

LOL

What stupidity.

Forster was talking about adding deleated scenes and adding commentary, not about having a 'director's cut'.

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

[DamnCoffee]

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

Probably to try and make it remotely near the best James Bond film we've had to date?

[Safari Suit]

You thought it was when it came out though.

[DamnCoffee]

I didn't go around screaming that it was the best Bond film ever made though, did I? Yes I ranked it fairly high up, but after multiple viewings I saw exactly what critics were concerned about.

[Safari Suit]

Well, I'm pretty sure you said it was probably the best, or possibly the best or something along those lines at the time, so it seems a little churlish to do an eyeroll when someone else says the same. Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking QOS is the best Bond movie.

[byline]

Well, I'm pretty sure you said it was probably the best, or possibly the best or something along those lines at the time, so it seems a little churlish to do an eyeroll when someone else says the same. Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking QOS is the best Bond movie.

If that (or the opposite) is one's opinion, then of course that's fine. Personally, I didn't do the eyeroll over that comment, but the "What stupidity" crack. IMO, that was completely uncalled for.

[Major Tallon]

LOL

What stupidity.

Forster was talking about adding deleated scenes and adding commentary, not about having a 'director's cut'.

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

I agree.

I think that everyone needs to understand that "Quantum of Solace," in its present form, is the director's cut. That's not to say that Forster, given all the time in the world, mightn't have tweaked a bit here or there, but if you're thinking he'd have rearranged the scenes, added lots of additional exposition, or changed the pace of the editing on the action scenes, I think you're kidding yourself. Love it or hate it (and I'm in the former camp), this is the film that Forster intended to make.

Edited by Major Tallon, 25 May 2009 - 06:38 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

He didn't. He didn't have enough time to edit. If he spent a long time on it, he wouldn't have met the deadline.

[Loomis]

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

I don't see why anyone would want to mess with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, no.

[JimmyBond]

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

I don't see why anyone would want to mess with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, no.

I was thinking the same thing Loomis. Why would anyone want to mess with Moonraker

[Eddie Burns]

Craig is awesome but really didn't do anything new.

Craig behaves with more class, more English reserve, and operates on a different pitch in Quantum of Solace. There is a huge difference between the two performances. He dresses entirely in black suits and white shirts, the absence of color reflecting his bereavement. His bereavement is deeply felt, well-modulated and carefully sustained throughout the film. He is quieter and more precise in his vocal delivery and meticulous in his small physical gestures, which occasionally evoke Connery's work in the first two films. This is subtle acting, folks, nothing like that big loud over-sized gorilla of a performance in the previous film. Daniel Craig restores Bond's dignity and some of his personal style in Quantum of Solace. Somebody must have given him a good talking to.

The wit and humor are still lacking, but that's not Craig's fault.

While I see exactly where you are coming from, I beg to differ on this point (the rest of your post is 100% spot on). I liked Craig's ghetto hood take on the character...it made me excited to actually see his character grow and develop to the ice-cold gentleman killer that we all know. If done right, the contrast would have been great. Furthermore, it gave a him a credibility, a sense that to be a double'0 you have to be slightly unhinged...to be a great double'0 you have to be more refined, to use those emotions, that would usually be to your detriment, to one's advantage. I usually point out the scene in CR when he truly becomes that man; when in Venice at the hotel, M phones him asking for the funds...the look on his face before he says 'Strange...didn't think anyone would miss it'...is pure gold. It's like a switch goes off and he becomes Bond as we truly know him. Everything he does from thereon is pure Bondian. He's back to being a step ahead of his enemies, despite being caught by surprise (For further reference, see DN car chase before appointment with Ms. Taro...then watch how he turns the tables on Taro and Dent...'You...were expecting me' )

I expected further development in QoS...but as I said, Craig does nothing new. Or, more appropriately, he is not given enough material to work with. His confrontations with White, Greene, & Yusef were lacklustre and hardly memorable. Yes he's more reserved, and yes Craig's acting is subtle...but if those confrontations don't really build up to anything in the large scheme of things, then I fail to see what the point was.

Let me put it like this...One can watch CR, skip QoS (or have someone explain it to them in less than 30 sec.), watch B23 and not have missed out on anything in relation to the character of James Bond. Contrast with Batman...one can watch BB, skip TDK, and enjoy the next instalment, but they would really be missing out on the rich character development found in the sequel. The only things you'd be missing in QoS are flashy direction that separates the movie from the pack without really elevating it to must see, and relentless action.

[JimmyBond]

Let me put it like this...One can watch CR, skip QoS (or have someone explain it to them in less than 30 sec.), watch B23 and not have missed out on anything in relation to the character of James Bond.

Your argument doesnt hold water because this is the Bond series we're talking about. I can watch On Her Majestys Secret Service and skip DAF (which I do on a regular basis) and not miss anything. See how that works?

Now I know the next thing you'll say is that this is a different case, but is it really? Bond films were made in a way that you don't have to see one to get the other, and this holds true for QoS as well (the film fills viewers in on everything they need to know from CR anyways). Just because it presents itself as a sequel doesnt mean anything, it's still a Bond film after all.

[blueman]

Wow, really disagree with all that Eddie, kinda think of CR/QOS in opposite terms to yours especially in regards to Craig/Bond's development (in comparison CR's moments are more surfacey and obvious than QOS's more subtle and adult moments, kinda like comparing comicbook Bond to thriller novel Bond: both can be satisfying but Forster's take on the latter easily trumps Campbell's efforts with the former, at least for this Bond fan... actually Forster expands on what Campbell started in regards to Bond's development IMO, just not Campbell's forte although the shower scene is damned effective).

Anyway, tomato/tomatoe.

[Richard]

Well, I'm pretty sure you said it was probably the best, or possibly the best or something along those lines at the time, so it seems a little churlish to do an eyeroll when someone else says the same. Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking QOS is the best Bond movie.

If that (or the opposite) is one's opinion, then of course that's fine. Personally, I didn't do the eyeroll over that comment, but the "What stupidity" crack. IMO, that was completely uncalled for.

"HildebrandRarity" has a filthy mouth, doesn't he? He's allowed to call people names here, and he has a long history of bullying people on this forum.

My post was clearly referring to the sum total of Forster interviews which I had read here on CBn and which now seem to have expired on the main page, but I did reproduce the very first of these interviews that I was able to find. Of course I know what it says. It was linked to similar topics at one time. There is more information in the other interviews and in the video interviews linked above. "Hildebrand Rarity" ignores those because it's more important to him to call people stupid and to shut up those who don't agree with him.

Richard

[DamnCoffee]

Exactly. Well said Richard. Kudos to you for wording what most of the forum is thinking.

[Santa]

I find the 'Ignore' feature very useful in this case. My forum reading is so much more pleasant since I don't have to read his drivel anymore.

[JimmyBond]

Exactly. Well said Richard. Kudos to you for wording what most of the forum is thinking.

Really? I certainly don't think that about him. In fact I've found him a rather pleasant poster and enjoy debating with him on occasion (if I had anything to debate about, since we both currently love QoS ).

[Mr. Blofeld]

Exactly. Well said Richard. Kudos to you for wording what most of the forum is thinking.

Most of the forum meaning you and everyone else who disliked QOS?

I can understand why people would dislike a person for calling them "stupid", but that doesn't make it right to trounce over peoples' opinions with ludicrously biased observations such as this:

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

Probably to try and make it remotely near the best James Bond film we've had to date?

Seriously, please ease off of the sarcasm a wee bit.

[byline]

Exactly. Well said Richard. Kudos to you for wording what most of the forum is thinking.

Most of the forum meaning you and everyone else who disliked QOS?

I can understand why people would dislike a person for calling them "stupid", but that doesn't make it right to trounce over peoples' opinions with ludicrously biased observations such as this:

Why would anyone want to mess with the best James Bond film we've had to date?

Probably to try and make it remotely near the best James Bond film we've had to date?

Seriously, please ease off of the sarcasm a wee bit.

I agree. I love "Quantum of Solace," and while I agree with many points that HR makes, I find some of the condescension to be quite off-putting. However, HR doesn't have a corner on that market, and unfortunately it keeps popping up on the other side of the debate, too. I think if we all pulled back on the sarcasm a bit, it would make discussion here a whole lot more civil (and it would be an actual discussion, as opposed to grandstanding).

[Major Tallon]

I've duelled it out with Hildebrand Rarity a few times, and I've always found him a worthy adversary. The "What stupidity" line wasn't too politic, but he was responding to the contention that Forster intends to recut QOS, which is based on a pretty obvious overreading of Forster's interview comments.

Those who want a different editing of QOS have to deal with the fact that Forster intended the film to be "like a bullet fired at the audience." He's said that he would have liked more time, but he's never, to my knowledge, said that he wanted a different end product. The jump-cut edits that are probably the most controversial feature of QOS weren't easy to do. They probably took more time to assemble than a more conventional editing job. I don't find any factual support for a claim that this method of editing resulted from the director and editor having insufficient time to edit QOS.

Hildebrand Rarity could have been more diplomatic, but, with regard to the substance of his statement, he couldn't have been more correct.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Those who want a different editing of QOS have to deal with the fact that Forster intended the film to be "like a bullet fired at the audience." He's said that he would have liked more time, but he's never, to my knowledge, said that he wanted a different end product. The jump-cut edits that are probably the most controversial feature of QOS weren't easy to do. They probably took more time to assemble than a more conventional editing job.

Agreed; I've tried doing similar "bullet-edit" jobs to action scenes on my editing program, and it's taken me ages to try and match things up continuity-wise.

[byline]

Hildebrand Rarity could have been more diplomatic, but, with regard to the substance of his statement, he couldn't have been more correct.

It goes beyond diplomacy. "What stupidity" is a characterization meant to antagonize the other poster. It's not a discussion of ideas, which IMO is what we should stick with if we intend to have any sort of discussion at all. It's pretty simple, really. If a poster believes a statement is inaccurate, then say it's inaccurate, but don't characterize other posters as "stupid" or use some other other polarizing epithet that does nothing to further discussion.

[Jim]

Brief amnesty to refesh the collective memory of the forum rules:

Post/threads shall be edited/closed/removed from the CommanderBond.net Forums if they fall into any of the following categories:

Starting a needless argument
Continuing any needless arguments
Use of bad language in posts or skirting the auto-censor by substituting letters with other characters
Posting multiple threads on the same topic
Racism or any such comments
Personal insults towards members of the CBn forums or the CBn Team
Posting of copyrighted material
Posting links to member sites is allowed once only, in one thread.
Any other behaviour that we see as inappropriate will be dealt with accordingly.

User accounts shall be warned/disabled/removed from the CommanderBond.net Forums if the owner of that account is posting in a manner contrary to the best interests of the CommanderBond.net Forums, or at the request of that user providing sufficient reasoning is provided.

Don't care who started what and who cast the first stone (as it's usually me and if on this occasion it wasn't me, blame me anyway - I can handle the pressure from a bit of typing). But probably an appropriate moment to get back onto whatever the topic is.

[Richard]

Hildebrand Rarity could have been more diplomatic, but, with regard to the substance of his statement, he couldn't have been more correct.

It goes beyond diplomacy. "What stupidity" is a characterization meant to antagonize the other poster. It's not a discussion of ideas, which IMO is what we should stick with if we intend to have any sort of discussion at all. It's pretty simple, really. If a poster believes a statement is inaccurate, then say it's inaccurate, but don't characterize other posters as "stupid" or use some other other polarizing epithet that does nothing to further discussion.

Well said and much appreciated.

Marc Foster said in an interview that he realizes his editorial approach confused audiences and that he wants to recut. If I find that I'll post it here. So far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on whether or not this will happen on the special edition release. Foster can correct his editorial mistakes and still let the film be "like a bullet fired at the audience."

There are many things I like about Quantum of Solace, but the editorial approach is not one of them.

Richard

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Bond films were made in a way that you don't have to see one to get the other, and this holds true for QoS as well (the film fills viewers in on everything they need to know from CR anyways). Just because it presents itself as a sequel doesnt mean anything, it's still a Bond film after all.

Well, I want to view it this way.

Because through this view, the shortcomings of QOS can't affect the greatness of CR, to me.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 26 May 2009 - 01:56 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Well, I'm pretty sure you said it was probably the best, or possibly the best or something along those lines at the time, so it seems a little churlish to do an eyeroll when someone else says the same. Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking QOS is the best Bond movie.

If that (or the opposite) is one's opinion, then of course that's fine. Personally, I didn't do the eyeroll over that comment, but the "What stupidity" crack. IMO, that was completely uncalled for.

"HildebrandRarity" has a filthy mouth, doesn't he? He's allowed to call people names here, and he has a long history of bullying people on this forum.

"Hildebrand Rarity" ignores those because it's more important to him to call people stupid and to shut up those who don't agree with him.

Richard

Completely Agree!!!

Exactly. Well said Richard. Kudos to you for wording what most of the forum is thinking.

Really? I certainly don't think that about him. In fact I've found him a rather pleasant poster and enjoy debating with him on occasion (if I had anything to debate about, since we both currently love QoS ).

But that's the whole point... obviously, you're going to find him a pleasant poster, if you almost always are in his side of the discussions, particularly in the ones that touch his fanaticism for QOS. There's no challenge in being polite with someone that you agree.

[Santa]

Hildebrand Rarity could have been more diplomatic, but, with regard to the substance of his statement, he couldn't have been more correct.

It goes beyond diplomacy. "What stupidity" is a characterization meant to antagonize the other poster. It's not a discussion of ideas, which IMO is what we should stick with if we intend to have any sort of discussion at all. It's pretty simple, really. If a poster believes a statement is inaccurate, then say it's inaccurate, but don't characterize other posters as "stupid" or use some other other polarizing epithet that does nothing to further discussion.

Well said and much appreciated.

Marc Foster said in an interview that he realizes his editorial approach confused audiences and that he wants to recut. If I find that I'll post it here. So far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on whether or not this will happen on the special edition release. Foster can correct his editorial mistakes and still let the film be "like a bullet fired at the audience."

There are many things I like about Quantum of Solace, but the editorial approach is not one of them.

Richard

Actually I think I could really, really like QoS after a heavy re-edit. I don't usually like the idea of messing with something after it is done but I could make an exception in this case as that's the only way QoS could work for me - in fact I'd be delighted as I hate to be disappointed by a Bond film.