887 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

QOS is a step backwards in every department, just like TND was after GE...

...CGI is blatantly obvious (freefall, ...

What did you make of Brosnan flying like a fairy, like Tinker Bell into the prop at the end of GoldenEye pre-titles?

Am I to suppose that since you like GoldenEye, you love the Fairy-type Bond?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

So, in essence and to summarise, Casino Royale is totally and unequivocally influenced by The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins...but Quantum Of Solace has nothing to do with The Bourne Supremacy-Ultimatum, other than having a 2nd Unit person and editor who do a good job of earning a living in the action movie business.

HildebrandRarity, you still don't give any fundament to affirm that CR have influences from Bourne, one thing is that The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins, had pave the way for the success of Craig's first entry at the Box Office, but that it's very far from having a major FILMIC influence on Campbell's second work for EON.

[MattofSteel]

I've always thought Bourne Supremacy was the game changer purely out of execution, rather than The Bourne Identity - which isn't to take away from the initial film. Identity was amazing, a great contemporization of the novel, and a casual reminder to the DAD-era Bond that, "you know, these things CAN be serious and still entertaining."

Supremacy was the crest of a wave sweeping genre pics throughout the decade. The Batman franchise is another perfect example. It's also about to happen to Star Trek. It's just a naturalistic approach, call it whatever you want - documentary style, gritty, whatever the buzz word is - and it's happening everywhere.

Bourne "mimicry" (spelling error?) would be something like the foot chase from the new X-Files movie. I was hardcore into that show years back. I really, REALLY wanted to love that flick. But I laughed the entire way through that sequence. It's so confused with itself, there's no hook whatsoever. QoS' action was far superior and far more Bond-like than the Bourne comparisons would give it credit for.

For Bond to completely ignore the direction cinema is going would be willfull anachronism, which is admirable in the case of CR but seemingly lazy in the form of something like DAD.

I've said it before. If Bond has to draw from something, if Bond has to take influence from something, he could do worse than picking a critically-acclaimed spy franchise in Bourne that deserves all its recognition.

[HildebrandRarity]

So, in essence and to summarise, Casino Royale is totally and unequivocally influenced by The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins...but Quantum Of Solace has nothing to do with The Bourne Supremacy-Ultimatum, other than having a 2nd Unit person and editor who do a good job of earning a living in the action movie business.

HildebrandRarity, you still don't give any fundament to affirm that CR have influences from Bourne, one thing is that The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins, had pave the way for the success of Craig's first entry at the Box Office, but that it's very far from having a major FILMIC influence on Campbell's second work for EON.

In all good conscience and with complete sincerity, I don't undertand what you mean?

Are you saying that Bourne Identity and Batman Begins were only influential in Casino Royale's box office success...but that they don't have an influence on the type of movie Eon wanted Bond 21 (Casino Royale) to be?

[Bondian]

Having to have an opinion can be a tedious task, especially if you disagree with someone that makes perfect sense or throws unnecessary abuse at you. But opinions are just someone's thoughts and nothing else. There's been times on this board that I've made perfect sense, but that just my tedious opinion.

Where all this leading to? To me, nothing. If people do not agree with my opinion, then that's fine as they're just expressing their opinion. But try to make more of something delves into a kind of "conspiracy theory".

http://video.google....487651203625811

We can make either believe what we see or see what we believe. I just cannot understand why we should be baffled by what should be believed when it's unbelievable.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

So, in essence and to summarise, Casino Royale is totally and unequivocally influenced by The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins...but Quantum Of Solace has nothing to do with The Bourne Supremacy-Ultimatum, other than having a 2nd Unit person and editor who do a good job of earning a living in the action movie business.

HildebrandRarity, you still don't give any fundament to affirm that CR have influences from Bourne, one thing is that The Bourne Identity and Batman Begins, had pave the way for the success of Craig's first entry at the Box Office, but that it's very far from having a major FILMIC influence on Campbell's second work for EON.

In all good conscience and with complete sincerity, I don't undertand what you mean?

Are you saying that Bourne Identity and Batman Begins were only influential in Casino Royale's box office success...but that they don't have an influence on the type of movie Eon wanted Bond 21 (Casino Royale) to be?

Of course, because the idea of an origin story was on Wilson's mind since the eighties, and the tone of CR story was a reaction to the extreme of MR (a behaviour already experimented by EON in the past with OHMSS after YOLT and with FYEO after MR) and a reflection of the spirit of the Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale. That style was even embraced by 2002 in the drafts for Jinx's spinoff movie.

[Eurospy]

Wait, just wait a minute.

Going off-topic for just a second. We actually have at least one person on this board who's actually read at least one of the Jinx drafts?

After all the fan speculation and curiosity?

Someone knew and didn't share at least a glimpse of how things might have been?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Wilson & co decided to give a go, finally in 2006, to the origin story (CR) idea, probably taking advantage of the auspicious commercial scenario paved by the Bourne movies (it's necessary to remember that at least the announcement of the adaption of the novel Casino Royale was made in 2005, prior to the premiere and -most important- success of Batman Begins at the BO), but that doesn't mean that they take ideas from Greengrass, Nolan or even Liman works. Because all the ideas that could be considered similars by some people, were already in development in EON offices (an in Ian Fleming's work) in 2002, and even earlier.

They just take the opportunity of have blockbuster, with a proyect dreamed for decades, this time with the (recentely acquired) additional helped of a Fleming story, that coincentally fits with the longing for a origin and also with the tone needed for a proper reaction to DAD excess.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 December 2008 - 05:29 AM.

[dinovelvet]

Wait, just wait a minute.

Going off-topic for just a second. We actually have at least one person on this board who's actually read at least one of the Jinx drafts?

After all the fan speculation and curiosity?

Someone knew and didn't share at least a glimpse of how things might have been?

Well I can't speak for what Mr.Beech may know, but Purvis and Wade have commented that the Jinx script was gritty/serious in tone, and they were courting Serious Director Stephen Frears to direct it.

[Eurospy]

Well I can't speak for what Mr.Beech may know, but Purvis and Wade have commented that the Jinx script was gritty/serious in tone, and they were courting Serious Director Stephen Frears to direct it.

Thanks, dinovelvet. Didn't know that Jinx the movie was supposed to have such tone, considering DAD. Would never imagine that they would consider such serious tone for Jinx.

Thanks.

Cheers

[[dark]]

Of course, because the idea of an origin story was on Wilson's mind since the eighties, and the tone of CR story was a reaction to the extreme of MR (a behaviour already experimented by EON in the past with OHMSS after YOLT and with FYEO after MR) and a reflection of the spirit of the Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale. That style was even embraced by 2002 in the drafts for Jinx's spinoff movie.

Whoa, at the risk of dragging this thread off-topic, would you be able to share what you know about the Jinx spin-off script?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Of course, because the idea of an origin story was on Wilson's mind since the eighties, and the tone of CR story was a reaction to the extreme of MR (a behaviour already experimented by EON in the past with OHMSS after YOLT and with FYEO after MR) and a reflection of the spirit of the Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale. That style was even embraced by 2002 in the drafts for Jinx's spinoff movie.

Whoa, at the risk of dragging this thread off-topic, would you be able to share what you know about the Jinx spin-off script?

Just the same, that dinovelvet already shared. It appears in The Road to Casino Royale documentary from the Collector's Edition.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 December 2008 - 05:41 AM.

[Bondian]

Of course, because the idea of an origin story was on Wilson's mind since the eighties, and the tone of CR story was a reaction to the extreme of MR (a behaviour already experimented by EON in the past with OHMSS after YOLT and with FYEO after MR) and a reflection of the spirit of the Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale. That style was even embraced by 2002 in the drafts for Jinx's spinoff movie.

Whoa, at the risk of dragging this thread off-topic, would you be able to share what you know about the Jinx spin-off script?

It's probably a jinx, my friend.

BTW. Would be more interesting to go further off topic with an update on your Nelson connection.

We may have met our "Trafalgar".

[dinovelvet]

QOS is a step backwards in every department, just like TND was after GE...

...CGI is blatantly obvious (freefall, ...

What did you make of Brosnan flying like a fairy, like Tinker Bell into the prop at the end of GoldenEye pre-titles?

Am I to suppose that since you like GoldenEye, you love the Fairy-type Bond?

LMAO! I'll never be able to look at that scene in quite the same way ever again. Maybe he should have been carrying a magic wand.

[DaveBond21]

I enjoyed the movie, but I admit that this one has polarised Bond fans alot more than Casino Royale did. This is interesting, and it is something that we QOS fans ought to bear in mind. It confirms that the movie is not as good as CR but does that matter? Maybe not. I think the Bond franchise needed and deserved a serious, frantic movie like QOS and now we have it.

I think all of this makes the prospect of Bond 23 more interesting, not a make or break situation.

[Safari Suit]

It confirms that the movie is not as good as CR

Not really. It just suggests that it is not as well liked.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

It's at times like these I wish we were able to take the internet back to the 1960's. Can you imagine the level of 'heated' debate on this forum over a newly released OHMSS and the pro's & cons of George Lazenby?

Regardless of what your opinion of QOS is, I love the fact that the 22nd film in an ongoing series spanning nearly 50 years can still raise this level of passion. Perhaps given time and a little distance QOS might be re-evaluated by those who at the moment find it lacking.

I'd rather a film divide public opinion than inspire none at all which is what I increasingly find from most modern blockbusters that lack any form of sincerity or soul.

Roll on Bond 23 and long may the series continue to provoke such passion.

[HildebrandRarity]

QOS is a step backwards in every department, just like TND was after GE...

...CGI is blatantly obvious (freefall, ...

What did you make of Brosnan flying like a fairy, like Tinker Bell into the prop at the end of GoldenEye pre-titles?

Am I to suppose that since you like GoldenEye, you love the Fairy-type Bond?

LMAO! I'll never be able to look at that scene in quite the same way ever again. Maybe he should have been carrying a magic wand.

You're right!

Instead of focussing on Quantum's freefall, this thread should be focussing on the Tinker Bell~ish performance of Brosnan's Fairy Bond freefall in GoldenEye.

That one gets the Peter Pan prize.

In Quantum, Bond is a real man. Fine, the chute opens perhaps two or three seconds late...but at least Craig looks like a man, not a bloody ing fairy.

So much for there being (paraphrasing Ian in this thread) "Q0S on one side, and the other 21 Bonds on the other side."

At least I know the Q0S Bond bats for the right side.

[ElFenomeno]

hey don't bash Goldeneye .
i'll never forget the feeling i got after watching QoS at the cinema. i feeled so empty inside .dry . barren. a little nervous . a little sad. some dissapoitment.
now after more viewings it got better but that first reaction i'll never forget it.

[CM007]

Before it's lost in the pile, I want to re-iterate my comment that it doesn't make sense to suggest that Forster told Bradley to recreate Bourne.

As witnessed in interviews, Bradley was at least under the impression that he was directing these sequences much differently than he did the Bourne flicks, so it doesn't seem there was some mandate from Forster to craft the action in a way that resembles Bourne.

Okay then why do they resemble Bourne so much,esp the slate fight....someone must´ve been told Bradley to film like he did with Bourne because he was on KOTCS and that movie looks nothing like Bourne.Sorry but EON went for the Bourne angle in Stunt work and editing hence EON hired to of the Bourne crew into their production team.

[HildebrandRarity]

hey don't bash Goldeneye .

I'm afraid it's open season.

It was OHMSS and FRWL open season a couple of weeks ago...Then it was FYEO open season (which, actully, isn't much of a challenge ... it's like shooting a parrot in a tiny cage)...and now it's GoldenEye open season.

So, let's rail on FairyBondBrosnan as he flies around like Tinker Bell at the end of the PTS. So much for the Great Martin Campbell.

[tim partridge]

Before it's lost in the pile, I want to re-iterate my comment that it doesn't make sense to suggest that Forster told Bradley to recreate Bourne.

As witnessed in interviews, Bradley was at least under the impression that he was directing these sequences much differently than he did the Bourne flicks, so it doesn't seem there was some mandate from Forster to craft the action in a way that resembles Bourne.

(Once again) so, by coincidence, he also hired Bourne/Greengrass editor Richard Pearson to co-cut QOS in a very Bourne influenced fashion? This, despite the fact that no previous Forster film had ever been cut this way before, Pearson had never worked with Forster before but Pearson had worked with Bradley on Bourne.

Whoever decided whatever, the onscreen result seems very Bourne like, and the fact that key Bourne creative personnel were directly involved with the film suggests that Bourne emulation was to some degree in mind.

[HildebrandRarity]

Before it's lost in the pile, I want to re-iterate my comment that it doesn't make sense to suggest that Forster told Bradley to recreate Bourne.

As witnessed in interviews, Bradley was at least under the impression that he was directing these sequences much differently than he did the Bourne flicks, so it doesn't seem there was some mandate from Forster to craft the action in a way that resembles Bourne.

(Once again) so, by coincidence, he also hired Bourne/Greengrass editor Richard Pearson to co-cut QOS in a very Bourne influenced fashion? This, despite the fact that no previous Forster film had ever been cut this way before, Pearson had never worked with Forster before but Pearson had worked with Bradley on Bourne.

Didn't they have two editors on this film? One who'd been used by Bradley and one who'd been used by Forster?

And how is it "coincidence" when there are only a select few in the gene pool that work on "action" movies? There's a limited number in the gene pool, so there would ordinarily be overlap in that very select pool.

As per the thought the footchase is Bourne-like...1) An atmospheric cultural and sporting event is inter-cut and juxtaposed against the foot chase in Quantum. I didn't see such thoughtfullness in any of the Bournes...2) There is actually a reason why the cuts are made the way they are in Quantum, i.e. it echoes Bond's state of mind (which in interviews Craig said Bond was "in turmoil" and "confused") but what's Bourne Ultimatum's excuse for it's over-usage of the horrid Shakey-Cam?

[tim partridge]

Before it's lost in the pile, I want to re-iterate my comment that it doesn't make sense to suggest that Forster told Bradley to recreate Bourne.

As witnessed in interviews, Bradley was at least under the impression that he was directing these sequences much differently than he did the Bourne flicks, so it doesn't seem there was some mandate from Forster to craft the action in a way that resembles Bourne.

(Once again) so, by coincidence, he also hired Bourne/Greengrass editor Richard Pearson to co-cut QOS in a very Bourne influenced fashion? This, despite the fact that no previous Forster film had ever been cut this way before, Pearson had never worked with Forster before but Pearson had worked with Bradley on Bourne.

Didn't they have two editors on this film? One who'd been used by Bradley and one who'd been used by Forster?

Yes, but QOS is edited NOTHING like any of Forster and Chesse's other movies and every bit like a Greengrass/Bourne movie. Forster's other films are very thoughtful in their editing, lingering on details, and QOS has none of this, even though the design of the actual shots seems very much in tone with the relatively meticulous rhthyms seen in films like Monster's Ball. Check out the gun confrontation with Heath Ledger from that movie, as it's more intense, suspenseful and dangerous than any of the intechangable, Bournealike action scenes from QOS.

Maybe the frenetic Bourne approach was genuinely Forster and Chesse's decision? Who knows. The only thing we know for a fact is that the Bourne editors name is on the credits and it has been noted that the editing looks very Bourne.

And how is it "coincidence" when there are only a select few in the gene pool that work on "action" movies? There's a limited number in the gene pool, so there would ordinarily be overlap in that very select pool.

Why not rehire Stuart Baird? Considering QOS is supposed to be a UK produced movie made in the UK, why would they overlook all of the many many many experienced British editors already present in the UK and specifically fly in an American editor who is best known for the Bourne film that is also Dan Bradley's best known work? Marry that with my above comments on QOS being cut nothing like any other Forster film and you can't help but feel that it's quite the coincidence...

By the way, action aside, I don't think all of the new technical crew was going the Bourne ape route. Bringing in Gassner as designer and Frogley as costume designer was very inspired and not Bourne like at all. Forster deserves large amounts of praise here (the Greengrass Bourne movies by comparison were never ever lookers, and certainly not visual stylist movies). I only wish Forster had been that imaginative and truer to his previous body of work when overseeing the action.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 December 2008 - 04:00 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Wow, I was completely unaware that Pearson had worked on the Bourne films as well. I'm betting that, like someone suggested, the two editors may have specialized in different areas of the film - with Pearson focussing more on the action side. That being said, the quick-cut influence was felt throughout other scenes in the film as well, but that could be an effort by Chesse to simply maintain a constant aesthetic, which is noble.

Again, I stress - when it comes to spy movies for me, it's all about a spectrum. Bourne Supremacy represents the far left polarization: naturalized, brutally honest and realistic, and unapologetic for its own aesthetic. Moonraker would probably be the polar opposite, or more specifically its third act. The spy genre is a malleable thing.

And my rationale behind the tone of QoS is, that if the Bond franchise sat through one polar end of the franchise for years, why can it not have its recipe applied to a different location on that spectrum?

The best Bond films for me, the absolute pinnacle of this franchise in my opinion - are films that would be centre or slightly left of centre on that spectrum. I'd call CR perfectly left of centre, along with FRWL and GF (yes, GF). QoS is a little further left, but not so much that it becomes Bourne. This product is still very much recognizeable as Bond.

I think it's all subjective, and a mastery of that spectrum is something EON and the Broccoli's have demonstrated and earned the benefit of the doubt toward over the last 40 years.

[HildebrandRarity]

Before it's lost in the pile, I want to re-iterate my comment that it doesn't make sense to suggest that Forster told Bradley to recreate Bourne.

As witnessed in interviews, Bradley was at least under the impression that he was directing these sequences much differently than he did the Bourne flicks, so it doesn't seem there was some mandate from Forster to craft the action in a way that resembles Bourne.

(Once again) so, by coincidence, he also hired Bourne/Greengrass editor Richard Pearson to co-cut QOS in a very Bourne influenced fashion? This, despite the fact that no previous Forster film had ever been cut this way before, Pearson had never worked with Forster before but Pearson had worked with Bradley on Bourne.

Didn't they have two editors on this film? One who'd been used by Bradley and one who'd been used by Forster?

Yes, but QOS is edited NOTHING like any of Forster and Chesse's other movies

But the other Forster movies are NOTHING like a James Bond movie. It's a Bond movie, not Finding Forester.

Forster's other films are very thoughtful in their editing, lingering on details, and QOS has none of this

What rubbish. Look at that shot of the very large reptile, flicking it's tounge, as it moves slowly around the large rock under the burning hot Southern sun. It's something right out of page one of an Ian Fleming story.

Look at how the camera pans away to a wide view as Bond drives away leaving Greene (and his container of motor oil) in the wide, hot, lonely desert.

Those are just a couple of examples.

[tim partridge]

Yes, but QOS is edited NOTHING like any of Forster and Chesse's other movies

But the other Forster movies are NOTHING like a James Bond movie. It's a Bond movie, not Finding Forester.

So a James Bond movie should look like Bourne??

Also check out Pearson's creds:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0669362/

Aside from BOURNE 2 and UNITED 93, the only other movies that qualify as action type are MEN IN BLACK 2 and THE RUNDOWN (WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE). Outside of that it's GET SMART (which came out the same year as QOS) and MUPPETS IN SPACE. How can you justify that Pearson would be hired for his broad action credentials given how relatively limited they are? Compare Pearson's Bond-like credentials to say those of Stuart Baird for example. Pearson's only big action credentials are Greengrass/Bourne, which doesn't give any weight to your suggestion that Pearson is one of the select few in the limited, action movie editing gene pool.

Forster's other films are very thoughtful in their editing, lingering on details, and QOS has none of this

What rubbish. Look at that shot of the very large reptile, flicking it's tounge, as it moves slowly around the large rock under the burning hot Southern sun. It's something right out of page one of an Ian Fleming story.

Look at how the camera pans away to a wide view as Bond drives away leaving Greene (and his container of motor oil) in the wide, hot, lonely desert.

Those are just a couple of examples.

The only sequence I can remember not being hacked to pieces by needless cutting was the post-bedding conversation with a naked Fields. They actually let that play all in one, which was really refreshing.

Throughout QOS there were countless examples of shots that seemed clearly shot to linger on but cut mercilessly. There's one shot I remember quite well in the desert, with Bond and Camille hiding behind a rock, There's a gorgeous dolly across, and for no reason they wack in these needless "closer" ups (not even close ups), where we see everything viewable in the wide but from a degree or two to the side of the previous camera angle. You can't tell me that's not hacking for the sake of it. Left alone that would have been pure Bond, and on par with any of Lewis Gilbert's "epic" aspritations.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 December 2008 - 07:02 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Maybe the frenetic Bourne approach was genuinely Forster and Chesse's decision? Who knows. The only thing we know for a fact is that the Bourne editors name is on the credits and it has been noted that the editing looks very Bourne.

And how is it "coincidence" when there are only a select few in the gene pool that work on "action" movies? There's a limited number in the gene pool, so there would ordinarily be overlap in that very select pool.

Why not rehire Stuart Baird?

Firstly, The movie starts off with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused" (these are Craig's words before the premiere). So, Forster deciding on the 'frenetic' approach (which, incidentally, is an iteration of the editing of the 1960s Bonds which Bourne is also an iteration of) marries with Craig's sentiments...the quick edits/cutting echoes what Bond's mind is going through. I think that is self-explainatory.

Secondly, why hire Forster if you're going to force Baird on him...Why not just re-hire/convince Campbell to come back and get Baird with him? If you hire Forster, then surely you have to let him hire whoever he feels comfortable with? As long as it's not an outrageous selection. No?

[HildebrandRarity]

Actually, i'm going to take my leave of this thread. I'm feeling like i'm fighting some battle with people who are entrenched in their position such as the "action is like Bourne but worse"...

There are others on CBn who disagree with the above thesis but haven't bothered wasting their time with this thread.

I'm done here. it.

[Gri007]

If generic is masterpiece then I seriously feel sorry for most of you.

"It doesn't feel like a Bond movie!"
"Its more like a Bourne movie!"
"This is Bourne"


You can't win. The one major complaint people have about this movie is that it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, yet people are calling it generic, which it is far from.

To me this is Bond becuase I haven't really seen a Bourne film fully. There's one hero in my world and that's why I am on this forum.