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?
As far as this thread is concerned, I am not arguing who I think Forster should and shouldn't hire. Who knows, maybe Forster/Chesse/Bradley and Pearson are good friends who wanted to work with each other for years? I have no idea. All I am highlighting is the fact that Pearson and Bradley both worked on Bourne Supremacy, and to the minds of many their work on QOS is very reminsicent of that style. This, depsite the fact that Marc Forster has his own, heavily capable regular editor who has never ever adopted such a Bourne reminiscent, frenetic style before on a Forster film.
You had argued (not an exact quote) that perhaps Pearson was "one of the select few in the small action editing gene pool" as though that would therefore make him an obvious and inevitable contender for editing QOS, regardless of the Bourne connection. I posted Pearson's imdb listing to remind us that aside from the two Greengrass films (one of which is Bourne), Pearson's CV is actually pretty light on action movies, especially compared to say someone like Stuart Baird (a renowned action specıalıst who also just edited CR for Eon). If Pearson was indeed hired to focus on the action of QOS or help Forster and Chesse mold with modern action film editing sensibilities, you cannot really argue examples of intense action work on his CV outside of Bourne Supremacy.
Like I said though, who knows why Pearson was chosen to co-edit QOS (and what exactly he contributed)? As it stands, it's quite a coincidence that you have two of the integral action creatives from Bourne Supremacy on a Bond film that is (in the minds of many) often cut and shot like the action from The Bourne Supremacy.
Edited by tim partridge, 10 December 2008 - 08:12 PM.