179 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

The visuals are the one area in which I believe Quantum of Solace trumps Casino Royale (the Tosca scene is destined to become a Bond classic), and given Casino Royale's visuals are terrific, it's no mean feat.

Eh, I don't think QUANTUM even trumps CASINO on a visual level. To be sure, it has some lovely shots, and it generally has an "artier" look to it, but CASINO is consistently beautiful (and often very visually striking and imaginative) and never verges on seeming visually pretentious the way QUANTUM sometimes does. Forster's direction is the kind of direction that calls attention to itself (which is why he's acclaimed as an "artist"), whereas Campbell is more like the kind of director Billy Wilder called "the best kind of director, the one you don't see". This is why I'm riled by the automatic assumption on the part of some folk that Forster must be the superior filmmaker because he looks the part and stuffs his work with his "personal vision".

When, to your eyes, are CR's visuals 'imaginative'? To me, they are good, but sometimes dangerously close to average.

That word 'imaginative' I would reserve for Forster's film. And I don't care if he is bald and talks funny.

[Harmsway]

So you're saying 1) Forester can't 'slow it down when needed' and that 2) he would jettison the card game eventhough the card game is the centre piece of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale?

I'm not saying either.

I am saying that Forster personally stated that he thought the card game section of CASINO ROYALE was its most problematic part, and far too slow. That suggests to me that he actually wouldn't have taken the time needed to tell CASINO ROYALE.

If you're saying he would have done the Montenegro stuff 'faster', then I don't have a problem with it because I don't think CR is the best paced film in the series.

I don't think it's the best-paced film in the series (though I do think it's the best overall). But the pacing problems lie purely with the first half of the film. The pacing for the card game - and all that follows - is absolutely perfect, and to rush through it any faster would really have hurt things.

The visuals are the one area in which I believe Quantum of Solace trumps Casino Royale (the Tosca scene is destined to become a Bond classic), and given Casino Royale's visuals are terrific, it's no mean feat.

Eh, I don't think QUANTUM even trumps CASINO on a visual level. To be sure, it has some lovely shots, and it generally has an "artier" look to it, but CASINO is consistently beautiful (and often very visually striking and imaginative) and never verges on seeming visually pretentious the way QUANTUM sometimes does.

Well, I don't actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE looks "visually pretentious," unless beautiful, elegant visuals are by nature pretentious, but that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Forster's direction is the kind of direction that calls attention to itself (which is why he's acclaimed as an "artist"), whereas Campbell is more like the kind of director Billy Wilder called "the best kind of director, the one you don't see".

Well, yes, but that has less to do with the visual sensibility and more to do with the editing "tricks" that show up throughout the film (namely the Palio chase, or the Tosca sequence - though I ultimately don't mind the former, and adore the latter).

But other than that, I fail to see anything about the visuals of QUANTUM OF SOLACE that really call attention to the direction. They're not particularly showy, just elegant.

[CaptainPower]

If you have a problem with that scene then I point you in the direction of the aerial dogfight sequence in Quantum of Solace, followed by the classic moment of Bond and female companion jumping out of a plane with one parachute between them, landing in a cave and being completely fine.

Neither are particularly grittily realistic, are they? And the visual effects aren't exactly groundbreaking either.

The visual effects in the Quantum of Solace parachute scene is not perfect, but light years ahead of the GoldenEye jump. And Casino Royale set the precident for the new era as grittier and more realistic, but still a Bond film. So this works just fine by me.

To be fair GoldenEye was made 13 years before QoS, and with a fraction of the budget, so to criticise the visuals is a little unfair. And where exactly do we draw the line between what is "gritty and realistic but still a Bond film" and what is simply OTT nonsense? Wasn't the whole point of the Casino Royale back-to-basics approach an attempt to tone down the OTT action set pieces and deliver action that's a little more realistic? Personally I believe the sequences I mentioned went beyond that.

Sorry, but I think that GoldenEye jump stunk for its time and its budget. Plus it’s a bigger sin. Had it been pulled off the motorcycle/aeroplane could’ve rivaled The Spy Who Loved Me’s Ski/Parachute stunt as the greatest in Bond history. Instead it’s a laughably bad effect in an otherwise brilliant pre-title sequence.

I respectfully disagree, but I'm also of the opinion that in years to come GoldenEye will be remembered in a far better light than Quantum of Solace, 'crappy motorcycle off a cliff sequence' and all, so let's agree to disagree

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The visuals are the one area in which I believe Quantum of Solace trumps Casino Royale (the Tosca scene is destined to become a Bond classic), and given Casino Royale's visuals are terrific, it's no mean feat.

Eh, I don't think QUANTUM even trumps CASINO on a visual level. To be sure, it has some lovely shots, and it generally has an "artier" look to it, but CASINO is consistently beautiful (and often very visually striking and imaginative) and never verges on seeming visually pretentious the way QUANTUM sometimes does. Forster's direction is the kind of direction that calls attention to itself (which is why he's acclaimed as an "artist"), whereas Campbell is more like the kind of director Billy Wilder called "the best kind of director, the one you don't see". This is why I'm riled by the automatic assumption on the part of some folk that Forster must be the superior filmmaker because he looks the part and stuffs his work with his "personal vision".

Totally agree!!

And that's exactly why Campbell is more suitable for the Bond movies, than Forster. Because the EON series never has been about auteur's works, instead it's pretty much a producers' work.

[tim partridge]

It's Terence Young (Campbell) Versus Guy Hamilton (Forster).

One is (Young/Campbell):

An unpretentious journeyman who just tells the story with sincerity and nothing more

Has a classic formal style

Highly adept at action scenes

At risk of being so sincere that on ocassion the proceedings become bland, unintentionally stilted and boring

The other (Forster/Hamilton):

An indulgent stylist more interested in subverting the Bond universe than telling a generic Bond story

Has a tendency to seemingly use Bond as a platform for his own irreverent, stylist interests

Disinterested in action scenes

Has inconsistent judgement, but when he gets it right produces fun and inconic moments that go beyond what the former could ever do merely following the script

Expert at offbeat visual humour

[Harmsway]

I contest many of the similarities you draw between Forster and Hamilton, but one in particular bothers me:

I don't think it's at all fair to suggest that Forster was "disinterested" in the action. The result may have appeared that way to some people, but he's made it abundantly clear that one of the reasons he took on QUANTUM OF SOLACE was to have fun with action, and he was clearly a guiding force behind the shape many of the action scenes took.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I don't see at all the resemblance between Young/Campbell and Hamilton/Forster. If there's any similarity... I think it's Young (particularly, FRWL)/Forster and Hamilton(GF)/Campbell.

Just like Loomis pointed out I find in FRWL/QOS good pieces of filmmaking, somewhat tinted by artistic pretentiousness.

P.D.: Anyway, I don't like that much GF, but I do love CR.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

But other than that, I fail to see anything about the visuals of QUANTUM OF SOLACE that really call attention to the direction. They're not particularly showy, just elegant.

I know the subject of visual elegance is very subjective but anyhow... I think the best definition for that is something that looks overall discreet and subtle, but with a little bit of flashness, that makes it more fun and memorable (that touch, which also remind us that Bond as a character arrived to the elites, but doesn't belong to them).

Certainly, QOS doesn't look tacky, but I think it lacks that tiny bit of brightness that CR has.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Forster is not only incredibly overrated in these forums but elsewhere. QOS could have been a better film by any other director in the series even with its weak script.
I'm curious about all these people in the forums proclaiming it the best film ever, highly stylised arthouse, the best paced and all that bull. Why in hell did you become Bond fans in the first place if apparently you don't like the films as they normally are? In the hope that one day somebody would make QOS? That's like saying I'm going to become a fan of the Rocky films in the hope one day they make one without the boxing. It's that idiotic.
QOS is another LALD. An entertaining yet superficial film that desperately tries to distance itself from the canon. I can tolerate that once in a while but not if it means we'll be seeing more of these fake Bond films made by American crews, I'm out. It's not enough to stick the logos on the poster for a film to become a Bond film. I honestly expected the "hardcore fans" in these forums to have been more critical of QOS regardless their enjoyment of it. A lot of the praise sounds incredibly fake, especially when it started before anybody had seen the bloody film. So does the fandom.

[HildebrandRarity]

So you're saying 1) Forester can't 'slow it down when needed' and that 2) he would jettison the card game eventhough the card game is the centre piece of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale?

I'm not saying either.

I am saying that Forster personally stated that he thought the card game section of CASINO ROYALE was its most problematic part, and far too slow. That suggests to me that he actually wouldn't have taken the time needed to tell CASINO ROYALE.

Well, it's a matter of opinion whether or not the card game is "far too slow". Truth be told, I can't see myself taking a piss break or a chokolatto break during the pacey Quantum...but there have been a number of occassions where I got up to take a leak or go make a cup of coco when the card game gets to the bits where Mathis is giving a lecture about the tell within ear shot of Le Chiffre.

So, in a way, I agree with Forster. It's an opinion.

The other thing is that Forster wouldn't have had the call on cutting out the card game in a movie called "Casino Royale" and that's assuming he would have done it at all. [Remember, he wouldn't have done a James Bond movie if he hadn't watched Daniel Craig in the role.]

He has more guts than that pansy Roger Michell, though. And all this stuff about Soups coming right back on Bond 22 after 18 months on Royale is pure bumkum any way, making the entire debate a tad moot.

[MattofSteel]

It's Terence Young (Campbell) Versus Guy Hamilton (Forster).

One is (Young/Campbell):

An unpretentious journeyman who just tells the story with sincerity and nothing more

Has a classic formal style

Highly adept at action scenes

At risk of being so sincere that on ocassion the proceedings become bland, unintentionally stilted and boring

The other (Forster/Hamilton):

An indulgent stylist more interested in subverting the Bond universe than telling a generic Bond story

Has a tendency to seemingly use Bond as a platform for his own irreverent, stylist interests

Disinterested in action scenes

Has inconsistent judgement, but when he gets it right produces fun and inconic moments that go beyond what the former could ever do merely following the script

Expert at offbeat visual humour

I was JUST about to cite this comparison, well done for beating me to the punch!

I think, that at the same time, Forster doesn't quite represent to the franchise what Hamilton did when he came on board (considering, of course, that despite my agreement with some of your comment, Goldfinger remains one of, if not exclusively, my favourite Bond film(s) ). I can't look past the fact that, despite it being my favourite, the character of Bond (as a mere example) is handled brutally in GF the final film. He spends the entire time screwing up! And paying for it! It almost seems that by sheer luck, he gets away with the victory in the end.

I wouldn't quite stretch Forster's efforts to call them equivalent to a modern Hamilton. But I do think the Young-Hamilton to Campbell-Forster comparison is equivalent. Might that mean that we're due for a Campbell redux? I can only hope.

[ElFenomeno]

Forster directed QoS ?
only Michael Bay could have crammed so much action in 106 minutes.
interesting.

[Eurospy]

Forster directed QoS ?
only Michael Bay could have crammed so much action in 106 minutes.
interesting.

Actually, I find Bay to be a master of worthless padding that glues a lot of action sequences in the editing room. And he'd need a lot more than that amount of time for his action sequences. Can't even begin to fathom how much time more he'd need for the usual stalling "character" and "comedic" moments.

But perhaps I should blame the scripts for part of that.

On the other hand, it sure feels like he either sure knows how to pick those, or they're tailor-written for him.

Edited by Eurospy, 15 January 2009 - 12:38 PM.

[dodge]

The visuals are the one area in which I believe Quantum of Solace trumps Casino Royale (the Tosca scene is destined to become a Bond classic), and given Casino Royale's visuals are terrific, it's no mean feat.

Eh, I don't think QUANTUM even trumps CASINO on a visual level. To be sure, it has some lovely shots, and it generally has an "artier" look to it, but CASINO is consistently beautiful (and often very visually striking and imaginative) and never verges on seeming visually pretentious the way QUANTUM sometimes does. Forster's direction is the kind of direction that calls attention to itself (which is why he's acclaimed as an "artist"), whereas Campbell is more like the kind of director Billy Wilder called "the best kind of director, the one you don't see". This is why I'm riled by the automatic assumption on the part of some folk that Forster must be the superior filmmaker because he looks the part and stuffs his work with his "personal vision".

Very well said. Forster, appropriately, looks like Nosferatu. He sucked the life force from the film.

[Eurospy]

Don't see anything artsy about QoS, just a bit different, fresher regarding the franchise. Don't see how attention is called into the direction itself just because it's a bit different.

Campbell is a "safe" director, he follows the script competently, almost directing in an automatic way.

It's as if there was some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film, and if a director doesn't follow it to near-perfection, in terms of shots, pacing, etc., if he even dares of adding something that may not be new outside of the sphere but is so regarding this franchise, then they are wrong. Why? Shouldn't Bond have some hint on novelty in its own franchise besides CR?

Or is CR so darn good, but they should give us exactly the same, always in the same way, film after film?

Edited by Eurospy, 15 January 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Why? Shouldn't Bond have some hint on novelty in its own franchise besides CR?

Or is CR so darn good, but they should give us exactly the same, always in the same way, film after film?

Casino Royale is a great movie but having variety is key to keeping the series interesting and relevant. The longevity of the series lies in it's rich diversity of film type, imo.

[Mister Asterix]

No one here can truly say what a Campbell led Quantum of Solace or a Forster led Casino Royale would’ve been like. Casino Royale existence freed Quantum of Solace to be more experimental. Had Forster directed Casino Royale I doubt he’d’ve had the free range to experiment or bring in his own people. And had Soup helmed Quantum of Solace he probably would’ve had even more of a free range to experiment than Forster received. The results of either would surely be something different than we got, but also something different than we are imagining by plugging in to these fan formulas of ((Campbell’s Direction + Haggis’s QoS Script) / Monster’s Ball) * The Legend of Zorro.

[Loomis]

Had Forster directed Casino Royale I doubt he’d’ve had the free range to experiment or bring in his own people. And had Soup helmed Quantum of Solace he probably would’ve had even more of a free range to experiment than Forster received.

Very good points.

In any case, I don't find QUANTUM OF SOLACE particularly mould-breaking. It's really a very conventional Bond film.

Unlike with LICENCE TO KILL, when I watch QUANTUM I don't have to keep reminding myself I'm watching a Bond flick (this is something I really like about LTK, BTW). And there are parts of CR much more experimental and bold and "artistic" than anything in QoS.

[Eurospy]

And there are parts of CR much more experimental and bold and "artistic" than anything in QoS.

In terms of directing or in terms of script?

In my case, I can only see boldness in elements which are probably clear in the script. But that's the basic premise of CR anyway, where its grand success lies.

[Loomis]

And there are parts of CR much more experimental and bold and "artistic" than anything in QoS.

In terms of directing or in terms of script?

Both. I'm thinking of things like the B&W PTS, and the long, talky and "action-free" scenes in the train, the casino and the Venice hotel (which for me are actually the most riveting parts of the film), and the amazing visuals of the scene where Bond becomes sick after being poisoned. And then there's the way the torture scene is handled.

I do like QUANTUM OF SOLACE very much (I feel the need to point that out at this stage), but I really don't think it matches the incredible heights or risk-taking of CASINO ROYALE.

[Judo chop]

And there are parts of CR much more experimental and bold and "artistic" than anything in QoS.

In terms of directing or in terms of script?

Both. I'm thinking of things like the B&W PTS, and the long, talky and "action-free" scenes in the train, the casino and the Venice hotel (which for me are actually the most riveting parts of the film), and the amazing visuals of the scene where Bond becomes sick after being poisoned. And then there's the way the torture scene is handled.

I think only the B&W and the drugged martini visuals in CR are all that inventive. And though I appreciate them, those are sequences that ‘stand out’ naturally by way of narrative. The bulk of the film looks good, certainly rich, but I see nothing that swims too far from shore.

QoS, on the other hand, takes some serious steps from the norm, and does so in major sequences.

The subdued colors of outdoors Palio.
The turquoise, ultra modern tint in the plane meeting between CIA and Greene.
The stark B&W contrasts of the hotel during Bond’s escape.
The “Hellish” look of the burning desert hotel.

Maybe more that I’m not recalling.

[HildebrandRarity]

Had Forster directed Casino Royale I doubt he’d’ve had the free range to experiment or bring in his own people. And had Soup helmed Quantum of Solace he probably would’ve had even more of a free range to experiment than Forster received.

Very good points.

Yes. Extremely.

Well done Mr *!

*he says while being an -kissing brown noser*

[Eurospy]

Mmmm, still suspect that any points that are a step beyond the norm in CR are script-related rather than directorial-wise.

And the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Campbell would have kept his usual directorial eye which would have brought down QoS a couple of grades.

Yes, Forster's directing is more distinguishable, but I'd hard call it artsy in any manner.

Distinguishable for insisting on certain script points, and the points refered to by Judo Chop.

Campbell, I maintain to be of the "safe" variety.

I'm also quite aware of QoS's flaws, and it is exactly due to those flaws that I disagree where Campbell would have made a better job. I think that those same flaws would be even more obvious, more accentuated.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Campbell is a "safe" director, he follows the script competently, almost directing in an automatic way.

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??

It's as if there was some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film, and if a director doesn't follow it to near-perfection, in terms of shots, pacing, etc., if he even dares of adding something that may not be new outside of the sphere but is so regarding this franchise, then they are wrong.

What about the Bond Formula???

P.D.: I'm not arguing for a return to the whole bunch of clichés ala Brosnan Era.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 15 January 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[Judo chop]

Campbell is a "safe" director, he follows the script competently, almost directing in an automatic way.

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??

It's as if there was some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film, and if a director doesn't follow it to near-perfection, in terms of shots, pacing, etc., if he even dares of adding something that may not be new outside of the sphere but is so regarding this franchise, then they are wrong.

What about the Bond Formula???

#1. We're not on the topic of 'right' vs. 'wrong' at this point. We're talking about visual flair, and which director has it (most).

But since you asked, what's 'wrong' with NOT going the safe route? (Box office disaster is an answer, but since that's obviously not the case with QOS, what's the next reason for it being wrong?)

#2. What is "the Bond Formula"?

[Eurospy]

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??[/b]

What about the Bond Formula???

Never said there was anything outright wrong with it. Quite the opposite, I said that he is quite competent. Yes it is just a Bond movie, but why is it wrong to want different approaches that may give each film a certain air of freshness? If a director that is competent and tries nothing that is slightly new (unless the script tells him so), I believe that QoS might not have been as successful.

Indeed it's just a Bond film, but for me, a Bond film should always aspire to be a bit more, just slightly. I don't mean make it artsy, I mean making it just a tad less predictable, to avoid having the character turn into a parody of itself again.

Well, I can ask you exactly the same - What about the Bond formula?

It is still there, in both CR and QoS, the formula has been simply approached from slightly different corners (different enough but not too different IMHO) in those films.

What's not part of the formula in those? Simply because the gunbarrel is at the end instead of the beginning? Or because he doesn't say "Bond, James Bond"? The formula remains. And these last two films are proof of that. It's been played with, yes, and I hope they keep giving those slight twists to the formula for the reasons above.

I'll keep watching Bond even if the title character is played by a talking dog, but never with the same enthusiasm as with these last two, if they go back to self-cannibalizing their own formula.

Edited by Eurospy, 15 January 2009 - 08:04 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Campbell is a "safe" director, he follows the script competently, almost directing in an automatic way.

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??

It's as if there was some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film, and if a director doesn't follow it to near-perfection, in terms of shots, pacing, etc., if he even dares of adding something that may not be new outside of the sphere but is so regarding this franchise, then they are wrong.

What about the Bond Formula???

#1. We're not on the topic of 'right' vs. 'wrong' at this point. We're talking about visual flair, and which director has it (most).

But since you asked, what's 'wrong' with NOT going the safe route? (Box office disaster is an answer, but since that's obviously not the case with QOS, what's the next reason for it being wrong?)

#2. What is "the Bond Formula"?

I would appreciate that you don't answer my questions with another questions.

Anyhow, if you want to keep the subject in the visual flair, I've already express my opinion about that in this thread, and you can argue my points on that, if you want.

[Judo chop]

Campbell is a "safe" director, he follows the script competently, almost directing in an automatic way.

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??

It's as if there was some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film, and if a director doesn't follow it to near-perfection, in terms of shots, pacing, etc., if he even dares of adding something that may not be new outside of the sphere but is so regarding this franchise, then they are wrong.

What about the Bond Formula???

#1. We're not on the topic of 'right' vs. 'wrong' at this point. We're talking about visual flair, and which director has it (most).

But since you asked, what's 'wrong' with NOT going the safe route? (Box office disaster is an answer, but since that's obviously not the case with QOS, what's the next reason for it being wrong?)

#2. What is "the Bond Formula"?

I would appreciate that you don't answer my questions with another questions.

Anyhow, if you want to keep the subject in the visual flair, I've already express my opinion about that in this thread, and you can argue my points on that, if you want.

Well, if you're going to ask ambiguous questions like "what about the Bond Formula???", then I would appreciate it first if you'd at least make the question multiple choice, as opposed to fill-in-the-blank, because I have no idea what you consider The Bond Forumla™ to be!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What's wrong with that, if we're talking about (just) a Bond movie??[/b]

What about the Bond Formula???

Indeed it's just a Bond film, but for me, a Bond film should always aspire to be a bit more, just slightly. I don't mean make it artsy, I mean making it just a tad less predictable, to avoid having the character turn into a parody of itself again.

I agree with what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't really see that in this Forster's work. I see him (and perhaps his crew too) aspiring not just slightly to a bit more, but to way much more within what it is, after all, just a Bond movie. And that's what makes it, in front of my eyes, an artsy film (even without being a bad flick, overall)

Regarding the Bond Formula question (Judo chop, please read this too, if you need some explanation), I just throw it, in response to your paragraph questioning the existence of "some unofficial rule book on how to direct a Bond film". Bond Formula isn't exactly that, but I think it's somewhat related to it.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 15 January 2009 - 08:36 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I'm also quite aware of QoS's flaws, and it is exactly due to those flaws that I disagree where Campbell would have made a better job. I think that those same flaws would be even more obvious, more accentuated.

If you think that one of the QOS's flaws is the way the action sequences were shoot/edited... Do you really think that Campbell would have done a worse job with that?? Personally, I don't think so.