179 replies to this topic

[Mister Asterix]

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.

I think that one of the QOS’s strengths is the way the action sequences were shot/edited... Do you really think that Campbell would have done a better job with that? Personally, I don’t think so.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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

Totally agree, many (not all) of the things, that are praised for some fans as artistic achievements, I perceive them as simple trendy winks... starting with the shoot/editing of the action sequences.

[Eurospy]

Er, is it just me, or there's been somewhat of a mix-up in our mutual replies? On the other hand, I'm a bit tired, but I gather we tried at post at the same time or something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't think that QoS's flaws lie in the way of how the actions sequences ar presented.

One of the main flaws, for me, is identical to the one I find in CR. That would be in structure.

I think that in CR, it should have gelled better in its two halves. In Qos, only after the first act do we get a better structure regarding the action and the non-action sequences. I do like the action sequences, and for those who make Bourne comparisons, I prefer these to that trilogy's last two.

But, they should have calmed down a bit at the editing, in order not to alienate so many people. It was more than obvious that such thing would happen when the decision was made.

Regarding the Bond formula, I'm glad that he diverted in certain spots without thrashing it. That's what he did with the formula in my view.

And it's exactly for not being that mould-breaking (I'm talking plot) that a by-the-numbers director might not enhance QoS the way Forster did. He didn't turn it into a work of art but he did add a more distinctive style that enhanced what is actually solid but not ground-breaking action-thriller that happens to be Bond.

It's trend-following indeed, but so is LTK, MR and many others.

Edited by Eurospy, 15 January 2009 - 09:54 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And it's exactly for not being that mould-breaking (I'm talking plot) that a by-the-numbers director might not enhance QoS the way Forster did. He didn't turn it into a work of art but he did add a more distinctive style that enhanced what is actually solid but not ground-breaking action-thriller that happens to be Bond.

It's trend-following indeed, but so is LTK, MR and many others.

I don't know if I understood you correctly but... If you're meaning that the "more distinctive style" added by Forster (I'm talking only about QOS, not about all the works of this director) is trend-following- just like many other Bond movies were before-, I'm completely agree with you.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 15 January 2009 - 10:12 PM.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I think that one of the QOS’s strengths is the way the action sequences were shot/edited... Do you really think that Campbell would have done a better job with that? Personally, I don’t think so.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I think that the film is so poorly edited that I can't even see what's happening in the film. With Campbell, the camera isn't shaky, and I can actually see the action scenes. So, I do think that Campbell would have done a better job. Sorry, Mr *.

[Eurospy]

I don't know if I understood you correctly but... If you're meaning that the "more distinctive style" added by Forster (I'm talking only about QOS, not about all the works of this director) is trend-following- just like many other Bond movies were before-, I'm completely agree with you.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, but yes, with QoS there was trend following and as I've stated in posts of other threads I don't find it to be wrong.

I might be verging a bit off, but it's true that Bond used to set trends, but many moons ago that age ended, and Bond had to keep up with the trends. Times change, things move on, the world keeps spinning. That's simply the way things are. And there is no shame in it whatsoever. Better to follow certain trends than remain overly predictable.

The same happened to CR. Also trend-following, taking in account the tremendous success of Batman Begins. Thus I find it justified that many have nicknamed it Bond Begins.

Doesn't mean that Bond is ripping-off Batman, quite obviously, simply that Eon took advantage of the need for a new approach to Bond, the need for a new actor, the need to give their franchise a boost, and they ended up riding the same wagon as far as basic concepts go.

All things considered - in spite of my personal liking of QoS's action sequences, I do understand perfectly how so many fans had a tremendous distate for it.

But Campbell would have given us just another Bond movie, if one is to follow a theoritical but reasonable line of thought. And I think we had more than enough of "the usual".

For one to have exactly the same thing as before, there are always at least 21 films to choose from and watch the same allover again and as many times as it pleases one.

[Loomis]

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

Being bald and talking funny should be enough to keep him from directing Bond. I can't picture Fleming trusting a man like Forster, can you? Heck, I suspect that the blighter may well hold some "left wing" or "progressive" views.

[Eurospy]

I am bald and proud of it! Beware of those who shave their own heads (as opposed to those who shave other people's heads)

(Cool as in cool bald that is. Or perhaps this last part is more wishful thinking than anything else)

Edited by Eurospy, 16 January 2009 - 12:26 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I don't know if I understood you correctly but... If you're meaning that the "more distinctive style" added by Forster (I'm talking only about QOS, not about all the works of this director) is trend-following- just like many other Bond movies were before-, I'm completely agree with you.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, but yes, with QoS there was trend following and as I've stated in posts of other threads I don't find it to be wrong.

I might be verging a bit off, but it's true that Bond used to set trends, but many moons ago that age ended, and Bond had to keep up with the trends. Times change, things move on, the world keeps spinning. That's simply the way things are. And there is no shame in it whatsoever. Better to follow certain trends than remain overly predictable.

The same happened to CR. Also trend-following, taking in account the tremendous success of Batman Begins. Thus I find it justified that many have nicknamed it Bond Begins.

Doesn't mean that Bond is ripping-off Batman, quite obviously, simply that Eon took advantage of the need for a new approach to Bond, the need for a new actor, the need to give their franchise a boost, and they ended up riding the same wagon as far as basic concepts go.

I disagree, CR wasn't a trend follower (unlike, QOS, LTK, MR and many others).

I have discussed this in another threads... The concept for the Bond origin story was around EON since 1986, particularly with Michael G. Wilson. While the so called realistic down-to earth tone for CR, was already in the earlier scripts for the Jink spin-off since 2002, and as a natural reaction to the excess of fantasy in DAD.

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

However, a real trend follower is a work that is created trying to be similar to the one that set the trend before. Definitely, not the case of CR.

[DaveBond21]

I

wouldn't have minded if he had sat in as the voice of Forster's conscience while Forster oversaw the action scenes.

Oh, hear hear, me too.

[HildebrandRarity]

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

Being bald and talking funny should be enough to keep him from directing Bond. I can't picture Fleming trusting a man like Forster, can you? Heck, I suspect that the blighter may well hold some "left wing" or "progressive" views.

Fleming's dead and Eon have always called the shots...and called them well inspite of old Ian's objections...starting with the casting of a Scotish truck driver and brick layer who wasn't exactly upper crust with right wing views. Wasn't Connery bald and talked funny?

[Dekard77]

I like the movie. New Director new look to the film. Most might agree that if it was as long as CR it would have lost more of the audience as non Bond fans told me CR was way too long and serious.
Perfect balance and even the score which I hated at first is growing on me. One of the best leading Bond girls and truly sinister Villain. For the first time since TND I love the character play between Bond and M.

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

Being bald and talking funny should be enough to keep him from directing Bond. I can't picture Fleming trusting a man like Forster, can you? Heck, I suspect that the blighter may well hold some "left wing" or "progressive" views.

Fleming's dead and Eon have always called the shots...and called them well inspite of old Ian's objections...starting with the casting of a Scotish truck driver and brick layer who wasn't exactly upper crust with right wing views. Wasn't Connery bald and talked funny?

Well said!!!!

[stamper]

No contest that Forster crushes Campbell...on any movie, any genre, any time.

Here's what crack does to cinephiles.

[Zorin Industries]

No contest that Forster crushes Campbell...on any movie, any genre, any time.

Here's what crack does to cinephiles.

And film fans it seems.

I agree completely. Forster is leagues ahead of Campbell as a director. I didn't see NO ESPAPE getting awards the world over. Campbell does not have it in him to make anything remotely like FINDING NEVERLAND or THE KITE RUNNER. Granted, that is probably not his thing - but Forster is at least adaptable.

Also, I don't know where this "Campbell is God" viewpoint comes from? GOLDENEYE is a terribly directed film. You go on location or to Watford to save money. You shouldn't let your film betray that though to the audience. There are too many mid-shots in that film too. It ends up feeling very television - even at the cinema. There is no scope to the direction.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Campbell does not have it in him to make anything remotely like FINDING NEVERLAND or THE KITE RUNNER.

And Forster couldn't make anything like Casino Royale.

Granted, that is probably not his thing - but Forster is at least adaptable.

That's good for the director, but as a Bond fan I really only care about how the man directs a Bond film and Campbell is, by leagues, the superior Bond director of the two in my mind.

[Zorin Industries]

Campbell does not have it in him to make anything remotely like FINDING NEVERLAND or THE KITE RUNNER.

And Forster couldn't make anything like Casino Royale.

I completely disagree. Of course he could. I hate to tell you folks, but CASINO ROYALE is not the best directed film of all time. It's a superb and fresh Bond film granted - but it has its faults. One too many set pieces repeating themselves for starters (eg. do we really need TWO chases where BOND is after a suicide bomber that still live us in the same place of understanding about LE CHIFRE's tentacles?). I don't dislike Campbell's work, but I certainly would not claim he is a better Bond director than Marc Forster. Direction-wise, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is eons ahead of ROYALE on the grounds of pace, narrative, visual exposition and performances (I don't mean the Eva Greens or Dame Judi's - I mean the wilful detail of a Bolivian taxi driver, the wives of the Quantum members and the MI6 paymasters - THAT is where an astute director proves his colours). Also - and this is important for a Bond film - Campbell is clearly less of an editor than Forster is. The latter's films soar with his storytelling stamp there for all to see. Campbell is not a natural editor. He doesn't have to be (that is why we have editors to cut our films), but I feel and see Forster's DNA in every second of SOLACE.

[Eurospy]

I disagree, CR wasn't a trend follower (unlike, QOS, LTK, MR and many others).

I have discussed this in another threads... The concept for the Bond origin story was around EON since 1986, particularly with Michael G. Wilson. While the so called realistic down-to earth tone for CR, was already in the earlier scripts for the Jink spin-off since 2002, and as a natural reaction to the excess of fantasy in DAD.

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

However, a real trend follower is a work that is created trying to be similar to the one that set the trend before. Definitely, not the case of CR.

I do see where you're getting, but still, I don't think there's much of an escape that CR is Bond Begins. From what has been stated by another CBner quite a while ago on another thread who was lucky enough to have read earlier treatments for TLD, the scenes featuring a Young Bond were short and brief. And Wilson apparently wanted to tell a "Bond Begins" story at least since then, but it was at the time of Batman Begins that they decided to move forward with CR. Jinx also somewhat followed the trend of "female-lead action movies" (although I'm not sure I'd call this one a trend following per se), and took a step back when in analysis this type of movie tanked time after time (nothing to do with having a female in the lead IMHO, just "the suits" way of thinking I gather, as usual).

Having a wide variety of ideas, drafts and treatments on retainer merely means that they'll pull such aces in the hole when the time calls for it. They jumped on the "reboot the franchise/origin story" during the success of Batman Begins, thus I do consider that to be trend-following.

Still, I don't see why Campbell would be any less competent than numerous other directors that took their turns on the Bond franchise. I shall restrain from mentioning Mr. Tamahori further...

Directors as competent as Campbell can adapt, even if it's a bit by force, if so required. Taking in account his demands for the script changes in GE, and then the completely different work he delivered in CR are proof of that.

I thought they'd gone a bit bonkers for asking Campbell to come back to direct for CR, and I was taken completely by surprise by absolutely everything in the latter.

All that said, I do maintain - since story-wise QOS isn't particularly mould-breaking, wouldn't said movie have been average rather than controversial?

On the other hand, would it be so hard for Forster to have the editing toned-down a bit in order not to alienate such amount of Bond fans?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Zorin, you have nothing to back that up. What makes you think Forster could make elegant, brutal action scenes as they appear in Casino Royale? What makes you think Forster could faithfully get the literary work of Fleming up and screen and turn it into a successful blockbuster juggernaut at the same time? What leads you to beleive Forster could've pulled off the dramatic, suspenseful card game as successfully as Campbell?

No one is saying CR is the best directed film of all time. I am merely refuting your statement that Forster can do everything Campbell has and then some, which seems utterly preposterous considering they are different individuals with different strengths regardless of who is the overall more talented of the two.

Also - and this is important for a Bond film - Campbell is clearly less of an editor than Forster is. The latter's films soar with his storytelling stamp there for all to see. Campbell is not a natural editor. He doesn't have to be (that is why we have editors to cut our films), but I feel and see Forster's DNA in every second of SOLACE.

So do I, which leads me to ask, if his work is blindingly obvious how is it more natural than the humble elegance of Casino Royale?

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin, you have nothing to back that up. What makes you think Forster could make elegant, brutal action scenes as they appear in Casino Royale? What makes you think Forster could faithfully get the literary work of Fleming up and screen and turn it into a successful blockbuster juggernaut at the same time? What leads you to beleive Forster could've pulled off the dramatic, suspenseful card game as successfully as Campbell?

No one is saying CR is the best directed film of all time. I am merely refuting your statement that Forster can do everything Campbell has and then some, which seems utterly preposterous considering they are different individuals with different strengths regardless of who is the overall more talented of the two.

Also - and this is important for a Bond film - Campbell is clearly less of an editor than Forster is. The latter's films soar with his storytelling stamp there for all to see. Campbell is not a natural editor. He doesn't have to be (that is why we have editors to cut our films), but I feel and see Forster's DNA in every second of SOLACE.

So do I, which leads me to ask, if his work is blindingly obvious how is it more natural than the humble elegance of Casino Royale?

Forster is the better director. It's not rocket science to determine why. ROYALE still felt like a Bond film of old (that's not a criticism - just an observation). It still felt like the various units had been sent off, got their bits in the can and then thrown them out on the table for Campbell to sieve through. SOLACE on the other hand exhibits Forster's hand throughout.

You ask...

What makes you think Forster could make elegant, brutal action scenes as they appear in Casino Royale? What makes you think Forster could faithfully get the literary work of Fleming up and screen and turn it into a successful blockbuster juggernaut at the same time? What leads you to beleive Forster could've pulled off the dramatic, suspenseful card game as successfully as Campbell?

My response is simple : watch THE KITE RUNNER. It has all of what you claim Forster would not have been able to bring to ROYALE and something else too - something that is called "heart". Campbell is a very cold director. His films do not involve you on any personal level. There is little soul in them (with the first ZORRO film and EDGE OF DARKNESS being the exception) And I don't class a "card game" the average viewer has to see at least twice to understand as being wholly "successful".

And "humble elegance" is not just conveyed and used in a scene like the gaming table moments from ROYALE. There is greater "humble elegance" in SOLACE - the viewpoint of water-starved peasants entering a makeshift graveyard, a society wife checking her duplicitous husband's behaviour at the opera, a Palio bystander falling to her knees.... This is verisimilitude and Forster is an expert at it. Campbell less so.

[HildebrandRarity]

No contest that Forster crushes Campbell...on any movie, any genre, any time.

Here's what crack does to cinephiles.

Tell that to the 'cinephiles' who, as the front page article says, nominted Q0S along with Dark Knight and Mamma Mia for movie of the year:

http://commanderbond.net/article/5957

Again, after Japan's done, Quantum will have sold about 83,000,000 tickets. Compare that to the 6 or 7 people on CBn who don't like the movie and you get the following picture, my dear stamper:

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK!

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Forster is the better director. It's not rocket science to determine why. ROYALE still felt like a Bond film of old (that's not a criticism - just an observation). It still felt like the various units had been sent off, got their bits in the can and then thrown them out on the table for Campbell to sieve through. SOLACE on the other hand exhibits Forster's hand throughout.

You ask...

What makes you think Forster could make elegant, brutal action scenes as they appear in Casino Royale? What makes you think Forster could faithfully get the literary work of Fleming up and screen and turn it into a successful blockbuster juggernaut at the same time? What leads you to beleive Forster could've pulled off the dramatic, suspenseful card game as successfully as Campbell?


My response is simple : watch THE KITE RUNNER. It has all of what you claim Forster would not have been able to bring to ROYALE and something else too - something that is called "heart". Campbell is a very cold director. His films do not involve you on any personal level. There is little soul in them (with the first ZORRO film and EDGE OF DARKNESS being the exception) And I don't class a "card game" the average viewer has to see at least twice to understand as being wholly "successful".

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the QOS scenes that hardcore Bond fans are debating over on CBn after several viewings, like how Bond dispatched of the baddies in the boat chase or why he even embarked on it in the first place?

The card game tells the viewer everything they need to know, while the boat chase, for example, seems to leave people guessing.

And "humble elegance" is not just conveyed and used in a scene like the gaming table moments from ROYALE. There is greater "humble elegance" in SOLACE - the viewpoint of water-starved peasants entering a makeshift graveyard, a society wife checking her duplicitous husband's behaviour at the opera, a Palio bystander falling to her knees.... This is verisimilitude and Forster is an expert at it. Campbell less so.

I'll agree QOS is a very elegant film (at least when Bond is not facing off with a baddie), but I would not use the word 'humble'. Other than that I agree with the above. Campbell would not be very good at playing Forster. Likewise, Forster would not be good at playing Campbell, (even if that means to you sitting back and letting the rest of the 'Bond family' get on with their jobs while he got on with his).

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 16 January 2009 - 01:31 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Forster is the better director. It's not rocket science to determine why. ROYALE still felt like a Bond film of old (that's not a criticism - just an observation). It still felt like the various units had been sent off, got their bits in the can and then thrown them out on the table for Campbell to sieve through. SOLACE on the other hand exhibits Forster's hand throughout.

You ask...

What makes you think Forster could make elegant, brutal action scenes as they appear in Casino Royale? What makes you think Forster could faithfully get the literary work of Fleming up and screen and turn it into a successful blockbuster juggernaut at the same time? What leads you to beleive Forster could've pulled off the dramatic, suspenseful card game as successfully as Campbell?


My response is simple : watch THE KITE RUNNER. It has all of what you claim Forster would not have been able to bring to ROYALE and something else too - something that is called "heart". Campbell is a very cold director. His films do not involve you on any personal level. There is little soul in them (with the first ZORRO film and EDGE OF DARKNESS being the exception) And I don't class a "card game" the average viewer has to see at least twice to understand as being wholly "successful".

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the QOS scenes that hardcore Bond fans are debating over on CBn after several viewings, like how Bond dispatched of the baddies in the boat chase or why he even embarked on it in the first place?

If Bond fans have to debate any part of SOLACE after several viewings then they should really stop going to the cinema. SOLACE is one of the most eloquently and effectively simple Bond films we've had to date. It knows - as all good films do - that not everything has to be "on the nose". I don't have any problem with the boat chase. I got exactly what was going on - BOND is following the breadcrumbs to Quantum, he encounters CAMILLE (who mirrors KARA MILOVY with her obvious "innocent caught in too deep" perspective), BOND knows that GREENE and co are dodgy and he can work out that their agenda for CAMILLE during or immediately after her boat journey is going to mean death. She goes with MEDRANO because GREENE has fed her a line about being able to get her revenge. He on the other hand has thrown CAMILLE into the water bargain as a Greene Planet corporate freebie. Forster is the first director to understand and work on the fact that there have been Bond films before. Campbell is a factory, whereas Forster is a sculptor in his studio. The latter also knows that we don't have to have everything signposted in a film where we know who the villains are, BOND knows who the villains are - but CAMILLE (the girl he's trying to rescue) does not.

[HildebrandRarity]

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the QOS scenes that hardcore Bond fans are debating over on CBn after several viewings, like how Bond dispatched of the baddies in the boat chase or why he even embarked on it in the first place?

If I may interject, what 'hard core' Bond fans? I'm a 'hard core' Bond fan...or are you talking about the 6 or 7 people who just plain didn't like the movie beacause it was not conventional?

Also, if you want an explaination of the boat chase, go to page 3 of my thread in the 'members review' section of the forums:

http://debrief.comma...p...60&start=60

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the QOS scenes that hardcore Bond fans are debating over on CBn after several viewings, like how Bond dispatched of the baddies in the boat chase or why he even embarked on it in the first place?

If I may interject, what 'hard core' Bond fans? I'm a 'hard core' Bond fan...or are you talking about the 6 or 7 people who just plain didn't like the movie beacause it was not conventional?

Also, if you want an explaination of the boat chase, go to page 3 of my thread in the 'members review' section of the forums:

http://debrief.comma...p...60&start=60

Hardcore Bond fans was a term I used to describe pretty much anyone who discusses James Bond on the internet, or more to the point, CBn. There is a thread several pages long about the boat chase where a bunch of 'hardcore Bond fans' tried to come to some agreement as to what was going on in the conclusion to that scene.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51682
I guess several people in that thread should really stop going to the cinema according to Zorin.

By that topic, you can't deny that a good number of Bond fans where left scratching there head with how that scene was shot. A simple physical stunt. Meanwhile Campbell masterfully handles a complex card game, not only making coherent sense, but having the right amount of tension and thrills.

I noticed Zorin conveniently neglected to mention how the chase concluded in his explanation of just about everything else in that scene.

HildebrandRarity, I've read your explanations and I'll consider it next time I watch QoS (when the DVD is released). From memory, I feel your explanation is derived equally from what's on the screen and your own extrapolations.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 16 January 2009 - 02:07 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the QOS scenes that hardcore Bond fans are debating over on CBn after several viewings, like how Bond dispatched of the baddies in the boat chase or why he even embarked on it in the first place?

If I may interject, what 'hard core' Bond fans? I'm a 'hard core' Bond fan...or are you talking about the 6 or 7 people who just plain didn't like the movie beacause it was not conventional?

Also, if you want an explaination of the boat chase, go to page 3 of my thread in the 'members review' section of the forums:

http://debrief.comma...p...60&start=60

Hardcore Bond fans was a term I used to describe pretty much anyone who discusses James Bond on the internet, or more to the point, CBn. There is a thread several pages long about the boat chase where a bunch of 'hardcore Bond fans' tried to come to some agreement as to what was going on in the conclusion to that scene.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51682
I guess several people in that thread should really stop going to the cinema according to Zorin.

By that topic, you can't deny that a good number of Bond fans where left scratching there head with how that scene was shot. A simple physical stunt. Meanwhile Campbell masterfully handles a complex card game, not only making coherent sense, but having the right amount of tension and thrills.

I noticed Zorin conveniently neglected to mention how the chase concluded in his explanation of just about everything else in that scene.

HildebrandRarity, I've read your explanations and I'll consider it next time I watch QoS (when the DVD is released). From memory, I feel your explanation is derived equally from what's on the screen and your own extrapolations.

Yes I've seen just how many hardcore Bond fans on CBN have criticised QUANTUM OF SOLACE - but are completely unable to admit that it is because it steps on the toes of their nostalgia or that they are unable to get subtext and choose instead to lambast the film and its makers on the grounds that is THEY who are flawed. Yes - a few CBNers were "scratching their "heads" - but that is the same tally of people who (and I can name names but don't want to on grounds of politeness) make bold claims like SOLACE will fail at the box office because the teaser trailer didn't come out the same amount of weeks before the film that ROYALE's did or that an Aston Martin chase is no good because they didn't know what was going on.

There is also a phrase called "wood for the trees" and I think certain "hardcore Bond fans" should stop being so anal about the motivations and edits of a car or boat chase in a James Bond film. It doesn't matter in the long term. They didn't get it. Fine. Move on. But others - like myself and Hildebrand Rarity - who did get what was going on without question.

"Meanwhile Campbell masterfully handles a complex card game, not only making coherent sense, but having the right amount of tension and thrills"....

Really? (!). The card game in ROYALE does not make "coherent sense" on first viewing. That is because the very nature of card games is not film / visual friendly. Campbell tried very hard to integrate something that is not cinema friendly (how do you convey what a card player is thinking for example on screen when everyone has to be quiet and calculating?). It worked. But it needed breaks from the card table in order to do so. The last thing that card game does is make "coherent sense". That is not a criticism. Card games are complex tournaments to convey on film (the legalities and rights of the novel Casino Royale were not the sole reason it remained off our screens for so long - it was because Eon knew the card game was a gamble). But the difference here is that I am not damning the film and its director on the grounds it is flawed just because one swathe of it needs more than one viewing to fully gauge. But people who harp on about SOLACE's boat chases really need to stop thinking their comments change a thing - when their frustrations are nothing but the anal gripes of armchair filmmakers who think they know cinema because Empire magazine drops on their doormat once a month - but who cannot accept it when a mainstream film like a 007 movie stumps them.


I don't "conveniently" neglect anything, Mr Teddy Bear.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51682
I guess several people in that thread should really stop going to the cinema according to Zorin.

Yes. Because they are no doubt the same people who think the cinematic world begins and ends with what Empire magazine tells them without even realising there is a whole wider universe of telling stories on film - a realm that a director like Marc Forster gets. Why should a boat chase or car chase be presented and created in the same way twenty-one other 007 films have done for half a century? Wake up folks - this is a series of contemporary action thrillers - not a stroll down memory lane on constant loop for people who wear "I Heart Richard Kiel" t-shirts at conventions at conference centres to be appeased by.

[Mister Asterix]

I think that one of the QOS’s strengths is the way the action sequences were shot/edited... Do you really think that Campbell would have done a better job with that? Personally, I don’t think so.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I think that the film is so poorly edited that I can't even see what's happening in the film. With Campbell, the camera isn't shaky, and I can actually see the action scenes. So, I do think that Campbell would have done a better job. Sorry, Mr *.

Well, I’ll say Quantum of Solace was more skilfully edited than any film since Peter Hunt took his cutters to the Bond series. Maybe not edited to your tastes, but skilfully edited none the less.

I’ll compare to the editing style to when Eddie Van Halen’s guitar solos were first heard. Many listened to a Van Halen guitar solo and heard nothing but a series of very fast, random notes. Well there was a method to Eddie Van Halen’s madness, as there is to Matt Chesse & Richard Pearson’s. But some won’t get it right away, some’ll never get it, and some understand it right off. And that’s okay. But different and not of your taste does not make it poor.

[HildebrandRarity]

Meanwhile Campbell masterfully handles a complex card game, not only making coherent sense, but having the right amount of tension and thrills.

HildebrandRarity, I've read your explanations and I'll consider it next time I watch QoS (when the DVD is released). From memory, I feel your explanation is derived equally from what's on the screen and your own extrapolations.

Surely, the card game in Royale is more analgous to the Tosca set piece at Bregenz than it is to any vehicular 'action' sequence in QOS?

You surely must see that, my friend. Non?

For my money, the "tension and thrill" of the Tosca sequence just destroys anything to do with Texas Hold 'Em in CR! There's no contest.

In fact, I use the bits of the card game as an intermission to go to the bathroom and make cocoa.

As for the boat chase...I suggest you see Quantum at the cinema again...I have not filled in any gaps with my own interpolations or extropaltions. It's on screen.

Cheers, Teddy.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51682
I guess several people in that thread should really stop going to the cinema according to Zorin.

Yes. Because they are no doubt the same people who think the cinematic world begins and ends with what Empire magazine tells them without even realising there is a whole wider universe of telling stories on film - a realm that a director like Marc Forster gets. Why should a boat chase or car chase be presented and created in the same way twenty-one other 007 films have done for half a century? Wake up folks - this is a series of contemporary action thrillers - not a stroll down memory lane on constant loop for people who wear "I Heart Richard Kiel" t-shirts at conventions at conference centres to be appeased by.

Nice job diverting the serious conversation into your usual tirade against all things fan related. That routine is getting tiresome. I thought we were discussing the specifics of a scene and you want to turn it into something else. There were no complains that something different was tried. My complaints are that it resulted in something bad. I love Hunt's experimental editing in OHMSS, Martins rock LALD score, Craig's new take on Bond and so on. I am not afraid of change: I embrace it if it is deserving.

The 'hardcore' is not even the point here. Everyday film goers have expressed the same frustrations. I just introduced 'hardcore' into the mix because they are a group of people who have likely seen QoS more than once.

You honestly think there is no legitimacy to people finding elements, the boat chase being a prime example, of Quantum of Solace confusing?

[Judo chop]

I’ll compare to the editing style to when Eddie Van Halen’s guitar solos were first heard. Many listened to a Van Halen guitar solo and heard nothing but a series of very fast, random notes. Well there was a method to Eddie Van Halen’s madness, as there is to Matt Chesse & Richard Pearson’s. But some won’t get it right away, some’ll never get it, and some understand it right off. And that’s okay. But different and not of your taste does not make it poor.

[makes "VV" sign with index fingers and thumbs]

[Zorin Industries]

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51682
I guess several people in that thread should really stop going to the cinema according to Zorin.

Yes. Because they are no doubt the same people who think the cinematic world begins and ends with what Empire magazine tells them without even realising there is a whole wider universe of telling stories on film - a realm that a director like Marc Forster gets. Why should a boat chase or car chase be presented and created in the same way twenty-one other 007 films have done for half a century? Wake up folks - this is a series of contemporary action thrillers - not a stroll down memory lane on constant loop for people who wear "I Heart Richard Kiel" t-shirts at conventions at conference centres to be appeased by.

Nice job diverting the serious conversation into your usual tirade against all things fan related. That routine is getting tiresome. I thought we were discussing the specifics of a scene and you want to turn it into something else. There were no complains that something different was tried. My complaints are that it resulted in something bad. I love Hunt's experimental editing in OHMSS, Martins rock LALD score, Craig's new take on Bond and so on. I am not afraid of change: I embrace it if it is deserving.

The 'hardcore' is not even the point here. Everyday film goers have expressed the same frustrations. I just introduced 'hardcore' into the mix because they are a group of people who have likely seen QoS more than once.

You honestly think there is no legitimacy to people finding elements, the boat chase being a prime example, of Quantum of Solace confusing?

I do not come on CBN to do a "routine". And bringing in mention of anal Bond fans who are genuinely only happy if every Bond film is one part FROM RUSSIA and one part SPY is actually NOT a tangent as that is what is going on here when fans think a director like Forster could not improve on ROYALE or that Campbell could make SOLACE better.

What "everyday film goers"? The very few people you spoke to in passing about the film or the millions of film goers you handed a questionaire to on their way home? The people who do not like SOLACE must stop using sweeping statements to justify their fan-boy gripes. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a masterfully tight piece of mainstream cinema. It is one of the Best Bond films. The problem is the folk who base their enjoyment on where a gunbarrel is or whether or not "Bond James Bond" is uttered will not see that - certainly not for a long time. Their spectatorship of 007 films is based on "the canon". Well a new entry like SOLACE is not part of the "canon" yet so they are completely unable to judge, equate and rate it.

The boat chase is not "bad". That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. But just remember that not everyone thinks that.

Of course there is "legitimacy" in people finding faults with SOLACE, but until I read ONE opinion on the film that isn't a badly veiled upset at the film not being what they expected from what they've seen before (ie. blinkered nostalgia) then I have no time for such opinions.

And try not to mistake a "tirade" for someone just shedding a different light on a question or query. It is reductive to dicussing film and it is reductive to discussing James Bond on screen.