142 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Marc Forster Reflects On 'Quantum of Solace'

Director discusses the reviews, his likes and dislikes, directing a future Bond and more...

[Vauxhall]

Interesting to have confirmation that Forster was offered BOND 23. I'd be happy for him to return in a few years after he's tackled a few smaller projects.

[Mr_Wint]

it’s hard for me to watch.’

Strange that he can't watch the crapfest he just created. I mean, all the four elements are there! What more can he ask for...?

Anyway, nice to get some new info on Bond 23:
1) "more women"
2) "more humour"
3) "more things people were craving for"
4) "No Marc Forster"

Sounds quite good

[mister-white]

Thankfully, the chances of Forster ever coming back to direct another Bond is about the same as the chances of Joel Schmaucher directing another Batman: It'll never happen.

[Bucky]

so i guess this pretty much confirms that there will be a second dvd/blu-ray release for the film.

[ElFenomeno]

"I was expecting; here is the bible of Bond but it wasn't like that at all.

haha.made me laugh.

On the opening car chase:
"I'm not really a car man, but I thought if I have to do a car chase I want it very disorientating and confusing.

so yeah. he's responsible for the rapid fire editing.

[JimmyBond]

it’s hard for me to watch.’

Strange that he can't watch the crapfest he just created. I mean, all the four elements are there! What more can he ask for...?

So you missed the part where he says that he doesnt rewatch any of the films he made? Way to read into something that isnt there.

Anyway, nice to get some new info on Bond 23:
1) "more women"
2) "more humour"
3) "more things people were craving for"
4) "No Marc Forster"

Sounds quite good

Most of that was just speculation on his part. It's no more concrete than any of the suggestions we put forth here on the board.

[blueman]

Great read, thanks! Sounds like a creative and diligent guy, lucky to have him do a Bond, hope he comes back down the road for another.

[zencat]

so i guess this pretty much confirms that there will be a second dvd/blu-ray release for the film.

Yep, it sure does.

[delfloria]

Should have watched "Bolt" to get the action sequences right.

[Vauxhall]

Should have watched "Bolt" to get the action sequences right.

They were very impressive, although they'd probably have to lose the talking dog for a Bond action sequence.

[[dark]]

There's some good stuff in there. If Forster is willing to recognise Quantum of Solace's flaws (editing; title song; editing; title sequence; editing), I'd be happy to have him back.

And I think this means I may wait til the special edition of Quantum of Solace is released, as we folks in Australia are lumbered with a bare-bones single-disc release.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Quantum of Solace's flaws (editing; title song; editing; title sequence; editing)

You said it dark!

As for me, even though I was disappointed with Quantum Of Solace, there is, as has been said, plenty to take from the movie, and Forster's favourite scene, the opera scene, is also my favourite scene - it's very different from the traditional Bond film scenes in the past, and it's exceedingly tense and entertaining. More of this, and I'd be more than happy to welcome Forster back for Bond 24, 25 or whenever, but I do feel that Bond 23 requires a slightly different approach. We'll have to see.

[Matt_13]

Great interview! It's always good to hear a professional discuss what he feels were his shortcomings and how he would have done things differently. I would not mind at all if he came back.

[Sir James Molony]

Yes, superb interview. I'm impressed by how much thought Marc Forster gave to the character and settings.

I've always wondered about the rule he mentioned "...we don’t want Bond to kill anybody innocent."

I do think QoS stayed away from completely gratuitous destruction of random innocents.

But there are plenty of scenes in the series where innocent people (not henchmen) appear to die, even though it's never shown on screen. One part of CR that always bothers me is Bond's destruction of of the construction site in Madagascar. It certainly looks like he (and/or Mollaka) inadvertently kill plenty of workers.

I never liked the bit in TND when Bond steers his remote control car out of the garage and into the ever-so-conveniently-located AVIS storefront. Again, no one appears to get hurt, but Bond showed an unnecessarily callous disregard for stray pedestrians.

Pet peeve: He's already recorded the DVD commentary? Any guesses about the double-dip release date? later in 2009?

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I've always wondered about the rule he mentioned "...we don’t want Bond to kill anybody innocent."

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. If that were the case, wouldn't Bond have stopped to help that woman during the Palio chase???

[Bucky]

that rule kind of makes me think of goldeneye during the tank chase where bond would completely destroy a car and it would have a shot afterward of somebody somehow getting out of it. always made me laugh.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, allowing to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smarter, believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 March 2009 - 08:50 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

Oh, really??!! I think the plot comprise only water (and perhaps oil, if you stretch it), but it isn't about any natural resource. And when fire has been a natural resource??

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 March 2009 - 09:12 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

Oh, really??!! I think the plot comprise only water (and perhaps oil, if you stretch it), but it isn't about any natural resource. And when fire has been a natural resorce??

?!?!?!?!?! Fire is both natural and a resource that is harnessed by humanity!!! Therefore it's a natural resource. QED
C'mon Mr A-B don't be argumentative for the sake of it!!!
Either way the four elements is an Aristotlean notion about causality and balance which relates, I guess, to notions of balance and order within the universe. Again it can work for Bond.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

Oh, really??!! I think the plot comprise only water (and perhaps oil, if you stretch it), but it isn't about any natural resource. And when fire has been a natural resorce??

?!?!?!?!?! Fire is both natural and a resource that is harnessed by humanity!!! Therefore it's a natural resource. QED
C'mon Mr A-B don't be argumentative for the sake of it!!!
Either way the four elements is an Aristotlean notion about causality and balance which relates, I guess, to notions of balance and order within the universe. Again it can work for Bond.

Well, if you stretch enough your imagination, almost anything could work for Bond. But then you could go for a somewhat forced interpretations.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 March 2009 - 09:41 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I still wonder... earth, fire, water and air sounds fine for setting action scenes, but why?? What does that have to do with Bond, or how the presence of the four basic elements helps to the story or the character development??

Oh, I see, it's there just for the sake of it, to generate a so called arthouse's vibes, to allow to some fanboys claim that are watching some kind of profound masterpiece, and feel smart believing that they're finally able to understand and enjoy a supposed complex film.

P.D.: Anyhow, I'm not pointing with this (-I admit it- somewhat harsh critic) to every QOS fan, just to the ones that affirm that who doesn't acclaim this movie, it's because isn't really able to comprehend it.

Damned if you do damned if you don't I think. So many people have criticised Forster for not having a plan, that it was all a rush job and then when he says well here's what I was thinking then he is still slammed for being "arty" or just putting it there for the "sake of it."
It may surprise you to learn this but directors don't just point a camera and say "cut! thanks love that was nice!" They have a vision, because for all filmmakers their profession is an art.
Now I like Forsters idea about the elements but it doesn't necessarily transform my appreciation of the film.
Mr A-B you complain what do the four basic elements have to contribute to the story I can only say huh? QoS was a film that had at its core a plot to control natural resources. Last time I checked they all comprise of the 4 basic elements. So I would say that there is a solid basis to Forster's vision.

Oh, really??!! I think the plot comprise only water (and perhaps oil, if you stretch it), but it isn't about any natural resource. And when fire has been a natural resorce??

?!?!?!?!?! Fire is both natural and a resource that is harnessed by humanity!!! Therefore it's a natural resource. QED
C'mon Mr A-B don't be argumentative for the sake of it!!!
Either way the four elements is an Aristotlean notion about causality and balance which relates, I guess, to notions of balance and order within the universe. Again it can work for Bond.

Well, if you stretch enough your imagination, almost anything could work for Bond. But then you could go for a somewhat forced interpretations.

Not quite as forced as your attempt to deride a well-considered idea expressed by Forster, Mr A-B!
You can always go too far with interpretations to be sure, but I think Forster has developed a mise en scene that suits the plot's main concerns.
BTW I would have thought imagination is crucial for both director and viewer alike!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 March 2009 - 10:15 AM.

[MarkA]

I was at that talk last week and even though I am not one of QOS greatest fans by any means, he came across as a really humble and grateful person. Also his knowledge of Bond was pretty proficient. He mentioned and recognized the contributions Terence Young and Peter Hunt to the series and singled out OHMSS as one of his favorite films much to the surprise of the interviewee you seem to think Bond fans disliked that film.

[blueman]

Not surprised Forster likes OHMSS.

[001carus]

I've always wondered about the rule he mentioned "...we don’t want Bond to kill anybody innocent."

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. If that were the case, wouldn't Bond have stopped to help that woman during the Palio chase???

1. She didn't die
2. If she did, Bond wouldn't have killed her, Mitchell would have.

Apart from the car chase, for which I can't recall what kind of innocent lives were caught up in (I know some would have died, surely), I'm quite sure Bond did not hurt or kill any innocent lives during his Quantum run.

[BoogieBond]

He is not ruling out doing another Bond(Might do a Martin Campbell and come back after a few). From the article looks as though he had a lot of Autonomy once the script was done, this is good, that the word is out, and that other directors will be looking at a Bond film, and thinking , yeah, good challenge, this can only be good for the series, to get skilled directors on board. The Crew for me associated with Bond have always been top notch, just sometimes the scriptwriters and directors for some of the Bonds just did not work, with a skilled director and Paul Haggis at hand, I am sure Bond 23 will be top notch.

[Pierce - Daniel]

The interesting thing is....Forster who seemed against the idea of Bond 23...seems open to it...maybe the mixed reception of the film isn't doing his career any favors...the producers tend to offer the director gig to the guy who last did it, he has first refusual on it, so if Babs and Mikey went back to Marc, there is a real possibility that Forster would take on another. Remember Campbell was offered all Bond films after GE but turned them all down till CR, so really it was a matter of time before he returned. Spottiswoode has said he turned down the TWINE, but I've read reports that he wasn't even offered it after falling out with the prods on the film. Apted was said to have offered and accepted the Bond 20 gig but MGM weren't impressed with TWINE and didn't think he was up to doing the sequel. I doubt Tamahori was asked to return, even Babs and Mikey can't fool themselves, DAD sucked.
Forster seems most likely to go back to Bond. I'll bet money on a 2011 release after he does another smaller film inbetween.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Wouldn't mind betting Forster will return sometime in the future....

[Zorin Industries]

The interesting thing is....Forster who seemed against the idea of Bond 23...seems open to it...maybe the mixed reception of the film isn't doing his career any favors...the producers tend to offer the director gig to the guy who last did it, he has first refusual on it, so if Babs and Mikey went back to Marc, there is a real possibility that Forster would take on another. Remember Campbell was offered all Bond films after GE but turned them all down till CR, so really it was a matter of time before he returned. Spottiswoode has said he turned down the TWINE, but I've read reports that he wasn't even offered it after falling out with the prods on the film. Apted was said to have offered and accepted the Bond 20 gig but MGM weren't impressed with TWINE and didn't think he was up to doing the sequel. I doubt Tamahori was asked to return, even Babs and Mikey can't fool themselves, DAD sucked.
Forster seems most likely to go back to Bond. I'll bet money on a 2011 release after he does another smaller film inbetween.

What was "said" and what actually happened in these matters are very different.

And since when did SOLACE get a "mixed reception"? On CBN maybe but not elsewhere. Let's just see what twenty years does for QUANTUM OF SOLACE....