76 replies to this topic

[R. Dittmar]

This is probably coming extremely late to the discussion, but I am truly amazed at how much that was confusing about QOS in the theater is completely obvious on the small screen. I saw QOS no fewer than 3 times in the theater and I could never quite explain what happened at the end of the boat chase. I was watching the movie on my laptop on the train ride home today and it was as clear as could be what happened.

See how this sounds. Bond throws his boat into full stop/reverse and the pursuing boat runs up over his stern. The pilot of the pursuing boat throws his engine into full reverse so that he can back up off of Bond's boat. Bond tosses some kind of grappling hook or gaffe into the prow of the pursuing boat and pushes it off into the water. The boat is in full reverse so it backs up at full speed until the hook pulls it up short and causes it to flip over. That’s really all that there is to it.

There’s a Ph.D. thesis on perception in this I tells ya’! Me unfrozen caveman Bond fan! Your big screens and quick flashing images confuse and frighten me! Small screen! Vision focused! Brain is clear!

[MajorB]

But isn't there a shot showing the other end of the rope that's attached to the hook unwinding and then just disappearing out of Bond's boat--in other words, showing that it's not actually attached to anything? That's the part I (and I think many others) can't work out.

After going through it frame by frame, my best guess--improbable though it seems to me--is that Bond throws the hook into the baddies' boat; one of the baddies hurries to the front of the boat to free the hook, thereby shifting a lot of weight to the bow; Bond then shoves the baddies' boat away, and because it's now front-heavy, its bow plows into the water and its stern flips up over.

Mind you, I don't know that this makes any sense. But it's the only interpretation I can put on what's onscreen.

[MattofSteel]

Nice attempt, Dittmar, but the shot of the rope rapidly retracting prior to the rear boat moving debunks your theory, I think.

I'm not sure about the front-loaded weight either, MajorB. The zodiac/inflatable is already carrying two 200 pound men. The hook is obviously light enough for Bond to throw with one hand. It doesn't add enough weight to suddenly push down the bow. I think the filmmaker's intention was clearly that the bow gets hooked and caught on something (very cool), and they forgot to include what that "thing" was (not cool at all).

[byline]

I think you're right, MattofSteel. I've also read another theory that the hook punctured the inflatable, and the sudden escape of air pressure caused it to go flying like a balloon. However, it looks and sounds to me like the hook catches on a very solid surface; we hear a clanging sound as it hits the floor and rattles into place. So my thought was that it caught on the metal frame of the inflatable. Then Bond sped away, flipping the inflatable. But, as you point out, there's no connecting shot showing what the hook was attached to, causing the inflatable to flip. I used to think it was somehow attached to Bond's boat, but I can't imagine that his boat could have flipped the other without causing serious damage to Bond's boat.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Perhaps they wanted the sound to fill it in (i.e. the clanging sound)?

[Craig is 007]

The hook punctures the boat, which causes it to flip backwards. It's as simple as that.

[MajorB]

Nice attempt, Dittmar, but the shot of the rope rapidly retracting prior to the rear boat moving debunks your theory, I think.

I'm not sure about the front-loaded weight either, MajorB. The zodiac/inflatable is already carrying two 200 pound men. The hook is obviously light enough for Bond to throw with one hand. It doesn't add enough weight to suddenly push down the bow. I think the filmmaker's intention was clearly that the bow gets hooked and caught on something (very cool), and they forgot to include what that "thing" was (not cool at all).

I may not have explained myself clearly--the front-loading would have been from the baddie hurrying forward to get the hook out of the boat, not from the weight of the hook itself. But since, as you point out, there was another baddie further back in the boat, it's hard to see how that would do the trick. Like I said, I don't necessarily believe it, but it was my best guess about what was intended.

[Colonel Moon]

It just cant be explained, its a movie mistake.
They just didnt put enough time in planning that action sequence, simple as that

[Sigma7]

It just cant be explained, its a movie mistake.
They just didnt put enough time in planning that action sequence, simple as that

Aye aye, i agree, a crap Bond movie appears, when the "powers that be" dont give the whole thing a second thought. Whoops, I actually cant stand QOS, i thought i would warm more to it on DVD, but really the movie is a complete mess.

[MattofSteel]

We could always consider the fact that perhaps Forster was mandated to have fast editing and incoherent action, to "amp up the excitement for the young crowd," and that he deliberately shot and edited the boat chase finale to make no sense so as to critique the entire technique.

Or, not.

Wilson said in an interview with the Toronto Star that the only two action sequences supervised entirely by Forster (IE no Bradley or Simon Crane) were the Slate fight and the Perla des las Dunas fight. Both are cool, filled with Bond-isms and personality, and entirely coherent on the screen. Hmm.

[byline]

We could always consider the fact that perhaps Forster was mandated to have fast editing and incoherent action, to "amp up the excitement for the young crowd," and that he deliberately shot and edited the boat chase finale to make no sense so as to critique the entire technique.

Or, not.

Wilson said in an interview with the Toronto Star that the only two action sequences supervised entirely by Forster (IE no Bradley or Simon Crane) were the Slate fight and the Perla des las Dunas fight. Both are cool, filled with Bond-isms and personality, and entirely coherent on the screen. Hmm.

Ah, ha! The plot thickens.

I agree with you that those are the two best action sequences in the film, and Forster did a superb job with them. The flash-editing and extreme-closeup filming techniques used in the other action sequences did them a disservice, IMO. They're not completely incoherent, but I don't think they came together quite the way they needed to, to really put us in the moment with Bond, as seemed to be the intent. Visually, it worked, but for me, emotionally it didn't. I got far more in the moment during the free-running chase in "Casino Royale" than I did for most of the action sequences in this film. It's a stylistic choice, and while I admire it, it didn't work as well for me as I would've liked.

[MattofSteel]

Now it's my turn to agree with you. I think that's the overall problem with this style of shooting action - it has the opposite effect of it's intention by inadvertantly removing the sequence of tension. The African rundown, for example, is filled with iconic moment after iconic moment that never lacks for danger or excitement. Siena is the closest sequence in Quantum, but goes by so damned fast you never have time to feel scared - the next part of the sequence is already starting, so you know Bond made it out of the first before your brain can even process how!

Perfect example was the bus jump. It took until my 6th viewing to realize "oh, Bond ended up on the far side of the street with his first jump and had to get back." First few times I saw it, I had absolutely no idea why he jumped onto the bus.

Action can be fast, it can be close, it can be intense - but you need time to appreciate the danger. Otherwise, it's just a cacophony. It feels rushed. Quantum suffers from that. Which is a shame, because if the action had been shot with more of an Alex Witt/Martin Campbell sensibility, I think a lot of people would have completely overlooked deficiencies of script and awarded Quantum the label of a perfectly satisfactory and entertaining Bond.

[stamper]

One of my friend actually interviewed the whole staff responsible for the stunts, including Dan Bradley, and I can confirm it's all the director's fault and not the second unit. They all shot these sequences to be long sequences, he just hacked them off in the editing suite because he was basically an incompetent who blame incompetence on others.
For example, in the car chase, there was an extra car for the baddies, that almost crushed Bond car at one point. He just hacked off the scene, and they had to erase the third car digitally in all the shots just because Mr Bald Man had a fit over it. I have the picture to go with it (it's even somewhere on the web) as proof.

[byline]

One of my friend actually interviewed the whole staff responsible for the stunts, including Dan Bradley, and I can confirm it's all the director's fault and not the second unit. They all shot these sequences to be long sequences, he just hacked them off in the editing suite because he was basically an incompetent who blame incompetence on others.
For example, in the car chase, there was an extra car for the baddies, that almost crushed Bond car at one point. He just hacked off the scene, and they had to erase the third car digitally in all the shots just because Mr Bald Man had a fit over it. I have the picture to go with it (it's even somewhere on the web) as proof.

If true, then that's sad, indeed. (Not saying it's false, just that knowing what is fact, fiction, informed opinion, pure speculation or some combination of all four is hard to pin down on the Internet.) However, I wonder if it really is incompetence, or just a stylistic choice (for better or worse) on Forster's part. After all, if he wasn't qualified to edit those scenes, then how/why did he do such a good job on the others?

[MajorB]

Now it's my turn to agree with you. I think that's the overall problem with this style of shooting action - it has the opposite effect of it's intention by inadvertantly removing the sequence of tension. The African rundown, for example, is filled with iconic moment after iconic moment that never lacks for danger or excitement. Siena is the closest sequence in Quantum, but goes by so damned fast you never have time to feel scared - the next part of the sequence is already starting, so you know Bond made it out of the first before your brain can even process how!

Perfect example was the bus jump. It took until my 6th viewing to realize "oh, Bond ended up on the far side of the street with his first jump and had to get back." First few times I saw it, I had absolutely no idea why he jumped onto the bus.

Action can be fast, it can be close, it can be intense - but you need time to appreciate the danger. Otherwise, it's just a cacophony. It feels rushed. Quantum suffers from that. Which is a shame, because if the action had been shot with more of an Alex Witt/Martin Campbell sensibility, I think a lot of people would have completely overlooked deficiencies of script and awarded Quantum the label of a perfectly satisfactory and entertaining Bond.

This is a brilliant capsulization of the issue. I salute you, MattofSteel! In MajorB's Imaginary Perfect World, this explanation would be magically added to every thread on this board that has discussed the editing. Bravo!

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

There’s a Ph.D. thesis on perception in this I tells ya’! Me unfrozen caveman Bond fan! Your big screens and quick flashing images confuse and frighten me! Small screen! Vision focused! Brain is clear!

All this obviously doesn't happend in GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, Casino Royale and all the rest of the films

[byline]

Perfect example was the bus jump. It took until my 6th viewing to realize "oh, Bond ended up on the far side of the street with his first jump and had to get back." First few times I saw it, I had absolutely no idea why he jumped onto the bus.

Wow. I'm closing in on my 20th viewing, and until I read your explanation, I never did get that. It didn't bug me, really; I just accepted the scene as is and didn't question the multiple jumps. I knew Bond had to get somewhere to catch up with Mitchell; I just didn't pinpoint where, exactly. Hmmmm. . . .

[Mr. Blofeld]

From the get-go, I like Craig's reactions during the car chase; he swiftly goes from "slightly unnerved by this" to "gotta ignore this truck impaling my wheel-well" to "okay, dammit, FVCK! I've had enough, okay, just stop it!" to "eat lead, prycks!"

As for stamper, I think we can all safely say that he's a weee bit biased against "Mr. Bald Man", as he terms him...

[MattofSteel]

One of my friend actually interviewed the whole staff responsible for the stunts, including Dan Bradley, and I can confirm it's all the director's fault and not the second unit. They all shot these sequences to be long sequences, he just hacked them off in the editing suite because he was basically an incompetent who blame incompetence on others.
For example, in the car chase, there was an extra car for the baddies, that almost crushed Bond car at one point. He just hacked off the scene, and they had to erase the third car digitally in all the shots just because Mr Bald Man had a fit over it. I have the picture to go with it (it's even somewhere on the web) as proof.

Your obvious bias aside, I wouldn't have trouble believing this. We know there was originally a third car, yes, and we also know some elaborate stunt with the Aston on two wheels was filmed, and cut. Utter shame.

I can go with the fact that the editing is largely responsible. People seem anxious to jump on Bradley, myself often times included. But if you really just watch his work in the film closely, his angles, camera movement, shot subject and frame composition - his direction really is probably the best he's ever done. There are some truly iconic shots there, some truly memorable images that are both quintessential Bond and yet pure Dan Bradley.

Seems to be the overarching problem many have with the film. By the time you want to notice them, they're already gone.

[Mr. Blofeld]

People seem anxious to jump on Bradley, myself often times included. But if you really just watch his work in the film closely, his angles, camera movement, shot subject and frame composition - his direction really is probably the best he's ever done. There are some truly iconic shots there, some truly memorable images that are both quintessential Bond and yet pure Dan Bradley.

I agree; just look at the shot of the car careening off the cliff. DAMN!!! :tup:

It seems Marc Forster and Dan Bradley go well together, whereas Paul Greengrass and Dan Bradley... well, the less said, the better.

[MattofSteel]

Now it's my turn to agree with you. I think that's the overall problem with this style of shooting action - it has the opposite effect of it's intention by inadvertantly removing the sequence of tension. The African rundown, for example, is filled with iconic moment after iconic moment that never lacks for danger or excitement. Siena is the closest sequence in Quantum, but goes by so damned fast you never have time to feel scared - the next part of the sequence is already starting, so you know Bond made it out of the first before your brain can even process how!

Perfect example was the bus jump. It took until my 6th viewing to realize "oh, Bond ended up on the far side of the street with his first jump and had to get back." First few times I saw it, I had absolutely no idea why he jumped onto the bus.

Action can be fast, it can be close, it can be intense - but you need time to appreciate the danger. Otherwise, it's just a cacophony. It feels rushed. Quantum suffers from that. Which is a shame, because if the action had been shot with more of an Alex Witt/Martin Campbell sensibility, I think a lot of people would have completely overlooked deficiencies of script and awarded Quantum the label of a perfectly satisfactory and entertaining Bond.

This is a brilliant capsulization of the issue. I salute you, MattofSteel! In MajorB's Imaginary Perfect World, this explanation would be magically added to every thread on this board that has discussed the editing. Bravo!

Thanks. I think that's honestly the only real shame about the film. I look at Bond movies as far more an amalgam of their elements and my ratings/judgements have always come from that point of view. Great production design in a Bond, something that really transports me, can save a bad script and - for me - equate a good Bond film. Die Another Day is arguably one of the worst Bond films, and yet I love Arnold's score, etc. I think a lot of people stop at the final product and its presentation as a measure of judging the Bond films - and it's totally their right to do so, and perhaps even the most appropriate way. But I guess for me, I can get past one defunct element because I'm enough of a hardcore fan that a Bond film is more of an experience for me.

That being said, yeah, I would love Hollywood to get past the idea that just because a lot of people went to see the Bourne Supremacy (and rightfully so, it's a great movie!), fast and close = exciting. It doesn't.

[9007]

I get the feeling that the action in QOS is Forsters attempt to reflect Bond's state of mind during the film, i thought this was especially apparent in the car chase, everything is very frenetic, Bond is just maintaining his control on the situation, he has to make all these split second decisions. This seems to carry on thoughout the movie.

As for the boat chase, the Zodiac has mounted Bond's boat, Bond throws the anchor into the front of the Zodiac and turns off, the zodiac falls pulling the anchor taught, the zodiac is punctured leading it to fly first into the sky from the puncture and sudden decelleration. That's what I saw, anyway.

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

As for the boat chase, the Zodiac has mounted Bond's boat, Bond throws the anchor into the front of the Zodiac and turns off, the zodiac falls pulling the anchor taught, the zodiac is punctured leading it to fly first into the sky from the puncture and sudden decelleration. That's what I saw, anyway.

Well... that's the better explanation we've got at this time. Well done. This scene is a real problem for me.

[stamper]

You know the worst of this ? When it comes to by the minute price, QOS is the costliest movie ever made.

They spent months shooting rooftop chases, car chases, boat chases, that were structured, and told a story, and millions of bucks were spent, all this to end up being 57 second of screen time that make no sense just because the director think he can outbourne Greengrass. What a total waste.

No wonder Wilson wants to rest. This director made a fool of the whole stunt team, and the whole production, only being saved by the fact that a 100mn movie made more screening a day and thus out numbered CR at the box office.

[MattofSteel]

As for the boat chase, the Zodiac has mounted Bond's boat, Bond throws the anchor into the front of the Zodiac and turns off, the zodiac falls pulling the anchor taught, the zodiac is punctured leading it to fly first into the sky from the puncture and sudden decelleration. That's what I saw, anyway.

That would be a great solution. And visually cool. But Bond doesn't turn anything, the anchor goes taught before the zodiac falls.

I'm not trying to argue against all the explanations - I'm on the side now that there just, plain, isn't one.

[Tarl_Cabot]

the boat chase has really grown on me.

[Judo chop]

the boat chase has really grown on me.

And it's really groan on me. Even the moments on the pier between Greene and Camille fall flat for me. Aside from Greene's "ants under my skin" line (which I love) the whole sequence feels very dry. Information is communicated, and motives are established, but all very dryly. It needs more 'ants'. More juicy acting.

After capping the dialogue off with 3 minutes of 'action' (which amounts to just 'noise'), the whole chapter is the worst stretch of time in the film. I really don't look forward to it. I just want to get Bond off that boat and on that plane.

[byline]

Even the moments on the pier between Greene and Camille fall flat for me. Aside from Greene's "ants under my skin" line (which I love) the whole sequence feels very dry. Information is communicated, and motives are established, but all very dryly. It needs more 'ants'. More juicy acting.

I disagree. For me, there's a fair bit of juicy acting. I especially enjoy the look on Camille's face when Greene tells the bit about Gen. Medrano. We see the first look of real passion on her face (or, for that matter, anyone else's), but we don't fully realize why till a few minutes later, when he tells her he was the last to see her family alive. I found that whole sequence fascinating.

Edited by byline, 17 April 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Definitely some phenomenal acting in that scene. Amalric is really milking his entrance. But I think the intention from the script was clearly a sort of dangerous, greasy double-cross that just doesn't come across as threatening in the film.

Plus, they sort of unexpectedly outline the plot of the entire movie in that one scene. And it's another scene in the film where Bond spends a lot of time...watching. The audience isn't really aware of what his intentions, or his plan are. Now some of us might think that's cool, realistic, and ultimately contributes to his character in such a way as to satisfy Fleming's edict. But I can understand why a general audience would have a problem with it.

I personally think Greene's 'lyre' joke is one of the funnier villain lines in recent films. And I got it. But it's almost like...the film itself doesn't even realize he's joking...

[Mr. Blofeld]

I personally think Greene's 'lyre' joke is one of the funnier villain lines in recent films. And I got it. But it's almost like...the film itself doesn't even realize he's joking...

Lyre joke? Where was that in the scene?