141 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

...or when people have become used to non-glacial editing...when the older fans no longer post and the 10-25 year olds (who don't have a problem with the editing en mass) take over the bulk of the posting on forums like these.

As per the synth comment...Sure synth was used but it certainly wasnt front and centre as in DAD and TWINE. Big difference. Orchestra was more appearent than synth in Quantum, for me at least. Plus the mandolin work when they were walking in the desert was very emotive. Wondeful. Certainly many cuts above the Lawrence Of Arabia cue used by Hamlish in TSWLM.

[Mr_Wint]

...or when people have become used to non-glacial editing...when the older fans no longer post and the 10-25 year olds (who don't have a problem with the editing en mass) take over the bulk of the posting on forums like these.

Sounds like Armageddon to me.

[clublos]

Does anyone remember a comment by Peter Hunt describing the editing of Dr. No? If I recall, he said that he and Terence Young wanted to create a "new" editing style for that film, something original that hadn't been seen before; something current and modern. Hence the jump-cuts and quick cuts between the punches and movements across the screen.

I believe that Forster was perhaps going for something similar: a new, unique editing style reflecting a modern, updated cinematic experience. Imagine what the old-timers were saying back when Dr. No came out, and think about what some folks are saying now. This is a different style that has polarized many fans but has a very specific story-relevant theme.

For example, look at the cuts in London when Bond arrives at Mitchell's apartment. We don't have long, overly drawn-out shots of Bond stepping out of the vehicle, walking up to the door, entering the apartment, etc. While that editing worked extremely for an epic like Casino Royale, where a setting and mood was needed, here Bond is obsessed and determined. He's focused on one goal and one outcome: solace, which he doesn't know how to achieve. Therefore, he's driven to mow down and punish anyone and any thing that gets in his way. The editing serves the story as to assist the viewer in experiencing his drive and thoughtless motivations. There's no time for exposition and long-winded landscape shots. Bond could care less about that, he has a goal.

Casino Royale was great and truly epic in establishing Bond's world and creating a mood and atmosphere of style and glamor. For Quantum of Solace, none of that is needed as Bond couldn't care less or be bothered with any of it.

I would assume, with the next film, Eon might balance the two styles and present us with serene vistas and modern editing.

[The Shark]

The thing I hate about the editing in Quantum of Solace is the nauseating metronomic regularity to the cuts, where it becomes so predictable that you can guess exactly the beat where the next cut occurs.

Hunt mastered the opposite of this - unpredictable intuitive cutting, far more organic and natural than the sterile editing in Quantum of Solace. You never know when the next will occur and the editing matches the action not the other way round.

[MattofSteel]

Does anyone remember a comment by Peter Hunt describing the editing of Dr. No? If I recall, he said that he and Terence Young wanted to create a "new" editing style for that film, something original that hadn't been seen before; something current and modern. Hence the jump-cuts and quick cuts between the punches and movements across the screen.

I believe that Forster was perhaps going for something similar: a new, unique editing style reflecting a modern, updated cinematic experience. Imagine what the old-timers were saying back when Dr. No came out, and think about what some folks are saying now. This is a different style that has polarized many fans but has a very specific story-relevant theme.

For example, look at the cuts in London when Bond arrives at Mitchell's apartment. We don't have long, overly drawn-out shots of Bond stepping out of the vehicle, walking up to the door, entering the apartment, etc. While that editing worked extremely for an epic like Casino Royale, where a setting and mood was needed, here Bond is obsessed and determined. He's focused on one goal and one outcome: solace, which he doesn't know how to achieve. Therefore, he's driven to mow down and punish anyone and any thing that gets in his way. The editing serves the story as to assist the viewer in experiencing his drive and thoughtless motivations. There's no time for exposition and long-winded landscape shots. Bond could care less about that, he has a goal.

Casino Royale was great and truly epic in establishing Bond's world and creating a mood and atmosphere of style and glamor. For Quantum of Solace, none of that is needed as Bond couldn't care less or be bothered with any of it.

I would assume, with the next film, Eon might balance the two styles and present us with serene vistas and modern editing.

I agree completely - I've always seen this comparison too, and not just with the editing, but the film as a WHOLE. It's about whether you think the new Bond films should imitate or emulate the old ones. Emulation, I believe, is the answer to keep the franchise going. CR was almost imitation, and I loved that for it, because it came at just the right time. But we can't have it EVERY time.

Idea of a balance, or happy medium, strikes me fine. Even Quantum was somewhat of a balanced compromise (from the Opera onward is rather conventional). But a SLIGHT tipping of the hat back toward the conventional might be due.

[Judo chop]

There's no time for exposition and long-winded landscape shots. Bond could care less about that, he has a goal.

=

There is something horribly efficient about you.

[HildebrandRarity]

There were some epic shots in Quantum like the walking in the desert to the bus, the long shot where where Greene is left, the shot of the large lizard moving around a rock under the burning sun, the shot of Bond meeting the old man at the airstrip, the opera establishing scenes.

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

There were some epic shots in Quantum like the walking in the desert to the bus, the long shot where where Greene is left, the shot of the large lizard moving around a rock under the burning sun, the shot of Bond meeting the old man at the airstrip, the opera establishing scenes.

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

That is a very interesting point, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind the next time I pop the film into the DVD-player.

[Tybre]

There were some epic shots in Quantum like the walking in the desert to the bus, the long shot where where Greene is left, the shot of the large lizard moving around a rock under the burning sun, the shot of Bond meeting the old man at the airstrip, the opera establishing scenes.

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

I never noticed the editing becoming less frantic. Was just more involved with the film. I'll try to pay more attention next time I'm in a Solace kind of mood.

[MattofSteel]

There were some epic shots in Quantum like the walking in the desert to the bus, the long shot where where Greene is left, the shot of the large lizard moving around a rock under the burning sun, the shot of Bond meeting the old man at the airstrip, the opera establishing scenes.

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

I agree with this, too - and also that I can't believe it went past some people.

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

[The Shark]

I don't think frantic poorly put together metronomic editing ever works for a film, but there's my opinion.

Campbell didn't need to do that to achieve the brilliantly shot and edited "poisoning" scene in Casino Royale.

[HildebrandRarity]

Poisoning is supposed to be a frenetic, action packed experience? Blimey.

Here is what I wrote last year - on November 17th - in my review of Q0S about editing echoing Bond's confusion at the begining:

"Bond's confusion under little rest gets elevated as he finds out that Vesper’s Algerian boyfriend’s death has been fabricated and that the mystery organization does indeed have people “everywhere”. And when we get to the climax of the foot chase – sumptuously and attentively juxtaposed against the proceedings of the Palio di Siena cultural and sporting event - the editors and director engage in blisteringly fast cutting to echo these sentiments as Bond dangles upside down (literally and figuratively) in another desperate attempt to get to his ‘armour’ and blow Mitchell into oblivion."

The whole review is here:

http://debrief.comma...p...t=0&start=0

[Santa]

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

Oooh, careful there Matt, you're teetering on the edge of 'utterly pretentious'.

[MattofSteel]

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

Oooh, careful there Matt, you're teetering on the edge of 'utterly pretentious'.

Ha, maybe. I wasn't trying to be! I think it's an honest question, and responsible for some of the divide on opinion re: QOS. It depends TOTALLY on how you watch, and enjoy, movies. And more specifically - whether you'd prefer to stay in your comfort zone (I'm not arguing against this, necessarily) or have the brand challenged and stretched to keep it fresh, relevant, and given some depth.

Believe me, if they made every film from here on out a stylistic imitation of Casino Royale - I'd still be first in line to see it. I'm a Bond "purist" at heart (whatever that means now). I'm just not sure it's healthy for the franchise.

[rb1harpo]

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.


I wonder why he wasn't in anywhere near that state of mind in Casino Royale. So that's how you explain the editing? How do you explain the jerky, shaky, unfocused camerawork during the action sequences? When I pay to see a Bond film, I want to see it, not just hear the action. Why don't we just admit that they were trying to copy the Bourne films, the producers of which can simulate putting an equivalent product to a Bond film on screen without the cash outlay by this choppy MTV editing which conceals so much.

[The Shark]

Poisoning is supposed to be a frenetic, action packed experience? Blimey.

Ventricular Tachycardia is - with Bond's heart pounding at 120 bps, far more than it ever did during the QOS car chase.

Still, what I find most odd, is the abrupt almost bipolar change from the classically cool, practically Connery-esque demeanour that Craig displays in the final scene of CR, signalling to us that the Bond we know and love has returned, suddenly become a paranoid stiff in a suit at the beginning of Quantum of Solace.
Never mind the different suit, this is an even weirder inconsistency.

And no, I don't find the editing of Quantum of Solace to be relevant. How can something be relevant when you can't even discern what's going on or the overall geography of a scene (without watching the film several times)?

Forster's approach seems to be Function following Form, me I prefer Form following Function.

Edited by The Shark, 12 August 2009 - 09:39 PM.

[Judo chop]

Still, what I find most odd, is the abrupt almost bipolar change from the classically cool, practically Connery-esque demeanour that Craig displays in the final scene of CR, signalling to us that the Bond we know and love has returned, suddenly become a paranoid stiff in a suit at the beginning of Quantum of Solace.

I don’t know that I’d describe his QOS persona as a ‘paranoid stiff in a suit’ but I certainly understand him not flaunting the cool swagger in QOS.

He simply doesn’t have time to swagger. QOS does not provide an environment conducive to swaggering. But the next one will, I bet...

[DaveBond21]

Tomorrow Never Dies could be regarded as his best but he was fully channelling Barry in it. It's safe to say he was channelling Barry less so in CR and Q0S...but then Barry is synonymous with The James Bond 'Sound' so it would be hard not to have some Barry in a 007 film.

Indeed. David Arnold has said himself that he put everything into the TND score, just in case he never got to do a Bond movie again.

[Double-Oh Agent]

'I wanted to create that opening to be very disorientating...'

Well, you succeeded but I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

I totally agree. This further cements my thinking that Marc Forster is one of the worst directors of the series (only Michael Apted is worse) and simultaneously makes me a little more accepting of Dan Bradley as a second unit director. The shaky cam, super-quick editing was a terrible decision. It's hard to like a film when you can't see or follow what the hell is going on. I don't see how anyone can't understand that.

Forster did have a couple of good ideas such as keeping David Arnold and having the footchase end with the characters falling through the ceiling and battling on ropes; but his negative contributions to the film such as the aforementioned editing and hiring MK12 instead of Daniel Kleinman, not to mention the Elvis fiasco, completely overshadow them.

[HildebrandRarity]

Poisoning is supposed to be a frenetic, action packed experience? Blimey.

Ventricular Tachycardia is - with Bond's heart pounding at 120 bps, far more than it ever did during the QOS car chase.

Still, what I find most odd, is the abrupt almost bipolar change from the classically cool, practically Connery-esque demeanour that Craig displays in the final scene of CR, signalling to us that the Bond we know and love has returned, suddenly become a paranoid stiff in a suit at the beginning of Quantum of Solace.
Never mind the different suit, this is an even weirder inconsistency.

Complete rubbish!

At the end of CR, Bond (rightly) felt like a king...In his mind he had the enemy almost kissing his feet. It was a moment of perceived triump for him.

At the begining of Q0S, however, the situation changes 180 on a dime/very quickly...Bond learns that Vesper's boyfriend's death was fabricated, that the supposed ring leader (at his feet at CR's ending) was likely only a pawn in a much bigger organization, that M's bodyguard was a plant and a traitor...all within 2 minutes. Who wouldn't be paranoid at such quick relevations?

As for the suit, I suppose you forgot that they switched to Tom Ford? Such minor nit-picking is pure pettyness.

I find I have no time for smart people who chose to act silly just so they can get a rise out of others!

I'm outta here!

[Santa]

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

Oooh, careful there Matt, you're teetering on the edge of 'utterly pretentious'.

Ha, maybe. I wasn't trying to be! I think it's an honest question, and responsible for some of the divide on opinion re: QOS. It depends TOTALLY on how you watch, and enjoy, movies. And more specifically - whether you'd prefer to stay in your comfort zone (I'm not arguing against this, necessarily) or have the brand challenged and stretched to keep it fresh, relevant, and given some depth.

Believe me, if they made every film from here on out a stylistic imitation of Casino Royale - I'd still be first in line to see it. I'm a Bond "purist" at heart (whatever that means now). I'm just not sure it's healthy for the franchise.

Oh come on! We're talking about a womanising superspy who thinks nothing of spontaneously stopping and starting his own heart or leaping from tall buildings. How's that for a bit of 'honesty about its material'? I'm not saying I want all my Bond films as shallow as a puddle but I can't quite believe another Bond film has made me appreciate DAD. In fact, right now, if someone gave me a choice between:
a) Being dragged into the dingy lair of the Loomis and being forced to watch DAD multiple times while my tormentor performs a tribal dance around me, all the while chanting 'Yo Momma' until I cave in and tell him I'll join his DAD support group and that I love it even more than chocolate,

OR

Settling into a comfy sofa with a big tub of ice-cream to watch QoS just one more time,

I wouldn't even have to think too hard about it, I'd go for option A. My only real gripe upon first viewing of QoS was the editing, which I found very annoying and detracted from the film hugely - how can you sink into the story if you're constantly having to rub your eyes and shake your head? The thing is, over time, this rationalising of the editing style by various members here has actually turned me against it even more. To the point where I can even see some good in DAD! Seriously, what's happening here?! I feel like my whole world has turned upside down. I dare not go out in case the sky is green and the grass is blue. I certainly daren't look in a mirror in case I've sprouted facial hair and a third eye in my forehead. Mark Forster, it's all your fault.

[Mr_Wint]

Poisoning is supposed to be a frenetic, action packed experience? Blimey.

Ventricular Tachycardia is - with Bond's heart pounding at 120 bps, far more than it ever did during the QOS car chase.

Still, what I find most odd, is the abrupt almost bipolar change from the classically cool, practically Connery-esque demeanour that Craig displays in the final scene of CR, signalling to us that the Bond we know and love has returned, suddenly become a paranoid stiff in a suit at the beginning of Quantum of Solace.
Never mind the different suit, this is an even weirder inconsistency.

Complete rubbish!

At the end of CR, Bond (rightly) felt like a king...In his mind he had the enemy almost kissing his feet. It was a moment of perceived triump for him.

At the begining of Q0S, however, the situation changes 180 on a dime/very quickly...Bond learns that Vesper's boyfriend's death was fabricated, that the supposed ring leader (at his feat at CR's ending) was likely only a pawn in a much bigger organization, that M's bodyguard was a plant and a traitor...all within 2 minutes. Who wouldn't be paranoid at such quick relevations?

As for the suit, I suppose you forgot that they switched to Tom Ford? Such minor nit-picking is pure pettyness.

I can't handle stupidity. I find I have no time for stupid people and even less time for smart people who act stupid!

As for minor nit-picking, why Q0S instead of QOS? It is not Quantum Zero Solace (although that title might perhaps be more fitting for the actual film).

[Judo chop]

Still, what I find most odd, is the abrupt almost bipolar change from the classically cool, practically Connery-esque demeanour that Craig displays in the final scene of CR, signalling to us that the Bond we know and love has returned, suddenly become a paranoid stiff in a suit at the beginning of Quantum of Solace.

Another thought that just occurred... I think Bond has that cool, Connery-esque demeanor when he opens the boot to reveal Mr. White. Like HildebrandRarity said, before he went spastic, the events that follow that scene unravel everything for Bond.

[DamnCoffee]

Bonds character in Quantum of Solace is among the more positive aspects of the movie. I don't have any gripes with Craig at all. The only things that let the movie down, are the bad editing, running time and lack of character development. If all of these were included, we would've had a winner.

[clublos]

I think we can agree that the editing of the film is an artistic style that is purely subjective to the viewer. One either likes it or they do not.

Think of it like writing. A writer could use first-person point of view to convey a personal feeling to the reader. Or, if a writer wanted the reader to feel stuffy with his or her nose up in the air, they would write like Jim.

However, we can (should) accept why it was done and share our opinions without being accused of being wrong.

[DamnCoffee]

I think we can agree that the editing of the film is an artistic style that is purely subjective to the viewer. One either likes it or they do not.

I have to say, though. I can appreciate what Forster was trying to do and he did introduce some pretty damn good shots. There's some lovely scenery in there somewhere, but it's only on screen for a millisecond. That's the problem I have with it.

[Judo chop]

"The shaky cam, super-quick editing" which bothers some people so much, was hit or miss, IMO. It's rather careless to simply throw one's hands up in the air and cry "I can't SEEEEE anything! THIS FILM SUCKS!!!" I am prone to say the editing is more miss than hit across the board, but it's definitely both, and it's definitely worth a person's time to stop and think about the editing in the film piece-by-piece.

It's a smash hit during the car chase. It's a little of both during the ensuing foot chase, better in some parts than others. It could have been a great hit during the boat chase, if only there was anything interesting happening. It's a hit during the action of Tosca, but a criminal miss during the slower moments.

After that, the editing becomes fairly standard for action fare.

[Loomis]

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

Oooh, careful there Matt, you're teetering on the edge of 'utterly pretentious'.

Ha, maybe. I wasn't trying to be! I think it's an honest question, and responsible for some of the divide on opinion re: QOS. It depends TOTALLY on how you watch, and enjoy, movies. And more specifically - whether you'd prefer to stay in your comfort zone (I'm not arguing against this, necessarily) or have the brand challenged and stretched to keep it fresh, relevant, and given some depth.

Believe me, if they made every film from here on out a stylistic imitation of Casino Royale - I'd still be first in line to see it. I'm a Bond "purist" at heart (whatever that means now). I'm just not sure it's healthy for the franchise.

Oh come on! We're talking about a womanising superspy who thinks nothing of spontaneously stopping and starting his own heart or leaping from tall buildings. How's that for a bit of 'honesty about its material'? I'm not saying I want all my Bond films as shallow as a puddle but I can't quite believe another Bond film has made me appreciate DAD. In fact, right now, if someone gave me a choice between:
a) Being dragged into the dingy lair of the Loomis and being forced to watch DAD multiple times while my tormentor performs a tribal dance around me, all the while chanting 'Yo Momma' until I cave in and tell him I'll join his DAD support group and that I love it even more than chocolate,

OR

Settling into a comfy sofa with a big tub of ice-cream to watch QoS just one more time,

I wouldn't even have to think too hard about it, I'd go for option A.

I know I'll never get you into Rambo, though. I've never met a woman who likes the Rambo films. They seem to be the most female-unfriendly flicks of all time. They're to women what SEX AND THE CITY is to men.... only I do know men who like SEX AND THE CITY - straight men, as well. No, show me a woman who likes Rambo and I'll show you a man in drag.

[Santa]

I know I'll never get you into Rambo, though. I've never met a woman who likes the Rambo films. They seem to be the most female-unfriendly flicks of all time. They're to women what SEX AND THE CITY is to men.... only I do know men who like SEX AND THE CITY - straight men, as well. No, show me a woman who likes Rambo and I'll show you a man in drag.

I've only seen one of the Rambos. I didn't mind it but it didn't particularly make me want to watch the others. I mean, I'd give them a go if I had nothing better to do. Sex & the City, meh.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The debate comes down to what's more important: the film's honesty about it's material, or its intent to please the audience? QoS honestly provides a tough call, to me. No one LIKES the fast editing, even if they tolerate it. But it's emotionally appropriate. Hmm.

Oooh, careful there Matt, you're teetering on the edge of 'utterly pretentious'.

Ha, maybe. I wasn't trying to be! I think it's an honest question, and responsible for some of the divide on opinion re: QOS. It depends TOTALLY on how you watch, and enjoy, movies. And more specifically - whether you'd prefer to stay in your comfort zone (I'm not arguing against this, necessarily) or have the brand challenged and stretched to keep it fresh, relevant, and given some depth.

Believe me, if they made every film from here on out a stylistic imitation of Casino Royale - I'd still be first in line to see it. I'm a Bond "purist" at heart (whatever that means now). I'm just not sure it's healthy for the franchise.

I'm not saying I want all my Bond films as shallow as a puddle.

My only real gripe upon first viewing of QoS was the editing, which I found very annoying and detracted from the film hugely - how can you sink into the story if you're constantly having to rub your eyes and shake your head? The thing is, over time, this rationalising of the editing style by various members here has actually turned me against it even more.

Totally agree. Except for the DAD part, I wouldn't go that far.