Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Marc Forster on Quantum of Solace; working with David Arnold


141 replies to this topic

#61 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:04 PM

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.

I disagree. I believe that the Brosnan's were the movies that tried- and very hard- to unshamefully imitate the old ones, whereas CR was the film that really emulate the old-fashioned style of the EON series, with its twist of the Bond formula. QOS, beyond the declared intentions of Forster and crew, was just an intent to be considered somewhat arthouse, just like the current trend in the genre promotes and dictates nowadays.

#62 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:11 PM

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.

Well, that's an interesting point, Judo chop, I would conceded that. However, the scene is way too short to completely convince me.

#63 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:11 PM

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.


My mom likes the Rambo films and doesn't like Sex and the City. B) you!

#64 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:15 PM

show me a woman who likes Rambo and I'll show you a man in drag.

My mom likes the Rambo films... B) you!

Shouldn't you wait until he's in drag first, Safari?

:tdown:

#65 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:24 PM

Perhaps he doesn't mind his men looking like, well, men. B)

#66 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 13 August 2009 - 11:36 PM

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.


I agree 100%. They went to some lovely places and then only showed us brief 2-second clips of them. I know what Forster was trying to do, and certainly the opening car chase and the Siena foot chase are very different style-wise to other Bond movie chases, but it had me harking back to the wonderful shot of the Kobe docks fight in YOLT, where a single shot captured so much more.

#67 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:49 PM

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! B)

I'm outta here!


Don't be such a drama queen. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone, merely challenging those relentlessly hold QOS up as some sort of cinematic masterpiece, who can't take a single hit to their beloved God.

Either way, you've mistaken. I'm not talking about the Siena chase, who's abrupt editing has some rational to it (not so much the pretentiously inconsequential cross-cuts to the spectators and horses, that seem to done for the sake of doing it, rather than any real parallel or contrast between the two events). Even still, I like fast fluid editing (as in FRWL, TB and OHMSS) - but here it's anything but fluid, and the shots are put together in an order that makes it incomprehensible (breaking the 30 degree and 180 degree basic rule of film frequently) and the cuts are metronomic in nature, devoid of variation in pace and fluidity - no breathing time.
I'm talking about the car chase. A hour or so ago, Bond was calm and relaxed, and ful y expecting some kind of armed response from Quantum after capturing one of their envoys/negotiators for interrogation.
However when Bond's in the tunnel, being chased at 70 miles per hour (something he should be used to by now) - he turns into a zombie version of himself, who looks about 20 years older, who hasn't had any sleep according to "Nanny M". Though there's no sign of this at the end of Casino Royale.

He also looks about 20 lbs thinner as well (far less Connery/Bond like than in CR), making him look like a different character, let alone a different film, adding to the inconsistency.

Another thought that just occurred... I think Bond has that cool, Connery-esque demeanor when he opens the boot to reveal Mr. White.


Nah, he's still the same skinny zombie in that shot.

The Shark.

Edited by The Shark, 14 August 2009 - 03:56 PM.


#68 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 14 August 2009 - 04:19 PM

Nah, he's still the same skinny zombie in that shot.

Wuh?

We were talking about Craig's demeanor and whether it was Connery-cool or Pierce-Paranoia, and now suddenly you're onto his physique. Talk about inconsistency.

#69 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2009 - 05:42 PM

Nah, he's still the same skinny zombie in that shot.

Wuh?

We were talking about Craig's demeanor and whether it was Connery-cool or Pierce-Paranoia, and now suddenly you're onto his physique. Talk about inconsistency.


Same thing, Connery's presence and demeanour wouldn't have been what it is if he was a skinny bloke.

#70 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 14 August 2009 - 05:46 PM

1) Demeanor and physique are the same thing.
2) Craig is 'skinny' in QOS (as opposed to the tuxed-up scene in CR where, somehow, you can tell just how much bulk he's bearing.)

I'm sorry. Not to argue for the sake of it, but I 100% don't agree with either statement.

#71 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2009 - 05:59 PM

2) Craig is 'skinny' in QOS (as opposed to the tuxed-up scene in CR where, somehow, you can tell just how much bulk he's bearing.)


Of course he's much leaner. I don't wanna dwell on it, but Craig said in numerous interviews that opted for cardio over muscle mass, hence the skinny look.

You can tell from the scene where he takes his shirt off.

No homo.

Edited by The Shark, 14 August 2009 - 06:00 PM.


#72 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:02 PM

Ahhh, now that's why you two are having problems communicating. Judo Chop is homo. Talk to him in girl language, he'll understand it better.

#73 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:22 PM

Indeed! Seeing it through my girly eyes, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BUTT ON BRAD’D’MAN was a most excellent film! B)

#74 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:31 PM



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.


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.


I'm talking about the car chase. A hour or so ago, Bond was calm and relaxed, and ful y expecting some kind of armed response from Quantum after capturing one of their envoys/negotiators for interrogation.
However when Bond's in the tunnel, being chased at 70 miles per hour (something he should be used to by now) - he turns into a zombie version of himself, who looks about 20 years older, who hasn't had any sleep according to "Nanny M". Though there's no sign of this at the end of Casino Royale.


(Excuse the truncation of posts, I hope I've not unfairly adjusted anyone's meaning.)

I think a lot of this discussion is mistaking 'how the audience feels' for 'how Bond feels'.

Mere days (and probably only 36 hours) after 'The Bitch Is Dead', Bond's feeling like a king? I disagree. The glory of that finale is all for the viewer. Bond gets no thrill from telling someone his name - it's not a catchphrase for him, only for the cinematic observer.

The wry smile is a small sense of victory, but it's of the moment, it's not to imply that all the baggage has gone.

We get to punch the air at that point - the makers having (IMO brilliantly) solved the audience-appreciation problem of wanting to ditch the 'snogging near water' trad Bond ending, but not wanting to go out on an OHMSS-style downer. Despite the tragedy of the story, we get to leave on a relative high.

But there's no reason to assume that high is also Bond's. Even prior to QoS reviewers - myself included - were commenting on how that ending is actually tragic. Bond's soul is handed over to duty, his compassion and humanity subdued for the work. This 007, the one with the blossoming drink problem whose single-mindedness is not always a useful tool, is made into James Bond at that point...but not wholly the Bond we watched growing up.

Whether one likes the QoS take on what follows - that there are a few growing pains that come with personality growth, and how colleagues (reasonably) assume emotional behaviour from you when, in fact, you've put that behind you (almost) - is of course a matter of taste. But reading 'all problems solved' into a single shot at the end of CR is a bit of a reach.

I doubt Craig, especially, was intending to suggest that, from this point on, emotional depth has been dealt with and next time it'll be FRWL all the way.

#75 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:34 PM

B)

#76 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:52 PM

included - were commenting on how that ending is actually tragic. Bond's soul is handed over to duty, his compassion and humanity subdued for the work. This 007, the one with the blossoming drink problem whose single-mindedness is not always a useful tool, is made into James Bond at that point...but not wholly the Bond we watched growing up.

Whether one likes the QoS take on what follows - that there are a few growing pains that come with personality growth, and how colleagues (reasonably) assume emotional behaviour from you when, in fact, you've put that behind you (almost) - is of course a matter of taste. But reading 'all problems solved' into a single shot at the end of CR is a bit of a reach.

I doubt Craig, especially, was intending to suggest that, from this point on, emotional depth has been dealt with and next time it'll be FRWL all the way.


I guess I'm referring to the novel in my mind here, but in the end of Fleming's CR, it was quite clear that Bond had permanently resolved the character conflict (pretty bluntly) in his mind, or at least to the reader. However there's a 6 month gap between CR and LALTD, so ultimately, we'll never know whether Bond did get any more answers to Vesper's death, and the blackmailed RAF pilot in the meantime. Maybe he searched the world? Maybe he didn't.

So essentially at least in term of the source, Bond did have "all problems" solved in a couple of pages, where he vowed "to hunt down the spy behind the spy, the threat that made them spy" or something like that. Leaving the investigative work (a lot of what Bond tries to do in QOS, while killing every lead) to the "white collar boys".

The problem I have, is that we hardly see Bond's change, in terms of his demeanour towards the end, particularly the final scene. I guess this is partly the shooting schedule's fault, for causing the final scene to be shot in January (one of the first ones shot along with "oilfinger" sequence if you look at the news programs about it at that time). However Craig unfortunately was just getting back into character, playing the person he should have been playing at the beginning of the film rather than the end, when he talks to M. Even in the Yusef scene he remains charmless. To show that the Bond we know and love (or at least Ian Fleming's Bond) is returning - he should have been considerably more charming, laid back, humourous, and cool - not like he needs to have a really big B). And a poorly shot, gunbarrel, with Bond stiff and constipated again doesn't make up for this.

Maybe it was a bad idea to cut out the ending, especially if he was more Bond-like there.

Edited by The Shark, 14 August 2009 - 09:54 PM.


#77 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 August 2009 - 10:44 PM

I guess I'm referring to the novel in my mind here, but in the end of Fleming's CR, it was quite clear that Bond had permanently resolved the character conflict (pretty bluntly) in his mind, or at least to the reader.


Oh, there's no question that the novel and the film differ. A lot has been made of how "The bitch is dead" differs - in the books, that's the end of things (Fleming's many gifts - IMHO - didn't run to especially sophisticated psychological insight; and I'm not sure he was aware how pathological his creation was). In the film, he's saying it wanting it to be the end.

Honestly, I think the trauma of Vesper's death in the book is minimal and matter of fact. It's about narrative, mystery and twist. The film goes for a more...accessible, more understandable, impact. One that more matches the events of OHMSS. (And if there's any proof that 'getting over it' so fast is a mistake it's in the follow-up to that movie. For Bond to march simply on in his next outing - recasting notwithstanding - felt utterly wrong. OHMSS was creatively deserving of a much more related follow up. Not simply the narrative connection of Fleming, but the emotional one he could never quite reach.)

The problem I have, is that we hardly see Bond's change, in terms of his demeanour towards the end, particularly the final scene. I guess this is partly the shooting schedule's fault, for causing the final scene to be shot in January (one of the first ones shot along with "oilfinger" sequence if you look at the news programs about it at that time). However Craig unfortunately was just getting back into character, playing the person he should have been playing at the beginning of the film rather than the end, when he talks to M. Even in the Yusef scene he remains charmless. To show that the Bond we know and love (or at least Ian Fleming's Bond) is returning - he should have been considerably more charming, laid back, humourous, and cool - not like he needs to have a really big B). And a poorly shot, gunbarrel, with Bond stiff and constipated again doesn't make up for this.

Maybe it was a bad idea to cut out the ending, especially if he was more Bond-like there.


Well, obviously all this critique of the performance and shooting is a matter of taste. I disagree completely with the conclusions - hardly any change, Craig playing the wrong version at the wrong time (as opposed to making creative choices deliberately like a professional actor might), lack of charm...nope, I don't see it.

#78 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:15 PM

I guess I'm referring to the novel in my mind here, but in the end of Fleming's CR, it was quite clear that Bond had permanently resolved the character conflict (pretty bluntly) in his mind, or at least to the reader.


Oh, there's no question that the novel and the film differ. A lot has been made of how "The bitch is dead" differs - in the books, that's the end of things (Fleming's many gifts - IMHO - didn't run to especially sophisticated psychological insight; and I'm not sure he was aware how pathological his creation was). In the film, he's saying it wanting it to be the end.

Honestly, I think the trauma of Vesper's death in the book is minimal and matter of fact. It's about narrative, mystery and twist. The film goes for a more...accessible, more understandable, impact. One that more matches the events of OHMSS. (And if there's any proof that 'getting over it' so fast is a mistake it's in the follow-up to that movie. For Bond to march simply on in his next outing - recasting notwithstanding - felt utterly wrong. OHMSS was creatively deserving of a much more related follow up. Not simply the narrative connection of Fleming, but the emotional one he could never quite reach.)

The problem I have, is that we hardly see Bond's change, in terms of his demeanour towards the end, particularly the final scene. I guess this is partly the shooting schedule's fault, for causing the final scene to be shot in January (one of the first ones shot along with "oilfinger" sequence if you look at the news programs about it at that time). However Craig unfortunately was just getting back into character, playing the person he should have been playing at the beginning of the film rather than the end, when he talks to M. Even in the Yusef scene he remains charmless. To show that the Bond we know and love (or at least Ian Fleming's Bond) is returning - he should have been considerably more charming, laid back, humourous, and cool - not like he needs to have a really big B). And a poorly shot, gunbarrel, with Bond stiff and constipated again doesn't make up for this.

Maybe it was a bad idea to cut out the ending, especially if he was more Bond-like there.


Well, obviously all this critique of the performance and shooting is a matter of taste. I disagree completely with the conclusions - hardly any change, Craig playing the wrong version at the wrong time (as opposed to making creative choices deliberately like a professional actor might), lack of charm...nope, I don't see it.


Relative to Casino Royale I did, and that's what I find slightly odd, and incomplete about the film - almost like we're waiting for to become Bond-like again and he never really does.

#79 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 09:52 PM

included - were commenting on how that ending is actually tragic. Bond's soul is handed over to duty, his compassion and humanity subdued for the work. This 007, the one with the blossoming drink problem whose single-mindedness is not always a useful tool, is made into James Bond at that point...but not wholly the Bond we watched growing up.

Whether one likes the QoS take on what follows - that there are a few growing pains that come with personality growth, and how colleagues (reasonably) assume emotional behaviour from you when, in fact, you've put that behind you (almost) - is of course a matter of taste. But reading 'all problems solved' into a single shot at the end of CR is a bit of a reach.

I doubt Craig, especially, was intending to suggest that, from this point on, emotional depth has been dealt with and next time it'll be FRWL all the way.


I guess I'm referring to the novel in my mind here, but in the end of Fleming's CR, it was quite clear that Bond had permanently resolved the character conflict (pretty bluntly) in his mind, or at least to the reader. However there's a 6 month gap between CR and LALTD, so ultimately, we'll never know whether Bond did get any more answers to Vesper's death, and the blackmailed RAF pilot in the meantime. Maybe he searched the world? Maybe he didn't.

So essentially at least in term of the source, Bond did have "all problems" solved in a couple of pages, where he vowed "to hunt down the spy behind the spy, the threat that made them spy" or something like that. Leaving the investigative work (a lot of what Bond tries to do in QOS, while killing every lead) to the "white collar boys".

The problem I have, is that we hardly see Bond's change, in terms of his demeanour towards the end, particularly the final scene. I guess this is partly the shooting schedule's fault, for causing the final scene to be shot in January (one of the first ones shot along with "oilfinger" sequence if you look at the news programs about it at that time). However Craig unfortunately was just getting back into character, playing the person he should have been playing at the beginning of the film rather than the end, when he talks to M. Even in the Yusef scene he remains charmless. To show that the Bond we know and love (or at least Ian Fleming's Bond) is returning - he should have been considerably more charming, laid back, humourous, and cool - not like he needs to have a really big B). And a poorly shot, gunbarrel, with Bond stiff and constipated again doesn't make up for this.

Totally agree, I've been arguing this for months.

And sorking, CR is pretty faithful adaptation of the novel, even with its last scene which is a development of the line that says that Bond "would after the threath behind the spy, the threat that made them spy", that threath in this case as far as Bond and we as audience knew- until 2006- was Mr. White. So, I would have expected a coherent sequel with the way that Bond deals with (or should I say neutralize) the facts from his Casino Royale's adventure.

#80 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 06:12 AM

I think you guys are looking for something that's not there - nor intended to be there: the historic EON Bond is not what QOS is about, so yeah it'll disappoint if that's the expectation.

#81 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 16 August 2009 - 06:14 AM

I think you guys are looking for something that's not there - nor intended to be there: the historic EON Bond is not what QOS is about, so yeah it'll disappoint if that's the expectation.


Exactly, it's more along the lines of 70s Spy Thriller such as the Parallax View than EON or Ian Fleming.

#82 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 10:01 AM

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced. Very different from what they've been doing the last 30 years or so, but IMHO that's not a bad thing at all as the series has been seriously off the Fleming rails, so to speak (again IMO).

#83 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 August 2009 - 03:58 PM

And sorking, CR is pretty faithful adaptation of the novel, even with its last scene which is a development of the line that says that Bond "would after the threath behind the spy, the threat that made them spy", that threath in this case as far as Bond and we as audience knew- until 2006- was Mr. White. So, I would have expected a coherent sequel with the way that Bond deals with (or should I say neutralize) the facts from his Casino Royale's adventure.


I assume that word is 'threat'...

Since Bond does go after the threat that made Vesper do what she did, and does indeed end emotionally concluding what was begun with CR - as well as expanding on the organisation set-up in the previous film - I'm not sure I see an argument there against anything I said.

Beyond 'I didn't like Quantum of Solace', which I'd never argue your right to insist.

Still, being a faithful adaptation of the facts of the novel doesn't change the differing sensibilities and priorities different creative talents bring. Yes, card game, casino, blah blah blah. But the Bond of the novels didn't have a catchphrase and a theme tune. The Bond of the novels didn't operate in a post-2000 culture but rather the emotionally stifled British idiom of the 50s.

To suggest that having the story from the book means the film's emotional and psychological content is derived wholly from that same text is ridiculous. It undermines almost every creative effort - writing, directing, performance - that goes into a production, and certainly ignores things that took place in CR.

Go see two adaptations of the same story sometime - tell me they're the same because they carry the same plot. Try the two equally-faithful versions of Red Dragon/Manhunter. Thematically they have seriously divergent priorities, they covey differing points to the viewer and use emotions and character beats differently. But they're both about equal in their accuracy to the source.

#84 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 04:55 PM

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.

#85 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:35 PM

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.


I would have to think, though, that he would prefer QOS over other "adaptations" of his work, such as MOONRAKER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, etc.

#86 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:45 PM

I would have to think, though, that he would prefer QOS over other "adaptations" of his work, such as MOONRAKER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, etc.


Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.

#87 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:49 PM

I would have to think, though, that he would prefer QOS over other "adaptations" of his work, such as MOONRAKER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, etc.


Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.


It has absolutely nothing to do with Fleming's novel, though, so I can't imagine that he'd have been too happy with it. Roger Moore may have a couple of moments in the film where he is very close to portraying Fleming's Bond, but the rest of the film is about as un-Fleming as it gets (Bond being saved by the two schoolgirls, flying car, the characterizations of M and Major Boothroyd, and all of the other endless unfunny "comedic" bits in the film).

#88 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:53 PM

Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

#89 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:53 PM

Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.


Indeed.

#90 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 August 2009 - 11:22 PM

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.

That's being deliberately obtuse. Different directors make different choices for different reasons. Otherwise, every film would be shot and edited the same, they'd all look like carbon copies of one another, and the artform would go nowhere.

You may not like the choices this director made, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind the decisions made. Campbell made different choices in "Casino Royale" and on it goes. Different people are going to like different things for different reasons. Personally I'm not crazy about the editing in the car- and boat-chase sequences, but have come to accept it over time to the point that now I can't imagine them being done any differently. Not in this film, anyway.

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.

If that were the case, then the flash-editing style would have continued throughout the film. HR and others are correct in noting that, as the film progresses, the editing smooths out. I'm inclined to believe that didn't happen by accident.