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

I've just seen Bourne Ultimatum and...


123 replies to this topic

#61 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 17 August 2009 - 05:53 PM

Bond wants Mathis to come. He's there at Mathis' door for information. He's there for help. He's there to say 'sorry'. He's there because he wants to see his friend. It's all there.


Personally I think it's more than a want. Even from the first time seeing it in theatres, I really get the feeling from that scene where Mathis wakes up to find Bond drinking, Bond needs someone there. Not Mathis specifically, but a friend. Not a fellow 00, not a lover, but a friend.

#62 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 August 2009 - 06:02 PM

I like to look at QOS as being very much the sequel to CR; an aftermath of sorts. To me, QOS is the fallout from the nuclear explosion of CR. It makes a lot of sense in that light.


It's less a sequel than an epilogue: it feels like a short story which has been fleshed out to try and make it film length- there's not enough dramatic meat there to justify a sequel; it's only an epilogue. Which is annoying because I paid to see a whole film.

#63 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 06:16 PM

When I first saw "SUPREMACY", I had assumed that the German-born Treadstone operative in this movie (Marton Csokas) was the same German-born operative who had killed Alexander Conklin in "IDENTITY". Well, I was wrong. Apparently, they are two different men. "IDENTITY" had identified three other Treadstone assasins other than Bourne operating in Europe - the Professor (Clive Owen), Castel (Nicky Naude) and Manheim. Out of all of them, Manheim was the only one who had survived. Yet two years later in "SUPREMACY", Bourne meets Jarda, who claimed that they were the only two Treadstone operatives left. What in the hell happened to Manheim? He survived the events of "IDENTITY", yet he was dead two years later? How did he died?


Maybe he died on a mission. Perhaps he went to work in Iraq as a "freelance security consultant" and got taken out by a bomb in a Baghdad market. Or maybe he had a heart attack while shagging one night, or got struck by lightning on a hiking holiday. Who knows and who cares?

Also, what makes you think IDENTITY showed us all the Treadstone agents instead of just a representative sample?

In "ULTIMATUM", CIA Logistics Coordinator Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) had hinted of some past relationship between her and Bourne that had left her shaken. A relationship that Bourne has no memory of. Now, I am confused. Was she speaking of their encounter in Berlin? Or of an affair when they were both posted in Paris? I am aware that both Bourne and Nicky were stationed in Paris before the attempted Wombosi hit that left him with amnesia. But recalling Nicky's reaction to Bourne near the end of the film, I never got the impression that they had enjoyed past intimacy with each other. At least not from Nicky. Her reaction to Bourne near the end of "IDENTITY" seemed to be the same as her reaction to the Professor after meeting him . . . namely trepidation.


Yes, because she thought that Bourne had flipped his lid and was on a kill-crazy rampage and that she might be one of his targets.

Nor did Nicky bring up any past intimacy between her and Bourne in "SUPREMACY".


She didn't have time to bring it up with Bourne, and bringing it up among her CIA superiors would have made no difference and would probably have also landed her in hot water.

Aside from her trepidation in "IDENTITY", Nicky had expressed sheer terror when Bourne had kidnapped her in the second film in order to learn more about Treadstone and Pamela Landy (Joan Allen).


Again, her terror is understandable. Everyone thinks Bourne has gone loco. Which is something that his behaviour towards her in SUPREMACY completely supports. She's not going to start reminiscing about their lovey-dovey past (if indeed they had one) while he's pinning her to a wall and barking questions at her with a gun to her head.

So, exactly what was Nicky talking about?


Well, we just don't know. My own feeling is that Bourne and Nicky never had a relationship, as such, but that Nicky was in love with him for a while early in their CIA careers, and probably communicated her feelings to him at one point but that Bourne gently turned her down, because he was unwilling to get involved with a fellow operative, and/or because he felt his line of work did not allow for entanglements. I don't think Nicky's line in ULTIMATUM ("It was difficult for me.... with you") suggests anything more than that. I don't think anything ever "happened" between them. However, Nicky obviously had feelings for Bourne, and back in the day Bourne knew it. That's about it, though.

Confusion really seemed to reign over the roles of the two CIA Directors featured in the films - Martin Marshall (Tomas Arana) and Ezra Cramer (Scott Glenn). Martin Marshall's name had briefly came up as the CIA's Director in "BOURNE IDENTITY". We finally got to see him in the flesh in "SUPREMACY". Yet, in "ULTIMATUM", which is set six weeks later after "SUPREMACY", the CIA has a new director - Ezra Cramer. What in the hell happened to Marshall during those six weeks?


Again, who knows or cares? Maybe Marshall was due to retire or go on sabbatical or choked to death on a Chicken McNugget or whothehellcares? I'd agree that it seems as though Scott Glenn has been in the job a heck of a lot longer than just a few weeks, but, hey, none of these unanswered questions are particularly important or affect my considerable enjoyment of the films, and they certainly pale in comparison to the dozens of unanswered questions posed by the Bond films over the decades.

I mean, why does M have a new office between CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE? What happened to Villiers? Where did Tanner come from all of a sudden? Why does Bond appear starved of sleep at the start of QUANTUM yet looks bright-eyed and bushy-tailed at the end of CASINO? Did the car chase go on all night long? Why does Bond ask Mathis to accompany him to South America? And so on and so forth.




I'm sorry. You haven't convinced me of anything. The whole idea of a past romance between Nicky and Bourne being introduced in this third film struck me as very contrived.



Maybe he died on a mission. Perhaps he went to work in Iraq as a "freelance security consultant" and got taken out by a bomb in a Baghdad market. Or maybe he had a heart attack while shagging one night, or got struck by lightning on a hiking holiday. Who knows and who cares?



All you have done is confirmed my feelings that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is better.

Edited by DR76, 17 August 2009 - 06:17 PM.


#64 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

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

Posted 17 August 2009 - 06:21 PM

It's less a sequel than an epilogue: it feels like a short story which has been fleshed out to try and make it film length- there's not enough dramatic meat there to justify a sequel; it's only an epilogue. Which is annoying because I paid to see a whole film.

Yes. "Epilogue" is a better word than "sequel" for what I was trying to say. (Though I think I came close with 'aftermath' and 'fallout'.)

It may very well be that we are seeing the same thing, only reacting differently. You feel sold short. I feel grateful for something new in the series.

I think that those who understand what QOS means to be, whether they appreciate it or not, at the very least have an assuredness that something like QOS will not happen again in Bond, for better or for worse. QOS is a one-timer, I do believe. And so does Craig. It's back to regular ol' Bond adventures now.

#65 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 August 2009 - 06:35 PM

I'm sorry. You haven't convinced me of anything. The whole idea of a past romance between Nicky and Bourne being introduced in this third film struck me as very contrived.


Yes, me too. It's the weakest script of the series: there's a feeling that they're really overextending the whole thing to fill out another film and aspects that we should have known about before suddenly appear like Brian Cox's Blackbriar and Nicky's feelings for Bourne; but it still manages to be a cracking watch just because it's so excitingly well made. It's somehow an excellent film even though the script is weak and essentially covering the same ground they'd been over before. And at least they got to three before they ran out steam; unlike NuBond! But here's hoping CraigBond gets back on track with the next.

#66 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 07:21 PM

All you have done is confirmed my feelings that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is better.


Somehow I didn't think I would. You don't strike me as someone who's particularly willing to entertain counterarguments.

I'm sorry. You haven't convinced me of anything. The whole idea of a past romance between Nicky and Bourne being introduced in this third film struck me as very contrived.


Yes, me too. It's the weakest script of the series: there's a feeling that they're really overextending the whole thing to fill out another film and aspects that we should have known about before suddenly appear like Brian Cox's Blackbriar and Nicky's feelings for Bourne; but it still manages to be a cracking watch just because it's so excitingly well made. It's somehow an excellent film even though the script is weak and essentially covering the same ground they'd been over before. And at least they got to three before they ran out steam; unlike NuBond! But here's hoping CraigBond gets back on track with the next.


Agreed with all that, and particularly with what I've underlined. That BOURNE ULTIMATUM is incredibly well-made and entertaining is surely all that matters. Although I'm not sure why we should have known about Nicky's feelings for Bourne before - they're implied in the second film, anyway, when she expresses dismay that the CIA plans to kill Bourne. Why were her feelings important to the story in BOURNEs 1 and 2? Answer: they weren't. People often carry torches for other people or care about them a lot more than they ever let on, and it's sometimes only when push really comes to shove that they let slip this intelligence.

But, yes, what standards are we holding ULTIMATUM to anyway? So the plot isn't 110% watertight? Well, that goes for many, many other great films and books. I've recently been re-reading two of my favourite novels, WATCHMEN and Donna Tartt's THE SECRET HISTORY - in both cases, I could pick plot holes. Who cares, though? They're two of the most brilliantly-executed, unique and memorable books I know of.

I'm not saying we should abandon criticism or let our standards slip, but BOURNE is, fundamentally, a mainstream popcorn action blockbuster. It doesn't pretend to be a documentary or a serious examination of spycraft. Frankly, I'm just staggered it's as splendidly-made a film as it is. I don't see why it constitutes cleverness to point out that there's a scene in which Bourne appears to gain entry to the CIA HQ as if by magic. Does CASINO ROYALE explain how Bond manages to break into M's flat, find out her real name and steal her passwords? Does it B).

#67 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:03 PM

Although I'm not sure why we should have known about Nicky's feelings for Bourne before - they're implied in the second film, anyway, when she expresses dismay that the CIA plans to kill Bourne. Why were her feelings important to the story in BOURNEs 1 and 2? Answer: they weren't. People often carry torches for other people or care about them a lot more than they ever let on, and it's sometimes only when push really comes to shove that they let slip this intelligence.


That's all believable, but in the real world we can just tell that they hadn't planned that and simply made it up for the third one. It did feel a little jarring, but is quite a fun idea and there's nothing that actively contradicts it.

#68 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:26 AM

Although I'm not sure why we should have known about Nicky's feelings for Bourne before - they're implied in the second film, anyway, when she expresses dismay that the CIA plans to kill Bourne. Why were her feelings important to the story in BOURNEs 1 and 2? Answer: they weren't. People often carry torches for other people or care about them a lot more than they ever let on, and it's sometimes only when push really comes to shove that they let slip this intelligence.


That's all believable, but in the real world we can just tell that they hadn't planned that and simply made it up for the third one.


Well, possibly (but, hey, for all we know, Doug Liman or Frank Marshall or whoever may have earmarked it as an idea for a future sequel right from pre-production on IDENTITY), but even if that's the case it's something we can easily forgive, no? I mean, we may as well say that in the real world we can just tell that they ended all the Bournes the way they did in order to leave the door open for a sequel, or that in the real world we can just tell that the only real reason why BOURNE 4 is being made (and I, for one, can't wait) is because BOURNE 3 made a tremendous amount of money. B)

It did feel a little jarring


Yes, it did. I do see where you're coming from (in fact, I think you and I are pretty much eye-to-eye on ULTIMATUM - we seem to see the same flaws in it while finding it terrific entertainment on the whole), but I think its, erm, jarringness depends very much on the degree to which one feels the film makes a big deal of The Matter of Nicky's Feelings For Bourne™.

Now, personally, I think it's an understated, indeed subtle, element of the film - you could easily miss it if you're not paying full attention during the Spanish truckstop scene, and the film doesn't ram it home. It's left entirely to the viewer's interpretation as to whether there was even a past relationship at all, or whether the whole thing was just longing on Nicky's part (and maybe she feels the need to indicate this to Bourne as a way not only of jogging his memory but also of helping him gently back to humankind - I mean, she's portrayed in the films as a nice, caring person*, so that's not an impossible scenario).

But the main thing - nay, the impressive thing - is that Bourne doesn't suddenly react with a look of wide-eyed and delighted astonishment when Nicky says "It was always difficult for me.... with you", and then there's a flashback montage of the two of them walking hand-in-hand through Paris, taking rides at EuroDisney and romping on beds, and now we're back to the present and before you can say Jack Robinson the two of them are fully paid-up lovers once again as they make their way to Tangier. ULTIMATUM is far too classy and clever a film for that.

*That is, a nice, caring person who also used to run an assassination squad! But, hey, the Bournes are, as I say, primarily popcorn action blockbusters. We do need to suspend disbelief quite a bit.... but it's a pleasure to do so when we're talking about films as well-made and entertaining as these ones.

#69 The Richmond Spy

The Richmond Spy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1586 posts
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:12 AM

I love Bond and Bourne, but they're not on the same playing field. Bourne recycles a LOT from previous films. Not just the same story, but even the same music.

#70 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:45 AM

I wish QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a much better film.

It's like Quantum in that it's really an unnecessary epilogue to a story that's already really finished rather than a proper sequel, but unlike Quantum it manages to extend the plot in a satisfactory way- Bourne actually still does learn stuff about himself and ends his situation finally. Nothing of note happens to Bond at all.

Totally agree with this.

#71 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 07:26 AM

The point is, dumping Mathis in the garbage bin didn't need to be done. Bond could have either left him where he was or move him off the street. The same point regarding Bond's feelings (or lack thereof) and Mathis' not caring could have been made. Instead, the filmmakers chose to shock and anger a large number of people just to do so.


Bleh; I don't care. Bond was trying to make it look like a street robbery and probably didn't want an instant fuss; the kind that there would be if a body was left in the street. It made sense to me; it was supposed to be a fairly cold, logical act from Bond, who is supposed to be a cold character at times.

Taking Mathis' money to make it look like a robbery is fine, I have no problem with that, he needed the money and as he said, Mathis wouldn't mind.

But no robber is going to take the time to pick up a guy he's just shot, carry him 20 feet, and then dump him in a garbage bin and where the victim is clearly visible no less. They're going to hightail it out of the area as fast as they can. It makes no sense and serves no purpose for Bond to do what he did except, as I said earlier, to shock and anger the audience.

Hmmm.... but never actually ends up doing so. Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself. Still, your answer is perfectly valid, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the filmmakers were merely shoehorning Mathis into South America towards the perverse end of killing him off. I'd rather he featured only in the Talamone sequence, providing Bond with new credit cards and a passport, and living to feature in more Bond flicks.

Completely agreed.

#72 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:53 PM

I love Bond and Bourne, but they're not on the same playing field. Bourne recycles a LOT from previous films. Not just the same story, but even the same music.


And Bond films haven't endlessly recycled the James Bond Theme for decades? And, nowadays, even when David Arnold writes "new" music for the Bond films, it tends to sound like cues for the James Bond Theme.

Besides, I'm glad that the Bournes use the same music, for John Powell's music is one of the best things about the series. I also find it strangely cool that the Bournes all end with "Extreme Ways". On paper, finishing up with the same "theme song" every time is a weird idea - you can picture an unimaginative studio exec saying "Whassamatter, we can't afford a new one?" and presenting Greengrass with a list of "happening" new bands and singers. But it works. It's counterintuitively cool.

And it reinforces my feeling that the Bournes are, in some curious way, sealed off in a little world of their own. A world where Amy Winehouse will never be approached to record a song. A world where no one will ever hire an actor like Shia LaBoeuf or Justin Long as a "sidekick" for Bourne. A world where the climax will never feature Bourne taking on the baddies in a stolen fighter jet and a frenzy of CGI and exploding buildings, but where the final shot will always involve Bourne slipping anonymously into the shadows, blending into a crowd that we know will not hold him for long, while Moby's awesome song starts to play.

There's something oddly self-contained and exclusive about the Bourne series, and that's one of the reasons I like it so much. These films have their own sense of style - they're definitely designer action thrillers, and they look and feel like nothing else (well, apart from all the flicks that have ripped them off).

#73 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:17 PM

I love Bond and Bourne, but they're not on the same playing field. Bourne recycles a LOT from previous films. Not just the same story, but even the same music.


I'm glad that the Bournes use the same music, for John Powell's music is one of the best things about the series. I also find it strangely cool that the Bournes all end with "Extreme Ways". On paper, finishing up with the same "theme song" every time is a weird idea - you can picture an unimaginative studio exec saying "Whassamatter, we can't afford a new one?" and presenting Greengrass with a list of "happening" new bands and singers. But it works. It's counterintuitively cool.


I agree with you there.

#74 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 August 2009 - 06:55 PM

Hmmm.... but never actually ends up doing so. Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself. Still, your answer is perfectly valid, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the filmmakers were merely shoehorning Mathis into South America towards the perverse end of killing him off. I'd rather he featured only in the Talamone sequence, providing Bond with new credit cards and a passport, and living to feature in more Bond flicks.

Completely agreed.

However, Bond didn't ask Mathis to come along because of Bond feeling incapable of handling the situation. My take on it was that Bond asked Mathis to come along to give them one more shot at working together, and this time it would end on a triumphant note (or so Bond hoped). This wouldn't erase what happened in the aftermath of the events of "Casino Royale," but I think that Bond saw in Mathis a kindred spirit, realized his mistake in not trusting Mathis, and hoped to build something more positive on top of that. Of course, things did not go at all according to plan.

Whether Mathis was shoehorned in simply to be killed off is a matter of opinion, and I can see why some feel that way, but that's my take on why he was necessary to Bond's healing.

Edited by byline, 18 August 2009 - 06:55 PM.


#75 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:10 AM

Has anyone seen this yet?

http://www.empireonl...y.asp?NID=25645

Interesting! Bond ripped off Bourne did it, the shoes on the other foot now!

#76 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:59 AM

Has anyone seen this yet?

http://www.empireonl...y.asp?NID=25645

Interesting! Bond ripped off Bourne did it, the shoes on the other foot now!


Fancy that! He is a good writer though.

#77 Sigma7

Sigma7

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Vauxhall Cross

Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:05 PM

It's just a succession of chases briefly intermingled with conversation to give only the slightest appearance of a plot. Even the dialogue scenes are shot with that annoying handheld-for-the-sake-of-it style that directors shoot for in order to create "immediate artistic" effect. Though it wasn't as awful as Supremacy, I'm glad I didn't spend money on a ticket.
The question to all those who champion QoS remains, if you like this kind of crap that much, why don't you join a Bourne forum since evidently you're not satisfied by Bond and yo'd rather it aped Bourne to the core?
It's like a Bond fan complaining about the absence of casino scenes in Star Wars movies. That dumb.

Troll much?

Posted Image

Not my picture, but... B)

Posted Image




Hhahahahahahahahah those pics and captions are pricelesss hehehhehehehehe



#78 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:12 PM

He is a good writer though.



I agree. It'll be interesting to see what he'll come up with. I just wish he had more control over the Quantum of Solace script. I know he polished it, but still, if we was brought on a lot sooner...

#79 A Kristatos

A Kristatos

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Location:Chicago, USA

Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:33 PM

I wish QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a much better film.


You bet ! Quantum of Solace is sadly, the end of the Bond franchise. Watch as the next one will not take off year after year. Craig is too old now, and the magic of Casino Royale disappeared. The Bond franchise is dead. The reboot as gone sour.

Bring the 4th episode of the Bourne saga, so that we can get truly inventive Spy action and not crap. There's aint no love for Quantum Of Solace, (except of course from Die Hard Bond fans). The franchise is dead in the water.

When people on boards comes up with better storylines than the filmmakers, you know the franchise is in big trouble. Box office money doesn't count. QOS made money because people liked Casino Royale. They all, 100% of the non Die Hard fans, came out disappointed from the theater. It's over.



Are you really serious Stamper? The Bond franchise is NOT dead! B)

#80 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:38 PM

Oh just ignore him. He can't just sit back and enjoy a :tdown:ing film. It's quite sad really. Yes, Quantum of Solace paled in comparison to Casino Royale, but it hasn't killed the franchise. He's just been overdramatic, as usual. B)

#81 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:35 PM

Yes, Quantum of Solace paled in comparison to Casino Royale, but it hasn't killed the franchise.

I agree.

#82 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:38 PM

Quantum of Solace paled in comparison to Casino Royale

I wish I could set you free, but your prison is in there. B)

#83 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, the camera just zoomed dramatically into my face 3 times after you said that...

:tdown: B)

#84 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:44 PM

Yeah, the camera just zoomed dramatically into my face 3 times after you said that...

:) B)

And then you jumped out at me in a bell tower with a gun! :tdown: :tdown:

#85 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 10:24 PM

He is a good writer though.



I agree. It'll be interesting to see what he'll come up with. I just wish he had more control over the Quantum of Solace script. I know he polished it, but still, if we was brought on a lot sooner...


Forgive me, guys, but how do we know that Zetumer is a good writer? He's clearly a very successful one, since people don't get hired as scriptwriters on major Hollywood projects for no reason (well, unless they're the wife of the director or something like that), and especially not when they're only in their twenties (as I believe Zetumer is).

So, purely by dint of his evidently high position in The Industry™, I guess we can assume that Zetumer is a good writer, or at least that he's written some excellent unproduced scripts that were of sufficiently high quality to land him high profile rewriting work a la QUANTUM OF SOLACE and BOURNE 4 (I know that he's been assigned to pen a "parallel script" for BOURNE 4, but it's essentially rewriting work since the project, like QUANTUM, started without him).

However....

How do we know that he is a good writer? Which works of his have we seen? Which scripts of his have we read? Do we even know what he was responsible for writing in QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Do we know for sure whether even a single line of his dialogue ended up in the finished film?

I mean, we know that, say, Quentin Tarantino is a good writer because we've seen his films and we've (most of us, I assume) read his scripts.

But unless I'm mistaken, none of us knows squat about Zetumer's abilities. So, Harkmeister, why do you say "I just wish he had more control over the Quantum of Solace script"? I'm certainly no fan of the script for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but what makes you think Zetumer is any better than Purvis/Wade or Haggis? I'm not getting at you here, but, really, you're just assuming, no? B)

#86 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:02 PM

He is a good writer though.

I agree. It'll be interesting to see what he'll come up with. I just wish he had more control over the Quantum of Solace script. I know he polished it, but still, if we was brought on a lot sooner...


Forgive me, guys, but how do we know that Zetumer is a good writer?

How do we know that he is a good writer? Which works of his have we seen? Which scripts of his have we read? Do we even know what he was responsible for writing in QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Do we know for sure whether even a single line of his dialogue ended up in the finished film?

But unless I'm mistaken, none of us knows squat about Zetumer's abilities.


I don't know exactly what his contribution was to QOS, I assume it was just dialogue since he came on board pretty late in the game after shooting has started, so he would not have been given free reign to write action scenes in Antarctica or anything like that.

I have read a script of his called "Infiltrator" which is about an undercover operation involving the IRA, I think this is the "anti-Bond" project that Forster was talking about that piqued his interest and showed that JZ knew his way around a dramatic spy story.

#87 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:12 PM

I have read a script of his called "Infiltrator" which is about an undercover operation involving the IRA, I think this is the "anti-Bond" project that Forster was talking about that piqued his interest and showed that JZ knew his way around a dramatic spy story.


Fair enough. And apologies. I'd assumed, of course, that none of us had actually read anything by Zetumer.

#88 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:38 AM

You bet ! Quantum of Solace is sadly, the end of the Bond franchise. Watch as the next one will not take off year after year.


How do you know this? Did Broccoli and Wilson tell you?

#89 Syndicate

Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:58 AM

You bet ! Quantum of Solace is sadly, the end of the Bond franchise. Watch as the next one will not take off year after year.


How do you know this? Did Broccoli and Wilson tell you?


You are so right DR76, they are the ones behind the whole Bond movie projects. Who gets to be the director, who can the director bring along from his other projects, look over the script, how the score should sound for a scence, set where and when to have the first press conference of the next movie. So if there are nothing in Entertainment Weekly, Empire, Starlog and other nontabloit entertainment magazines, that means Broccoli and Wilson has not said a word. And they still very tight lip on it for now. So whatever that, it beyond all of us.

Edited by Syndicate, 22 August 2009 - 04:02 AM.


#90 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 06:15 AM

Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself.

He introduces Bond to the Colonel!


And a fat lot of good the Colonel was.

I hear what y'all are saying, but, sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it, it's pretty obvious that the Purvmeister, the Wademeister and the Haggmeister were writing to the brief of "Mathis must be given a fairly large role in this one - Giancarlo isn't cheap, so let's get as much mileage out of him as we can", rather than a brief of "Let the story and characters develop organically".

That's my take on it, and I'm sticking to it.

I'm with you 100%. Unlike you originally suggested, they did bother to give Mathis a reason to be with Bond in South America, but that doesn't mean they handled Mathis properly. Even with that narrative reason, he feels rather forced into the film, and ultimately to no real purpose, since he's killed not too long after being introduced back into the film. It, like many things about QUANTUM OF SOLACE, feels rather slapdash. I have no real problems with them killing Mathis off, mind you. But if they're going to do it, they had better earn it. I don't think they really do.

Re: THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, I don't much care for it. I think the story has nothing of significance to it, and in many ways feels just as slapdash and tagged-on as QUANTUM OF SOLACE does (what counts as a "revelation" at the end of ULTIMATUM is really nothing of the sort). But it is a more entertaining film than the frequently plodding QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and ties in some crackling set-pieces