197 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

Blah Blah Blah I hate things!

Is that pretty much the gist of it so far?

Emphasis on the first part, but yeah.

[Zorin Industries]

...with lemon striping?

It's my first holy communion dress all over again...! (?)

Didn't know boys wore dresses to Anglican holy communion...

It was a Catholic thing...*

(*Zorin Industries would like to state that he has never worn a lady garment of the dainty variety ever in his years and has only mentioned so in this thread in a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention from the backstabbing, lazy one-up-manship and quite useless wrangling over the title of a film that hasn't even shot a frame of film yet...).

[HildebrandRarity]

... they are meant to be panther paced bullets fired at the audience. SOLACE is - in parts - a masterclass in film editing. Unlike a lot of mainstream films out there QUANTUM OF SOLACE knows the greatest editing software out there is the human mind. So we don't have to take the audience by the hand on every edit.


...If you don't like it, fine. Don't like it. Fine. Get over it. Fine. But try and understand and see why others do rate, relish and admire it. The problem is, that is harder to do for the anti-brigade (who won't budge on the film for all sorts of cosy nostalgic reasons) than it is for the pro-brigade who completely understand why some don't like it, but find such lines of thought redundant and laughable...

Agreed. I can only shake my head in ammusement at the detractors.

I chalk it up to the theory that some of us (a minority, as only a minority of the planet is truly successful) have superior brain functions and processing capabilities.

Simple really.

Having said that, more than a minority liked the film:

http://www.rottentom...views_users.php

Indeed, those numbers are far higher than Vertical Limit, Beyond Borders and Legend of Zorro. FAR HIGHER.

In addition, the box office was similar to CR.

So, it's not as if Quantum wasn't an admired and successful film.

I mean, what would Martin Campbell really be without Eon Productions and James Bond?

James Bond was successful 10, 20, 30 years before Campbell came along and it was succesfull after his last one and it will be successful when he's gone.

Hillebrand – I love your posts You are a stereotypical trading floor battery hen I understand how your insecurities make you feel the need to adopt this bullying attitude towards younger traders on your desk – after all, it’s the only thing you have over these new analysts, isn’t it? But this is a Bond fan forum…why oh why are you so defensive? You take this far too personally, there’s obviously something more behind your seemingly excessive drive to be proven right? Didn’t your daddy hug you enough? Now, there are several ways I can see your response going; feigned jocularity, fake dismissiveness or downright abusive, but that’s ok. I understand how soul destroying being a battery hen is (one of the reasons why I always buy organic) and I understand your need to glamorize your job to present a sense of self-worth – but there’s no need to excessively brag how much money you make this time. Anyone, and I mean anyone, with real money and real taste just doesn’t behave or talk the way you do – anonymously or otherwise. You’re a nasty little specimen – basically pretty stupid but likes to shout over others to compensate for feeling inadequate

This forum is at its best when people can debate bond without some dick shouting them down. Hey, I love DAF and YOLT but I’m not offended if you don’t. Your opinions ARE important Hilly (you see, I understand what makes you tick) but unfortunately they’re not very interesting. Now please, can you just go away like a good chap

To the mods; I’m sorry. I must have broken a few rules there. I apologize for any breach and/or offense I’ve caused. I hope you don’t see fit to ban me from these boards. But the guy is a moron! A nasty & pugnacious one at that. Sorry, I did it again. Promise that’s the last time.

"That wasn't very nice..."









The hate is swelling in you now.

[stromberg]

Thank you for the calming yellow font too...it all helps (!)

it was originally meant to be a bit more green (to emphasize the 'greenlighting' ).

Must have pressed the wrong button.

[MrKidd]

... they are meant to be panther paced bullets fired at the audience. SOLACE is - in parts - a masterclass in film editing. Unlike a lot of mainstream films out there QUANTUM OF SOLACE knows the greatest editing software out there is the human mind. So we don't have to take the audience by the hand on every edit.


...If you don't like it, fine. Don't like it. Fine. Get over it. Fine. But try and understand and see why others do rate, relish and admire it. The problem is, that is harder to do for the anti-brigade (who won't budge on the film for all sorts of cosy nostalgic reasons) than it is for the pro-brigade who completely understand why some don't like it, but find such lines of thought redundant and laughable...

Agreed. I can only shake my head in ammusement at the detractors.

I chalk it up to the theory that some of us (a minority, as only a minority of the planet is truly successful) have superior brain functions and processing capabilities.

Simple really.

Having said that, more than a minority liked the film:

http://www.rottentom...views_users.php

Indeed, those numbers are far higher than Vertical Limit, Beyond Borders and Legend of Zorro. FAR HIGHER.

In addition, the box office was similar to CR.

So, it's not as if Quantum wasn't an admired and successful film.

I mean, what would Martin Campbell really be without Eon Productions and James Bond?

James Bond was successful 10, 20, 30 years before Campbell came along and it was succesfull after his last one and it will be successful when he's gone.

Hillebrand – I love your posts You are a stereotypical trading floor battery hen I understand how your insecurities make you feel the need to adopt this bullying attitude towards younger traders on your desk – after all, it’s the only thing you have over these new analysts, isn’t it? But this is a Bond fan forum…why oh why are you so defensive? You take this far too personally, there’s obviously something more behind your seemingly excessive drive to be proven right? Didn’t your daddy hug you enough? Now, there are several ways I can see your response going; feigned jocularity, fake dismissiveness or downright abusive, but that’s ok. I understand how soul destroying being a battery hen is (one of the reasons why I always buy organic) and I understand your need to glamorize your job to present a sense of self-worth – but there’s no need to excessively brag how much money you make this time. Anyone, and I mean anyone, with real money and real taste just doesn’t behave or talk the way you do – anonymously or otherwise. You’re a nasty little specimen – basically pretty stupid but likes to shout over others to compensate for feeling inadequate

This forum is at its best when people can debate bond without some dick shouting them down. Hey, I love DAF and YOLT but I’m not offended if you don’t. Your opinions ARE important Hilly (you see, I understand what makes you tick) but unfortunately they’re not very interesting. Now please, can you just go away like a good chap

To the mods; I’m sorry. I must have broken a few rules there. I apologize for any breach and/or offense I’ve caused. I hope you don’t see fit to ban me from these boards. But the guy is a moron! A nasty & pugnacious one at that. Sorry, I did it again. Promise that’s the last time.

"That wasn't very nice..."









The hate is swelling in you now.

No it wasn't was it

It's contempt actually

Got you bang to rights though, haven't I? cluck cluck cluck

Edited by MrKidd, 01 February 2010 - 01:55 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hillebrand – I love your posts You are a stereotypical trading floor battery hen I understand how your insecurities make you feel the need to adopt this bullying attitude towards younger traders on your desk – after all, it’s the only thing you have over these new analysts, isn’t it? But this is a Bond fan forum…why oh why are you so defensive? You take this far too personally, there’s obviously something more behind your seemingly excessive drive to be proven right? Didn’t your daddy hug you enough? Now, there are several ways I can see your response going; feigned jocularity, fake dismissiveness or downright abusive, but that’s ok. I understand how soul destroying being a battery hen is (one of the reasons why I always buy organic) and I understand your need to glamorize your job to present a sense of self-worth – but there’s no need to excessively brag how much money you make this time. Anyone, and I mean anyone, with real money and real taste just doesn’t behave or talk the way you do – anonymously or otherwise. You’re a nasty little specimen – basically pretty stupid but likes to shout over others to compensate for feeling inadequate

This forum is at its best when people can debate bond without some dick shouting them down. Hey, I love DAF and YOLT but I’m not offended if you don’t. Your opinions ARE important Hilly (you see, I understand what makes you tick) but unfortunately they’re not very interesting. Now please, can you just go away like a good chap

To the mods; I’m sorry. I must have broken a few rules there. I apologize for any breach and/or offense I’ve caused. I hope you don’t see fit to ban me from these boards. But the guy is a moron! A nasty & pugnacious one at that. Sorry, I did it again. Promise that’s the last time.

"That wasn't very nice..."









The hate is swelling in you now.

No it wasn't was it

It's contempt actually

Got you bang to rights though, haven't I? cluck cluck cluck

"Got you bang to rights though, haven't I?"

WTF?

Speak English, please.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Campbell is a complete head.

1. He didn't want to direct Q0S so why say anything negative about it.

2. He lucked into a Fleming story with Craig as an actor.

3. He had James Bond flying like a little frail Fairy in the GoldenEye pre-titles and made Pierce look like Tinkerbell as he flew into the plane.

Pathetic excuse for a director who did the ghastly Zorro 2 just before CR.

He's being an really.

The always calm and measured opinion of HildebrandRarity...

(However, I do agree with the core of his comment about GE)

[MrKidd]

Hillebrand – I love your posts You are a stereotypical trading floor battery hen I understand how your insecurities make you feel the need to adopt this bullying attitude towards younger traders on your desk – after all, it’s the only thing you have over these new analysts, isn’t it? But this is a Bond fan forum…why oh why are you so defensive? You take this far too personally, there’s obviously something more behind your seemingly excessive drive to be proven right? Didn’t your daddy hug you enough? Now, there are several ways I can see your response going; feigned jocularity, fake dismissiveness or downright abusive, but that’s ok. I understand how soul destroying being a battery hen is (one of the reasons why I always buy organic) and I understand your need to glamorize your job to present a sense of self-worth – but there’s no need to excessively brag how much money you make this time. Anyone, and I mean anyone, with real money and real taste just doesn’t behave or talk the way you do – anonymously or otherwise. You’re a nasty little specimen – basically pretty stupid but likes to shout over others to compensate for feeling inadequate

This forum is at its best when people can debate bond without some dick shouting them down. Hey, I love DAF and YOLT but I’m not offended if you don’t. Your opinions ARE important Hilly (you see, I understand what makes you tick) but unfortunately they’re not very interesting. Now please, can you just go away like a good chap

To the mods; I’m sorry. I must have broken a few rules there. I apologize for any breach and/or offense I’ve caused. I hope you don’t see fit to ban me from these boards. But the guy is a moron! A nasty & pugnacious one at that. Sorry, I did it again. Promise that’s the last time.

"That wasn't very nice..."









The hate is swelling in you now.

No it wasn't was it

It's contempt actually

Got you bang to rights though, haven't I? cluck cluck cluck

"Got you bang to rights though, haven't I?"

WTF?

Speak English, please.

Apologies Hilly - just a jokey expression that evidently backfired

Sorry, what I meant to say was that my description of you as a narrow minded battery hen (comes with the territory I suppose)who obviously has self-esteem issues and really isn't as intelligent as you like to think you are was pretty accurate,

oh yes - and that your protestations regarding how much money you make identify you as a very small timer. Exactly like a poor battery hen in fact cluck cluck

Do I make sense now? Sorry if I've been unclear

[HildebrandRarity]

Apologies Hilly - just a jokey expression that evidently backfired

Sorry, what I meant to say was that my description of you as a narrow minded battery hen (comes with the territory I suppose)who obviously has self-esteem issues and really isn't as intelligent as you like to think you are was pretty accurate,

oh yes - and that your protestations regarding how much money you make identify you as a very small timer. Exactly like a poor battery hen in fact cluck cluck

Do I make sense now? Sorry if I've been unclear

Not really.


As I said, the hate is swelling in you now.



It's too bad that you took all that time and effort to concentrate on trying to ridicule a fellow CBn member who uses this site as an interactive form of entertainment - an optional form of interactive media and amusement.

Your opinion of me is meaningless. I don't know you and you mean nothing to me in my life and in the grand scheme of life...so why would I give a flying what you think?

I do care what the mods think, though... Why? Because I like this site and I don't want to get banned.

You? Well, you're nothing to me.



Have a wonderful day.

I mean it sincerely.


PS

Just to let you know, you know very little about me. (You're the one writing about money, not me). And even though I have taken an amusing pop at a public figure who took a pop at a project he was too gutless to pursue, I have actually refrained from attacking specific CBn members on here.

What does that say about the two of us?

Again, enjoy the reasonably nice weather out there today, Mr Kidd.

[MrKidd]

Apologies Hilly - just a jokey expression that evidently backfired

Sorry, what I meant to say was that my description of you as a narrow minded battery hen (comes with the territory I suppose)who obviously has self-esteem issues and really isn't as intelligent as you like to think you are was pretty accurate,

oh yes - and that your protestations regarding how much money you make identify you as a very small timer. Exactly like a poor battery hen in fact cluck cluck

Do I make sense now? Sorry if I've been unclear

Not really.


As I said, the hate is swelling in you now.



It's too bad that you took all that time and effort to concentrate on trying to ridicule a fellow CBn member who uses this site as an interactive form of entertainment - an optional form of interactive media.

Your opinion of me is meaningless. I don't know you and you mean nothing to me in my life and in the grand scheme of life...so why would I give a flying what you think?

I do care what the mods say...Why? Because I like this site and I don't want to get banned.

You?... I could care less.



Have a wonderful day.

I mean it sincerely.


PS

Just to let you know, you know very little about me. And even though I have taken a pop at a public figure who took a pop at a project he was too gutless to pursue, I have actually refrained from attacking specific CBn members on here.

What does that say about the two of us?

Again, enjoy the reasonably nice weather out there today, Mr Kidd.

Hilly, there's no hate - really

Anyway, as you correctly pointed out this should be about this site. A forum where like-minded people can discuss Bond, joke around and banter about mutual geekness. Just take a look at your posts will you? You manage to suck the humor and camaraderie out of these boards with your aggressive tone and insults. It's so boring to see you hijack these threads - I'm just showing you your reflection. It's unpleasant isn't it? And so unnecessary for goodness sake.

Yes, the weather is bright and cold but nothing a woolly sweater and a pair of gloves can't handle Just try to calm down, Hilly. Not everything is a threat to you, you know..

Edited by MrKidd, 01 February 2010 - 06:31 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I forgive you, Mr Kidd.

[The Shark]

Oh dear. That is not a review. That is an opinion thinly veiled as a rant. And - on one point alone - where and when did the "editing" blueprint for James Bond films complete forget and misunderstand the very DNA of editing a Bond film, i.e. they are meant to be panther paced bullets fired at the audience. SOLACE is - in parts - a masterclass in film editing.

I sort of see where you're coming from regarding the quick-fire cutting, but I still think it's a rather lazily edited film. Even in the calmer, dialogue-focused, or visual story-telling scenes (i.e. The Night at the Opera build up) the cuts feel nauseatingly uniform, almost metronomic, without variation. Little time is given to focus on a single shot, with each having equal importance, eventually becoming tedious on the mind.

Whereas with CR veteran editor Stuart Baird, he cut the film looking at a large projected screen, and masterfully timed each shot, with a sense of fluidity. With QOS's duo of editors - Richard Pearson and Matt Cheese, it feels like they simply quantised every shot in a different scene to so and so beats per minute, in time with the soundtrack.

That's why to me it feels like the film were edited by automatons. Hence one of the reasons why it feels so cold, soulless and sterile, in comparison to earlier Bond films.

[jaguar007]

I am not a fan of QoSs editing style, but I don't think it was sloppy, I think they achieved the desired results. They wanted to go for the modern choppy quick cut feel. I just don't personally care for it.

[jamie00007]

The QoS editing style is the exact opposite of sloppy or lazy. Its almost over-done, and could have done with being a little more relaxed.

Its a style that either works for you or it doesnt. Im lucky, it worked for me fine. As someone else said, QoS is almost a master-class in film editing, of a certain style, and imo of all the movies of seen that use that style, QoS was by far the most effective. It certainly wasnt sloppily or lazily put together.

Because some of you dont like a specific style does not make it bad. Thats like calling Pavarotti a bad singer based purely on the fact that you hate opera.

[tdalton]

The QoS editing style is the exact opposite of sloppy or lazy. Its almost over-done, and could have done with being a little more relaxed.

Its a style that either works for you or it doesnt. Im lucky, it worked for me fine. As someone else said, QoS is almost a master-class in film editing, of a certain style, and imo of all the movies of seen that use that style, QoS was by far the most effective. It certainly wasnt sloppily or lazily put together.

Because some of you dont like a specific style does not make it bad. Thats like calling Pavarotti a bad singer based purely on the fact that you hate opera.

Agreed. There's nothing sloppy or lazy about the editing style of QOS. As you said, it may border on being over-done, but it's certainly not lazy.

I'm generally not a huge fan of this type of editing, but I think that it worked quite well in QOS, and was very appropriate for the type of film Forster was going for.

[Mr_Wint]

I am not a fan of QoSs editing style, but I don't think it was sloppy, I think they achieved the desired results. They wanted to go for the modern choppy quick cut feel. I just don't personally care for it.

'modern choppy quick cut feel' sounds rather sloppy to me.

I have nothing against fast cuts. The PTS contains some incredibly fast and dynamic editing, but here it works well. The rest of the film looks like a rush job. Bond jumping on a bus roof and climbing up a drainpipe demonstrates some of the worst cutting I have ever seen in a Bondmovie.

[The Shark]

The QoS editing style is the exact opposite of sloppy or lazy. Its almost over-done, and could have done with being a little more relaxed.

Its a style that either works for you or it doesnt. Im lucky, it worked for me fine. As someone else said, QoS is almost a master-class in film editing, of a certain style, and imo of all the movies of seen that use that style, QoS was by far the most effective. It certainly wasnt sloppily or lazily put together.

Because some of you dont like a specific style does not make it bad. Thats like calling Pavarotti a bad singer based purely on the fact that you hate opera.

Agreed. There's nothing sloppy or lazy about the editing style of QOS. As you said, it may border on being over-done, but it's certainly not lazy.

In what way? I thought it felt it like it could have been edited by a computer on autopilot, because nearly every single shot in a respective action or dialogue scene seemed to last the exact same amount of time as the last.

I don't have a problem with fast editing, with variance in length of cuts, but in QOS it was almost metronomic, at a regular pace.

[HildebrandRarity]

...nearly every single shot in a respective action or dialogue scene seemed to last the exact same amount of time as the last.

I don't have a problem with fast editing, with variance in length of cuts, but in QOS it was almost metronomic, at a regular pace.

Which scenes specifically?

If you want time to think about which specific scenes, fine.

Also, what rule is there for length of cut? Where is there a rule stating that there has to be a variance - a random walk, if you will - instead of some order with the timing being in rhythm with Arnold's sublime score?

Again, i'd like you to come back and tell us specific scenes.

Not that I don't believe you...

Proof would be nice.

Cheers.

[jamie00007]

Its not just the length of the cuts that are important (though I'd say that if the cut lengths were the same length, which Im not sure is true, that was done to maintain a beat, and intentionally to give the scenes rhythm, which would later be perfectly matched by the score), its the choice of which shots and angles to use. And I think each shot and angle was beautifully put together. The Slate fight for instance was terrific, the fight was exciting and brutal, it made you feel like you were amongst it, each punch and hit was edited seamlessly.

Lazy editing is the bland, TV style of editing in the John Glen movies.

[The Shark]

...nearly every single shot in a respective action or dialogue scene seemed to last the exact same amount of time as the last.

I don't have a problem with fast editing, with variance in length of cuts, but in QOS it was almost metronomic, at a regular pace.

Which scenes specifically?

If you want time to think about which specific scenes, fine.

Also, what rule is there for length of cut? Where is there a rule stating that there has to be a variance - a random walk, if you will - instead of some order with the timing being in rhythm with Arnold's sublime score?

Again, i'd like you to come back and tell us specific scenes.

Not that I don't believe you...

Proof would be nice.

Cheers.

Thank you.

I terms of scenes I'd say the Opera Sequence (as great as it is) and several dialogue scenes between Bond and Camille, and Bond and M.

Another one is the from when Bond shoots the general in the truck, essentially the Perla De Las Dunas finale.

Its not just the length of the cuts that are important (though I'd say that if the cut lengths were the same length, which Im not sure is true, that was done to maintain a beat, and intentionally to give the scenes rhythm, which would later be perfectly matched by the score), its the choice of which shots and angles to use. And I think each shot and angle was beautifully put together. The Slate fight for instance was terrific, the fight was exciting and brutal, it made you feel like you were amongst it, each punch and hit was edited seamlessly.

It was well edited, I'll give you that, but in other circumstances that artificial, rigid rhythm becomes obtrusive.

Lazy editing is the bland, TV style of editing in the John Glen movies.

As bland as you may think it is, at least there's some variance in the length of shots, long takes, good use of wide shots, and I can appreciate and fully understand the geography of an action seqeunce.

With QOS, I remember one times I was managed successfully count the timing of the next shot, even in a dialogue scene without a music. That level of predictability can soon become very irritating, and one wants the film to stop pointlessly cutting to different angles rapidly in a timed fashioned, in a music-less dialogue seqeunce

[HildebrandRarity]

I'll have to check it but I have to tell you that what Forster/Arnold did with that scene/cue/score is quite sublime.

There is a chance that the cuts were in timing with Arnold's utterly fantastic 'Quantum'/Night At The Opera que.

I rate that piece of music incredibly high, just to let you know.

But I will check the other scenes when I have time.

In any event, I think you're one of the very rare individuals who has noted this...which is neither here nor there as there is no rule with respect to random/variant intervals v rhythmic or metronomic cuts.

[byline]

I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug.

OK, we all have our own opinions of what the Bond character should be. And, of course, we're all entitled. But I feel compelled to comment on your perception of the "Casino Royale" Bond, since it so stridently differs from mine:

Clueless? Bond seemed pretty intuitively focused on everything except Vesper. And the literary Bond was deceived by her right till the very end, too.

Thoughtless? I lost count of how many times Bond said "Thank you" throughout the film. This was as actually one of the more thoughtful portrayals of Bond throughout the series.

Slovenly and uncouth? I thought he looked pretty darned good in that dinner jacket. And, with the exception of fight/chase scenes in which he looked believably rumpled, I thought his attire was nearly pristine.

Turning Bond into a "modern feminist caricature"? If true at all (and I'm guessing most feminists would laugh at that suggestion), then I would think it far truer of the Brosnan era than Craig's.

[DamnCoffee]

Fantastic post, Byline.

[byline]

Fantastic post, Byline.

Thanks! I was typing it right around the time the thread got closed, but the basic thought stayed with me, so I thought I would try again now that the thread has been reopened.

[JimmyBond]

Bond jumping on a bus roof and climbing up a drainpipe demonstrates some of the worst cutting I have ever seen in a Bondmovie.

This part always bugs me. I remember watching a behind the scenes clip of Craig climbing up the entire pipe himself, and it looked rather impressive. And most (if not all) of that footage was left out of the movie.

[DamnCoffee]

I know what you mean. When I saw that in the cinema it was totally "Whoa! Okay... "

Another shot that bugs me is the shot where Bond runs to the window, when he see's the bus. There's a really cool close up shot of his face looking out of the window, so determined. It looks really rough though, the shot should linger, instead it's too fast.

[Mr. Blofeld]

...with lemon striping?

It's my first holy communion dress all over again...! (?)

Didn't know boys wore dresses to Anglican holy communion...

It was a Catholic thing...*

(*Zorin Industries would like to state that he has never worn a lady garment of the dainty variety ever in his years and has only mentioned so in this thread in a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention from the backstabbing, lazy one-up-manship and quite useless wrangling over the title of a film that hasn't even shot a frame of film yet...).

Well, I never wore a dress; makes me picture you as a bit more like your avatar, innit?

[Richard]

Okay, the thread is opened up again. I am as weary of all the fighting on cbn as I am of listening to Judi Dench shoot her mouth off as M. Within ten years, audiences will be laughing at her scenes, she's so over the top. I realize M's dialogue is written in Barbara Broccoli's voice, but whoever thought M would be turned into a Mommie Dearest ?

Dench ought to have the self-awareness to realize she is a spoiler. Her big faces and camera-mugging derails the Bond films. She should have had the sense to stand down and bow out with Die Another Day. Her routine had become predictable and boorish by then.

Quantum of Solace is more sophisticated, technically and aesthetically, than Casino Royale. Casino Royale was strictly a paint-it-by-the-numbers job. It could hardly be shot any other way, what with reams and reams of explanatory and declarative dialogue. If 30 pages of endless talk were cut nobody would miss it. It has more dialogue than all the Sean Connery films combined. On the other hand, the paint-it-by-the-numbers approach helps to put the action across, even though some of the action -- like the erector set climb and the runway chase -- was overwrought. In contrast, Quantum of Solace is over-edited, and not just in the action scenes. Even the character interaction is over-cut.

Daniel Craig works hard in his action scenes, but the director never holds on him long enough to show him off. His best physical acting is on the cutting room floor. Audiences want to see James Bond in action. Audiences want to see Daniel Craig in action. They don't want glimpses.

James Bond as a character is not present in Quantum of Solace even though he is called by that name. This new James Bond is an entirely different concept, from the inside out, from what Ian Fleming wrote and the originating filmmakers translated and sustained. I would like Quantum of Solace better if it had the honesty to change all the names. Then I could accept it as an espionage pastiche slash action film that borrows liberally from LeCarre and Hall.


Richard

Edited by Richard, 02 February 2010 - 08:14 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Further to my post above...

I find it ludicrous to have to sit there with a stop watch to see if Shark is right about the length of cuts being equal as opposed to variant. Why?

A...because it's pure sillyness to watch a movie like that (and I won't);

B...because he only specified two scenes (and I quite like them just the way they are, including the Tosca stuff); and

C...well, so what? So what if the edits don't have varying lengths? Where is stated so ... and what's the name of the rule book?

To suggest the above being the basis of the editing being 'lazy' is ... well, it's being overly nit-picky.


But to get back to the subject, Campbell owes his commercial career to the Eon Bond.

Without James Bond, he'd be nothing and would only have stink-fests to his name (other than the first Zorro).

Campbell has been feeding off Bond and we all know that Bonds have been considerably successful in each of the five decades.

It's rather precious of him to take a cheap dig at a movie he was too gutless to helm knowing that he wouldn't have a Fleming Original and Love Story to work with, especially in light of the garbage upon garbage he offered up on the decade...not to mention directing the only Fairey Bond/Tinkerbell Bond moment in franchise history when he made Pierce look like a frail, pouty, Fairey boy as he fluttered and flew around in GoldenEye pre-titles.

[JimmyBond]

I don't agree with his comments. But this slagging off of Campbell from you is getting tiring.

Ok, so the teaser sequence in Goldeneye ends in a silly note...so what? I remember sitting there with my dad watching it in theaters and when he said "Yeah right!" I had a huge grin on my face because to me that's what Bond represented, silly OTT action sequences that are only slightly believable. Sure now I feel differently about what I want from my Bond films, but to me that sequence accomplished what it was meant to. I didnt care that it didnt look realistic, and I gather most of the people who saw the film back in 95 didnt care as well.