129 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

And what some class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films, surely?

[Glenn]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

And what some class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films, surely?

Perhaps "art director" is the wrong term, as I said in my previous post. The films that you mentioned are character films, stories-with-depth films. James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth.

Changes were made with Casino Royale, surely? And not just because of a 'ham-fisted' director? Nobody thought that the Bond series wouldn't survive by the end of 2006.

What intrigues me is your last sentence. Is "shakey cam" in the artistic DNA of the Bond films? I am getting older, and my memory may slowly be going (my wife claims) but I cannot recall another Bond film that leaves the viewer decidedly seasick! Please elaborate!

[Lachesis]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

And what you class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films. You only need to see how Peter Hunt edited a fight scene to see that.

Not sure where or why the term 'Art Director' turns up in relation to this film, unless it simply some folks way of saying - hes not an action director in their opinion. What we literally have here is a chosen method of filmaking presumably designed to involve and immerse the viewer but in its implementation many folks find the film making process itself is more visible than the material it conveys.

It is possible that the problem in QoS is elevated by the relentless frequency of the action scene's, and that they are all given the exact same treatment....what begins as a process that establishes an emotional tie to events later becomes soemthing that begins to wear out its welcome and even distract you from what is going on. This can occur over the course of one sequence or progressively over the entire film depending on the viewers suscetibility it seems. (and might explain why threads such as 'Slowing down QoS' are present when no other Bond has inspired them, and why similar processes used in CR arent seen as so intrusive.)

While I agree the dna of Peter Hunts pioneering editing is evident in the process (fast edits rather than shakey cam at least), the wisdom and skill in weilding that form of delivery is imo absent and has become a wholesale application that ultimately works to undermine many of its initial benefits. Rather than anything new or fresh its actually too much, and too frequently more of the same that I see as the problem both in QoS and in the later Bourne film.

I only offer this as a possible observation as ultimately the editing is the least of my problems why I believe QoS dissapointed.

[Zorin Industries]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

And what some class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films, surely?

Perhaps "art director" is the wrong term, as I said in my previous post. The films that you mentioned are character films, stories-with-depth films. James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth.

Changes were made with Casino Royale, surely? And not just because of a 'ham-fisted' director? Nobody thought that the Bond series wouldn't survive by the end of 2006.

What intrigues me is your last sentence. Is "shakey cam" in the artistic DNA of the Bond films? I am getting older, and my memory may slowly be going (my wife claims) but I cannot recall another Bond film that leaves the viewer decidedly seasick! Please elaborate!

Well - SOLACE does not leave people sea-sick.

Check out any fight scene in FROM RUSSIA or OHMSS and see what a different style of camera movement (i.e. less static) looks like. Other examples - the bell-shed fight in OHMSS, the Orient Express fight, the bobsled chase, BOND falling into TANAKA's lair, the hearse chase in DR NO - all demonstrate quick cuts and non-stationary camera choices.



And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase? Bond has to move on. It always has. Bond should set one of the benchmarks, not follow the crowd.

And all good cinema and TV is about the characters. It is very limiting to label Marc Forster as a character director only.

So you are saying that Bond films cannot be "story-with-depth" films? (people are going to be even more disappointed with BOND 23 than SOLACE when you remember the likes of Sam Mendes and Peter Morgan may be involved).

Your sentiment ("James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth") speaks volumes about the problems the films will face now as they evolve (assuming we see any more 007 films). The fans are stuck in some nostalgic past where everything must follow an A,B,C structure and if anything breaks from that formula it is labelled "arty" and bad. The producers of Bond want to stretch their creative and artistic wings. Not have them clipped by the fans who want the same thing repeated time and time again so that their comfort zone is not in any way threatened.

[Zorin Industries]

Anyway - to answer the original thread....

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was far from enough. Disappointing because it pulls back from its female villain agenda, disappointing because it is so badly cast, disappointing because it is Bond-by-numbers in a very patronising manner and disappointing because it doesn't know when to stop (all the chases except Bilbao are overlong, dramatically all over the place and often unecessary from the start, eg. the caviar factory, BULL's exploding case, M's embarrassing kidnap and imprisonment, the pipe sequence which plays like a cartoon and the tiresome trail of DAVIDOV who is subsequently narratively sidelined). It is a lesson in not making Bond for the time (the eve of the new century) but remember that 007 on screen is better placed five minutes into the future and slightly beyond what is happening for real in the world.

[plankattack]

TND.

GE is far from perfect, but considering the 6-yr gap that preceded it, it hit a home run (at the time). I was never a Brozza-fan pre-Bond, but his performance won me over, and the nostalgic sheen that coats the film was more than enough to satisfy me that Bond had returned.

So to follow with TND, which as others have said completely wastes an interesting villain and scheme, and devolves instead into a series of shoot-outs, explosions, and chases, none of which set a new standard for excitement or originality. In fact, there's very little original about TND - villains, henchmen, girls. After GE had revived the series, commercially, if not artistically, TND was IMHO, a wasted opportunity to push the series' envelope somewhat.

How so many feel about QoS is exactly how I felt about TND, but I do find it fascinating that many of the criticisms thrown at the former, seem to evade the latter. Ah, the weight of expectations........

[Glenn]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

And what some class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films, surely?

Perhaps "art director" is the wrong term, as I said in my previous post. The films that you mentioned are character films, stories-with-depth films. James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth.

Changes were made with Casino Royale, surely? And not just because of a 'ham-fisted' director? Nobody thought that the Bond series wouldn't survive by the end of 2006.

What intrigues me is your last sentence. Is "shakey cam" in the artistic DNA of the Bond films? I am getting older, and my memory may slowly be going (my wife claims) but I cannot recall another Bond film that leaves the viewer decidedly seasick! Please elaborate!

Well - SOLACE does not leave people sea-sick.

Check out any fight scene in FROM RUSSIA or OHMSS and see what a different style of camera movement (i.e. less static) looks like. Other examples - the bell-shed fight in OHMSS, the Orient Express fight, the bobsled chase, BOND falling into TANAKA's lair, the hearse chase in DR NO - all demonstrate quick cuts and non-stationary camera choices.



And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase? Bond has to move on. It always has. Bond should set one of the benchmarks, not follow the crowd.

And all good cinema and TV is about the characters. It is very limiting to label Marc Forster as a character director only.

So you are saying that Bond films cannot be "story-with-depth" films? (people are going to be even more disappointed with BOND 23 than SOLACE when you remember the likes of Sam Mendes and Peter Morgan may be involved).

Your sentiment ("James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth") speaks volumes about the problems the films will face now as they evolve (assuming we see any more 007 films). The fans are stuck in some nostalgic past where everything must follow an A,B,C structure and if anything breaks from that formula it is labelled "arty" and bad. The producers of Bond want to stretch their creative and artistic wings. Not have them clipped by the fans who want the same thing repeated time and time again so that their comfort zone is not in any way threatened.

I think that you are missing the point just a little. You provided some excellent examples of other Bond films that have had fast camera work - point taken - but with regard to OHMSS bobsleigh chase that you thoughfully provided, at least we could see what was going on and how. How many times on these very forums have people asked what Bond did with the boat or how did the cars door get ripped off etc? Does that not prove something, even a little something to you? It has nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting to move on or being nostalgic or wanting a formula. It has everything to do with wanting to know what is going on, what is happening. Please, lets have the producers etc be creative and find new ways of story telling, but being unable to focus on the film is not good "story telling", and I don't care how you like to dress it up. The term I used was "seasick" just as others here have used "headache" to descibe watch QoS in the cinema.

Bond with more depth, wouldn't that be something! I was stating that Bond doesn't need as much depth as The Kite Runner does. And we did get a lot more depth with Casino Royale then we did with, say,A View to a Kill (sorry, personnal dig there, couldn't resist )

Quantum of Solace isn't a bad film, I have watched it numerous times, but I just do not enjoy the camera work.

Thanks for the youtube link. Here is one for you:

[Zorin Industries]

And we did get a lot more depth with Casino Royale then we did with, say,A View to a Kill (sorry, personnal dig there, couldn't resist )

Quantum of Solace isn't a bad film, I have watched it numerous times, but I just do not enjoy the camera work.

Thanks for the youtube link. Here is one for you:

Dig away. Go for it. My experience and consumption of Bond films is not predicated on "what is your favourite?" anyway (and there is a difference between favourite and best).

Thanks for the clip link. That is a sequence I have never had a problem with. I know narratively what is going on (the previous 21 Bond films aide that too) and it is an excellently cut sequence conveying the urgency and menace of the scene in question. It also presents the sheer pace and threat of what actually happens in a car crash at fast speeds (and I say that from experience). The whole pre title is MEANT to feel like we were five minutes late. It is MEANT to be a breathtaking, rollercoaster ride. It is an overture - and nowhere in the MAKING A BOND FILM HANDBOOK does it state that overture cannot be fast, visceral and a slap in the face for the audience.

I must ask - why do you watch a film whose camera work you do not like "numerous times"? That makes no sense to me.

[Glenn]

I must ask - why do you watch a film whose camera work you do not like "numerous times"? That makes no sense to me.

Wish I knew. Because I like Daniel Craig's Bond? I love the Bourne films but don't like either Matt Damon or the "shakey cam". So I really cannot pin an answer on your question. I do like that the organisation Quantum is a creeping menace and not just one which wants to destroy the world in five minutes. But why do I have a QoS metal box cased dvd or a Quantum mousemat...I really do not know. Makes no sense to me either, but I'll still watch the film again and again.

[darthbond]

In this order:
1. AVTAK
2. Moonraker
3. DaF
4. QoS

darthbond

[Zorin Industries]

I must ask - why do you watch a film whose camera work you do not like "numerous times"? That makes no sense to me.

Wish I knew. Because I like Daniel Craig's Bond? I love the Bourne films but don't like either Matt Damon or the "shakey cam". So I really cannot pin an answer on your question. I do like that the organisation Quantum is a creeping menace and not just one which wants to destroy the world in five minutes. But why do I have a QoS metal box cased dvd or a Quantum mousemat...I really do not know. Makes no sense to me either, but I'll still watch the film again and again.

Fair enough.

[john.steed]

Indeed, I'd be interested to know if there was anyone here who saw DAF on it's original release and, even though all marketing indicated it would be nothing of the sort, was disappointed in it specifically because it wasn't a revenge story following on from OHMSS...

... and if so if the literally thousands of revenge fantasies since then in any way made up for it

I did see DAF on its original release and I think that I was a bit disappointed that there was no mention of Tracy, at least in the pre-credit sequence. On the other hand, I probably would have been far more disappointed with DAF being a revenge story.

[Messervy]

Once again.....Marc Forster is NOT an "art director" nor were any "poor editing skills" on display.

Different is not the same as bad.

Then I would have to disagree with you. "Different" when it doesn't work, when the audience fails to visualise what is happening on screen without repeat viewings, is "bad".

And if you do not like "art director" then what monniker would you prefer? "Character director" ? That would also work. But he most certainly isn't "action director". The shakey cam method may work for up close and personal stories like Cloverleaf or Blair Witch Project, but the effect ruins broadcanvas stories such as Quantum of Solace or Jason Bourne.

He may very well be a brilliant director, but the choice for shakey cam and extreme editing was, in my opinion, a mistake, and thus made Quantum of Solace a disappointment.

Just for the sake of argument, please let me point out that because one dislikes a movie, it doesn't necessarily make it a bad one per se. Just because one didn't get all that was to be seen on screen, while others (including myself) managed perfectly well, doesn't mean the editing is bad. Just because one needs a scene to be run at snails pace to see every little detail on Bond's face for the next 10 minutes doesn't mean that doing otherwise is necessarily a mistake.

Sorry if I sound pretentious, but I did not need repeated viewings to understand what was happening during the car or boat chases. Actually, I think it really does work the way it's done. Of course one either likes it or not, but I did tremendously enjoy the PTS, its shakiness and its fast pace. So you cannot just state that "the audience fails to visualise".

Granted, QoS is clearly not perfect and has weaknesses: the way Bond handles Mathis' body, the under-characterization of the villain, the free-fall, the energy system of the hotel being there just for the sake of exploding in the end, etc. But then again, it doesn't mean that it is "bad, period".

I guess what I'm getting at is that one's own experience of a movie cannot describe the movie in itself. I personnaly disliked (understatement) TND, yet I wouldn't call it a "bad" movie: it does have good items in it; I just cannot get myself to really enjoy them.

But, in the end, even if QoS is, as you say, too shaken, as long as it is not stirred!...

[Ytadel]

Yup, it's gotta be Quantum of Solace. That's not to say that it's the worst Bond film - I'd probably rank it about 15 or 16 out of the 22 - but it's the most disappointing without a shadow of a doubt. It's the direct sequel to Casino Royale, one of my favorite films of all time and one of my top 10 films of the entire last decade, and it wasn't even one of the top 20 films of 2008, let alone the decade. That we're following it up with another long gap just rubs salt in the wound.

[Glenn]

"Just for the sake of arguement". This is why I so dislike/distrust internet forums and rarely post...it is because so many points are misread/misconstrued or generally ignored. It is so hard to set a tone to a discussion.

In my discussion with Zorin I tried my best to make clear that I do not consider Quatum of Solace a "bad" film. I quite enjoy it and in fact watched it again last night. What I considered "bad" is the shakey cam work. Not the story line points that you pointed out as "weaknesses". The camera work....during the action scenes. What is Bond groping for on the passenger seat of his Aston? Blink and you miss it...its his gun. What exactly does happen during the tunnel chase in Sienna, it doesn't really make much sense. How does the rubber speed boat flip through the air?

You are lucky if you didn't need repeat viewings to see what was going on. Judging by the many forums here, a great many people did.

So trying to bring myself back on topic, Quantum of Solace was for me a "disappointment" in the cinema because it failed to live up to my expections following on from Casino Royale, and because of the lack of clarity in the action sequences.

I just wonder what would happen if a poll was set on this discussion, which film would be voted for the most. What do you think Mr Messervy?

[Messervy]

"Just for the sake of arguement". This is why I so dislike/distrust internet forums and rarely post...it is because so many points are misread/misconstrued or generally ignored. It is so hard to set a tone to a discussion.

In my discussion with Zorin I tried my best to make clear that I do not consider Quatum of Solace a "bad" film. I quite enjoy it and in fact watched it again last night. What I considered "bad" is the shakey cam work. Not the story line points that you pointed out as "weaknesses". The camera work....during the action scenes. What is Bond groping for on the passenger seat of his Aston? Blink and you miss it...its his gun. What exactly does happen during the tunnel chase in Sienna, it doesn't really make much sense. How does the rubber speed boat flip through the air?

You are lucky if you didn't need repeat viewings to see what was going on. Judging by the many forums here, a great many people did.

So trying to bring myself back on topic, Quantum of Solace was for me a "disappointment" in the cinema because it failed to live up to my expections following on from Casino Royale, and because of the lack of clarity in the action sequences.

I just wonder what would happen if a poll was set on this discussion, which film would be voted for the most. What do you think Mr Messervy?

By "argument", I did not mean quarrel, I meant pros vs. cons.
I read in your post that you judged the camera work "bad". This is what prompted me to suggested that "not enjoyable to one's taste" doesn't mean "bad". Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Then again, I do not want to sound too pretentious but, yes, I did see what Bond was groping for on the passenger's seat during the car chase. And the tunnel chase in Siena is .. well .. inside a tunnel, so it is supposed to be dark and blurred.

Of course, this is just my take on the movie; but the mere fact that some people enjoyed it is enough to not qualify it as bad.

I do understand your point on being let down by the movie, though. On the whole, it is not one of my all-time favorite Bond films either. It's just that, to me, it proudly stands as a very good one.

I am quite confident that if a poll were to be organised, QoS would fare rather unwell. I am perfectly aware of the fact that it is disliked by many. I just wanted to state my own opinion on the movie, knowing perfectly well that it is a clear minority.

(oddly enough, I wanted to insert here a smiling buddy icon, but it did not work on my computer)

[Lachesis]

On the other hand, I probably would have been far more disappointed with DAF being a revenge story.

Indeed and acutely back then a straighforward revenge movie really would have been considered too generic and ordinary for Bond - it was by no means the inevitable path to follow up OHMSS.

[Colombo]

Well apart from Connerys Magnificent FRWL, The second entry of each of the others was a let down. (Except obviously Lazenby who was a disappointment right off the bat & for better or worse didn't get a chance to get to his second)

MWTGG : they went for a quickie to capitalize on LALDs success and failed. Underwhelming. (Moonraker however remains a Guilty pleasure for me )

LTK : Has grown on me since my first experience of it, but at the time it felt like for the first time Bond wasn't wasn't king of the hill anymore at the movies.

TND : After a strong re-entry with GE this paint by numbers adventure seemed mechanical and disjointed. I actually first watched a bootleg video of it as i was in the middle of nowhere at the time of release, and it was the only copy i could find. I really thought some scenes must be missing as the movie just didn't flow. That said ALL the Brosnan films were a let down in their final act.

QOS : There. I said it. CR was for me the best bond since FYEO. In fact it's probably my favorite as it represents all that was great from the best which preceded it. (Without being another DAD homage) Quantum had some huge shoes to fill. Every one was expecting the Dark Knight that followed Batman Begins...I really wanted to embrace this one but, as it kept running my initial heightened pulse kept dropping. I do appreciate it's kinetic energy and a Bond who could kick Bournes any day, but this one left me as cold as Vespers Algerian Love Knot in the snow.

All that said, I believe that third time's the charm. GF. TSWLM. Wish Dalton had one, and Pierces was sans Dr Christmas Jones...But Daniel Craig could potentially give us his (if not the series) high water-mark installment...On to Bond 23!

Edited by Colombo, 09 June 2010 - 04:02 PM.

[TheREAL008]

Diamonds Are Forever - Connery simply didn't care about the role and it clearly shows in the film. Even giving his salary to The Scottish Educational Fund seemed a grand idea and all, but he at least could have tried. In all honesty, Connery should have done OHMSS then quit after that, handing the role over to Roger Moore because I believe Rog would have been KILLER in DAF.

Never Say Never Again - THANKFULLY not part of Bond cannon because it's just god awful to watch. It hasn't aged well at all and I loved the movie better when it was titled Thunderball in '65.

Moonraker - I hated this movie when I was younger, but nowadays it isn't so bad. If it weren't for Moonraker then I would have no space station level in The Operative: No One Lives Forever to enjoy as much as I do whenever I play it. It's still probably one of Sir Moore's weaker Bond films, but it's not horrible to watch every so often.

Die Another Day - GREAT first half, lousy second half. Invisible cars, electro suits, and a fight onboard a burning airplane that's rapidly crashing to the earth. I never cared for Bronsan's tenure as Bond but I feel very sorry for him after he was dropped from the role. In all honesty I believe he had one more great Bond film within him and unfortunately DAD is his swan song. There's really nothing remarkable about the movie, Graves and Jinx were useless characters. Zao should have been the main villain with Frost as a devious henchwoman with a more Bondian plot and the movie would have been better.

Quantum of Solace - It IS a good film. It's just way too short and there should have been more of a story. Thanks Writers Guild strike.

[Royal Dalton]

Well - SOLACE does not leave people sea-sick.

It made me seasick. Well, landsick, anyway.

[jaguar007]

I have to agree with Zorin. I don't think the editing was "bad" because I think that was what they were going for. I don't like the style choice of the editing, but I can't say it was poorly edited.

[The Shark]

What IS an "art director"? I'm curious as to what people's definition of that is.

The likes of THE KITE RUNNER, MONSTERS BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND are not "art films". They may be to some whose cinematic spectrum begins and ends at their local Blockbuster store, but Forster is not an "art director". That is what folk level at him in relation to Bond, when in all fairness, all Forster has been was different, maybe a bit more astute as a director (Campbell is a very competent director, but he has bouts of ham-fistedness) and saw the 007 films slide into an artistic stalemate which the series will not survive unless changes were made.

As said above, "art house" director is the wrong word, and mostly termed b uninformed cretins who consider Forster a "non-mainstream director".

Personally, I'd argue that Forster has a certain hard to pin down sensibility that is tonally incongruent to the world of Bond. His style of direction and story telling almost feels far too precious, sensitive, aloof and "tasteful", which projects quite a great deal into QoS. Fancy title card fonts and the shots of dripping water and starving indigenous locals are some of the more obvious examples, but it's better circumscribed as a general attitude and approach.

And what some class as "shakey cam" and fast editing is in the artistic DNA of Bond films, surely?

You could argue that. Ever since Peter Hunt took the techniques of jump cutting and under-cranking to a near-virtuoso level in likes of FRWL and TB, Bond has always been associated with rapid editing. Though I don't think that's what people have a problem with, when it comes to QoS. It's more the way the shots are assembled, 180º rule being frequently broken, the length of each cut, shots chosen/discarded, that make it rather fragmented and undecipherable for some.

Forster has stated that it was his attention to have the editing reflect Bond's psyche and the vertigo he must experiencing at that moment in time, so in effect it's a naturalistic approach to action. Easier said than done though, and I think it's in its execution where the editing blunders. One finds it provides a 'shock' element on the first couple of viewings, but after that the 'mood simulation' intention wears off, and it becomes rather tedious to watch.

Check out any fight scene in FROM RUSSIA or OHMSS and see what a different style of camera movement (i.e. less static) looks like.

Perhaps, but the camera still remains relatively static compared to say the Bond vs. Slate tussle in QoS. Despite the Orient Express fight being for a large part handhold, it hardly moves at all, the series of cuts are consistent and easy to comprehend (even in the dark sapphire hue), and only one or two angles are cut to forth. In comparison, the camera angles in the Slate fight move all around the room, breaking up any kind of continuity and fluidity.

And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase?

You could still find a middle ground and feature both characteristics. They're not polarities.

Bond should set one of the benchmarks, not follow the crowd.

Then why follow with the Hollywood Bourne crowd, to capture the cultural Zeitgeist?

And all good cinema and TV is about the characters. It is very limiting to label Marc Forster as a character director only.

So you are saying that Bond films cannot be "story-with-depth" films? (people are going to be even more disappointed with BOND 23 than SOLACE when you remember the likes of Sam Mendes and Peter Morgan may be involved).

Your sentiment ("James Bond doesn't need that amount of depth") speaks volumes about the problems the films will face now as they evolve (assuming we see any more 007 films). The fans are stuck in some nostalgic past where everything must follow an A,B,C structure and if anything breaks from that formula it is labelled "arty" and bad. The producers of Bond want to stretch their creative and artistic wings. Not have them clipped by the fans who want the same thing repeated time and time again so that their comfort zone is not in any way threatened.

I think you'll find the vast swathe of Bond fans want some kind of change, they just don't want the circa-TWINE lifetime drama screenwriting and direction that's being served to them ever since by the producers. Mind you they'll still pay the box office toll to watch the picture, whether or not they'll accept it is another matter.

[blueman]

Funny how a Bond film is thought of as non-Bond, or not Bond enough. I think that way about most of 'em.

[Zorin Industries]

And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase?

You could still find a middle ground and feature both characteristics. They're not polarities.

Have you ever tried editing both types of shots together? You can't. Well, not successfully.

[The Shark]

And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase?

You could still find a middle ground and feature both characteristics. They're not polarities.

Have you ever tried editing both types of shots together? You can't. Well, not successfully.

My point is that you shouldn't throw the baby out the bathwater either way. Find a middle ground. You can still keep the editing relatively taut and fast, while keeping in helicopter, crane, and wide shots of the chase. It also doesn't have to follow a rigid pace either, and that's something Stuart Baird showed adeptly in Casino Royale. One should allow for fluctuations and contrasts in the speed of chase, otherwise it just becomes dull, monotonous and disengaging for the viewer.

[DaveBond21]

DAD is still the most disappointing to me.

QOS had the most disappointed reaction I've witnessed of other people. I was at a charity screening of QOS here in Sydney and plenty of people expressed their disappointment after the movie, in comparison to say Casino Royale. Of course, some hadn't seen a Bond movie in the cinema since the 70's and were comparing it to Connery and Moore.

[Lachesis]

And what do we want of our new Bond car chases - fixed cameras filming wide and mid-shots with nice, story conveying close ups, but all of them with a tempo that does not reflect the speed and danger of a real car chase?

You could still find a middle ground and feature both characteristics. They're not polarities.

Have you ever tried editing both types of shots together? You can't. Well, not successfully.

My point is that you shouldn't throw the baby out the bathwater either way. Find a middle ground. You can still keep the editing relatively taut and fast, while keeping in helicopter, crane, and wide shots of the chase. It also doesn't have to follow a rigid pace either, and that's something Stuart Baird showed adeptly in Casino Royale. One should allow for fluctuations and contrasts in the speed of chase, otherwise it just becomes dull, monotonous and disengaging for the viewer.

This is the point I was trying to make, there is a lack of variety in how action is approached in QoS whereas in previous Bond's the faster cuts were a pointed focus to certain sequences now its become a wholesale application, and (coupled with the frequency of action sequences) this seems to result in some of us becomming disenaged and distracted from the action - ultimately you become unable to see anything other than the processes of the filmaking. Clearly the point of disengagement is different for diferent viewers and clearly some out there had no problem while others were able to look beyond but only on subsequent viewings.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´ve said it before and I will say it again: the editing of QOS is varied and not just CUT-CUT-CUT. It accelerates time, it slows time down, it goes for the basics, it is associative. Watch it again, please, and give it a chance.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

There's a newspaper review of The A-Team that nicely sums up my feelings on the editing of not just Quantum, but far too many modern action films:

http://www.theglobea...article1599306/

But the action scenes here, and in countless similar movies, have exactly the opposite result: Shot in jagged, close-up, disorienting shards, they stop the film dead in its tracks. Instead of acceleration, there’s stasis; instead of purpose, confusion; instead of thrills, noise. Yet surely Carnahan and his kind can’t be that incompetent. Perhaps this is just a different aesthetic, where disorientation is the goal, where the action flick is no longer an escape from reality but an exaggeration of it, not a retreat from the fragmentation and noise of the information age but its explosive echo.

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 11 June 2010 - 06:54 PM.

[The Shark]

I´ve said it before and I will say it again: the editing of QOS is varied and not just CUT-CUT-CUT. It accelerates time, it slows time down, it goes for the basics, it is associative. Watch it again, please, and give it a chance.

Yep, I have watched it many times, and even counted the how many seconds each shot lasts.

What I've found is that even in the non-action sequences, the editing seems to follow a highly regimented, metronomic pacing. Almost like there's a limit on how long each shot should last. Strangely enough with that mind, the ludicrous theories of films being inexplicably cut to the timing of Queen's Another One Bites the Dust, or any random pop classic, doesn't seem so far out.

Even the much derided DAD featured a far more comprehensible style of editing, and Christian Wagner's speed ramping, slow motion, and flurries of quick cutting, allow for a feeling of fluidity. Seeming far more organic than QoS's mechanical approach.

There's a newspaper review of The A-Team that nicely sums up my feelings on the editing of not just Quantum, but far too many modern action films:

http://www.theglobea...article1599306/

But the action scenes here, and in countless similar movies, have exactly the opposite result: Shot in jagged, close-up, disorienting shards, they stop the film dead in its tracks. Instead of acceleration, there’s stasis; instead of purpose, confusion; instead of thrills, noise. Yet surely Carnahan and his kind can’t be that incompetent. Perhaps this is just a different aesthetic, where disorientation is the goal, where the action flick is no longer an escape from reality but an exaggeration of it, not a retreat from the fragmentation and noise of the information age but its explosive echo.

That's what you get for hiring Marc Forster, Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson to direct and edit a Bond film. Giving them pretty much free reign in the process.