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

Will there ever be an alternate cut of Quantum of Solace?


85 replies to this topic

#1 JLaidlaw

JLaidlaw

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 206 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:50 PM

I've read an awful lot of reviews of Quantum of Solace, seen an awful lot of discussion and talked with quite a few (Bond fans and non-Bond fans) friends about the film. Talking with those who didn't like the film nine times out of ten their dislike seemed to come down to one thing; the way the film's action sequences were edited. So often in the last year we've heard things (which may or may not be fan speculation) about yards of film being left on the cutting room floor, and I think a lot of us have been very curious to know .a. if there's any more to the film and .b. if the film would be a more enjoyable watch if the film was allowed to breathe, to relax and settle between action sequences. Then we get odd comments leaked which make it sound like Michael G. Wilson was unhappy with the edit, and I know speculation on this board is rife as to whether or not Daniel Craig was happy with the piece, certainly we know Martin Campbell felt the emotional story was lost (Though doesn't say why). With all this in mind, do you think Quantum of Solace may deserve an extended cut, done in a different stylistic manner?

Since this is always liable to raise controversy I'll explain my background; I hated the way Quantum of Solace seemed designed to give me a headache, but liked the film, especially on second viewing. I felt if the editing had not been carried out in such a way it would now be a far superior film. I am perfectly aware that this is not the only opinion, that many people liked the way it was edited and cut, and I respect this, and would argue that I'm not saying I want to replace the original film, just it would be nice to have a recut.

I can't see the problem with an extended edition being marketed, plenty of other films have managed to do it. Whilst Lord of the Rings is a unique example of how well an extended edition can be marketed even beyond that there's Spiderman, X-Men, the latter two Bourne Films, Kingdom of Heaven and numerous archive films that have had extended or completely different versions released (The Richard Donner Superman 2 perhaps the most famously different). The only things that go against Quantum of Solace as far as I can see is that in all the other cases it has been the Director who is the driving force behind the recut, and I'm sure Forster's very happy with the way his film is streamlined 'like a bullet' and also that Bond is a 22 film series, and a series that has run this long may not want to start recutting their back catalogue, as they never know where it'll end up. The major hurdle is that there is a risk of causing offence to Forster, which I don't think a relatively small production company wouldn't want to do, as their reputation could fall on one tiny issue.

Do I think this will happen? No. Do I want it to? Yes. So, have you guys got anything to say on the matter?

Edited by JLaidlaw, 04 March 2010 - 12:50 PM.


#2 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:26 PM

My distaste for QoS has very little to do with the editing of the action shots, imo its badly filmed period, with the exception of the Opera sequence the locations are dreary and devoid of character. More importantly the enemies convey no character or threat and are just a bland precession of canon fodder. The greatest sin is that the central characters are equally bland and lacking charisma, their motivation generic making the fact that one is James Bond more arbitrary than relevent. This bears all the hallmarks of Bond surrendering and realigning with Greengrass and Bourne where once Bond was a genre all its own.

Traditionally a Bond film is an adventure with a diverse and varied collection of attributes being employed to captivate an audience...imo QoS is the first Bond to be an exclusive action film and is as generic as they come - if you dont enjoy the action there is nothing left to enjoy, tweaking it may mildly widen its appeal but its the missing elements that make it Marmite Bond. (though some appear more than happy for Bond to be a pure actioner I feel the franchises longevity comes from what made it unique rather than seeing it join the crowd).

#3 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:39 PM

Will there ever be an alternate cut of all the other Bond pictures?

No. Why should there be? They were released the way they were meant to be.

Sure, since DVD became the medium of choice there will always be some deleted scenes. But why should EON put in the money and the effort to recut a picture that was perfectly well received (at least box office-wise)?

I can understand why some think QOS was edited too eliptically. But this is the way it is. To put out an alternative version would also mean: Sorry, we messed up. And they clearly don´t think so, nor do they have to IMO.

#4 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 02:12 PM

Satisfying the tired whims of some fans is not how it works. There will be no "alternative cut" to SOLACE. Why would there need to be? It is a very traditional Bond film. It was just honed differently. If people want two and half hour remakes of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME then stand by and watch the series die. But Bond has moved on. It always has and always will - if it wants to survive.

And quite how SOLACE - which has less "action" than, say DIE ANOTHER DAY or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - is now the "first action Bond film" baffles me.

And get used to the "Marmite Bond" films. They are here to stay.

#5 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:00 PM

And quite how SOLACE - which has less "action" than, say DIE ANOTHER DAY or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - is now the "first action Bond film" baffles me.

And get used to the "Marmite Bond" films. They are here to stay.


By that I mean I can't see anything else to appreciate or interest anyone in that movie, as opposed to an adventure movie which has more diverse elements contributing to its appeal (only one of which is the 'action' component)...I happen to like Marmite, but we really don't know what it here to stay, the pattern of the last 5 movies is clear evidence of that!

#6 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 05:09 PM

And quite how SOLACE - which has less "action" than, say DIE ANOTHER DAY or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - is now the "first action Bond film" baffles me.

And get used to the "Marmite Bond" films. They are here to stay.


By that I mean I can't see anything else to appreciate or interest anyone in that movie, as opposed to an adventure movie which has more diverse elements contributing to its appeal (only one of which is the 'action' component)...I happen to like Marmite, but we really don't know what it here to stay, the pattern of the last 5 movies is clear evidence of that!

I would put money on BOND 23 - if it is ever actually made - being just as dividing for the fans as SOLACE. And the Craig films are not the last five Bond titles. I am basing my notions on where the series has gone now that Daniel Craig has taken over (plus a few other factors involving the producing personnel and their creative preferences).

And your opinions on SOLACE are only your opinions. So whether you found anything to appreciate is surely only about your tastes and expectations, not those of the producers and writers who are taking this series forward in the only way it can go.

#7 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 March 2010 - 05:24 PM

we really don't know what is here to stay

That doesn't matter. Some fans always praise and defend whatever EON is doing at the moment. They are always so incredibly lucky to live in an era where the Bondfilms "found their way back again"...

#8 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:01 PM

we really don't know what is here to stay

That doesn't matter. Some fans always praise and defend whatever EON is doing at the moment. They are always so incredibly lucky to live in an era where the Bondfilms "found their way back again"...


And some are always bitching about the huge disappointments the films are to them.

Even Steven, I´d say.

#9 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:36 PM

we really don't know what is here to stay

That doesn't matter. Some fans always praise and defend whatever EON is doing at the moment. They are always so incredibly lucky to live in an era where the Bondfilms "found their way back again"...


And some are always bitching about the huge disappointments the films are to them.

Quite.

And I don't remember saying anything of the sort ('lucky' and "Bond films have found their way back again?").

But if Eon Productions are prepared to stump up the funds to gather Marc Forster, various costly editing suites and a team of multiple editors to re-cut a film made two years ago that out-grossed its predecessors in order to appease some people who want their Bond films to be creatively redundant, stylistically impotent and narrative retreads of the previous 20 films then who am I to get in their way....? But then maybe I am in the minority of people who have only watched SOLACE a few times and get what it is doing and sense a new direction that will not be reversed (Peter Morgan said "shocking" remember) rather than those that hate it so much they have stopped counting how many times they saw it at the cinema and now at home.

And yes - my pissing contest is bigger than yours.

#10 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:15 PM

If nothing else it would set a bad precedent. It's one thing to release an alternative version of a film which better represents the director/writer/producer's intention, but once you start altering films away from their original vision because it's determined a large enough number of people "didn't like it because of [X/Y/Z]" where does it end? And where does it start? How many people not like the editing of QOS is "enough"?

#11 JLaidlaw

JLaidlaw

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 206 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:42 PM

Will there ever be an alternate cut of all the other Bond pictures?

No. Why should there be? They were released the way they were meant to be.


Considering the huge surge in popularity of DVD has brought to the "director's cut" or "the extended cut", we are in a world which is now ready to accept such choices not as filmbuff's novelties but as part of the mainstream, possibly a profitable (depending on marketing), but only really going to work with a recent blockbuster. Then take into account that many people lashed out against the editing, one of those films in which all the critics are criticising one aspect (which could be redeemed in an extended cut), to the point where the film's producer is embarrassed into admitting they made some mistakes (And admittedly that story may have been exaggerated so I'll take it with a pinch of salt) , then I think there's a fair enough reason. But Safari Suit points out the crucial thing...

How many people not like the editing of QOS is "enough"?


Which I can't argue with... my sample is limited to only my own experiences.

...some people who want their Bond films to be creatively redundant, stylistically impotent and narrative retreads of the previous 20 films then who am I to get in their way....?


Clearly you think of your self as someone who should get in their way as Lachesis made a simple comment that he felt Quantum was not in the same spirit as previous James Bond films (a comment I can't say I agree with) and you turn your posts into quite harsh attacks of that view, essentially calling him mentally impaired for not accepting your view. Calm down- it's a film we're discussing here.

And in answer to your claim that Quantum is unique amongst the previous films as not being 'creatively redundant' or 'stylistically inpotent' I tend to find I enjoy good things more than I enjoy stylized things. I think creativity does have its place in all film and media outlets, but defending something by saying 'it's new, it's creative, it's stylish' isn't much of an argument. Creative and Stylish don't really mean anything at the end of the day, as anyone who's seen those fashion shows with tin-foil cloaks and cheese-grater accessories will know. The most rational argument one can employ with the argument about Quantum of Solace is You liked it, I didn't. Which doesn't really tell us anything.

Edited by JLaidlaw, 04 March 2010 - 07:44 PM.


#12 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:11 PM

An alternate cut? I hope not, not because of how I feel about QoS, but on grounds of principle. The creative arts are a subjective medium, so the notion of mucking about with anything is sacrilege to me. Hanging the Mona Lisa because it might look better, or chopping out a couple of chapters of Treasure Island because it might improve the flow - no, all non-starters.

I'm being extreme of course, but that's my point. The finished product is the finished product- how the creator intended it. The "fun" in enjoying creative art is whether we enjoy it or not and that experience that we have. Now, if Stevenson was alive and want to re-edit Treasure Island, well, that's a different argument. If, in this case Forster, a director wants to do a re-cut, that's a changes things entirely.

#13 ChristopherZ22

ChristopherZ22

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 103 posts
  • Location:Sherman Oaks, California

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:31 PM

There is only one proper way to make an alternate cut of Quantum of Solace.


Slice up your copy with a chainsaw. B)

#14 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:33 PM

Clearly you think of your self as someone who should get in their way as Lachesis made a simple comment that he felt Quantum was not in the same spirit as previous James Bond films (a comment I can't say I agree with) and you turn your posts into quite harsh attacks of that view, essentially calling him mentally impaired for not accepting your view. Calm down- it's a film we're discussing here.

And in answer to your claim that Quantum is unique amongst the previous films as not being 'creatively redundant' or 'stylistically inpotent' I tend to find I enjoy good things more than I enjoy stylized things. I think creativity does have its place in all film and media outlets, but defending something by saying 'it's new, it's creative, it's stylish' isn't much of an argument. Creative and Stylish don't really mean anything at the end of the day, as anyone who's seen those fashion shows with tin-foil cloaks and cheese-grater accessories will know. The most rational argument one can employ with the argument about Quantum of Solace is You liked it, I didn't. Which doesn't really tell us anything.

I apologise if I was harsh.

Of course there will be no alternate cut of SOLACE. There are actually very few extended / alternate cuts of any film. Directors Cuts are actually quite rare and extra scenes thrown onto a DVD release is hardly the same as an alternate cut. I have yet to see a deleted scene on a DVD that has been cut from any film that was necessary and should have been in the original. There is a difference between curiosity and necessity. I love watching deleted scenes, don't get me wrong. But scenes are cut for valid reasons (time, pace, FX restrictions) and film - as a creative endeavour - needs those boundaries or where do you stop (step forward Mr Lucas).

I would suggest your notion of "stylised" is tighter than mine. In the case of SOLACE there was a greater sense of style because there was a director employed who was an artist and a film maker. I personally think the end results of SOLACE are vastly more creative than a lot of Bond efforts, but that is maybe where opinion comes into play.

And I will stand by my stance that the Bond franchise needed to evolve and will continue to do so. Certain creative boundaries shifted and opened up a different canvas for 007 to play out his next tale, both internally (at Eon and Sony) and externally (the world order and stability shifted and demanded a different direction for Bond, one that chimed with Fleming's take on the character perhaps more than any take for many a year).

#15 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:38 PM

And some are always bitching about the huge disappointments the films are to them.

That's true. But who can blame them for that these days?

#16 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:55 PM

And some are always bitching about the huge disappointments the films are to them.

That's true. But who can blame them for that these days?

There is no "blame" on anyone's part. These are films. You can simply move on and watch something else. Or not watch any film at all.

I don't like mushrooms. I might moan about them jokingly to some, but I don't surround myself with them at home and beyond and STILL moan about them.

#17 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:16 PM

And I will stand by my stance that the Bond franchise needed to evolve and will continue to do so. Certain creative boundaries shifted and opened up a different canvas for 007 to play out his next tale, both internally (at Eon and Sony) and externally (the world order and stability shifted and demanded a different direction for Bond, one that chimed with Fleming's take on the character perhaps more than any take for many a year).


I dont think anyone questions the need for the franchise to continue to evolve and I recognise the very real possibility that it can legitimately and sucessfully do so, leaving my own expectations and appreciation far behind. I don't have to like a Bond film to realise its the right Bond film for it's era, its happened beofre and it will happen again.

However, rightly or wrongly, I cannot see or appreciate QoS' artistic merits as you appear to do, what I do see is an oversimplistic, generic and linear action film that lacks the diversity and breadth of appeal that has traditionally made a Bond novel and film a unique event in the past. In Qos I see Bond as joining the crowd rather than leading the pack its not where I anticipate evolution should lead....but while I retain the right to express my opinion I do not presume it to be any more valid than anyone else's and maybe its just a case that Bond and I part company from this film on...sad but possible, the next film is all important in that regard.

#18 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:33 PM

And some are always bitching about the huge disappointments the films are to them.

That's true. But who can blame them for that these days?

There is no "blame" on anyone's part. These are films. You can simply move on and watch something else. Or not watch any film at all.

I don't like mushrooms. I might moan about them jokingly to some, but I don't surround myself with them at home and beyond and STILL moan about them.

That kind of reasoning always thrills me to death. Don't spend all your time attacking the people who disliked the latest film. This is a forum. You can simply move on and post in other threads. Or not post at all.

I don't like QOS but I love deep fried mushrooms.

#19 JBOO71970

JBOO71970

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:07 AM

Hey, it's been a long time since I posted here, but I figured I'd jump in.

Frankly, I didn't care much for QoS. I like to see the action sequences, so I wasn't enthralled about the editing. I also prefer the villains to be more larger than life and have more larger than life plots. Yeah, like Goldfinger. Bond doesn't necessarily have to save the world, but just saving the country works. And I didn't think the big plot in QoS was all that impressive. If you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot already.

That said, I don't think I'd go in for a recut. MGM already has sucked enough money with redoing the DVDs over and over again. A recut QoS, especially if it is sucessful, could just lead to more such things being done in the future trying to suck more money out of us. I'm already annoyed at a possible future release with the cut original ending.

So, no. No recut. Leave it be and keep it moving I say.

#20 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:17 AM

QoS is a good, and in parts very good Bond film marred by frenetic editing. Take the Bond-v-Mitchell chase early on - frankly I found it incomprehensible on first viewing.

Directors Cut? I can't see it happening. As has been mentioned on this forum already, Marc Forster seemed happy enough with the finished product.

I'm more concerned about Bond 23. QoS made a fortune, but its clear that some were unhappy about it. I just hope that in their approach to 23 the film makers don't throw out the baby with the bath water. By which I mean that in CR there was a hard edged back to basics approach to Bond that worked. QoS lost its way a bit because of the presentation of the action scenes. All that is needed for 23 is a different director and editing team with a structured, comprehensible approach.

I'd hate to think that there would be a reversion to the worst excesses of the 70s and 80s Bond films just because in one film the director tried too hard to be different and a sizable number of fans and neutral film goers didn't like it.

#21 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:28 AM

Hey, it's been a long time since I posted here, but I figured I'd jump in.

Frankly, I didn't care much for QoS. I like to see the action sequences, so I wasn't enthralled about the editing. I also prefer the villains to be more larger than life and have more larger than life plots. Yeah, like Goldfinger. Bond doesn't necessarily have to save the world, but just saving the country works. And I didn't think the big plot in QoS was all that impressive. If you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot already.

That said, I don't think I'd go in for a recut. MGM already has sucked enough money with redoing the DVDs over and over again. A recut QoS, especially if it is sucessful, could just lead to more such things being done in the future trying to suck more money out of us. I'm already annoyed at a possible future release with the cut original ending.

So, no. No recut. Leave it be and keep it moving I say.



I agree about the plot. Quantum should be in the business of threatening the civilised world, not turning off the taps in the middle of South America.

Take the scene where Greene forces Medrano to sign up to higher water charges. My thought at the time - we've got legitimate utility corporations quite capable of doing the same thing to ordinary customers! That's what Bond is fighting this time around - higher water bills?

#22 Professor Dent

Professor Dent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5326 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania USA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:47 AM

There won't be an alternate cut. The best we can hope for is a Collector's Edition DVD like we got with Casino Royale.

#23 JBOO71970

JBOO71970

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:53 AM

I'd hate to think that there would be a reversion to the worst excesses of the 70s and 80s Bond films just because in one film the director tried too hard to be different and a sizable number of fans and neutral film goers didn't like it.


Personally, I think that with the exception of Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan's films were far more excessive than anything done in the 70s or 80s. Pierce himself made for a decent Bond, but Goldeneye really is the only one of his films that holds up.

Frankly, I myself put QoS in the bottom five along with MWTGG and NSNA--and yes I'm counting the renegade films, too. CR '06 surprised and impressed the hell out of me, as GE had a decade before. So QoS was a double let down for me, since there seemed to be so much potential that got blown. I wanted to love QoS as I had CR, but a las, if you'll forgive the pun, it just wasn't in the cards.

#24 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:31 AM

I agree about the plot. Quantum should be in the business of threatening the civilised world, not turning off the taps in the middle of South America.

Take the scene where Greene forces Medrano to sign up to higher water charges. My thought at the time - we've got legitimate utility corporations quite capable of doing the same thing to ordinary customers! That's what Bond is fighting this time around - higher water bills?

It's not just "higher water bills"; it's about control of the world's water supply, and also what was mentioned at the Greene Planet fundraiser (and a situation that already exists), where people were paying half their paycheck for drinking water. That's a significantly deeper crisis than just paying a few cents more for water.

#25 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:45 AM

There won't be an alternate cut. The best we can hope for is a Collector's Edition DVD like we got with Casino Royale.

Correct.

#26 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:48 AM

the director tried too hard to be different and a sizable number of fans and neutral film goers didn't like it.

Really? The box office suggested otherwise.

I agree about the plot. Quantum should be in the business of threatening the civilised world, not turning off the taps in the middle of South America.

We are not in that era of Bond or cinema anymore where a faceless villain threatens faceless westerners. Bond simply cannot keep retreading old water (excuse the reference here). There needs to be a humanity and a reason for what is being threatened - and personally I found a band of homeless South Americans forced to move on far more effective a story device than the death of another stuntman goon in a boiler suit. Motivation of the main character and his political world is the key now in Bond. Has no-one noticed that yet?

And if the likes of Sam Mendes are allowed to direct what could be the next Bond film finally made he too will no doubt hone in on the personal tragedies of the story rather than sweeping notions of "threatened civilizations".

#27 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

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

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:52 PM

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

#28 MrKidd

MrKidd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 328 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 05 March 2010 - 02:20 PM

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

That's right - at least to a certain extent. An interesting barometer is the total take to opening weekend i.e. the 'legs' of a movie. Massive opening weekends followed by sharp drop offs indicate fan-boy rush. Twilight is an example of this. And so is QoS.

#29 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 02:25 PM

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

"Box Office means absolutely nothing".....?!

You may feel that but the movie industry accountants and financiers would somewhat disagree with you. SOLACE did very well at the 'box office'. Had it been an absolute all-out turkey (and not one as decided by some of the die hard 007 fans) then word of mouth would have affected its takings. But that was not the case. As it happened, there was an element of SOLACE's financial success that was dependent on repeat viewings.

And whilst Bond is a rare given at the box office (50 years of heritage are valuable in, touch wood, guaranteeing audience interest) the argument that people hand over their money without witnessing the end product is, frankly, a silly notion and one that merely underlines you were not so keen on the film.

#30 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 02:35 PM

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

That's right - at least to a certain extent. An interesting barometer is the total take to opening weekend i.e. the 'legs' of a movie. Massive opening weekends followed by sharp drop offs indicate fan-boy rush. Twilight is an example of this. And so is QoS.

Whilst I am not a movie financial expert I do know that if a film makes - for example - 200 million dollars in its opening weekend only or at the end of a three month run, it has still made 200 million dollars (I use 'made' loosely here). That is all that matters to the money men. And a drop-off in business after a busy initial rush cannot be used as a mark of quality of the film in question, but rather spectatorship patterns (eg. Bond has an 'event' stamp on it still and people like to be part of that early on, not a month down the line), distribution patterns (what else is released that month, how many prints are available in the subsequent roll outs, what is the relationship between the theatre chains and the distributors.... ask Mr Burton how the quality of his work is redundant if exhibitors are not going to show your film), economic patterns (eg. has a film been released near pay-day, school holidays, Christmas, bank holiday?) and societal patterns (is cinema going in vogue?).