85 replies to this topic

[JBOO71970]

I finally figured out my problem with the film and it took some of the "love" comments here to do so. The people who are loving it and distasteful of those of us who don't think it's all that and a bag of chips are claiming it's fresh, different and inventive while the older films are just tired retreads. The reality of the matter is that this is as much a retread as any film that went before it. It obeys all or almost all of the rules of the Bond films, while doing it without Moneypenny, Q, or the gunbarrel opening. But the rest of the hallmarks are there: the obligatory boat chase--which was done best in LALD--the death of the girl Bond sleeps with (which also apes the death of Jill Masterson), even the death of Bond's sidekick. Yes, Mathis's death is no different than the death of anyone from Quarrel on up just as Fields's death is much the same as good time girls Jill Masterson on up. So QoS is firmly a Bond movie, but a Bond movie with poorly done action scenes and an uninspired plot. I suspect if it were re-edited to look like the traditional Bond film, it's flaws would be even more transparent. QoS isn't new and fresh--it's the same old same old pretending it's new and fresh.

I'm beginning to wonder if the people championing this have even seen the older films at this point.

[jamie00007]

I'm beginning to wonder if the people championing this have even seen the older films at this point.

[JLaidlaw]

Interesting view; but I'm not sure you can just look at the elements it has and claim because they've been used in some way in the series before they are flaws. After all, we've all seen a car chase before, but if you watch the comedy caper car chase in The Italian Job, that doesn't mean you think the car chase at the beginning of Quantum of Solace is just repeating an outdated 1960s concept, does it? Mathis's death was a staple perhaps, but look how different that death and reveal was to any other in the series. And I'd say the artistic tone of Quantum is more or less excellent and fresh and different, and it's only really the pace of the cuts in the action sequence, the ones that disorientate and pull you out of the movie that I really object to.

I don't think I've ever posted a thread with as much reaction; and though I'm enjoying reading all the different viewpoints, I don't have anything to add, so I'll just continue to read. But I did just want to say how much I appreciate the fact that all sorts of views on Quantum of Solace have been represented here and everyone has posted intelligent and measured thoughts, with complete respect for others' views. I remember having a very negative view of the CBn forums in the wake of QoS, but now I feel it's come back to the friendly place it was when I first joined, so thanks everyone for making an irregular poster feel welcome again.

That doesn't sound preachy, does it?

Edited by JLaidlaw, 07 March 2010 - 09:19 PM.

[The Shark]

And for the people who feel that "living in the past" where the films are concerned is nuts, it's worth pointing out that things worked well enough all those years that they were able to keep making them.

And it is worth remembering too that the likes of ROYALE and SOLACE were not bankrolled on the back of the 1960's Bond films, but the audience response to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY. The latter was a major reason why CASINO ROYALE was greenlit. The Bond films are not funded and made on the back of what the films used to be.

And on your thoughts about fast editing and quick cuts - the likes of Peter Hunt and Terence Young pioneered that style from day one. SOLACE is more akin to those years than any other. You only need to look at the machine gun editing work on OHMSS (the hotel brawl, the bobsleigh chase, the stock car pile up) to see where the templates for SOLACE are firmly rooted.

And since when did "fast cuts" equal bad cuts?

It's not the speed that reeks of ineptitude or laziness but the monotony of the fast cuts. Stuart Baird with Casino Royale managed to masterfully create change the tempo with his intelligent use of editing, but on QoS, the editing seems to be following it's own strict rhythm, rather than fluctuating with the film.

Peter Hunt and John Glen understood the cyclic nature of editing, and managed to create breathing spaces and pauses.

[Zorin Industries]

Though I do wonder what we would have got if Martin Campbell had directed it. He at least seems to have an understanding of what makes the series work while still managing to give us a slightly different take on the series. GE is Brosnan's best Bond movie and so far CR outshines it's sequel in every way. I doubt that that's a coincidence.

Not so much coincidence as one person's opinion. There are a lot of people who would not cite GOLDENEYE as that good a film (me included). ROYALE is a completely different film technically and creatively. GOLDENEYE is really badly directed (all that money and cameras and is still looks like an underframed TV movie shot in a car park).

[SecretAgentFan]

What I really don´t understand is that so many here don´t see the elegance of QOS´ editing. It is not just fast cuts, it´s about manipulating time, sometimes shortening it but sometimes also lengthening it. Again and again, there is slow motion between the fast cuts, creating a rhythm that is so different from the usual editing technique employed by contemporary films. I can only point again to the foot race at the beginning of the film and, of course, to the opera sequence which also includes the manipulation of sound.

[Lachesis]

It is my understanding that the post production of QoS was acknowledged as rushed (I honestly can't cite confirmation, though I recall reading it somewhere ^^ so I guess I may be wrong), that would explain a lot but in any event the editing conveys no elegance to myself, its arbitray, over done and incoherent.

I actually enjoyed Bourne Supremacy, the cutting there made things tense and involving (less so with Ultimatum where it seemed it was less organic and more forced). Later in Taken we have some great fast cut action spliced with some solid traditional linking scenes, theres fast cutting in The Dark Knight which works well for me....its not the speed of the cuts that is at fault, it the appropriatness of their use and the lack of other anchors to draw you into the events as they unfold.

I do see the fast cuts as more fad than other techniques, much like the psychedelia of the 60's (that bond avoided unlike its imitators). We dont actually see life as jerky fast cut scenes so as a means of visual delivery it has to be used sparingly imo.

[rhys]

This is my first post so be gentle with me!

Personally I was disappointed with the cut of QoS. I think the writers did such a good job of developing Bond's character in Casino Royale leaving you feeling engaged with him. Unfortunately you lose that sense of engagement in QoS, I think the action sequences are cleverly shot but just cut too close together not really giving you anytime to get a sense of Bond's character development. I would welcome a dvd with both cinematic and original cuts.

If this film was meant as a standalone storyline and not a direct follow on then QoS would be a good fast paced direction to take the films in. But as a continuation of an existing storyline I feel you needed to break up the action a little bit more.

I know lots of my friends who became bond fans because of Casino Royale, unfortunately they all had the same response to QoS which was a sense of feeling a little let down.

[Zorin Industries]

It is my understanding that the post production of QoS was acknowledged as rushed (I honestly can't cite confirmation, though I recall reading it somewhere ^^ so I guess I may be wrong), that would explain a lot but in any event the editing conveys no elegance to myself, its arbitray, over done and incoherent.

I do see the fast cuts as more fad than other techniques, much like the psychedelia of the 60's (that bond avoided unlike its imitators). We dont actually see life as jerky fast cut scenes so as a means of visual delivery it has to be used sparingly imo.

The Bond management did acknowledge the post production window of SOLACE, yes.

But it is worth noting a few things here....

SOLACE would have been in "post production" from before the first day of principle photography. A film of that scale (and, in fact, a lot of projects) are in the editing room from very early on. There is no time to wait for the last day of shooting before everyone decamps for the editing suites.

Secondly, there is NEVER enough time to shoot and edit a film. There is not one director, writer or producer who can watch their end product and say "there isn't a shot, scene or moment in there that I would not want improved, removed or enhanced".
There is simply never enough time and a lot of people work a lot of hours to get a film finished whatever its size or audience.

Thirdly, on your editing thoughts, it is surely wrong to suggest that because the human eye doesn't work that fast that editing cuts should respect that. I would imagine that data is computed by our eyes even quicker than the rapid cuts of SOLACE. Bond did not avoid the pyschedelia of the 1960's. Yes, we don't have Bond munching mushrooms in a kaftan in some bedsit in North London but that artistic movement is very evident in the cuts and camera choices of, say, OHMSS which has trippy moments (the bell fight, the bobsleigh chase, the Louis Armstrong montage). It was a movement / style / visual attitude that was part of cinema then. What are the titles of the Bond films of the 1960's if not a psychedelic overture of design, graphics technology and music.

And surely how we see life is not a reflection of editing techniques in a film. The very act of positioning a camera infront of a primed subject is unnatural from the outset.

[Lachesis]

Thirdly, on your editing thoughts, it is surely wrong to suggest that because the human eye doesn't work that fast that editing cuts should respect that. I would imagine that data is computed by our eyes even quicker than the rapid cuts of SOLACE. Bond did not avoid the pyschedelia of the 1960's. Yes, we don't have Bond munching mushrooms in a kaftan in some bedsit in North London but that artistic movement is very evident in the cuts and camera choices of, say, OHMSS which has trippy moments (the bell fight, the bobsleigh chase, the Louis Armstrong montage). It was a movement / style / visual attitude that was part of cinema then. What are the titles of the Bond films of the 1960's if not a psychedelic overture of design, graphics technology and music.

I am not talking complete abstention I am merely suggesting they should be used sparingly to create instaneous effects rather than become the norm for every action trigger.

As examplified by the use you give in OHMSS and others, they are instants that distinguish individual scenes rather than a blanket application to every element of motion (as some now very dated 60's films employed). Isolated and individualised use of such techniques enhances identification/immersion with the action, like a prod to keep you from getting desensitised, whereas imo blanket use works to numb you into indifference effectively excluding the viewer from the film.

[byline]

What I really don´t understand is that so many here don´t see the elegance of QOS´ editing. It is not just fast cuts, it´s about manipulating time, sometimes shortening it but sometimes also lengthening it. Again and again, there is slow motion between the fast cuts, creating a rhythm that is so different from the usual editing technique employed by contemporary films. I can only point again to the foot race at the beginning of the film and, of course, to the opera sequence which also includes the manipulation of sound.

Yup, I've referred to this time and time again (though I think you've done a better job of describing it). It's what I refer to as the "musicality" of the editing. It has a rhythmic flow that I really enjoy.

Edited by byline, 08 March 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

It's just a different flow.

I have still yet to find any opinion or editing manual that says "fast cuts" equals "the wrong cuts".

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Secondly, there is NEVER enough time to shoot and edit a film. There is not one director, writer or producer who can watch their end product and say "there isn't a shot, scene or moment in there that I would not want improved, removed or enhanced".
There is simply never enough time and a lot of people work a lot of hours to get a film finished whatever its size or audience.

Guy Hamilton expressed very similar sentiments during his extensive interview for the Aberdeen University last year.

[tim partridge]

It is my understanding that the post production of QoS was acknowledged as rushed (I honestly can't cite confirmation, though I recall reading it somewhere ^^ so I guess I may be wrong), that would explain a lot but in any event the editing conveys no elegance to myself, its arbitray, over done and incoherent.

I do see the fast cuts as more fad than other techniques, much like the psychedelia of the 60's (that bond avoided unlike its imitators). We dont actually see life as jerky fast cut scenes so as a means of visual delivery it has to be used sparingly imo.

The Bond management did acknowledge the post production window of SOLACE, yes.

But it is worth noting a few things here....

SOLACE would have been in "post production" from before the first day of principle photography. A film of that scale (and, in fact, a lot of projects) are in the editing room from very early on. There is no time to wait for the last day of shooting before everyone decamps for the editing suites.

With due respect,

Kevin Tod Haug said in an interview that QOS only had 12 weeks post, and neither Haug nor Forster had done it that quickly before. Good article to read here:
http://commanderbond...al-effects.html

That also apparently played a part in why the film was not shot with anamorphic lenses, against Forster and Roberto Schaefer's intentions. Schaefer has said in American Cinematographer magazine that he and Forster ended up up shooting super35 because he knew the post time was so limited (and they had so many effects shots to get through).

However, I don't think Lachesis is right in linking the style of editing down to a tight schedule. I think the editing and action used for the film was definitely a stylistic devise consciously chosen by the filmmakers, and it's a style that is married to the way the action scenes are shot too. Again, no coincidence that the second unit director (Dan Bradley) and the film's co-editor (Richard Pearson) had really set that trend with The Bourne Supremacy, under Paul Greengrass' direction, which has a very similar style of editing and action filming. Whether you think the action works or not (I don't personally) I think the filmmakers got everything they paid for as far as their intentions went.

[Lachesis]

However, I don't think Lachesis is right in linking the style of editing down to a tight schedule. I think the editing and action used for the film was definitely a stylistic devise consciously chosen by the filmmakers, and it's a style that is married to the way the action scenes are shot too. Again, no coincidence that the second unit director (Dan Bradley) and the film's co-editor (Richard Pearson) had really set that trend with The Bourne Supremacy, under Paul Greengrass' direction, which has a very similar style of editing and action filming. Whether you think the action works or not (I don't personally) I think the filmmakers got everything they paid for as far as their intentions went.

Interesting thanks for the link.

I was only surmising why it seemed such a mess and linking a partially heard fact into the mix, though to get back to the OP and restate my original observation, the editing is possibly the least of my personal concerns regarding QoS so I wouldn't anticipate an alternate cut making the characters or plot any more interesting or the film any less generic..... If it was done mind I would certainly give it a go.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Kevin Tod Haug said in an interview that QOS only had 12 weeks post, and neither Haug nor Forster had done it that quickly before. Good article to read here:
http://commanderbond...al-effects.html

That also apparently played a part in why the film was not shot with anamorphic lenses, against Forster and Roberto Schaefer's intentions. Schaefer has said in American Cinematographer magazine that he and Forster ended up up shooting super35 because he knew the post time was so limited (and they had so many effects shots to get through).

So, they shot it flat, basically, but cropped it in post? So much for going the "Lewis Gilbert-route", then...

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I don't have an issue with fast cutting per se, and I don't have a problem with the stylistic approach taken by Quantum, but I feel the editing does a poor job of illustrating the action.

There's no sense of geography to the action scenes - you don't know where the characters are in relation to one another and that makes it very difficult to follow what's happening. I still have no idea what's going on in that boat chase. Now, that may be a deliberate attempt by the filmmakers to disorient the audience and put them in the midst of the action - favouring sensation rather than clarity.

The Bourne films follow a similar style, but I find the action scenes much clearer and easier to follow.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I finally figured out my problem with the film and it took some of the "love" comments here to do so. The people who are loving it and distasteful of those of us who don't think it's all that and a bag of chips are claiming it's fresh, different and inventive while the older films are just tired retreads. The reality of the matter is that this is as much a retread as any film that went before it. It obeys all or almost all of the rules of the Bond films, while doing it without Moneypenny, Q, or the gunbarrel opening. But the rest of the hallmarks are there: the obligatory boat chase--which was done best in LALD--the death of the girl Bond sleeps with (which also apes the death of Jill Masterson), even the death of Bond's sidekick. Yes, Mathis's death is no different than the death of anyone from Quarrel on up just as Fields's death is much the same as good time girls Jill Masterson on up. So QoS is firmly a Bond movie, but a Bond movie with poorly done action scenes and an uninspired plot. I suspect if it were re-edited to look like the traditional Bond film, it's flaws would be even more transparent. QoS isn't new and fresh--it's the same old same old pretending it's new and fresh.

I'm beginning to wonder if the people championing this have even seen the older films at this point.

Excellent appreciation. I feel QoS's biggest sin is that of style over substance and the fact that so many posters liked it is due to the current superficiality of viewers.

[Zorin Industries]

the fact that so many posters liked it is due to the current superficiality of viewers.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

You could equally say that the reason so many posters do not like it is due to the superficiality of fandom... but I wouldn't dare (!).

[byline]

That also apparently played a part in why the film was not shot with anamorphic lenses, against Forster and Roberto Schaefer's intentions. Schaefer has said in American Cinematographer magazine that he and Forster ended up up shooting super35 because he knew the post time was so limited (and they had so many effects shots to get through).

For those of us who are out of the loop when it comes to cinematography, could you explain the difference between the two lenses, and what difference that makes to what the audience sees on the screen? Thanks!

I don't have an issue with fast cutting per se, and I don't have a problem with the stylistic approach taken by Quantum, but I feel the editing does a poor job of illustrating the action.

There's no sense of geography to the action scenes - you don't know where the characters are in relation to one another and that makes it very difficult to follow what's happening. I still have no idea what's going on in that boat chase. Now, that may be a deliberate attempt by the filmmakers to disorient the audience and put them in the midst of the action - favouring sensation rather than clarity.

The Bourne films follow a similar style, but I find the action scenes much clearer and easier to follow.

I get the boat chase (well, except for the oft-asked question about the physics of the boat flip, and I even sort of get that . . . or, at least, I can accept that it happens, even if I don't know precisely how it happened). For me, the car chase at the beginning doesn't work as well as it should. It took me repeated viewings to actually see what's happening, and even after I got it, I still didn't feel I was really in the moment with Bond, the way I think the filmmakers intended. I feel oddly detached.

Your explanation of geographical context is, I think, a big reason for why a lot of the action scenes in "Casino Royale" worked so well for me, while similar scenes in "Quantum of Solace" didn't. In the free-running sequence at the beginning of "Casino," you know exactly where Bond and Mollaka are the entire time. That sense of scale is a big part of what makes it so exciting. My stomach still does a little lurch whenever I see that helicopter shot over the crane. That never happened in "Quantum." The only action scene that I thought worked equally well was the hotel fire near the end. There I felt the editing balanced fast cuts with long shots to give the audience the necessary perspective to really feel the danger.

Edited by byline, 09 March 2010 - 05:23 PM.

[Guy Haines]

That also apparently played a part in why the film was not shot with anamorphic lenses, against Forster and Roberto Schaefer's intentions. Schaefer has said in American Cinematographer magazine that he and Forster ended up up shooting super35 because he knew the post time was so limited (and they had so many effects shots to get through).

For those of us who are out of the loop when it comes to cinematography, could you explain the difference between the two lenses, and what difference that makes to what the audience sees on the screen? Thanks!

I don't have an issue with fast cutting per se, and I don't have a problem with the stylistic approach taken by Quantum, but I feel the editing does a poor job of illustrating the action.

There's no sense of geography to the action scenes - you don't know where the characters are in relation to one another and that makes it very difficult to follow what's happening. I still have no idea what's going on in that boat chase. Now, that may be a deliberate attempt by the filmmakers to disorient the audience and put them in the midst of the action - favouring sensation rather than clarity.

The Bourne films follow a similar style, but I find the action scenes much clearer and easier to follow.

I get the boat chase (well, except for the oft-asked question about the physics of the boat flip, and I even sort of get that . . . or, at least, I can accept that it happens, even if I don't know precisely how it happened). For me, the car chase at the beginning doesn't work as well as it should. It took me repeated viewings to actually see what's happening, and even after I got it, I still didn't feel I was really in the moment with Bond, the way I think the filmmakers intended. I feel oddly detached.

Your explanation of geographical context is, I think, a big reason for why a lot of the action scenes in "Casino Royale" worked so well for me, while similar scenes in "Quantum of Solace" didn't. In the free-running sequence at the beginning of "Casino," you know exactly where Bond and Mollaka are the entire time. That sense of scale is a big part of what makes it so exciting. My stomach still does a little lurch whenever I see that helicopter shot over the crane. That never happened in "Quantum." The only action scene that I thought worked equally well was the hotel fire near the end. There I felt the editing balanced fast cuts with long shots to give the audience the necessary perspective to really feel the danger.

Absolutely right. You've put your finger on one of the reasons why the CR action scenes were for the most part easier on the eye and easier for the audience to follow.

[Harry Potter]

Your explanation of geographical context is, I think, a big reason for why a lot of the action scenes in "Casino Royale" worked so well for me, while similar scenes in "Quantum of Solace" didn't. In the free-running sequence at the beginning of "Casino," you know exactly where Bond and Mollaka are the entire time. That sense of scale is a big part of what makes it so exciting. My stomach still does a little lurch whenever I see that helicopter shot over the crane. That never happened in "Quantum." The only action scene that I thought worked equally well was the hotel fire near the end. There I felt the editing balanced fast cuts with long shots to give the audience the necessary perspective to really feel the danger.

Absolutely right. You've put your finger on one of the reasons why the CR action scenes were for the most part easier on the eye and easier for the audience to follow.

byline Posted Today, 04:34 PM


I liked the film, but I see your point. Yeah I agree with the reasons

[Loomis]

I don't have an issue with fast cutting per se, and I don't have a problem with the stylistic approach taken by Quantum, but I feel the editing does a poor job of illustrating the action.

There's no sense of geography to the action scenes - you don't know where the characters are in relation to one another and that makes it very difficult to follow what's happening. I still have no idea what's going on in that boat chase. Now, that may be a deliberate attempt by the filmmakers to disorient the audience and put them in the midst of the action - favouring sensation rather than clarity.

The Bourne films follow a similar style, but I find the action scenes much clearer and easier to follow.

Agreed with all that. And if action scenes are incomprehensible - as they sometimes are in QUANTUM OF SOLACE - then they cannot be gripping.

If we, the viewers, simply can't follow what's going on - who Bond is shooting at, whether he hits his target or misses him, where Bond is geographically in relation to his pursuers, whether Bond is up against one man or three, etc. - then we simply cannot be engaged, except as the most passive and dispassionate of spectators.

This has nothing to do with a distaste for "fast cutting", or being wedded to the Bond films of the 1960s, or whatever. It's simply an absolute basic of filmmaking - if you want to thrill us, engage our emotions, invest us in what's going on, put us on the edge of our seats, you must make it possible for us to follow the action easily. No ifs, no buts. It is just not possible to be captivated by an action scene if we cannot tell what is happening in it. There can be no meaningful sense of danger for Bond if we're not quite sure what exactly he's doing or what's being done to him.

This isn't dumbing down - it's common sense. And it doesn't have to preclude fast cutting or "stylish direction". But it must be comprehensible. If, that is, the aim is indeed to engage the viewer - the way Forster arranged some of the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, it's as though he was deliberately trying to keep the viewer at a distance for some perverse reason.

[Guy Haines]

I don't have an issue with fast cutting per se, and I don't have a problem with the stylistic approach taken by Quantum, but I feel the editing does a poor job of illustrating the action.

There's no sense of geography to the action scenes - you don't know where the characters are in relation to one another and that makes it very difficult to follow what's happening. I still have no idea what's going on in that boat chase. Now, that may be a deliberate attempt by the filmmakers to disorient the audience and put them in the midst of the action - favouring sensation rather than clarity.

The Bourne films follow a similar style, but I find the action scenes much clearer and easier to follow.

Agreed with all that. And if action scenes are incomprehensible - as they sometimes are in QUANTUM OF SOLACE - then they cannot be gripping.

If we, the viewers, simply can't follow what's going on - who Bond is shooting at, whether he hits his target or misses him, where Bond is geographically in relation to his pursuers, whether Bond is up against one man or three, etc. - then we simply cannot be engaged, except as the most passive and dispassionate of spectators.

This has nothing to do with a distaste for "fast cutting", or being wedded to the Bond films of the 1960s, or whatever. It's simply an absolute basic of filmmaking - if you want to thrill us, engage our emotions, invest us in what's going on, put us on the edge of our seats, you must make it possible for us to follow the action easily. No ifs, no buts. It is just not possible to be captivated by an action scene if we cannot tell what is happening in it. There can be no meaningful sense of danger for Bond if we're not quite sure what exactly he's doing or what's being done to him.

This isn't dumbing down - it's common sense. And it doesn't have to preclude fast cutting or "stylish direction". But it must be comprehensible. If, that is, the aim is indeed to engage the viewer - the way Forster arranged some of the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, it's as though he was deliberately trying to keep the viewer at a distance for some perverse reason.

Another post I agree with. But why did the director arrange some of the action as he did? To carry the story along? Or to make his mark? For example, I can see why the opening scene in CR was different to any opening an audience had seen before in a Bond movie. I thought it was a good way of re-introducing Bond, showing his first two kills, then throwing in the traditional gunbarrel scene as the movie theme tune opens. However, I can see no reason why the gunbarrel and the Bond theme couldn't have been used at the start of QoS, other than a view that it was somehow dated and old hat. It isn't - the dot moving across the screen occured a couple of times in the title credits, I noticed, and the full blown version popped up at the end. I'm with those film critics who couldn't understand the absence of it at the movie's start.

[byline]

I liked the film, but I see your point. Yeah I agree with the reasons

I like "Quantum of Solace" too. And I don't mean to say that its action scenes don't work for me at all; they do. Having watched the DVD again on our new flat-screen TV, I can appreciate it even more than I did watching it on our old TV. There are things that seem to jump out in ways that they didn't, even in the theatre. I really like the ebb and flow of the scenes, and as I've said before, I think there is a wonderful musicality to the editing. But I find myself admiring "Quantum" more than loving it . . . if that makes any sense. I don't connect with it on an emotional level the same way I did "Casino," and I think it has to do with many of the reasons cited in this thread.

[tim partridge]

That also apparently played a part in why the film was not shot with anamorphic lenses, against Forster and Roberto Schaefer's intentions. Schaefer has said in American Cinematographer magazine that he and Forster ended up up shooting super35 because he knew the post time was so limited (and they had so many effects shots to get through).

For those of us who are out of the loop when it comes to cinematography, could you explain the difference between the two lenses, and what difference that makes to what the audience sees on the screen? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

http://en.wikipedia....amorphic_format

This gives a rough idea of the difference (note the anamorphic example is shown squeezed):
http://www.hawkanamo..._Comparison.pdf

Schaefer according to another forum was apparently wanting to use Hawks anamorphics.

The basic difference is that anamorphic uses the entire negative area, has shallower depth of field look while super35 has a deeper but flatter look thanks to the spherical lenses. Ironically, the latter reason was why Phil Meheux stated they chose super35 for Casino Royale, so they could ape the kind of depthy compositions of films like the Ipcress File. Personally, I thought he got a bit carried away with the faster lenses of the format (that don't require much light), especially those out of focus, shallow close ups of Daniel Craig on the poker table. they didn't look good to me at all on the big screen.

I think that had Meheux stayed with anamoprhic on CR, QOS would have been the same too, although they could never really escape the post concerns regarding the format.


I still think that Schaefer managed with Forster to make a cinematic looking Bond we hadn't seen in decades. If he had been allowed to shoot anamoprhic too, well, wow.

Edited by tim partridge, 12 March 2010 - 05:48 PM.