71 replies to this topic

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I also love QOS's pre-titles, great chase and for once Arnold does a good job.

[Mr. Somerset]

I wonder which has the all time shortest PTS, maybe FRWL?
Still I popped in the opening to QoS the other day and loved every frame.

[tdalton]

The way the gunbarrel was done imo was to give the illusion that we are starting mid-story, a direct continuation from where CR left off. Bang, straight into the middle of the action. Rather than using it at the start which would kind of be like stating that this is a new story. Having it at the end means the two movies and one story are bookended by it.

Agreed. I think that by having the gun barrel right at the beginning of the film, it would have just ruined the way that the film started. I loved how we get the music over the opening logos and then we're right into that closing shot of the tunnel. Putting the gun barrel sequence there would have absolutely ruined that moment, and I'm glad that Forster decided to hold off on that sequence and save it for another point in the film.

[Professor Dent]

I am a firm believer that the gunbarrel belongs at the beginning of a Bond movie. I understand why Casino Royale was different & do like how that movie works the quasi-gunbarrel in before the credits. Now, with Quantum of Solace, I'm not sure if I've made peace with it or if I've just gotten used to it. I do like how they skipped they traditional Columbia logo music & started playing Time To Get Out over it. The slow build-up definitely creates the tension that something big is about to happen. I also like how the music drops out during the scenes in the tunnel & then resumes as the cars exit. The sound design, in general, in that scene is well done.

[DaveBond21]

I am a firm believer that the gunbarrel belongs at the beginning of a Bond movie. I understand why Casino Royale was different & do like how that movie works the quasi-gunbarrel in before the credits. Now, with Quantum of Solace, I'm not sure if I've made peace with it or if I've just gotten used to it. I do like how they skipped they traditional Columbia logo music & started playing Time To Get Out over it. The slow build-up definitely creates the tension that something big is about to happen. I also like how the music drops out during the scenes in the tunnel & then resumes as the cars exit. The sound design, in general, in that scene is well done.

I'd agree with what you've said there. But I am no fan of the PTS. However, if the editing gave the whole thing more time to breathe, I am sure I'd love it.

I love the final line, of course....

[Safari Suit]

For me the thing with the gunbarrel is putting it at the beginning it's almost like a company logo and as such can be discounted as part of the "proper" experience if so desired; by putting it at the end for me it became a rather tacky mood killer after the wonderful and pointed "real" ending of the film.

[B. Brown]

An Olga Kurylenko nude scene would've made this film a lot better. I completely agree.

[double o ego]

Watched QoS last night and because it's been months since I last watched it, the opening car chase had my eyes in pain. Trying to follow everything; it was ridiculous. It's still a great car chase but the editing is what ruined this movie.

[Jim]

Do you need to follow everything, though?

I thought it was probably an attempt to demonstrate what being in a car chase would be like - everything a bit frantic and mental - rather than being filmed from about a month away like the ice thing in DUD.

I mean, I'm not being asked to draw the chase from memory so if I miss the odd thing here and there, don't really care.

[bond 16.05.72]

Watching it on Blu ray that opening tracking shot and the chase that follows is top notch, it's a shame the rest of the film doesn't reach that standard in the action sequences, the Opera sequence is great but all the others pale next QOS PTS.

[volante]

Do you need to follow everything, though?

I thought it was probably an attempt to demonstrate what being in a car chase would be like - everything a bit frantic and mental - rather than being filmed from about a month away like the ice thing in DUD.

I mean, I'm not being asked to draw the chase from memory so if I miss the odd thing here and there, don't really care.

Agree. I have watched the PTS in slo mo. I found the acting to be brilliant. The editing only adds to the mix.
This is the attraction of QOS, you don't follow everything, you are slightly out of control; just like Bond.

[Lachesis]

Do you need to follow everything, though?

I thought it was probably an attempt to demonstrate what being in a car chase would be like - everything a bit frantic and mental - rather than being filmed from about a month away like the ice thing in DUD.

I mean, I'm not being asked to draw the chase from memory so if I miss the odd thing here and there, don't really care.

I'm sure that was the ambition and tbh I find the PTS quite coherent compared to later action scenes, the beautiful pan toward the cliffs, the swelling music, the adrenalin inducing engine roar, then we are in the car with james being battered from side to side..... it's tremendously exciting...... However there is a point where instead of involving the viewer in Bond's plight we start to become distracted by the visibility of the film making process. I have seen some interesting comments along the line of 'works better on a small screen' (I concede I dont do small screens), 'great in slo mo', 'it has a musical rythmn' and its indiciative because increasingly I feel the cuts are more significant and 'visible' than the material between. Of coruse everyones suscetibilities are different, the beginning of the film works quite nicely but the further I stray into the movie the more desensitised and disengaged I feel, which has to be the opposite of what was aimed for.

[Publius]

Simplicity, intensity, brevity. Everything you could ask for in a PTS. Sometimes I think they should make standalone pre-title sequences as a side project, given the high quality of so many of them.

However, if the editing gave the whole thing more time to breathe, I am sure I'd love it.

At this point I think we should just take all the Bond fans who struggle watching QOS to Lamaze classes.

[byline]

The way the gunbarrel was done imo was to give the illusion that we are starting mid-story, a direct continuation from where CR left off. Bang, straight into the middle of the action. Rather than using it at the start which would kind of be like stating that this is a new story. Having it at the end means the two movies and one story are bookended by it.

Agreed. I think that by having the gun barrel right at the beginning of the film, it would have just ruined the way that the film started. I loved how we get the music over the opening logos and then we're right into that closing shot of the tunnel. Putting the gun barrel sequence there would have absolutely ruined that moment, and I'm glad that Forster decided to hold off on that sequence and save it for another point in the film.

I also think that in the film's opening credits, we get an allusion to a gunbarrel with Bond silhouetted against the sun. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I appreciate all the comments about the car chase, and I do find myself admiring it, if not completely loving it. It's just that for whatever reason, I'm still not as emotionally in the moment with it as I would like to be. I think it's because we get so few sustained shots to give us a geographic sense of where everyone is.

Also appreciate the explanation about the anchor and the inflatable boat flip. Why did it take me so long to realize that it was an anchor? I think because everyone kept referring ot it as a hook rather than an anchor. But of course if it's an anchor, then it's attached to the boat. My only question is, would Bond's boat be sturdy enough to withstand that? I would think the anchor would just rip out of the boat's floor.

I know, I know, it's a Bond film!

Edited by byline, 18 April 2010 - 10:06 PM.

[Goodnight]

Excuse me but what is PTS?

"I'm a little confused"


Thanks :/

[Skudor]

Excuse me but what is PTS?

"I'm a little confused"


Thanks :/

Pre Title Sequence.

The bit that normally comes after the gun-barrel, but before the main credits. Heroin flavoured bananas and all that.

[DaveBond21]

Do you need to follow everything, though?

I thought it was probably an attempt to demonstrate what being in a car chase would be like - everything a bit frantic and mental - rather than being filmed from about a month away like the ice thing in DUD.

I mean, I'm not being asked to draw the chase from memory so if I miss the odd thing here and there, don't really care.

Agree. I have watched the PTS in slo mo. I found the acting to be brilliant. The editing only adds to the mix.
This is the attraction of QOS, you don't follow everything, you are slightly out of control; just like Bond.

The attraction of Casino Royale was that the action was excellent AND you could follow it.

[Goodnight]

Pre Title Sequence.

The bit that normally comes after the gun-barrel, but before the main credits. Heroin flavoured bananas and all that.

Thanks feeling a little bit silly now for asking :/


Anyway, The rapid editing in the QOS PTS is brilliant. That part early on of; clutch - gear change - right foot down, all in about a quarter of a second

When Bond overtakes the lorry and the Alfa crashes, because the editing is soo quick, every time I see this part, for a split second it looks like it's the Aston not the Alfa that has gone headlong into the lorry. I don't know if the edit was purposely done to make the audience think that, or maybe it's just me.

I think the edit definitely matches the situation of being in a car chase where (for the human brain) everything is a bit blurry, slightly out of focus, spacial awareness becomes much harder to judge, and the brain has to work ten times harder to keep up with the speed at which things are happening.


Not that I would know .

[Drax Industries]

The fast paced editing style of QoS defintely suits the car chase at the start, it gives the sequence the freneticism that is necessary, but when it comes to Bond chasing Mitchell, it becomes ridiculous, some of the shots in that sequence are there for barely a split second and it becomes almost unwatchable, especially when they're in the sewers. I know both of them are wearing different colour suits, but there are one of two moments there when it's hard to distinguish which one is which.

The film itself I enjoy, I loved it on the big screen and I enjoy it on Blu-Ray, the sound and picture quality being superb, but the whole film is way too fast paced at times and doesn't take time to develop itself at moments and take stock of the story and themes. I suppose in this day and age when Pirates of the Carribean and Batman movies are running for nearly three hours, it's good to see a major franchise opting not to go for unnecessary bloat, but I think the 1 hour and 42 minute running time was a mistake and an extra half hour could have wielded a more emotionally enjoyable movie, but make no mistake, I do enjoy the film as a fast paced action packed Bond extravagansa. Maybe a bit more meat to go with my bang would have been welcome, because what meat there is hints at a truly classic film (brilliant Craig performance, brilliant M/Bond scenes, a grieving Bond that should have been the direction DAF would have been better to head in).

[Manta ray]

QoS PTS is indeed very good. ONE of the best with GE among others.

[volante]

QoS PTS is indeed very good. ONE of the best with GE among others.

OK you win I'm gonna watch it again

[Robinson]

I always felt the gunbarrel sequence before the end credits meant that we now finally have the Bond we're familiar with.

As for the PTS, What I find refreshing is that it's only 4 minutes. Quite refreshing after the ever-expanding PTS from Brosnan's tenure (TWINE should've been cut in half but that's a discussion for a different thread).

There was plenty of energy and even though I didn't care for all the editing, I appreciate the efforts to keeping it tight and focused. No tie-straightening or self-conscious winks at the camera. I also think the clever use of sound added to the overall drama. I also liked that there were no explosions.

[David_M]

My wife still hasn't seen the film. Last night I sat her down and played the PTS for her with no introduction, no comment, no nothing to prejudice her one way or the other, just "Watch this and tell me what you think."

Her reaction: "What just happened?" and "I've got motion sickness."

I'll pass along your reassurances that it gets better with repeat viewings.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My wife still hasn't seen the film. Last night I sat her down and played the PTS for her with no introduction, no comment, no nothing to prejudice her one way or the other, just "Watch this and tell me what you think."

Her reaction: "What just happened?" and "I've got motion sickness."

I'll pass along your reassurances that it gets better with repeat viewings.

The whole point of the PTS is that you already have prior introduction to the story, from watching Casino Royale; it throws you right back into the plot a few minutes after where it left off in Casino Royale, so watching just the PTS, with no context, is an idiotic premise, in and of itself...

[JimmyBond]

I also liked that there were no explosions.

Well, there was the Eco-Hotel, and Bond's plane didn't exactly crumple into thin air. I do appreciate the efforts to downplay explosions in the Craig films though, it's rather refreshing.

[David_M]

The whole point of the PTS is that you already have prior introduction to the story, from watching Casino Royale; it throws you right back into the plot a few minutes after where it left off in Casino Royale, so watching just the PTS, with no context, is an idiotic premise, in and of itself...

Maybe it's idiotic to make a movie that makes no sense without having seen another movie? If for no other reason (and there are plenty) QoS can never be "the best Bond" because it's incomprehensible without CR (and darn near even with it). It does not stand on its own.

Anyway, my point wasn't that my wife didn't know WHO was chasing Bond, or why. Who care? Did we ever find out who sanctioned the attempted killing of Bond in the PTS of Moonraker? Nope. We all know people are trying to kill Bond 24/7, so no introductions are necessary. My point is that scene, as shot and edited, is nearly impossible to decipher. After multiple viewings and with the help of the "pause" and "slow forward" buttons I finally figured out how many cars were after Bond, who got hit by that truck (it looks like Bond!), that the police vehicle falls almost on top of the Aston Martin, etc. But on first viewing, none of that registered. (Still it's better than the boat chase, which I only knew was over because the music quieted down)

When I said I gave her no introduction, I didn't mean "Now Bond has the guy from the last film in his trunk, and he's being chased by Quantum thugs." That's immaterial. What I meant was I didn't say, "Sit here and look at what I consider to be the most confused, muddled, poorly edited POS I've ever seen in a Bond film." I didn't want to prejudice her.

[byline]

My point is that scene, as shot and edited, is nearly impossible to decipher.

While this isn't my favorite Bond scene ever, I also don't find it impossible to decipher, either. And I'm not the not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to figuring these things out. On first viewing, I found it confusing, but subsequent viewings cleared it up for me. Yes, they could have used two more markedly different cars, but even with that, I don't have much trouble figuring out who's chasing whom, or where they are in the sequence.

[David_M]

On first viewing, I found it confusing, but subsequent viewings cleared it up for me.

Okay, I guess I'm just on another planet, here. Apparently at some point it became okay to shoot and edit films in such a way that they only make sense on repeat viewings.

I guess I'm showing my age to say I remember a time when films made sense the first time you saw them, and if you liked what you saw, you went back again. Now I guess people go back so they can figure out all the things they couldn't understand the first time around. As a marketing ploy, it's pretty sharp, but from an artistic standpoint...well, let's just say I'm not a fan.

[byline]

On first viewing, I found it confusing, but subsequent viewings cleared it up for me.

Okay, I guess I'm just on another planet, here. Apparently at some point it became okay to shoot and edit films in such a way that they only make sense on repeat viewings.

FWIW, films were shot in a particular way because often they were viewed only once or twice by the typical film-goer. We do live in a different age where repeat viewings are not only readily accessible (via DVD, etc.), but actually expected by the general public. And I think that has had an impact on how films, TV shows, etc., are written, filmed and edited.

[David_M]

FWIW, films were shot in a particular way because often they were viewed only once or twice by the typical film-goer. We do live in a different age where repeat viewings are not only readily accessible (via DVD, etc.), but actually expected by the general public. And I think that has had an impact on how films, TV shows, etc., are written, filmed and edited.

I'll buy that up to a point. However there ought to be a way to make it work the first time AND give you more on repeat viewings. For instance,shows like LOST or movies like "The Sixth Sense" are plenty entertaining first time out, but watching them again can enhance the experience as you go back and look for clues, and go, "so THAT's why he did that thing in that earlier scene..."

There's plenty of examples like this, where repeat viewings add to the fun, but aren't mandatory just for basic comprehension. I'd embrace that level of storytelling complexity in a Bond, really. But that's a different thing altogether from just editing in a succession of random flash cuts. We need a little more JJ Abrams and a little less Micheal Bay.