Where does Bond go after Craig?

1670671673675676697

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I've heard it said that film might work better if you chopped out the whole car chase so it could start with the Mr White conversation. Obviously it'd be a shame to lose an action scene, but I can see the logic; you'd be eased into the film a bit more.

    It probably would make for a better film, but I wonder if Eon and Aston Martin’s deal called for an action sequence involving the car? There seems to be some sort of action/chase sequence involving an Aston in every Craig film.

    I think the chase would be fine if it were interesting. Something to make it more distinctive. It’s just not a very Bondian car chase as it is.

    There's definitely something missing at the end, and they shot Bond's car sliding along on its side- I feel like he must have done a Bondian cool thing but they cut it out.
    The bit which grates with me as a car guy is that when Bond gets some clear road there's no way those Alfas would have kept up with his V12 Aston. I think it actually would have been enjoyable to show the power of the thing, a bit like that fun bit in the TND car park chase where Bond does a massive burnout in his BMW.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 4,300
    007HallY wrote: »
    There's very little shaky-cam in QoS overall.

    Not as much as people think anyway (it’s more the editing that’s the issue).

    That said a weird cinematography quirk of QOS I’ve always noticed are these occasional elaborate but useless shots that add nothing and even take you out of the action. Stuff like a random shot of bowling balls in the foreground as Green and his men walk into the hotel in the background. Or the camera being placed high on the ceiling/above a fan during the Slate/Bond fight (which isn’t easy to do and must have been a bit of a faff. It’s literally only in the film for 1 second too which is wild).

    Yes, this is a very valid observation I would say. Rather than QoS being a film that utilises shaky-cam, to me it seems more like a film that was shot was almost too much coverage when more concise shot planning might have been beneficial. Part of me wonders if the script issues led to scenes and sequences being overshot, and then Forster decided to use as much of everything as he could in the editing room to give the film a distinctive (and at times distracting, as you say) style. That's how you end up with these kinds of shots in the film that are quite attractive in isolation but seem very random.

    I think it’s a mixture of issues. There are other sections of the film where it feels like there’s not enough coverage (I think there’s almost a random jump cut which quite overtly breaks the line on Camille during the plane sequence/when she’s at the back of the plane, which has always jarred me).

    I think it’s probably down to rushed production issues and Forster’s/Schaefer’s lack of experience on a project of that scale. It might not be an issue of too much or too little coverage but not getting the right coverage (again, you’d have thought the artsy bowling ball or fan shots would have just been scrapped as it doesn’t really add anything visually to the story, but they went with it). That and there are times when QOS makes very consciously stylistic decisions that I don’t personally think work for the film and seem very much pre planned (the cutting to the horse race before the Sienna chase is a big one for me. There’s this wonderfully tense bit of dialogue from White, but instead of building up to Mitchell taking out his gun in the scene it instead cuts to what’s going on outside. I understand what it’s doing in theory but it really comes off as something I’ve seen first year film students do, and it takes away a lot of genuine suspense from the film).
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I've heard it said that film might work better if you chopped out the whole car chase so it could start with the Mr White conversation. Obviously it'd be a shame to lose an action scene, but I can see the logic; you'd be eased into the film a bit more.

    It probably would make for a better film, but I wonder if Eon and Aston Martin’s deal called for an action sequence involving the car? There seems to be some sort of action/chase sequence involving an Aston in every Craig film.

    I think the chase would be fine if it were interesting. Something to make it more distinctive. It’s just not a very Bondian car chase as it is.

    There's definitely something missing at the end, and they shot Bond's car sliding along on its side- I feel like he must have done a Bondian cool thing but they cut it out.
    The bit which grates with me as a car guy is that when Bond gets some clear road there's no way those Alfas would have kept up with his V12 Aston. I think it actually would have been enjoyable to show the power of the thing, a bit like that fun bit in the TND car park chase where Bond does a massive burnout in his BMW.

    There’s stuff in there that’s kinda cool - the door coming off of Bond’s Aston, him manoeuvring so one of the Alfas gets hit by the truck. But yeah, it feels like there needed to be something more special in there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 29 Posts: 16,602
    He also fumbles a few gags too for my money: quite what he was doing with Elvis I'm not sure, and I don't think he was either. Tonally he doesn't really work, like the simpering look he gives at the opera, and when you do two gags with him which require visual punchlines and they're only visible for a few frames each... I'm not sure that's good. It's hard not to compare with Mendes, who when he does a gag it feels sure-footed and confident, he's even able to do some slightly tongue-in-cheek stuff as well as taking the film seriously too when it needs it. I feel humour in a dramatic film is a tricky thing to get right, and to do it properly shows someone who knows what they're doing. Next to him, Forster's direction definitely feels unsure and on slightly shaky ground.
    007HallY wrote: »

    There’s stuff in there that’s kinda cool - the door coming off of Bond’s Aston, him manoeuvring so one of the Alfas gets hit by the truck. But yeah, it feels like there needed to be something more special in there.

    I do like that move Bond does to rip his own door off, that's pretty cool. But that bit is actually another odd choice which Forster (presumably?) makes: at two points in this film he shows that Bond's chases actually lead to injury of innocents, which I don't think has happened in a Bond film before and feels kind of against the rules. That lorry driver has a head-on smash: he's not okay; plus there's an innocent woman in the crowd at the Palio who we see get shot and fall - I don't really know why that's in there. These bits just feel wrong and make Bond look bad for putting innocent people in the way, they shouldn't really be there.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited October 29 Posts: 951
    I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is perhaps my gold standard for mixing humour into a fairly serious plot. Lots of nice gags in there that don’t undermine any feeling of danger. Die Hard is another great action film which has some funny moments without killing that feeling of jeopardy. It’s a tricky balance all right, worth it if you can pull it off, though.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 4,300
    Forster’s not a bad director by any means (I really like Stranger Than Fiction). But I get the sense he was a bit out of his depth with this one. QOS for me has some great ideas and individual moments, but I’ve never felt it’s a very confident film if that makes sense. It’s relying a bit too much on flashy editing and montages but isn’t really telling the story effectively (again, it comes back to the first year film student vibe - that sense of style over substance). It’s a shame because there are some intimate scenes which are done well in that film.

    But yeah, Mendes is in a different league, especially with SF. Even SP has a confidence to it even if I’m not always sold on some of the gags and creative choices.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    There’s stuff in there that’s kinda cool - the door coming off of Bond’s Aston, him manoeuvring so one of the Alfas gets hit by the truck. But yeah, it feels like there needed to be something more special in there.

    I do like that move Bond does to rip his own door off, that's pretty cool. But that bit is actually another odd choice which Forster (presumably?) makes: at two points in this film he shows that Bond's chases actually lead to injury of innocents, which I don't think has happened in a Bond film before and feels kind of against the rules. That lorry driver has a head-on smash: he's not okay; plus there's an innocent woman in the crowd at the Palio who we see get shot and fall - I don't really know why that's in there. These bits just feel wrong and make Bond look bad for putting innocent people in the way, they shouldn't really be there.

    It’s ok, the rapid editing covers most of it up so not everyone notices! It is a bit odd when you think about though, very true.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 29 Posts: 3,157
    Don't forget that Dan Bradley filmed the action scenes in QOS, including the opening car chase, not Marc Forster. Bradley's description of his method at the time is quite revealing too: 'One of the things I really believe is that we shouldn’t try and make everything feel perfectly staged...I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience.' Some fans might not like it, but that doesn't mean it was done badly - on the contrary, it appears to have been quite deliberate.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 29 Posts: 41,011
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I wouldn't change that opening car chase for anything. Look forward to it every time, love everything about it!

    Hear hear!
  • Posts: 4,300
    Venutius wrote: »
    Don't forget that Dan Bradley filmed the action scenes in QOS, including the opening car chase, not Marc Forster. Bradley's description of his method at the time is quite revealing too: 'One of the things I really believe is that we shouldn’t try and make everything feel perfectly staged...I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience.' Some fans might not like it, but that doesn't mean it was done badly - on the contrary, it appears to have been quite deliberate.

    Here’s my personal issue with all that - I think the action we see in QOS is actually very staged. It’s an issue I have with Bourne too - strip away the rapid editing and handheld camera, and the fight/action choreography is actually very stylised. For me, things like the fight with Slate or Green coming at Bond with the axe don’t ever feel as real as something like the CR staircase fight or the train fight with Patrice in SF.

    I think it’s a case of an interesting idea, but with the wrong execution. For me CR works better at making its action sequences feel real because everything about it works together. We actually see Bond struggling to keep up during the Madagascar chase and taking shortcuts. We see him getting knocked around during the staircase fight, him chugging whiskey after and patching his wounds. The editing and cinematography during those sequences are motivated by character movements/keeping the action flowing, so it’s not just a case of one component doing one thing and what’s being shown onscreen another. SF’s a similar case too. I don’t quite get that in QOS. The rapid editing/camerawork is doing one thing, and yet Bond is doing things like inexplicably surviving a parachute drop of a few feet, beating up Slate and Green with very slick/stylised choreography etc. That’s fine, but it’s a bit jarring to see it presented in that way.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @007HallY, that's an interesting take cause I feel the same way but reversed, where the action in SF feels so stylized and overly choreographed that it never feels natural or real as it unfolds. Bond and Slate trading blows is way more frenzied and improvisational to me, in a sense, than Bond and Patrice's fight on the train.
  • Posts: 4,300
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @007HallY, that's an interesting take cause I feel the same way but reversed, where the action in SF feels so stylized and overly choreographed that it never feels natural or real as it unfolds. Bond and Slate trading blows is way more frenzied and improvisational to me, in a sense, than Bond and Patrice's fight on the train.

    I think the Slate fight is edited/shot that way, and I will say the sound design is good and the strongest part of it (love the crack as Bond twists his hand). But the choreography itself is pretty polished, almost like they know how the other is going to move (almost dance-like in a way). It’s a bit jarring for me, but again that’s an issue I have with Bourne too. But yeah, a very flat fight for me, unfortunately lacking in much tension.

    I think it’s a case where SF just blends everything much better in both style and substance. It doesn’t need to have QOS’s heightened, gritty cinema verite style because what’s happened prior is giving the audience so much - Bond is injured, there’s a sniper that could hit either of them, and he needs that hard drive. It’s very much edge of your seat stuff. It’s shot effectively and actually I think the choreography is much more convincing than in QOS (it looks slightly slower, which makes sense as they’re on a train and Bond has a bullet in his shoulder. Not to say it’s completely realistic/isn’t heightened, but it works).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Yes I prefer the SF fight too; plus it's just more exciting because there's more at stake.
    I get the sense in the second Patrice fight in the skyscraper that they really know what the other is about to do like a dance, but again it's more exciting because it's had so much build-up and of course we know how formidable Patrice is at this point, and also it's one of the most achingly stylish things in the whole series, it's just so cool.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 2,026
    The key to acting and action is to rehearse so well the result doesn't look rehearsed. Seemingly contradictory, but true. For example, I recently watched Monkey Man, a film I liked, but the action scene in which the main character takes on a room full of bad guys is so well choreographed that the scene itself calls attention to the technique. No question that scene couldn't have been done without exceptional choreography, but when scenes feel almost ballet like, the illusion of reality is diminished.

    From the Craig era, the most impressive fight scene is the staircase scene in CR. That is flat out brutal. Obviously intricately staged, but raw and brutal, and followed up nicely by Bond showing his wounds. Fight sequences in subsequent Craig films have never been as convincing.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 4,300
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes I prefer the SF fight too; plus it's just more exciting because there's more at stake.
    I get the sense in the second Patrice fight in the skyscraper that they really know what the other is about to do like a dance, but again it's more exciting because it's had so much build-up and of course we know how formidable Patrice is at this point, and also it's one of the most achingly stylish things in the whole series, it's just so cool.

    Yeah, the Shanghai fight works because we know Bond is still not at his best. It's very much presented as a rematch between Patrice and Bond, and when Bond wins it's ultimately more satisfying.

    I'd say it actually doesn't feel quite as dance-like as QOS. It feels like a genuine scuffle, albeit one presented very stylishly. I think it's because it's not quite as fast as the fight in QOS (again, during the Slate fight there are moments when you can literally count or tap you feet to the rhythm of Bond blocking punches).
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The key to acting and action is to rehearse so well the result doesn't look rehearsed. Seemingly contradictory, but true. For example, I recently watched Monkey Man, a film I liked, but the action scene in which the main character takes on a room full of bad guys is so well choreographed that the scene itself calls attention to the technique. No question that scene couldn't have been done without exceptional choreography, but when scenes feel almost ballet like, the illusion of reality is diminished.

    From the Craig era, the most impressive fight scene is the staircase scene in CR. That is flat out brutal. Obviously intricately staged, but raw and brutal, and followed up nicely by Bond showing his wounds. Fight sequences is subsequent Craig films have never been as convincing.

    Yeah, I think a lot of it's about how everything works together. The choreography in QOS isn't bad by any means I'd say, and to some extent it'll always look a bit contrived without the proper sheen of editing and cinematography. I'd say that the way the scene is edited/shot doesn't do it justice.

    It's a bit like whenever I hear the criticism that The Dark Knight Rises has bad fight choreography (there are unfortunately a few moments where we can see punches not landing and goons falling, or scuffles which are played out a bit too slow within the shot) but I think that film's issue is that a lot of the later fights are shot very wide without much cutting at points. It's badly directed in that sense.

    I think the staircase fight in CR is one of the best fight scenes in Bond, up there with the train fight in FRWL. Well edited (although I always notice that one shot where they've slowed it down ever so slightly as Bond is kicked down the stairs towards the end, presumably just to keep the pace of the scene from not feeling too quick... even that's arguably quite a good decision though), it's not too fast or slow, great choreography, and very good cinematography. And yeah, showing the aftermath is a wonderful touch. I'd like to see a similar kind of thing in the next film where the audience really get the sense Bond can get hurt.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 29 Posts: 6,380
    mtm wrote: »
    He also fumbles a few gags too for my money: quite what he was doing with Elvis I'm not sure, and I don't think he was either. Tonally he doesn't really work, like the simpering look he gives at the opera, and when you do two gags with him which require visual punchlines and they're only visible for a few frames each... I'm not sure that's good. It's hard not to compare with Mendes, who when he does a gag it feels sure-footed and confident, he's even able to do some slightly tongue-in-cheek stuff as well as taking the film seriously too when it needs it. I feel humour in a dramatic film is a tricky thing to get right, and to do it properly shows someone who knows what they're doing. Next to him, Forster's direction definitely feels unsure and on slightly shaky ground.
    007HallY wrote: »

    There’s stuff in there that’s kinda cool - the door coming off of Bond’s Aston, him manoeuvring so one of the Alfas gets hit by the truck. But yeah, it feels like there needed to be something more special in there.

    I do like that move Bond does to rip his own door off, that's pretty cool. But that bit is actually another odd choice which Forster (presumably?) makes: at two points in this film he shows that Bond's chases actually lead to injury of innocents, which I don't think has happened in a Bond film before and feels kind of against the rules. That lorry driver has a head-on smash: he's not okay; plus there's an innocent woman in the crowd at the Palio who we see get shot and fall - I don't really know why that's in there. These bits just feel wrong and make Bond look bad for putting innocent people in the way, they shouldn't really be there.

    I've brought this point up before, but there's a Cubby quote somewhere that Bond chases don't put the public in direct danger (excepting of course the nuclear bombs that Bond deflects/defuses in say TB and OP).

    That's why the PTS of SP never quite sat well with me. There's something about the helicopter being about to crash into the spectators, and the repeated (female only!) screams from below, that don't feel Bondian to me either.

    I blame Mendes.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    That's an interesting point yeah, I don't disagree, there is something a bit odd about the focus of that scene being the crowd in danger. But also I'd say that Cubby quote, if it's right, is a touch rich- even in something like the Paris car chase bit in AVTAK there's people at risk of getting run over etc. and there's all of those police having huge car accidents in LALD and AVTAK too.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 4,300
    To be fair I actually like the SP moment when Bond gets the helicopter away from the crowd in time. No innocents actually die, and you get a sense that there's lives at stake (and of course it plays into the event being an international incident later in the film). Bond getting the helicopter out of the way in time is a nice resolution in that sense.

    It might just be an issue of tone ultimately (ie. I'm sure innocent lives are put in danger during the tank chase in GE, and of course those chases in LALD/AVTAK, but ultimately they're a bit of fun and the viewer likely isn't going to worry about a random person's car getting a bit damaged). In QOS the woman getting shot (I don't think fatally for what it's worth) is genuinely quite shocking and takes us out of this Bond/villain chase.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 29 Posts: 8,231
    I don't have an issue with spectators/bystanders being in danger, once the dynamic is that Bond is trying to avoid harm coming to them while the villain is indifferent. That's really the only way it works. He doesn't have to be Superman saving kittens from trees or anything like that, but when done appropriately it can add something nice to a sequence.

    I don't think Cubby's words (if accurate) on that were the wisest, to be honest.
    echo wrote: »
    I blame Mendes.

    That's alright, Mendes made sure there was nobody on the streets of Rome later in the same film. Or on the streets near Vauxhall. So I guess that should balance it out for you.
  • Posts: 7,579
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @007HallY, that's an interesting take cause I feel the same way but reversed, where the action in SF feels so stylized and overly choreographed that it never feels natural or real as it unfolds. Bond and Slate trading blows is way more frenzied and improvisational to me, in a sense, than Bond and Patrice's fight on the train.

    +1
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 29 Posts: 3,157
    Yes, I also thought that the hand-to-hand in SF was several rungs below that in CR and QOS. Would the Bond that killed Obanno and Slate have just stood stationary in the komodo pit with his dukes up? Probably not, I'd say.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, I also thought that the hand-to-hand in SF was several rungs below that in CR and QOS. Would the Bond that killed Obanno and Slate have just stood stationary in the komodo pit with his dukes up? Probably not, I'd say.

    And if he did, he probably wouldn't have stopped to point in awe at a komodo dragon while he was being attacked.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited October 29 Posts: 701
    The worst example of Bond actually putting bystanders in danger is probably the boat chase in TWINE. It does seem to be a common occurrence in Brosnan's era. The tank chase is another one.
  • edited October 29 Posts: 4,300
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, I also thought that the hand-to-hand in SF was several rungs below that in CR and QOS. Would the Bond that killed Obanno and Slate have just stood stationary in the komodo pit with his dukes up? Probably not, I'd say.

    I can believe it because the goon he's taking in is a bit bigger than him and further away in that particular moment (they sort of spar/circle each other for two seconds from what I remember). Bond doesn't really need to go on the attack at that point and would probably get into more problems if he did. Different scenes to the CR/QOS examples though I suppose.

    I always find QOS and SP way more jarring and out of tone with the Bond of CR than SF to be honest. He's almost superhuman in QOS to point I never believe he can get hurt - a bit bloodied maybe, which feels a bit superficial really. It was so great seeing Craig's Bond in CR get legitimately hurt, even wincing as he dabs a wound after the staircase fight and chugging whiskey. We'd certainly never seen Bond in hospital in any of the films before. For me it's one of the vital elements missing from QOS. Even when the villain's coming at him with an ax I never quite feel like he's in danger.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, I also thought that the hand-to-hand in SF was several rungs below that in CR and QOS. Would the Bond that killed Obanno and Slate have just stood stationary in the komodo pit with his dukes up? Probably not, I'd say.

    And if he did, he probably wouldn't have stopped to point in awe at a komodo dragon while he was being attacked.

    That's funny though, I love it.
    The worst example of Bond actually putting bystanders in danger is probably the boat chase in TWINE. It does seem to be a common occurrence in Brosnan's era. The tank chase is another one.

    Yes the bit where Bond's tank catches up with a police car and runs over it while it's moving does seem a bit needly dangerous of him! :D
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 30 Posts: 698
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @007HallY, that's an interesting take cause I feel the same way but reversed, where the action in SF feels so stylized and overly choreographed that it never feels natural or real as it unfolds. Bond and Slate trading blows is way more frenzied and improvisational to me, in a sense, than Bond and Patrice's fight on the train.

    Agreed. Comparing the openings to QOS and SF, I much prefer QOS's due to its spontaneity. The Aston gets its door ripped off, exposing Bond to potential gunfire. Bond narrowly dodges the tractor-trailer, the Quantum car tries to do the same and gets slammed head-on. Bond escapes down the quarry road, but is almost hit by the cop car that's tumbling downhill after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.

    But SF? Patrice gets into a car. Bond gets into a car. There's a brief, very linear chase where not much happens apart from Bond's car losing a sideview mirror. Bond knocks Patrice off the road. Patrice gets on a bike. Bond gets on a bike. They ride together across a linear path on the rooftops. It feels very staged. Actually, the whole movie has an uncanny, almost video game feel to it.
  • Posts: 4,300
    I'd say it's pretty clever. They go from foot, to car, to motorbike before we get a pretty big sequence and finally showdown on a train. There's a wonderful progression/build up in that sense. We know exactly what Bond needs to attain and what's at stake (unlike QOS where we're thrown in without really being able to really comprehend what's going on, which isn't helped by the editing). It's just far better storytelling and pacing in my honest opinion, and better at keeping the audience engaged. Certainly feels much more like a James Bond movie to me than QOS.

    Bond films tend to have that video game kind of feel in their first acts, especially as they get more modern. Something like TSWLM's Egypt section feels very much like that with Bond's objectives/who he has to find constantly changing and him going from location to location rather quickly. Works for me. Makes it feel more like Bond has to think on his feet/the situation could change at any moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    I think saying not much happens when you have two riders on motorbikes getting directed up some stairs to ride along the roof of the Grand Bazaar, negotiating rooftops, crashing through a window, riding at top speed through a crowd, then moving Bond firing himself off a bridge to land on a moving train, having a shootout, getting in a digger etc. etc. is a bit silly. If that's 'not much happening' I'd love to know how your morning has gone, slide_99! :))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @007HallY, that's an interesting take cause I feel the same way but reversed, where the action in SF feels so stylized and overly choreographed that it never feels natural or real as it unfolds. Bond and Slate trading blows is way more frenzied and improvisational to me, in a sense, than Bond and Patrice's fight on the train.

    Agreed. Comparing the openings to QOS and SF, I much prefer QOS's due to its spontaneity. The Aston gets its door ripped off, exposing Bond to potential gunfire. Bond narrowly dodges the tractor-trailer, the Quantum car tries to do the same and gets slammed head-on. Bond escapes down the quarry road, but is almost hit by the cop car that's tumbling downhill after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.

    But SF? Patrice gets into a car. Bond gets into a car. There's a brief, very linear chase where not much happens apart from Bond's car losing a sideview mirror. Bond knocks Patrice off the road. Patrice gets on a bike. Bond gets on a bike. They ride together across a linear path on the rooftops. It feels very staged. Actually, the whole movie has an uncanny, almost video game feel to it.

    "It feels very staged" is what I always come back to when not loving the action and spectacle in SF.
  • Posts: 4,300
    I suppose there's a sweet spot for everyone when it comes to Bond fights and how natural they appear, both in terms of style and choreography. For me those fights are Grant vs Bond, the staircase one from CR, and weirdly the elevator fight from DAF (which incidentally is not a film I'd cite as having otherwise particularly natural fight sequences, especially when you look at the PTS), and the dressing room one from TMWTGG.

    It really depends on the sequence, but I tend to like the more 'matter of fact' fights. The ones where it actually looks like two people going at it, and the camera/editing (and of course sound which is so under appreciated) heightening everything but not distracting from the scene.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @007HallY, absolutely, and well said. It's why there's no consistent Bondian concept that all fans are going to love, since we're all after something a little different, even if we can agree on what we see as the essential elements.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 698
    Bond movies always differentiated themselves from other franchises in how fights and chases were never just fights and chases, but always had something extra to make them interesting.

    Take FYEO. The chase starts off with Bond on skis being pursed by bikers. Already it's wildly different from other chase scenes, but then Bond skis down a luge, and Krieger follows him on the bike. That's something you'd only ever see in a Bond movie.

    The recent movies have largely lost that type of novelty. Ironically, only Spectre attempted to bring back old-fashioned Bond action sequences with the opening chopper fight (good) and the car/plane chase in Austria (original but boring).

    Going back to SF, what if instead of Bond also getting on a conveniently-available bike, he has to use some alternate form of transportation to keep up with Patrice? That's how they would've done it during the classic era.
Sign In or Register to comment.