It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You have trouble with that?
LOL, seriously, by the FOURTH time I watched the film, it all made sense to me.
:))
Indeed, like most things it improves with multiple viewings.
But seriously we can agree that something is wrong when it takes four viewings before we have pretty much seen everything? I'm not talking about story. Sometimes films require multiple viewings for us to understand them. But this is more basic, it's about a visual medium denying me all the visual information I need and now we acknowledge that we have to train our brains to fill in the blanks after four or so viewings.
I'm not saying QOS is a bad film. It has a lot of potential. And I have learned to embrace it. But that fact by itself leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. After watching CR the first time, I wanted to watch it again because I loved it so much. After watching QOS the first time, I needed to watch it again, just so that I could go back for things I had missed when blinking my eyes. I have had to learn things about QOS and it should be that way with a Bond film, certainly not because I'm denied images of all things.
QoS is regarded a lot higher than I would suggest in Bond circles, mainly given the benefit of hindsight. It's a well produced movie with some creative flourishes and a number of quality components, but it's afforded a level of leeway regards the narrative that most Bond films aren't. The simple fact is, as a film it's middling at best. It's fine for people to fawn over it, hell I am a big fan of AVTAK, but objectively it's just not a great film and never will will be.
Absolutely. I actually had a mental checklist of things to watch out for - scenes that didn't make sense, a mix-up of characters because of editing, lines that were thrown out that I couldn't understand (took me forever to understand what Camille says about her pistol before she and Bond storm Perla de las Dunas), etc. throughout my second, third, even fourth viewing in the cinemas.
I have to correct you on the Bond leaving M back with White Statement. We can clearly see Bond watching M escape through the door frame. You are absolutely right about the non searching of Slates room,however. It is of the issues I've been writing above (along with handing Camille to that Guy in the Harbour after the boat chase without questioning her,what the hell is going on and not telling M that it wasn't him who killed the Special Branch guy in the opera and, and, and ...)
Benny's not going to like this ;)
I saw it five times, actually! After that, I vowed to see all Bond films - even if we get a DAD clone in the future, though I hope not - at least five times in cinemas. Five for QoS, five for SF, five for 'Bond 24,' hopefully.
Me neither. So Rog in a safari suit isn't at all Fleming, but at least it's bloody entertaining. QoS is at best passable and at worst borderline pretentious. At least with a Rog film it knows exactly what it is. QoS doesn't have a clue. Plus, if I desperately crave Fleming I'll just go and read a book.
Agree. TSWLM and FYEO are vastly superior to QoS. Just my opinion I know but apart from both of these films being fun and cracking entertainment, importantly the storytelling make sense. You don't come away from either of those films thinking 'huh?'
*thinking, please wait*
....Escape From LA.
:-??
If I were going to a desert Island and I could take only one of QoS, or a Moore entry picked at random, I'd pick the Moore every time.
Naw, I cannot agree here then.
Ooh I wouldn't quite stretch it that far. I'd probably end up throwing TMWTGG or AVTAK into the sea! Actually there's an idea. Perhaps I could write a mayday message on the jacket sleeve and use the case as a makeshift 'message in a bottle' ;-)
Like it or not, but why do you need the pretense of a reason for it? It´s just a thing the director seems to like, for no apparent reason. Just like some people like their music loud.
Ballhaus let the camera move around people in a conversation sometimes, for no other reason that he thought it would be cool, and he was praised for it. So I guess it comes down to taste.
This is the bs some promoters spread like a desease, and you should be ashamed if you still believe this. Not since the first "handy-cams" is it at all possible with a hand-held camera to shake that much. It has nothing to do with being realistic. The shootout in Heat looked pretty realistic - you can sometimes feel that a guy is holding the camera and runs with it. But it doesn´t shake.
Shaky cam can deliver a certain kind of dynamic. But, again, it has nothing to do with realism. If at all, it has to do with Heavy Metal music ;-) .
I agree about the advantages put to good use in D9, but there is not much shaky cam. Handheld is not the same as shaky.
Technically, that is unlikely to occur, simply because it´s much easier to produce smooth shots. I suggest you watch the making-of docs from JJ Abrams´ first Star Trek movie, and from The Bourne Ultimatum. Abrams is filmed while operating the camera and bouncing it, to get a certain shaky effect he wanted. He had to do it himself, because noone else managed to produce the kind of shaking he wanted. In TBU, the roof chase in Tangiers is filmed with cameras on wires, pretty much like Jackson did in LOTR. No camera was shaking during that shoot.
Personal opinion and tastes that each and everyone here is entitled to have and not wrong for having aside, I think there's something seriously wrong in the coconut with someone who would prefer Moonraker [-(
@SirHenryLeeChaChing, would it help if Q's re-entry line were replaced by "I sure hope that old man got his tractor beam out of commission." ? ;-)
True enough, @boldfinger, but it starts losing its appeal once multiple DP's use it almost as if it's a mandatory thing, as if it defines 'cool filmmaking' or even worse 'good filmmaking'. And it gets worse still when some DP's use it because they are otherwise no longer able to shoot certain things well. It's easy to crowd the place with cameras and record as much footage as you can so that afterwards you can pic the half-second shots that will blend nicely into a 20 second scene. It's a lot tougher to seek out that one camera angle that allows for a 20 second shot without redundant vibrations and whatnot. ;-)
If you'd read my post completely you'd have recognised my note about Verite originally being the bi-product of bulky camera equipment. As for the style being adapted for mainstream cinema I'm not really understanding your rather patronising assertion that I 'be ashamed if I believe this'. It's not a case of 'belief', it's 'fact' that mainstream directors such as Spielberg adopted the style for films like Saving Private Ryan to add a veneer of documentary style realism to the action. The fact it's become the norm, does not mean it should be dismissed. In the right hands it works, the problem is it's become shorthand for delivering frenetic action.
Again, you miss my point. Shooting handycam in close-up allows the director to dismiss the geography of the scene in all but a wide shot. Therefore they can shoot any number of takes and angles very quickly. The reason a Stanley Kubrick film took so long to produce was because his attention to the Mise en scene was acute. Most directors these days don't particular care for multiple set-ups when they can, as you say, pick up the camera and add 'bounce it around' a bit, to save time actually figuring out how to cover something in an original way.