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
But I think CR feels a bit bloated some times, it drags a bit for me and I don't like some of the dialouge or the sinking house finale. I'm also not a fan of the whole rookie angle (QOS has this too but it's not as bad as CR).
QOS is much slicker and I think has better pacing than CR. Although there's the odd dodgy line the dialouge I think has been improved. I prefer the score and cinematogaphy in QOS and although the editing ruins it a bit I do like the car chase. And I think the finale is better too.
CR is a better made film but I enjoy QOS more.
Although I like them, I'm not a huge fan of both to be honest and I think Skyfall is better than the two of them by a mile. But I prefer QOS to CR.
I never really understood the appeal of the short run time? It's not something I particularly care for. I remember Forster's hyperbole about wanting QoS to be like a 'bullet'. I think it's a really odd directorial decision to have this structure in mind, when you don't even have a script locked. If he'd tried to be a little less pseudo-intellectual about the whole thing, we may have got the film we deserved. CR was the set up, QoS should have knocked it out of the park. QoS to me, is a little like the novel TMWTGG. It has some interesting moments, but as a whole it is lacking.
;)
Among the Craig films I have my likes and dislikes. Despite being very impressed with SF and how on 2 separate occasions I was engrossed to the point that the 2:24 run time felt like a normal length film, CR still feels like the better movie to me. So I've got it CR #1 and SF #2 to date, whereas my son says he likes SF more. Then we have QOS, and here I simply feel that too many factors interfered with the film rising to the level of both CR and SF. But I'd stop short of calling QOS a failure like so many like to do because ultimately the mysterious organization and some more details about them were revealed, and Bond got his answers for Vesper and became the agent M wanted him to be. We see that happen in SF, a Bond recognizable to all and a movie that felt that way.
The films don't HAVE to be deadly serious for me, but they must be realistic in that everything that happens is at least reasonably possible.
Me too mate. If Dalton was in CR I'd probably rate it way higher than I do. It wouldn't fix all the problems I have with it but it's Dalts! The best Bond! That alone would give me reason to rate it in my top 10 at least.
Dalton is a solid actor but, with respect to him, I'm not sure even he could have sold the torture scene as brilliantly as Craig did. From anger and terror (the first time we have we have ever heard Bond really scream on film) to humour (I love his laugh and the way he says "no" to LeChiffe when he says to Bond "you really aren't going to tell me are you")
Of course I could be wrong but eitherway I wouldn't want to change that scene. It's great as it is.
But, its easier said than done to be able to make a serious, realistic film........youve got to hire the right people for the job.
An example here is QOS where the producers went off on a tangent and replaced the usual Bond team with a bunch of misfits, who though talented in their own realms, didnt gel together to make a cohesive fim........and we dont ever want that again...do we?
Tim Dalton, was a very good serious Bond.............but unfortunately for him, the Americans in particular didnt take to his portrayal of a somewhat dour Bond, and at the time prefered the buddy-buddy type movies like Lethal Weapon.
I think people need to make a distinction between humour and comedy. There is room for humour in a Bond movie. But not for comedy.
Much agreed, humor yes, slapstick, sight and sound gags, no, never again.
the likes of Tarzan yells in OP.....and the Beach boys music in AVTAK were awful,
but to me the worst thing in a Bond film was not the slapstick, but poor realism as in DAD.
I mean that scene with Bond on a surf board..............that was horrendous, the CGI was appalling it looked liked the CGI team had drawn a black jelly bean, and stuck it on a lolly stick! :-O..........i felt so embarassed to be a Bond fan at that moment.
I remember that scene in QoB where DC jumps out of that plane without a chute, awefull CGI masked by the editing. In the days of a certain Moore the stunts were done for real.....
Yes true.........ive done a parachute jump, and you dont just pull the chute about 30' feet above the ground and survive.
At the very least you would probably stick into the ground like a 2 pin plug...........haha
Yes, and the plane stunts in the TLD and OP were also done for real!
Interesting...he did mention he wanted it to be like a bullet and decided against an extra scene most fans would probably want to have scene perhaps. But this is the same guy who threw BB's comment back at her when she said MF didn't want to return during a panel.
Fun fact: I don't believe in decaf... and I work at Starbucks.
ALSO, Quantum brought in the editor of The Bourne Supremacy, AND Forster brought in his common editor. Why do you need two editors?
:))
I think Forster fell down because he didn't have the requisite respect for the franchise. He's a pseudo-art-house film maker who thought he was capable of redefining Bond by dismissing everything that had gone before. Martin Campbell is not from the same school of Directors, but he understood exactly what it took to make a Bond picture, and he did it with the utmost respect.
Martin Scorsese could not make Superbad, and Judd Apatow could not make The Godfather. Martin Campbell can direct 'Bond' films, Marc Forster can't.
In QOS.....Forster was allowed to bring in his own editors, who unfortuantely didnt have much experience with action films.........and it showed!
Forster, complained that he wasnt given much time to edit the film, some 6 weeks i believe, which is short................but when you consider Campbell and Mendes managed to edit films which were an hour longer, it makes you wonder what was going on!
Excellent post..........spot on!
Peter Hunt once said having two editors on a film can't work as you'll end up with two different films at the end of it.
Who the hell thought having two editors was a good idea? :|
I think that that *can* be true, but not always. I can't remember who, but one director had a main editor for his films but then had a second one for the "crying and dying" scenes. Each editor had their strengths and the films as a whole were better because of that arrangement. Of course it would work best with a director who had a very clear overall vision and style of their own to begin with.
I would imagine that it's not very common, though.