Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Marc Forster wanted to quit QOS
http://collider.com/marc-forster-quantum-of-solace/#poster
He did have a pretty tough task on his hands.
Making a Bond movie is a huge undertaking and the schedule is brutal on any director. However, the writer's strike caused so many additional problems.
I feel the producers are massively to blame for QOS. They knew the writer's strike was an inevitability. They should have done everything in their power to hire a proven studio action director. If they were desperate to get the 2008 release date they needed a competent pair of hands who could deliver on time. Instead, they decided to pick a slightly more esoteric and artsy indie director who was out of his comfort zone and, inevitably, out of his depth.
I think Forster was an interesting choice but wrong for the circumstances. There was talk of folk like Alex Proyas and Tony Scott back at the time. Those names are hopelessly uninspired but they would have delivered.
QOS isn't bad in retrospect. The problem is the the action-overkill; QOS completely misunderstands that it was the characters that made CR work. Instead it reduces Craig to an action manikin instead of channeling the pathos he bought to CR. As an epilogue to CR it's perfectly fine.
He did have a pretty tough task on his hands.
Making a Bond movie is a huge undertaking and the schedule is brutal on any director. However, the writer's strike caused so many additional problems.
I feel the producers are massively to blame for QOS. They knew the writer's strike was an inevitability. They should have done everything in their power to hire a proven studio action director. If they were desperate to get the 2008 release date they needed a competent pair of hands who could deliver on time. Instead, they decided to pick a slightly more esoteric and artsy indie director who was out of his comfort zone and, inevitably, out of his depth.
I think Forster was an interesting choice but wrong for the circumstances. There was talk of folk like Alex Proyas and Tony Scott back at the time. Those names are hopelessly uninspired but they would have delivered.
QOS isn't bad in retrospect. The problem is the the action-overkill; QOS completely misunderstands that it was the characters that made CR work. Instead it reduces Craig to an action manikin instead of channeling the pathos he bought to CR. As an epilogue to CR it's perfectly fine.
^ 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
He embraces the narrative of how he and Craig were the real writers. Yet, eight years ago, in a story on the Rotten Tomatoes website, he took credit for hiring Joshua Zetumer to do the rewrites during filming. Zetumer's hiring was also reported elsewhere during filming of the movie. I guess Forster forgot all about that.
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/a-james-bond-set-visit-and-seven-exclusive-quantum-of-solace-images/
Also Almaric is a much better villain that Waltz's Blohauser, Almaric is at his finest when he reveals to Medrano the details of the deal he's just signed and also the crazed axe man in the climax of the dessert sequence.
He does allot with an underwritten role and really sells his character as opposed to the twice Oscar awarded Waltz who seems comatose for the majority of the time he's on screen.
He's clearly out of his depth in combat with Bond but he's a caged animal and extremely dangerous for it, I've really grown to like it. There are moments of QOS I have issue with but on the whole it's pretty solid.
The PTS is superb, the interrogation of Mr White is brilliantly sinister, Jesper is on fine form, misgivings on the editing of the Mitchell pursuit, the boat chase, the plane moment leading to the awful sinkhole debacle but after that save the blatant GF homage it's fine and the Bregenz sequence is one of the finest of the era.
Also this is Arnold's best score of the series for me, I would gladly welcome him back if he could build on the promise of this one and no Jack White's theme is far from the worst of the series to me.
I can understand Forster being proud of what he achieved given the circumstances, Mendes or Campbell woudn't have faired much better given that situation.
I think QOS is going to fair far more favourably in years to come than SPECTRE with the fanbase, it's all ready grown in stature in the last 8 years, SP is definitely going to be the black sheep of the family of this era.
QOS has gone up my Craig ranking too in recent times:
1) CR
2) SP
3) QOS
4) SF
I consider myself a huge - capital H - Spectre fan because for the first time in many years, I found some of the ingredients I like about a Bond film re-inserted in the series. I furthermore really appreciate Newman's second score and the visual style of the movie.
That said, QOS was not CR² and that's why I had issues with it at first. But multiple viewings did lend me an entirely new perspective on the film; they allowed me to see the film for what it is and not for what it ain't. I predict that it will climb even higher in my overall Bond list, as I'm baffled by how I keep discovering new elements which each next viewing.
Amalric is a truly fascinating villain. He's a slick talker and yet he comes off as a socially reserved person who, when he has to talk, is also extremely nervous. His eyes can pierce through steel, which makes him an uncomfortable presence. Five minutes after playing Medrano for a fool in the most deliciously deceptive of ways, Bond barges in and Greene's lights go out; when he wields that axe like a maniac on steroids, I'm having a lot of fun.
Not that I would want to compare him to Blofeld though. Waltz's character is of a fundamentally different energy level than Amalric's. I'm sure Waltz could have done the crazy routine too, if per director demanded.
Bond driving through Bregenz is such a powerful scene, I'm never not in awe. We pull the sound from the film with the exception of a tiny fountain in a deserted, puddled street, and the wonderfully ambient score. It's a relaxing, impressionistic moment I'm always looking forward to in the film.
Agreed. Handsdown Arnold's best Bond score: perfectly balanced, never overdoing it, unique, sober, expertly paced out. I have a very contentious relationship with AWTD though, still struggling to find the Bond sound in it.
I'd surmise that SF will be the black sheep of the Craig films, if it isn't already, but QOS will indeed gain more approval overtime, I'm sure.
And I was so close to agreeing with every word there until you went and spoiled it.
I remember thinking Mendes was saying all the right things, we had a brilliant cast, no excuses like last time for the score to be so mediocre due to a lack of budget, the awesome teaser and then we got the trailer with the OHMSS theme......Then slashwristgate happened then the film came out; and hearts sank into an ocean of bitter disappointment. At least mine did. Anyway, @shardlake I share your sentiments on QoS. It has its weaknesses but it's strengths overpower it's shortcomings and for that it's why I rate it highly and appreciate it more than Mendes' guff.
I merely believe that SF was a hype, much bigger than the film itself, and that overtime people will sober up from all the excitement surrounding it and perhaps unfavourably compare it to other Craig Bonds or other Bonds in general. It happened to Avatar, why not to SF? While I'm glad it made over a billion dollars, was that a direct consequence of the quality of the film itself, or rather of certain clever marketing choices, a lot of positive buzz and the strong currents of enthusiasm from a franchise hungry audience? Like many on this forum nowadays disagree with MR's success, perhaps people in the future will disagree with SF's success, judging the film not as the latest Bond adventure and the proverbial "best Bond yet", but as one of the former Bond films, you know, from the days when Craig was Bond etcetera etcetera, and Adele's hit single or raving press reviews will not come to the film's aid then.
Even more so, carried by its reputation of being the most something something Bond film ever at the time of its release, SF will instantly instil optimistic expectations in future Bond fans who may ultimately find the film not quite living up to its reputation. It's not uncommon for Bond fans to gravitate towards the heavily criticised Bond films and look for the positives in those - the OHMSS effect so to speak - and to critically re-evaluate the Bonds that took home a lot of money and awards - the TB effect you might say.
It feels to me like CR still benefits from a consensus of overall good to great quality. QOS, by contrast, was generally much less well received and nowadays benefits from new-found praise. SP, to me at least, feels like the one people will leave alone for the most part. Not exceptionally great, not really boring; more like the one people will easily gloss over with a few "meh" and "whatever" gestures. But SF is the king of the Craig Bonds, and nothing pleases people more after a few years than to dethrone the king and crown the jester. Cameron's two most successful pictures are typically rated rather low by film fans; already Michael Mann fans have begun to shower his latest "bomb", BlackHat, with compliments. We see it with the Bonds too. How many of us would put GF above DN and FRWL? How many hold Dalton in a much higher esteem than audience's darling Brosnan?
So when I say that I predict SF to become the black sheep of the Craig Bonds, I mean that while the others may remain stable or even climb up in rankings, SF may actually plummet, and plummet hard. I'm not saying I want that to happen. I'm not even saying I'm certain that will happen. I'm saying that I doubt QOS will remain the black sheep and that I doubt SF will remain the king.
I always felt Craig had good chemistry with Olga, and he looks more Bondian in this film than perhaps in others. His suits seem to fit this time.
Strange as it may seem, often the plot in a Bond doesn't necessarily determine my level of enjoyment for the film. Of course I'd prefer for the villain to have an ingenious caper and the film to have stronger characterizations, genuine suspense intrigue and thrills, but as long as the whole package is solid, it looks, sounds and feels like a Bond film, I'm usually happy. LALD doesn't exactly have a huge plot, but it's a Bond I love and rarely get tired of. QUANTUM seems to have it both ways. Craig is in top form here. It's shorter running time, and quick pace reminds me of the 1st three films. The PTS is short a'la FRWL and GF. The fight sequences are reminiscent of OHMSS, and the score is top notch. Yet, the film is missing enough Bondian elements : opening GB, "Bond, James, Bond", and so forth I have a hard time not placing it towards the bottom. The villain's plot concerning Bolivia's water supply or whatever, to me is no better or worse than Elektra's controlling the oil supply.
QoS is like when you go to the barbershop, don't quite get what you asked for, and feel you could do better if you had the cutting skills and clippers. It's not horrible, but effing hell. You paid for it.
I admit QoS is flawed but I have a soft spot for it and respect for the makers of this film. There was heart in the making of it unlike SP which seemed to have lost heart before the cameras even rolled.
I must say I agree with you in many respects.
QOS has had an odd narrative since it was released. The general impression back in 2008 was that it was good, just not as good as CR. Since then it’s been downgraded and was seen as a massive disappointment. It would also seem that the release of SF made people turn on it even more. I feel the tide is turning more positive in light of SP.
Personally, I feel that the movie is a tad under-baked. There are some interesting ideas and scenes but none of it is able to really breath. There are true flashes of brilliance, but not much really manifests.
I agree with all the points you make about Amalric. He’s massively underrated in the film. He’s such a creepy and uncomfortable presence throughout. I particularly like his delivery of the line “I have a pest” when referring to Bond on the plane to Bregenz.
Another great thing is the sheer scope of the story. The locations are so varied and beautifully shot. Also the relationship with M and Judi’s performance are great.
Having heard stories about Forster’s lack of direction on World War Z it’s clear to me that he isn’t a filmmaker suited to the tentpole arena. That film spiralled out of control with numerous key crew members quitting in protest and huge chucks later being reshot. If the Bond schedules permitted for reshoots, it’s clear to me that QOS would have been majorly overhauled in post. I think a lot of the issues arise near the end of the second act going into the third.
Besides that: I really like it for it's story, cast, soundtrack and great performance from Craig especially.
Thus the only thing that will remain notable of the Craig era is, and deservedly Casino Royale.
The general public will remember a film for the 50th Anniversary, was it Spectre? Or Skyfall? Can't remember...
Nice summary. I agree.
QoS is really not bad. One of my favourite Craig era films.
It was an event movie because of the Anniversary. I remember people liking it even before actually seeing it.
The hype passes. CR is going down GF's road. SF is going down TB's road.
Also it's only 4 years since SF.
What 'road' is that exactly..?
GF is over 50 years old yet if you did a general public poll for their favourite Bond film it would probably be pretty high up the list.
Connery is still the most popular actor to play Bond yet he hasn't played the part for 33 years.
Your predictions are nonsensical.
I think SP will be remembered for being Craig's only attempt at a classic Bond film with all the trimmings. At least that makes it stand out a little.
If it doesn't fit your worldview...
Yes GF like CR will always remain a classic and high up everyone's ranking, that's what I meant.
SF is like TB, an event movie at the time, later many find (will find) it a bore.
It's dividing people, quite a bit. At least in the forums. Out there it's remembered (for now) as a great event movie that celebrated the 50th.
I think re-watchability value is near zero with SF (IMHO). QOS on the other hand is the most re-watchable of the series together with DAF.
Anyway, all a matter of perspective. We will see how it goes down with the years. But usually the newer movies will go down in rankings. CR will be the only one staying firmly in the Top 10 for all eternity.
Yes I think the TB-SF comparison is apposite. Both blew the box office away but perhaps with hindsight aren't all that. And yes, IMO rather dull.
I'd still rather watch TB tho I think. Neither are films I relish the idea of watching though.
Going back to QOS, there seems to be track record of writers strikes and 'script issues' during production that actually leads to quite interesting Bond films.
For QoS: I agree that it is highly rewatchable - completely different than SP. I watched SP 3 times in the cinema - but I barely finished it 2 times on bluray. Last time I stopped it after L'americain so I do not have to go through the nonsense of the 3rd act anymore.
I know SF divides the fan audience - but I absolutely do not think it will not be appreciated anymore the way it was and is to this day some years from now. I agree CR is one of those golden classics that made and make the franchise what it is - but SF definitely added to it instead of being "just another entry" like SP.
It’s really the natural order of things in fan circles. We don’t have a lot to look forward to (where is our Bond 25?!), so we naturally revaluate what’s come before.
Films that were often lauded on release, come up for re-examination. SF is a case where there was a considerable amount of hype and many do seem to consider it overrated as a result. The same is seemingly occurring with the last Star Wars films. It was loved on release but the inevitable nit-picking has occurred.
I loved SF. I think it was a film with a real point-of-view that was willing to be brave and subversive whilst celebrating the Bond lore. The artistry is top-class; the directing, the cinematography, the score and acting are first-rate. It’s a film that isn’t afraid to play down the action and actually focus on character and dialogue. It’s an exotic and classy affair that is, surprisingly thematically rich. I’d say it’s a challenger to CR as Craig’s best film; and one of the best Bond films in the last 25 years.
QOS is more rewatchable – mainly as it is more flawed. I find myself being more forgiving the more times I seen it – this is clearly due to not have the same (perceived) rarefied glow as CR or SF.
"this is the one where Judy Dench dies" or
"this is the one with Adelle"
but they will enjoy it and will enjoy it just as much in 10 or 20 years. Anyone can have an opinion of SF and if people dont like it, then fine, but to credit its box office success on external factors rather than the film itself is not very charitable.