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
Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.
Nurse, fetch my medicine!
Spottiswoode made a movie that is as thin as a piece of paper, whilist Forster made a great movie filled with symbolism and and themes!
It's not as if I said he was as good as Young, Campbell, or Mendes. I don't think there were any glaring, "What on Earth were you thinking?" moments like in Die Another Day or Quantum of Solace.
Exactly. He made a solid, fun Bond film that was perhaps a bit too OTT. I prefer him to Forster.
I'd argue that Spottiswoode made a fun action flick that does exactly what it sets out to do quite well while Forster made an arty, pretentious film that wastes good actors and good moments of drama by chucking them into a sea of badly edited action scenes.
Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity!
He knew Bond's history quite well, many of the choices of editing is a deliberate throwback to the 60's.
And really, was a "CR 2.0" the real way to go in 2008? QoS is a great complement to CR, where CR takes on the long and dramatic scenes. QoS takes on the fast part just because of Bond's state of mind in the film. Forster works with the sublime details.
And do you really prefer the stale Apted, or the inept Tamahori over Forster? Really?
I don't mind Spottiswood or Forster to return!
Anyway, seriously, I'd be interested to see Forster return. Imagine what he could do without a writers strike. And he wouldn't do the hyper-editing that we saw in QoS - Forster was trying to get inside of Bond's head. (well, hopefully anyway, the one caveat I had with QoS was it's editing.)
BTW I quite liked Spottiswoode's helming of TND; I concur with @thelivingroyale. TND is fun, sleek and pacy, and there's no pretentiousness to be seen.
You'd even want Tamahori back?
Yes because TWINE is my favorite Bond film. I much rather take those 2 directors over Forster. QOS is a piece of shit of a film IMO
How is it dull and uninspired? Please give some reasons because I think it's a blast. It's a fast paced action fest but unlike QOS it doesn't try to be anything more than that. It's slick, witty, it has tons of colourful characters (Carver, Kauffman, Wai Lin), a great score and Brosnan at his coolest. It's fun.
If you're going to slag off TND slag off the crap story or the dodgy product placement. Don't start calling it dull because I don't think that's a criticism that holds much merit.
"I feel no love behind their craft" I'm not even sure what you mean here.
"Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity" So QOS gains points because it's different? By that logic Rocky V is the best Rocky film. Yeah it's shit but it's so different and it really sticks out among the films!
You really prefer the crapfest DAD over the brilliant TLD? Really?
Works both ways mate. And for the record I prefer Apted over Forster because I think Apted made the better film.
You'd be okay with Tamahori? The man who thought the codename theory should be made canon, and who greenlighted the invisible car, the references to the first nineteen Bond movies, and every line out Jinx's mouth (not mention several from Graves, Moneypenny, and even Bond himself)?
Just look at the climax on the Stealth ship, it's just uninspired action that goes on and on. It is made with one intention and one intention only, and that is to fill the criteria of an explosive climax. Nothing really falls in place there, it's just action for the sake of it and that is dull.
I can agree that Brosnan is at his best in the film, and that TND holds some nostalgia for me because it was my first Bond-film but it is still a inferior Bond-film (and film in general) compared to QoS. Whereas QoS brings something to the table and entertains at the same time, TND brings me just a run-of-the mill Bond film and not a particular good one either.
Well each for it's own i suppose. But a good film in my opinion shouldn't just entertain when you're watching the film it should continue to tickle your mind long after you switched it off. And some films does that when being different, QoS is very different both to it's immediate predecessor and to the previous 21 films. So yes, that is a merit.
TLD is overall more "Fleming-esqe" and Dalton is better than Brosnan but i find more joy in some of the parts in DAD.
I'm flattered that you're remembers my opinion about those two films!
one it was too fast of a film I really couldn't keep up with much of that story, so many camera angles, I thought the villain was boring, and I really didn't understand much of the story other then Bonds revenge for Vesper. I thought it could have been much better. But it is really hard to follow up CR
Overall I think QoS is under-appreciated by many. Craig is amazing, Mathis is one of the best allies ever, and overall it's a pretty good Bond movie. However, I don't think Forster has complete a grasp of the character (cinematic or Fleming). There wasn't any lightness in QoS, and a lot of Bond films have that juxtaposition of "light and heavy." Anways, yeah, QOS is great.
However, I read a few remarks about Spottiswoode and I'll defend him as well. TND is SUCH pure FUN. I think it's a great action flick and even though it IS a stock and formulaic Bond movie it still feels inspired. Brosnan kills it here and is at his "coolest" and the characters are a blast.
Well the script wasn't to blame for the editing that rendered the PTS and boat chase (just how does Bond make that boat flip again? Even taking it frame by frame it's not clear) practically unwatchable was it?
And I suggest that you go and check out Calvindyson's YouTube review of QOS where he absolutely destroys Forster (with good reason) over what should be one of the key scenes when Mitchell tries to kill M.
Yes the QOS script was shaky but in the hands of someone else it could still have been serviceable. The scenes with Mathis are well handled as is the last scene in the car with Camille but other than that....
And before anyone mentions the brilliance of the opera scene - well how about this for controversial - it's merely ok. Far from the cinematic masterpiece it's made out to be. I like the way Dan nicks a tux etc but then there's nothing else we haven't seen before. A blatant ripoff of Sandor and a pretentiously shot little shoot out.
In the end QOS is such a let down because it failed to build on the setup in CR. Viewed on its own its a passable Bond film - probably just in the bottom half - but if you watch them back to back it just feels like you watching a special edition of CR with a few extra scenes tagged on.
I think also that the comparisons between Forster and Spottiswoode are particularly pertinent given that both films were shot on punishing schedules with scripts that we're being written as they went along.
But where Spottiswoode does a sterling job of holding the whole thing together and delivering a solid, no frills, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin classic Bond film (only letting things slip in the dull finale) Forster makes an absolute hash of things.
Lesson to be taken is that an auteur is a risk and sometimes a journeyman is what you need to bring the thing in on budget and on schedule. The other lesson is never start principal photography without a finished script FFS.
That's a load of bollocks on pretty much every level. In fact I can't think of a single criteria in which TB beats FRWL - unless you count being sent to sleep as a plus?
It just isn't.