Sam Mendes doesn't understand James Bond

245

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!
    Funny, many of my friends who have seen the film thought the PTS a little OTT and silly, and was actually the worst part of the movie.

    It what makes the world go round....we all see things differently.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

  • Posts: 3,327
    HASEROT wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

    You are wasting your time mate. I've already outlined these action scenes to him earlier, and also reminded him of the sparse action scenes in the early Connery films.

    So his new line of attack from that was the fact there are too many plot holes. Either way, he is becoming a broken record......
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

    You are wasting your time mate. I've already outlined these action scenes to him earlier, and also reminded him of the sparse action scenes in the early Connery films.

    So his new line of attack from that was the fact there are too many plot holes. Either way, he is becoming a broken record......


    there is always DAD for fools like this one lol..
  • Posts: 3,274
    HASEROT wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

    You are wasting your time mate. I've already outlined these action scenes to him earlier, and also reminded him of the sparse action scenes in the early Connery films.

    So his new line of attack from that was the fact there are too many plot holes. Either way, he is becoming a broken record......

    there is always DAD for fools like this one lol..
    You can call me "fool" or whatever you desire to present your case. Stuff like that doesn't provoke me. Comments like that say more about you, than me.

    And jetsetwilly has already instructed those who dare to criticize SF to go back and watch "endless repeats of DAD", so I guess you are amongst friends.

    Like I tried to explain to Jetsetwilly earlier there's a difference between an action scene and a action set piece.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Like I tried to explain to Jetsetwilly earlier there's a difference between an action scene and a action set piece.
    I wouldn't say there was much difference between the gypy war fight in FRWL and the gunfight in the London court room with Silva.

    Now is the gypsy war fight in FRWL an action set-piece, or an action scene?


  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    Like I tried to explain to Jetsetwilly earlier there's a difference between an action scene and a action set piece.
    I wouldn't say there was much difference between the gypy war fight in FRWL and the gunfight in the London court room with Silva.
    Now is the gypsy war fight in FRWL an action set-piece, or an action scene?
    I fail to see your point comparing SF to the early 60's Bond-movies. The first ones with Connery were very plotbased, and didn't rely so heavily on action. But unlike SF, they had a plot that largely made sense.

    Then came YOLT and Lewis Gilbert, who threw away most of the logic, reason and clever scripting from the earlier movies. But he compensated by creating an action set-piece spectable.

    SF doesn't compensate for not having logic and reason. Fine with an overdose of wtf-moments that don't make sense, but then at least give me something else other than good acting.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    The script made total sense to me, in fact I think it's one of the most straight-forward and easy to understand stories we ever had in Bond!
  • Posts: 3,274
    Sandy wrote:
    The script made total sense to me, in fact I think it's one of the most straight-forward and easy to understand stories we ever had in Bond!
    Good for you! I'm jealous.

    Guess it makes sense that three bad guys, who have someone in a room that they want to kill, don't simply kill him on the spot, but fly in a hitman and pay him 4 million euro, so he can shoot this someone from a neighbouring skyscraper.

    Guess it also made "total sense" that Silva's socalled "plan" - "years in the making" - consists of blowing the cover on his island lair, lose some of his men, lose the computer network he spent years building, Bond getting back to shape and catching up to him through Patrice and later Severine, blowing up MI6 and knowing they would move its headquarters underground where they would built a cage where they would connect its doors to their network so that he could later escape with the assist by Q and the explosives he had planted at the exact same place and time that he knew Bond would later catch up to him.

    ...so he can what? Release a deadly virus holding the world for ransom? Cause international stock-market panic?

    No!

    All so he can kill his metaphorical mother by walking in from the street storming a congressional oversight hearing at which she is present. (!!!)

    Makes "total sense" I guess.

    Like I said: Too many wtf?-moments for me.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    The script made total sense to me, in fact I think it's one of the most straight-forward and easy to understand stories we ever had in Bond!
    Good for you! I'm jealous.

    Guess it makes sense that three bad guys, who have someone in a room that they want to kill, don't simply kill him on the spot, but fly in a hitman and pay him 4 million euro, so he can shoot this someone from a neighbouring skyscraper.

    Guess it also made "total sense" that Silva's socalled "plan" - "years in the making" - consists of blowing the cover on his island lair, lose some of his men, lose the computer network he spent years building, Bond getting back to shape and catching up to him through Patrice and later Severine, blowing up MI6 and knowing they would move its headquarters underground where they would built a cage where they would connect its doors to their network so that he could later escape with the assist by Q and the explosives he had planted at the exact same place and time that he knew Bond would later catch up to him.

    ...so he can what? Release a deadly virus holding the world for ransom? Cause international stock-market panic?

    No!

    All so he can kill his metaphorical mother by walking in from the street storming a congressional oversight hearing at which she is present. (!!!)

    Makes "total sense" I guess.

    Like I said: Too many wtf?-moments for me.

    If I read into all the Bond novel and movie plots, I would probably find similar glaring plot holes which would put me off the franchise altogether. Reading the GF novel again, I found loads of plot holes thoughout which didn't make logical sense.

    Thankfully I can overlook this if the characterisation and scenes themselves stand up. Being inside Bond's head in the novels was always the major plus point for me, far more than the plot itself.





  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    If I read into all the Bond novel and movie plots, I would probably find similar glaring plot holes which would put me off the franchise altogether.
    I can relate to that. But like I said, if the movie compensates, like YOLT did in the 60's, I really don't mind about plot holes, logic or sense.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    If I read into all the Bond novel and movie plots, I would probably find similar glaring plot holes which would put me off the franchise altogether.
    I can relate to that. But like I said, if the movie compensates, like YOLT did in the 60's, I really don't mind about plot holes, logic or sense.
    Fair enough. For me it's the sense of grounded reality (whether its plausible or not) rather than OTT spectacle which compensates for me. Scenes and moments, rather than the overall plot.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Either give me OTT like YOLT, TSWLM or even MR or give me FRWL, TMWTGG or LTK. FYEO was the perfect combination. For me - SF is just neither the one or the other. If the dramadirector Mendes had included all the action set pieces from the storyboards, it may have been different for me.
  • Posts: 774
    Zekidk wrote:
    Either give me OTT like YOLT, TSWLM or even MR or give me FRWL, TMWTGG or LTK. FYEO was the perfect combination. For me - SF is just neither the one or the other. If the dramadirector Mendes had included all the action set pieces from the storyboards, it may have been different for me.

    So at the end of the day your main complaint was a lack of action?
  • Posts: 3,274
    @Volante
    It certainly would have helped if Mendes had included either the chase on Silva's island , the presumed London rooftop-chase, or both.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    Virage wrote:
    If he dosen't under stand bond then...
    Why is his the first Bond Film to deal with Bond's Childhood and pearents!

    Pic_AntsPear.jpg
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Either give me OTT like YOLT, TSWLM or even MR or give me FRWL, TMWTGG or LTK. FYEO was the perfect combination. For me - SF is just neither the one or the other. If the dramadirector Mendes had included all the action set pieces from the storyboards, it may have been different for me.

    I would not have said TMWTGG was a film grounded in reality. FRWL and LTK yes, but not TMWTGG.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Zekidk wrote:
    @Volante
    It certainly would have helped if Mendes had included either the chase on Silva's island , the presumed London rooftop-chase, or both.

    This is the first I'm hearing of these supposed action sequences.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    doubleoego wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    @Volante
    It certainly would have helped if Mendes had included either the chase on Silva's island , the presumed London rooftop-chase, or both.

    This is the first I'm hearing of these supposed action sequences.
    Don't have time to search for the exact comments/documentation from various threads, since it was in early spring. Maybe it was from the clapperboard-discussion or probably the long "Skyfall filming"-thread. But there was some die-hard fans who bought some storyboards from Ebay and another user bought large chunks of the original script. They shared what they saw/read.

    To paraphrase M, I would call this "precise intelligence."

    The scene on Silva's island featured a rat hole and some sort of Indiana Jones-like chase using a wooden bridge. Don't remember the details from the rooftop chase, which was suppose to be around scene 105, IIRC.

    EDIT: This is the closest I come googling:
    "Director Sam Mendes will pay homage to the Indiana Jones rope bridge battles. 007 will have it out with a villain on a rickety affair like in Temple Of Doom."
    Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=49867#xXAiTeLt55rbqmSG.99
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2012 Posts: 6,277
    I wish Mendes had kept to the CR timeline: no ejector seat, no "exploding pen" line. He let his sentimentality for Bond get away with him. Yes, I know there is the "Dench paradox"--made irresolvable in this film by the introduction of Moneypenny.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Zekidk wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    @Volante
    It certainly would have helped if Mendes had included either the chase on Silva's island , the presumed London rooftop-chase, or both.

    This is the first I'm hearing of these supposed action sequences.
    Don't have time to search for the exact comments/documentation from various threads, since it was in early spring. Maybe it was from the clapperboard-discussion or probably the long "Skyfall filming"-thread. But there was some die-hard fans who bought some storyboards from Ebay and another user bought large chunks of the original script. They shared what they saw/read.

    To paraphrase M, I would call this "precise intelligence."

    The scene on Silva's island featured a rat hole and some sort of Indiana Jones-like chase using a wooden bridge. Don't remember the details from the rooftop chase, which was suppose to be around scene 105, IIRC.

    EDIT: This is the closest I come googling:
    "Director Sam Mendes will pay homage to the Indiana Jones rope bridge battles. 007 will have it out with a villain on a rickety affair like in Temple Of Doom."
    Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=49867#xXAiTeLt55rbqmSG.99

    Cheers. Thanks for the heads up on this.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited November 2012 Posts: 14,557
    echo wrote:
    Yes, I know there is the "Dench paradox"--made irresolvable in this film by the introduction of Moneypenny.
    It doesn't need to be solved. Chronology doesn't apply in the Bondiverse. SF is part of reboot Bond- meaning it's not only set before the DN-DAD timeline, but also set in a timeline alternate to the DN-DAD timeline. There are contradictions or paradoxes within the DN-DAD timeline alone that throw continuity out the window.
  • Posts: 15,106
    HASEROT wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

    I 200% agree. In Bond movies, action pieces should be the consequences of the plot, not leading the plot, the plot should not be an excuse for them. Bond movies are spy movies before being action movies.

    And if Sam Mendes takes NBNW and Hitchcock as examples on how to make Bond movies, then he understands Bond, at least the cinematic Bond, much more than I thought when I learned he was going to direct (the then untitled) Bond 23. We need more Bond movies that look and feel like contemporary Hitchcock movies, not like some generic action movies. Mendes is not the new Terence Young, but he might be the best modern substitute. And this is from a guy who was sceptical about him at first.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Far from showing Mendes doesn't have a good understanding/feel for Bond movies, I think all that has happened here is we've been able to highlight that Mendes indeed does have a great feel for the Bond films.
    By keeping the action at a bare mimimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the dramadirector Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action setpiece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!

    if a Bond movie is all about action set pieces - then what do you want to see in story?... we've had plenty of the "lets cram as much action as we can into this film" for quite some time.. QOS, DAD, TWINE, TND.. thats pretty much 10 years of that... films like CR and SF are a refreshing change of pace - both are similar in that they don't need to fit the story around the action, they fit the action to the story - which works 10x better...

    SF wasn't without it's action either... i guess, maybe for you - things need to explode and go BOOM! to highlight an action set piece - and need to last for 5 - 10 minutes.... but let's count...

    1. the PTS
    2. Bond's fight with Patrice
    3. Bond's fight against the Casino goons
    4. Silva's escape / Bond's pursuit
    5. the siege on Skyfall

    that seems plenty to me - and they were all built up the right way, executed perfectly.. and story drove each and every one of them, which made them more impactful scenes..

    but to each his own i guess..

    I 200% agree. In Bond movies, action pieces should be the consequences of the plot, not leading the plot, the plot should not be an excuse for them. Bond movies are spy movies before being action movies.

    And if Sam Mendes takes NBNW and Hitchcock as examples on how to make Bond movies, then he understands Bond, at least the cinematic Bond, much more than I thought when I learned he was going to direct (the then untitled) Bond 23. We need more Bond movies that look and feel like contemporary Hitchcock movies, not like some generic action movies. Mendes is not the new Terence Young, but he might be the best modern substitute. And this is from a guy who was sceptical about him at first.

    Whilst I largely agree with your points, I have to say Zekidk is right with regard to the action.

    Obviously another QOS would be awful with incomprehensible action crowbarred in every 5 mins but we are definitely missing another big set piece.

    The PTS is fine as is the climax but in the 2hrs in between we have what? A 30 second fight in a skyscraper, a 2 minute fight with the dragons, a brief shootout in the inquiry room and a chase in the tube which while tense and exciting has as its signature stunts Bond jumping on the back of a train, sliding down the escalators and then a (model) train smashing through the wall. For a Bond film that's not really enough.

    The tube chase in terms of stunts was very lacklustre. After the PTS I was expecting this to he the other big stunt fest of the film but it never really materialised. I get the impression that after Turkey Gary Powell was largely twiddling his thumbs rather than pushing the envelope as Bond films need to do.

    The PTS should be close to the best action in the film but around the end of the second act there should also be a WOW stunt. TLD cargo net and GE tank chase are prime examples of films that balance their action scenes well.

    Don't get me wrong I loved the film but I feel the 'bumps' that Cubby always spoke of just weren't bumpy enough for what is expected from a Bond film.
  • I liked the action but Zedidk is right here, there wasn't really a big action setpiece apart from the PTS and the finale.

    The fight scenes are hardly setpieces are they?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Whilst I largely agree with your points, I have to say Zekidk is right with regard to the action.

    The tube chase in terms of stunts was very lacklustre. After the PTS I was expecting this to he the other big stunt fest of the film
    I think it was Jwestbrook on this board who got a hold of large chunks of the original script. IIRC, not only were two major action set-pieces scrapped by the dramadirector Mendes, the tube-scenes were also orginally longer and different (it was more like a "real" action set piece, IIRC)
    but it never really materialised.
    Don't know if you have read @gklein's excellent review posted on this board a couple of days ago, but he is on the money with this part:
    gklein wrote:
    I've often thought that the pre-credit sequence should not be the very best set-piece of a Bond movie -- though it should be one of the best of the movie. Many Bond movies make the mistake of never topping the pre-credit action. Worse, more still have very weak finales. Well, in "Skyfall", the pre-credit set-piece is all we get. Period.

    "For Your Eyes Only" is a great example of a Bond movie with a large number of set-pieces held together by an engaging, down-to-earth, realistic story with a few twists.
    To all those who's asking for the dramadirector Mendes, who clearly wants to keep the action at a minimum, to come onboard for Bond 24, I can only say: Please don't! Do we really need another Bond-movie basically stripped for action-set pieces which is, IMO, such an important part of the brand?

    What's next? That gadgets will ever never return? Oh yeah... they don't "do" exploding pens and outrageous stuff anymore. Guess we'll have to settle for the latest Sony smartphone.

    Here's my wishes for a director who respects and honors the template and the movies that came before, instead of mocking them.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Surely fights are set pieces. Hand to hand combat can be just as mind-blowingly satisfying as a huge car chase, and so much more interesting.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    There's a difference between an action set piece and an action scene. Both in duration and scale.

    A two minute motorcycle chase that turns into a four minute fight on top of a moving train is an action set piece. A 30 second fistfight in some room somewhere is an action scene.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Zekidk wrote:
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    There's a difference between an action set piece and an action scene. Both in duration and scale.

    A two minute motorcycle chase that turns into a four minute fight on top of a moving train is an action set piece. A 30 second fistfight in some room somewhere is an action scene.

    Quite. I would say apart from the motorbike chase, some of the stuff on top of the train and jumping onto the lift and tube there's practically nothing else in the film DC wouldn't be able to do himself (with obvious safety precautions).

    I like having the actor in there but a big Bond action sequence should be too dangerous or skilled for the actor to even attempt.

    Zekidk has it right:-
    Action scenes smaller and DC in amongst it.
    Action sequence a much bigger scale and a string of stunts linked together.

    Whilst SF has plenty of the former it is rather deficient in the latter.

    It's all about the balance - QOS was too action sequence heavy and you lose interest (particularly when it's poorly edited and not very inspiring action to start with.

    In the respect of getting a good balance I would say TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE and CR get it pretty much right.
Sign In or Register to comment.