Marc Forster's QOS DVD commentary?

Pierce2Daniel

I distinctly remember around the time of QOS's release, Forster was asked if he watched his own films after finishing work on them. Forster replied that he often avoided watching them but said he did watch QOS again because he recorded a DVD commentary.
Has this commentary been released or not? I have the distinct feeling that EON are really trying to brush the film under the carpet. I mean every Bond film has a DVD commentary, and since the Brosnan films started the studios have ferried in the film's director to give an insight into the filmmaking process. So why make QOS the odd one out? For all its perceived mistakes it was still a big box office smash and I think fans would like to listen to the commentary. Forster is an interesting filmmaker and I would love to hear his opinion on the film, but alas nothing. Come on EON lets get it out. Start the petition here.

thelordflasheart

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

I distinctly remember around the time of QOS's release, Forster was asked if he watched his own films after finishing work on them. Forster replied that he often avoided watching them but said he did watch QOS again because he recorded a DVD commentary.
Has this commentary been released or not? I have the distinct feeling that EON are really trying to brush the film under the carpet. I mean every Bond film has a DVD commentary, and since the Brosnan films started the studios have ferried in the film's director to give an insight into the filmmaking process. So why make QOS the odd one out? For all its perceived mistakes it was still a big box office smash and I think fans would like to listen to the commentary. Forster is an interesting filmmaker and I would love to hear his opinion on the film, but alas nothing. Come on EON lets get it out. Start the petition here.

I don't know if they are trying to "brush the film under the carpet" - they could just not release it on DVD or Blu-ray if they wanted to do that! :-)

However, I would like to hear Forster's commentary track. While I don't agree with a lot of the choices that he made I would like to hear a) he reasons for making them and b) what he thinks about them in hindsight (he says that the editing of QoS was a rushed job).

RC7

I'd love to hear his commentary. I think he made a slew of errors personally, and a commentary would be a great insight into his process. In many ways, it should theoretically be the most interesting of the lot. Is it fair to assume Forster's outspoken nature may have something to do with it's omission, so far?

thelordflasheart

RC7 wrote:

I'd love to hear his commentary. I think he made a slew of errors personally, and a commentary would be a great insight into his process. In many ways, it should theoretically be the most interesting of the lot. Is it fair to assume Forster's outspoken nature may have something to do with it's omission, so far?

Agreed. I never had a laserdisc player, but I've heard that one of the great features were the commentaries that would often be critical of the film, the studio, or people involved in the shoot (including actors!). It seems now that the commentary tracks are seen as a marketing or cheerleading tool so the opinions we get are not always... candid.

RC7

thelordflasheart wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I'd love to hear his commentary. I think he made a slew of errors personally, and a commentary would be a great insight into his process. In many ways, it should theoretically be the most interesting of the lot. Is it fair to assume Forster's outspoken nature may have something to do with it's omission, so far?

Agreed. I never had a laserdisc player, but I've heard that one of the great features were the commentaries that would often be critical of the film, the studio, or people involved in the shoot (including actors!). It seems now that the commentary tracks are seen as a marketing or cheerleading tool so the opinions we get are not always... candid.

Absolutely. It's a real shame. I tend not to listen to most nowadays, I was always interested to hear about the processes, but even that kind of material is kept to a minimum these days, and what is there, is pretty obvious tidbits.

thelordflasheart

RC7 wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I'd love to hear his commentary. I think he made a slew of errors personally, and a commentary would be a great insight into his process. In many ways, it should theoretically be the most interesting of the lot. Is it fair to assume Forster's outspoken nature may have something to do with it's omission, so far?

Agreed. I never had a laserdisc player, but I've heard that one of the great features were the commentaries that would often be critical of the film, the studio, or people involved in the shoot (including actors!). It seems now that the commentary tracks are seen as a marketing or cheerleading tool so the opinions we get are not always... candid.

Absolutely. It's a real shame. I tend not to listen to most nowadays, I was always interested to hear about the processes, but even that kind of material is kept to a minimum these days, and what is there, is pretty obvious tidbits.

I was quite disappointed when I listened to a couple of the DVD commentary tracks for older Bond films...they were cut-and-paste jobs edited to match what was happening on the screen. TBH, at that point I'd rather have a track of a film scholar explaining the "whys" of the film-making choices rather than, say, trivia.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

The problem with the Forster hire? I think I get it without needing to hear his commentary, although it would be worth a listen. There's a good deal of interviews out there at the time of filming that explain a lot. Like Serra, a bit too much of a radical approach in regards to tradition. It's a very fine balance between creating something new and yet maintaining certain status quos that make a Bond film such. I'm not talking about the things certain Bond fans want like OTT escapism, excessive humor, and unrealistic situations that equally should be used with caution- we've seen in the cases of DAD and MR that this is an equally wrong direction. In this case it was the way he decided to speed up the film to the point that it resembled an imitator at times, and his lack of vision and failure to have a plan regarding the script, knowing accredited writers would be unavailable. He took some interesting chances that worked, I will give him some credit it for that.

I almost hate to say it, but the original script of Purvis and Wade having Bond chasing down Kabira which would lead him to Greene may have been preferable. We'll never know and probably never get to read it.

RC7

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

I almost hate to say it, but the original script of Purvis and Wade having Bond chasing down Kabira which would lead him to Greene may have been preferable. We'll never know and probably never get to read it.

Agreed. I'd love to have read it.

thelordflasheart

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Like Serra, a bit too much of a radical approach in regards to tradition. It's a very fine balance between creating something new and yet maintaining certain status quos that make a Bond film such.

As you say, a fine balance. I think a lot of us today don't realize just how stylish and ground-breaking the original films really were, perhaps up to OHMSS. Someone actually said the the style of QoS is the closest modern-day equivalent to that!

But the Bond films are now so well established that a lot of people likely don't need or want cutting edge style in a Bond film...

bondbat007

I was shocked when I saw this commentary would not be released on the Bond 50 set. However, I'm not sure how much the commentary would entertain because of Forster recording right around the film being released. I would love to hear what he has to say now after a few years of letting the experience sink in for him

SirHenryLeeChaChing

thelordflasheart wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Like Serra, a bit too much of a radical approach in regards to tradition. It's a very fine balance between creating something new and yet maintaining certain status quos that make a Bond film such.

As you say, a fine balance. I think a lot of us today don't realize just how stylish and ground-breaking the original films really were, perhaps up to OHMSS. Someone actually said the the style of QoS is the closest modern-day equivalent to that!

But the Bond films are now so well established that a lot of people likely don't need or want cutting edge style in a Bond film...

As an original who lived through the golden age of Connery, I intimately realize the differences and there's more Bond films than not post-OHMSS that do not live up to those in terms of style and exoticism. I think it's a very fair commentary by others like myself when we say that many of the later films cannot ever duplicate that. Not that we still don't occasionally get one that exhibits that class, I found both CR and SF at times lived up to those standards. Prague and Shanghai had never been experienced in a Bond film and weren't overly filmed by others. Back then, when you saw a Bond movie you saw places you never saw before and only heard about. The world was much smaller then. Today it's almost impossible to have Bond somewhere he hasn't been or somewhere you haven't seen on your own, and some of the newer generation just don't appreciate how great and groundbreaking every 60's Bond film was. That continued into the Moore era but in the 1980's with the advent of cable television the world got a whole lot bigger and it got harder to maintain that exotic quality.

mepal1

I do remember in an interview that Forster said that he made the film deliberately 'confusing'.

Well he certainly did..............but he did it to a point where he made the film almost unwatchable in parts. He obviously didnt take into account, that millions of people would be trying to immerse themselves into the film and trying to enjoy it.

Goes to show what an effect one man's 'ego' can have an effect on.

I know QOS's mess wasnt entirely down to him........but i never want to see him in the Bond franchise again........i mean even his latest film with Brad Pitt 'World War Z' had to have some parts of it re-shot last year!

RC7

Forster can say what he likes. The fact is, not much happens at all. I watched it again yesterday, desperately trying to see what others do, and I mean that sincerely. Seriously, the entire first 30 mins consists of nothing. It's effortlessly stylish, but in terms of substance it is wafer thin, and totally lacks depth.

Stamper

The commentary was canceled, because it was as incomprehensible as the movie editing. Here's an excerpt:

"No, you don’t want to I mean it’s spoil that because… it’s better just to keep I think it’s a great it as it is. like I was thinking the 1st screening I had was that scene we shot the scene scene and everybody loved it and that’s and it worked. and then we just felt on that necklace no, He got his let’s just quantum of solace end that’s where the movie it right there . . That’s where it is, ends and let’s even go there not ."

Now you understand what happened.

Samuel001

If that elusive second edition DVD was released, we'd get to hear this but until that time comes we'll have to wait.

hoppimike

I don't get why people bash it so much - I love it.

Perhaps it just got overshadowed by Casino Royale?

Getafix

hoppimike wrote:

I don't get why people bash it so much - I love it.

Perhaps it just got overshadowed by Casino Royale?

Totally agree with you. I hadn't realised until recently but there is barely any Pirvis and Wade input and that for me gives the film a real freshness. Obvoiusly it is no where near the standard of the early classics but unlike the Brosnan films and (IMO) SF, it doesn't feel weighed down by the past . Contrary to what Sir Henry says I actually felt that in spirit QoS feels a lot more like the old films. Rather than making obvious and laboured references to the old films, it stands on its own and feels of its time. It's beautiful, stylish, pacy. The opera sequence is the best in a Bond movie for decades. Frankly I think the writers strike did them a favour. Like FRWL and LTK there were problems with the script and yet the end result is not bad at all.

The worst part for me is when gemma Arterton turns up and the film does inexplicably refernce Goldfinger. A strange and duff note in a flawed but overall enjoyable movie.

M_Balje

This comes close to some commentary, mabey there should consider to at that on a new release.

boldfinger

I love the movie, but I haven´t yet encountered any Bond audio commentary that was interesting, old or new, and I tried quite a lot (the best bit so far was TSHLM, when Ken Adam asks what those rockets mean that move across the big chart). So I´m happy with having just the film on dvd, commentary or not.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I think Sam Mendes's Skyfall commentary will be very insightful.