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
Yeah, there's definitely a sense of Bond returning to his full self throughout SF.
I get what you're saying about Bond not needing to face a henchman (or even a stronger villain) in QOS. Actually one of the things I find interesting about Green is that he's not a physically imposing character but a psychologically imposing one. He's a nasty piece of work who gets under people's skin and pulls strings. That's his thing.
As it is, I don't think it does the climax any favours to have Bond go head to head with Green in what is essentially a fist fight. We know it's an unequal match - Bond is obviously the stronger of the two, even if Green has an axe. Green goes into a frenzy, but really Bond is able to take him out relatively easily. This is not to say such a fight can't work. I always compare it to the climax of The Dark Knight. Joker isn't as strong as Batman, and yet he's able to get the upper hand by using specific tactics (he gets three dogs to attack him, beats him while he's down, and even inadvertently activates his map vision thingy which puts the stronger hero at a major disadvantage). I think little things like that just highlights how rushed QOS's production was/the fact that the script wasn't fully realised. Just a little retouch to put Bond at a disadvantage would have helped the tension I think.
The main henchman of QoS is heartbreak.
Or even TB. There is something about Bond bleeding during the junkanoo that works...to show his vulnerability amid all the over-the-topness.
What he says really dampens the mood for Bond.
Getting Bond to break like that is a way to move the audience along with him for powerful storytelling.
As much as people may say things about SP, nobody complained about any of the Vesper references like when Blofeld posted her and M Judi Dench's images on walls to make him emotionally stirred.
It reminds us that Bond is vulnerable and that a single bullet can kill him.
Maybe he didn't need a henchman, but I would have liked the fight to be a little bit more challenging. That said good observations about the allusions to Vesper.
True. I hope we have some more in the future. Either against the main villain or the main henchman.
It was a realistic fight.
That fight or flight response you see in that situation was done well. Problem is that it was too short.
Imagine Bond getting hunted by a guy with an axe like a Hannibal Lecter style villain who actually scares audiences without needing a scar or CGI glass jaw.
Greene was really scary in that he caught people by surprise with his response. Very realistic.
It was done in a very respectful way. And yet BB and EON Co. didn't really take the hint. They used Sam Mendes to blend fanboy service and mix it with Nolanisms.
I'm not even watching this dumb news Indiana Jones 5 movie.
You have to kill your heroes to appreciate them. Or something.
Interesting idea that QOS's editing was designed to obscure just how violent the film is and so keep a PG13 rating, because the quick cuts meant that some of the explicit brutality wouldn't register immediately. Don't think I've heard that suggested before. Don't think I agree with him, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.
Wow, he's really not impressed with SP, though, eh! :-O
An example is during the plane sequence. There's a moment when Camille crawls to the back of the plane, looks out the window, and then moves to the opposite side of the plane as she watches the enemy fighter. Rewatch that scene carefully and you'll notice there's a cut where the camera changes angle to almost 180 degrees the opposite way Generally speaking this is discouraged in editing/filmmaking as it confuses the viewer (there are exceptions but it has to be purposeful) and makes it look like the character has even changed position mid-way through the scene. It certainly took me out of the film. I even noticed the confusing camera angles that similarly 'broke the line' from shot to shot during the 'walk and talk' with M, Tanner and Bond during the early MI6 scenes.
For all our talk about wanting to see a re-edited version of QOS, we might have to accept that it's probably impossible. I suspect the rushed production, some of the overly kinetic (some would say confusing) camera work, and Forster's lack of experience on such a big film caused a lack of sufficient footage, and the result is an attempt to stitch stuff together. It would make sense given some of the action sequences (especially during the hotel climax) don't actually use all that much cutting comparatively, and were probably shot by the Second Unit team.
Even some of the more purposeful editing ideas aren't to my taste. Personally, I find the cutting to the beginning of the horse race during the White interrogation takes away much of tension being created during that scene. The same trick used with the Tosca scene works a bit better, but the chase/shootout after the brilliant open Quantum meeting isn't that exciting on its own anyway.
007HallY's right in that Dan Bradley, not Forster, set up and directed a lot of the action sequences. Bradley said that 'I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience...if it is too easy to see then, to me, it feels staged. I don’t want the audience to have a passive viewing experience.' Which indicates that what we got was entirely deliberate, not the result of any flaws in the process (beyond Forster complaining that he expected to have 13 weeks for editing, but had to do it in six!).
Again, on my latest viewing it seemed like the camerawork was very much deliberate, but much of the editing during specific scenes seemed more patched together (like I described in my last post some of this stuff is simply technically incompetent to the point where I can only assume there was a lack of coverage and some of the quick editing is being done to cover these jarring cuts up). It's also difficult to tell how some of these concepts come about in filmmaking. Often practical limitations like budget, or indeed in the case of post production coverage problems, spur creative decisions such as that out of necessity. It's telling that no Bond film before or since has been edited quite like QOS.
On the extreme end of this, I think the editing made all five viewings in theaters even more special, trying to catch all the amazing bits I missed the first few times. I remember thinking Jack White and Alicia Keys had a cameo in Bregenz and taking a few viewings before realizing it definitely wasn't them.
I still think the chaotic editing adds to the brisk, frenetic pacing of the film - Bond never stops moving, never quits pushing forward, and the flashiness of the editing and staging adds weight to that style.
From what Dan Bradley, said he might've done most of the action sequences himself: 'I write most of the action that I shoot, so the first thing I asked Marc is if he minded me taking a pass at the action in this script. Fortunately he really liked what I dreamt up.' Sounds like Bradley's work suited Forster's 'bullet from a gun' concept and he let him run with it.
QOS had a bigger budget than SF, so I'd be surprised if there were any financial restraints, tbh. They were tied-in to a release date, though, so there were definite time constraints - didn't Roger Michell say that he quit the production because EON had a release date but didn't have a script?! :-O
You and I both! Those small reprieves are a great chance to catch your breath before the action starts up again; they certainly don't last long but I love that.
Hell, even the first time I saw it, I remember when the truck impales Bond's Aston and they're stuck together for a few moments in the PTS, I recall wondering how Craig was in the Aston AND the truck because the truck driver looked so similar and I only got a few flashes to compare. I think of that every time I rewatch the movie now.
Just because it's a sentiment I've on a few threads now, one thing I think people need to understand about films such as Bond is that bigger budgets don't necessarily result in a smoother or quicker production. Often it'll mean everything from action sequences to set designs are more elaborate, and hence more time will be required to accomplish what is needed. There's a reason why films going over budget often go over schedule too and vice versa. If your budget is smaller you'll need to embrace your limitations and plan ahead.
In that sense SF was a much more economical film. It's something I noticed on my QOS/SF viewings. On closer look SF is a much more stripped back film than people realise, while QOS has much more scale to it. This is not a good or bad thing.