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
Ah sorry, that may have just been the way I worded that specific post. I was being very general about why creative concepts in films (such as editing or cinematography styles) can come about. No, I think you're right, QOS's budget wasn't the overlying problem. If anything the scale of the film, Forster's lack of experience on such projects, and the very tight schedules probably contributed to some of the editing problems. From what I can tell that is (so take with a grain of salt).
I will say that I actually enjoyed QOS a lot more this time round than previous viewings. The film has its strengths despite my criticisms and actually I don't think it's a million miles away from SF in certain respects. I think both are arguably the most similar films of the Craig era.
I think what the producers and studios need to understand is that you can have a low budget film and make lots more in return. They just need to focus on well done characters and story. They could spend well on cinematography and scoring.
People like CR not because of the building falling down. They liked it because it was down to earth and Eva Green played Vesper so well. Each of the characters from that film including Mathis, M, and Felix were easy to become engaged with especially in their last films respectively.
Yeah, he's theory is certainly interesting.
You should watch his SP review. Boy does he tear it a new one! Mendes's ears must have been burning as he reeled that off...😄
Shows you what an extraordinary cinematographer and brilliant creatives can do when given time to plan the film
Even during production was filming the satellite fight, Martin Campbell sighed to himself wondering how many times one man can save the world.
What’s wrong with Goldeneye? It’s one of the best Bond films in the series certainly for my money. If anything, Bond 26 should look AT Goldeneye for influence when drastically reinventing Bond again.
Brilliant, I'm definitely going to track it down - the way he savaged it in his incidental asides was pretty damn funny, so a full-length kicking should be a good laugh! :D
We'd be very lucky to get films that are as consistently good as GoldenEye is.
I rewatched QOS the other night, one thing I hope they use going forward is Bond being a solo character. I love in QOS he's using his wits and making discoveries on his own, it pulls you into the story
My feelings on it are a bit more general than that "QOS is actually great" video. I like it because it's stylish, believable, and doesn't waste the audience's time. Also because it's the only Bond movie that has a sense of paranoia and unpredictability to it.
(Edit: The colorful supporting characters introduced in this film are also a plus-- Beam, Elvis, the cab driver...)
For me, one of the downsides of the movie are the quick cuts and tight shots in some of the action scenes, which, while perhaps intended to get me involved in the action, end up just getting in the way of it. I think a faster cutting style than something like Skyfall would have been fine, but this is too fast at times, especially with some of the tight shots they used. It's just grating. The other big downside --and way more significant than the action scenes-- is that Craig is way too muted and serious as Bond, even considering the emotional circumstances the character finds himself in in this film. His worst performance by far, and interestingly, I was just reading the other day that Craig himself wasn't too happy with that performance. I think humor and charm were sorely lacking in his acting. There is humor in the film, but Craig himself remains way too stern-faced in the funny moments, only showing the slightest hint of fun, but certainly not enough. It's my least favorite performance by any Bond actor in the EON films plus NSNA. The guy's a compelling presence, so it still holds together, but it's leagues away from his best work as Bond.
Can someone fix the word "appreciaters" in the thread title?
I love the dark and deadpan gallows and black humour in QOS, too. I thought they'd gauged the humour exactly right for CraigBond and that Dan delivered it perfectly. Some brilliant lines, too: 'You shot him at point blank range and threw him off a roof' - 'I did my best not to.' Classic.
It's true that Craig said afterwards that he wanted to have some fun with the role in future films and Marc Forster said that if he'd accepted BB's offer to direct DC's third film he'd've wanted it to be lighter and have more typical Bond gags, but I wanted more films like QOS. Still do, tbh.
Yes, Forster said he would have had more Bond tropes including more women which just doesn't quite fit Craig Bond.
In fact, Strawberry Fields was cast and written in by Forster according to a Q & A panel.
I liked how Bond's psyche is well displayed in this film.
Notice how the rain in London at the guy's apartment being searched are in black. It's like the camera is crying. The fire from the hotel during the fight at the end is rage. The cold snow in Kazaan outside Yusef's apartment with M are a firm acceptance at the cold world Bond lives in with his warm duties to M.
Interesting about Forster's comment re. the tropes. One of QOS's strengths is that it didn't just trot them out like a dot-to-dot, it gave some of them a remix and dropped others. Although I know some fans felt the opposite and said that by stirring up the formula a bit it made QOS not even feel like a Bond film. I think that perception's probably fading now, but you used to hear that a lot at the time.
Kincaid feels like he's supposed to be a legacy character or someone that we already know (I know they wanted Connery in the role) but we've never seen him before, so the dramatic reveal comes off as odd and unnecessary. Mathis was already a father figure to Bond, so the theme of Bond "saving" his adoptive parents at the end SF would have worked better with Mathis there.
And obviously it would have made more sense if M had survived, too, seeing as how MI6 had no problem welcoming him back after he kidnapped her.
Wow! That would have had sooo much more credibility in SF
Gonna watch it when I can.
Delenda Carthago: I want a series of graphic novels set between QOS and SF where Bond deals with Quantum.
This was a refreshingly good review!
Notice their reactions when Bond and Camille are inside of the burning hotel about to take themselves out. Very natural!
They enjoyed the convos that made the dramatic scenes of QoS.
And check out the discussions section! It's so packed with positive comments on the film! Keep folks engaged.
Also would like to point out that these women got the plot and all its nuances immediately. Both the Vesper and water plots were recognized and understood. So when people say it’s confusing or doesn’t make sense I really do wonder what they’re talking about. There are FAR more convoluted Bond films out there.
Folks who say that either didn't give it a fair go in order to understand the plot or were too perplexed when they didn't see any space lasers or missiles being launched from carriers. I personally appreciated the twist of the villain's plot here, something way more geopolitical than I was expecting, rather than "bad guy wants to destroy the world or hold it for ransom".
That being said, I think they could have done more with it, like some sort of water-based torture for Bond. Or even showing Camille taking the dams out.
Still holding out for an Icebreaker-inspired torture scene someday.