›

The EDITING of the James Bond films

2»

Comments

  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,896
    I think Brosnan's "huh?!" response (after Renard repeats Elektra's motto) could of worked better if they cut the shot earlier. Personally I don't think it's overacting, but if it is, it's only apparent because of the extended take. The Zelda unlocking music doesn't help either.

    Also, when Elektra shoots Zukovsky through the hat there is an obvious cut right before the shot. Should've CGI'd the bullet hole instead.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The cameramen in the dressing room mirror, TMWTGG. How could the editor not notice?
  • vzokvzok
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,045
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    The cameramen in the dressing room mirror, TMWTGG. How could the editor not notice?

    They'd have lost a chunk of the action if they cut that out. I think they though that people wouldn't notice it on a cinema viewing.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    They probably just decided they had to include it.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    That discontinuity is seen with so much, it's impossible to make it all line up. As others noted, you have differing levels of liquid in someone's drink, the length of a lit cigarette, where someone's hands are positioned, etc. I've seen shots of someone going to light a cigarette or take a bite of food, and in the very next cut they aren't in the middle of that action at all. Then you have Bond changing viewing eyes as he watches Xenia board the yacht in GE, something Campbell even notes in the director's commentary.

    Indeed. Even in the legendary introduction scene in DN you have these sorts of errors. Extremely minor details.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,587
    Strog wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    Exactly, and still innovative today. The approach is elliptical: shots are missing, because the viewer can be trusted to fill in the inessential parts. The result is a terrific pace--punches connect almost instantly. The pacing is breathless, but the spatial dimensions are still respected and action remains clear.
    It's not Glen who was really responsible for this approach but Hunt, who supervised the editing. Glen's editing in other Bond films, and the editing in the Bonds he directed, is much more conventional.

    Well said. I love the editing in the PTS, it makes you feel each punch and really puts you in the moment.
    Someone once wrote (in some book I read, can't remember which) that Hunt's editing was a filmic equivalent of the comic strip POW! WHAM! BANG! which was a comparison I rather liked.

    I always think it looks like we are dropping in at odd intervals on the fight, rather than seeing it all. We see some of the fight, then we pick it up a minute or so later.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,896
    There's a great dissolve* which acts as a quasi match cut, between Octopussy's chandelier and the water where Vijay is fishing.

    Wonder if it was always intended as such, or if the editor saw the similarities in post and made the choice himself.

    *Always thought that these were called fade transitions. Whoops.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,896
    https://fstoppers.com/education/even-james-bond-can-mess-action-scene-lesson-film-geography-205726

    I encourage the members here who like the QoS opening action scene to watch this video essay. He rightly points out that the geography, of the characters and vehicles, is the biggest problem with the scene. The editing causes this problem of course, because we're not given the proper amount of wide shots (or time) in order for us to process what's going on.

    Mendes/Baird did a great job at preventing this problem in Skyfall's PTS by providing a "third eye" through MP driving the Jeep alongside the train; it essentially gives an editor an excuse to use a wide shot every now and again, without losing the excitement of the action.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,687
    Here's a few fun dodgy editing choices I noticed recently.

    Have you noticed how Bond and Lupe go to bed together and then the very next scene is Lupe stumbling in to tell Pam and Q that she stayed with him and didn't leave Isthmus. Now there's nothing wrong with this little subplot, but usually it's an idea to plant a seed and then give the audience time to anticipate the upcoming revelation. As it happens it's rather jarring. Another example is one of Sanchezs henchman is attempting to steal the stringers from his helicopter but he is discovered by Sanchez and tries to sweettalk his way out of it. Then there appears to be a time jump, and Dalton and Pam are trying to escape the drug complex when Heller, the henchman comes smashing through the wall, killed. So how long was supposed to have taken place between scenes?

    Finally I noticed there is a strange moment in TND after the motorbike chase where the chopper crashes into a building and then we fade out and fade back in on Bond and Lin showering together. It just always sticks out to me with this, how fast the transition is from exciting action crescendo to calm, peaceful showering, with nothing to break it up.

    What are the editting choices which leave you puzzled in Bond films? :-?
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,806
    Most of your texts puzzle me more!! 🤔
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 633
    It's amazing to me that THUNDERBALL was received so well because the editing in that movie is a mess. Hunt has admitted as much and said it was because Terence Young didn't give him enough usable footage. There are some incredibly amateurish edits in that movie, like Hunt was forced to cut in the middle of conversations.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,687
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    It's amazing to me that THUNDERBALL was received so well because the editing in that movie is a mess. Hunt has admitted as much and said it was because Terence Young didn't give him enough usable footage. There are some incredibly amateurish edits in that movie, like Hunt was forced to cut in the middle of conversations.

    Whenever Hunt is involved I always just assume its done for experimental reasons, they don't bother me too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.