Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The case for Marc Forster
http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1803
This is an interesting career retrospective with Forster.
He really was a great director riding on a massive high before making QOS. It's a shame that the film was a disappointment. His comments are very interesting, he seems to regard the prods highly.
This is an interesting career retrospective with Forster.
He really was a great director riding on a massive high before making QOS. It's a shame that the film was a disappointment. His comments are very interesting, he seems to regard the prods highly.
^ 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
An High School drop-out on an acid trip would have made a better job.
Forster completely ruined QoS with horrible editing and all-over-the-place jumping camera.
In my opinion Mark Forster was the worst thing that ever happened to the Bond franchise, period.
There are a host of factors to take into account regarding QOS's shortcomings including the writer's strike, the film's rushed production after CR's success, etc.
He's still a great director who made a very stylish film with Quantum of Solace.
I'm shocked just how much Marc Forster's name is mud in the Bond world. What is also interesting is that with the comic-book crowd Martin Campbell is hated after the release of Green Lantern (with all his other efforts seemingly being ignored). Fan communities seem never to take a reasoned and rational approach to anything.
Well, with it all, Forster's still no Lee Tamahori, is he? I enjoy QoS very much, and everything is very fast "like a bullet", intentionally. It's the Third Act of Casino Royale which came before. Some people do forget that, so it's a point worth emphasising and indeed re-emphasising.
Hold your horses mate, the time 1997-2002 and the directional choices from those three directors were considerbly worser.
No they were not, even Forster admits that he was not playing as well as he should and the straigth Bourne copy we ended up di not even improve the Bourne style it was a pale copy at best.
1997/2002 were good years for the franchise and the choices were more conventional and worked well.
Quantum of Solace = A quick, fast food hit like a KFC bucket of spicy chicken wings. Lovely. They're both great, just depends what mood you're in.
Very well stated. I love both CR and QoS, but they're both great for different moods and interests.
But then the quality of chicken that goes into KFC is questionable at best.
Yes, they were. 1997-2002 stands out as the years when Bond just were a stale imitation of his old self. A self imitating copy with intentions at cashing in at the franchise name. 1997-2002 were to conventional years.The quality were therefore at best, okay.
QoS succeded with being a different characther study which does indeed stick out and tells the story effectively with all techniques to show Bond's state of mind. Sure, it could have been better with a better script but it is no-where near as bad as some people try to make it up to be.
I totally agree tho Dan Craig fans will disagree completely
I was really happy with the choice of Forster back in 2007 and I'm glad that the prods took a risk on him and actually let him make the film he wanted. Now that film may have been deeply flawed but it still has a lot of redeeming features. I think QOS is best viewed as a fast and furious epilogue to the story introduced in CR.
Forster was a great and exciting choice. He had made some really interesting stuff like Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner. The guy knows drama well and he clearly wanted to flex his action muscles with Bond and also give the piece some dramatic heft. Whether he succeeded or not is another question. The real thing is that Martin Campbell should have returned, I understand why he didn't want to come back and do TND after GE as that was another completely different story but QOS was a continuation of the story he helped to create.
to some yea, to others no. While I agree TND and DAD were a little outlandish. I thought TWINE was a great film. It brought a serious and emotional side to Brosnans Bond.
I'm sorry mate, he said many times that he watched most of the Bond-films. Although his favourites were the Bond's from the 60's. He certainly did know the history of the franchise.
QOS was flawed, but yes, not nearly as bad as DAD and I think superior overall to most of Brosnan's Bonds (minus GE). And I agree with you about Forster non-Bond films versus Campbell's non-Bond films. In fact, it is surprising Campbell made such great Bond movies.
You might hate the Brosnan era and the choice of directors but saying "it could be worse!" doesn't qualify as a defence for Forster. Calling Spottiswoode a bad director doesn't make Forster a better one.
The choice of directors from 1997-2002 isn't relevant. It has nothing to do with Marc Forster, the choice of director in 2008.
Yes, i do. I don't hate Brosnans-era i just find it so boring when people trash on Forster and QoS all the time so i use the same arguments as a comeback.
Why isn't it relevant? It's the same franchise hence it's open for comparison, no?
Since some people here said Forster was the worst thing that happened to the franchise, it is relevant to the topic at hand. If you were to discuss QOS by itself, then yes it would be irrelevant. But as soon as someone talks about QOS and his director in the larger frame of the Bond franchise, then yes, comparisons are relevant and I may add inevitable.
At least Brosnan's Bond movies were watchable, we could enjoy a good fight or a good chase. Imagine, for a moment, Bond's chase of Sebastian Foucan in CR filmed by Forster...
At least Brosnan's Bond movies were watchable, we could appreciate a good fight or a good chase. Imagine, for a moment, Bond's chase of Sebastian Foucan in CR filmed by Forster...[/quote]
A nightmare :O
Well, i've never said that Forster could pull of that particular scene. Because what Campbell did were just out of this world.
But to be honest, i could see it and i would probably like it too.
Well you would have to say that wouldn't you. ;)
Forster is a great director and his previous movies did show that, but his work on QoB showed that as a director in a actionmovie had had loads to learn. Too bad it happened in my favorite franchise.
Forster doing QOS was one of the best things to ever happen to the Bond franchise.
Casino Royale= a long and great 5 course meal
QOS= the big shit you take after you digest the 5 course meal.
I'm confused. Are you saying SF was a bad film?
:))