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
Sure as long as the reason is more logical as the SF script. :D ;)
SF has flaws, so does QOS. But both have qualities too.
True words @Ludovico.
I will be glad if the next Bond is just a great thriller with the fanboyish atitude by Mr Mendes out of the way.
Just making sure that was what you meant as not many people don't like it.
Personally I think Skyfall is a better film than QOS on every level (except for the score). I was very disappointed when I first saw QOS while I came out of the cinema buzzing after I first saw SF.
I'm all for that! Both of them are great films and worthy entries in the Bond canon!
I don´t see my fondness for QOS and dislike of SF in a direct relation. It just happens to be like that.
Logic of scripts never has and never will be a reliable criterion for evaluating films.
Yes, I realise that many people seem to think very highly of SF, which boggles me, to be honest. My first impression when I saw it in the cinema was basically surprise, because it was the first time ever a Bond film was more a thriller than an action film. Upon repeated viewing my opinion of the film went increasingly down.
With QOS, I didn´t quite know what to think of it when I saw it for the first time. But any time I re-watch it I like it more and more.
In fact, SF gives me the feeling that it´s not really a Bond film, but a film about Bond. If that makes any sense ;-).
Of course, Roger Mitchell did pull out before Forster, not exactly sure why as the script wasn't even nearly finished but I can't blame him.
Then Forster says the producers wanted him back for SF... like, why? Is this some sort of contractual arrangement: 'We'll say we want you back for the next one even if your film stinks...' Or do they say that to compensate for a difficult shoot, as with Roger Spottiswoode and TND?
And about the re-hiring. I think that is just courtesy and some wish to get continuity.
How would that work? In what way do you foresee it being reappraised?
If the next Mendes movie is better than SF, QoB shall be even more the ugly duckling in the Craig years.
But the whole point of the ugly duckling is that he's not an ugly duckling. So if QOS IS an ugly duckling, it is here and now, and only relatively. It may be the weakest movie of the Craig era, but with all its flaws it is superior to most of what Brosnan did.
+1
Totally agree!
Exactly. It was a bizarre choice, reminiscent of Apted being picked for The World Is Not Enough. In both cases you got actors who were inexperienced with shooting action and whose background was in plodding middlebrow drama. Whereas TWINE suffered from mostly dull action (aside from the opener), the action scenes in QoS were handed off to the editors, whose work suffered from the opposite of dullness--it was frenetic, and with a few exceptions (such as the scaffold fight) too frenetic. I thought using Mendes would result in similar problems, but either Mendes discovered a previously untapped skill at filming action or the second unit directors and editors learned from past mistakes.
So you say, which does make it subjective at best. QoB is more Bourne than 007 and as a Bourne copy worse than the originals.
Brosnanbashing gets stale after a while and is kind of sad.
Ultimately, I feel that Forster made an entertaining, albeit deeply flawed James Bond adventure. And I do give him credit for going out on a little bit of a limb and trying something a little different. Count me among those who find it preferable to the bland repetition of the Brosnan Era.
Though QOS fails to a certain extent, it fails in a more interesting way than, say, DAD. In this respect, my feelings for QOS are similar to my feelings for LTK (though I like LTK better).
Forster decided on having four distinct action scenes. So it was his fault. I'm not sure what 'world' you're referring too, but I only saw one facet of Bond's world in QoS, unlike it's predecessor which featured many.
So far, SF is far more an ugly duckling than QOS.
And QOS-bashing is any different than Brosnanbashing :-? ?
Your comparison with Bourne are also subjective. But your definition of ugly duckling is incorrect. If QOS is an ugly duckling, then it means it is underrated. If you want to make an analogy, at least make one that support your claims. And I was not Brosnan bashing. I consider QOS far superior to DAD, TND and at least some aspects of TWINE. And I like TWINE. And it is regardless of Brosnan's performance in any of these movies.
The Good thing about QoB is Daniel Craig, however the script, the editing, the actionscenes are all below average when compared to the other movies made with Daniel Craig or even any other Bondmovie. The carchase is a bit of a mess, the boatchase is a flipping mess, the footchase is done better in the previous Bournemovie (the end with Bond hanging on a rope grasping for his gun is the best bit, but does not atone for the footchase), the airplane scene was poor and the parachutejump is like DAD shabby CGI and looks bad when compared to the Moonraker planejump. The death of Mathis serves no purpose and is done in poorly judgement by throwing away such a classy character.
Most of the movie shows something of Fosters influence and would be nice if only he would not have gone for the 2nd director from a Bourneflic as well as the editor from the same Bourne movie. And I wonder whose influence is larger in the end the Bourne people or the Director.
The whole movie is a showcase for a smart director totally out of his depth, and not being able to cope with an unfinished script. I agree QoB shows promise but it does not deliver in the end, it has the feel of a movie with pretentions but lacks the finishing touch to do so.
Between CR & SF it feel like the lesser of the three. And indeed SF lacks some finish as well but at least Mendes gave a pretty clear idea and show what he wanted. And I do hope his next attempt will be a classic Bondmovie that unites all Bondfans in their liking it.
Brosnan did deliver 4 decent movies of which I prefer GE & TWINE best, TND has its great moments and all involve Brosnan. DAD is half a brilliant movie in which Brosnan gave his best performance as 007. I am not in awe of the OTT finale, and found that they missed a big opportunity of not focusing more on the son kiliing the father and how 007 could have played a role in that. For me the missing movie is Brosnans FYEO and gracefull exit. When I do want to enjoy myself I rarely watch a Craig but sooner a Brosnan because he entertains without all the pretense he does not have to live up to. ;)
For me the most frustrating bit is that I recognise how good DC is as 007 and the movies after CR have failed for me to give him a better movie. I hope Mendes does honour him with a brilliant 4th movie, he deserves it.
So QoS is rubbish and yet DAD is "half a brilliant movie". And which half would that be exactly? The half that gives us piss poor CGI and invisible cars or the half that bottles it's promise of a 'broken Bond' less than 20 minutes in?
To be fair, I think the screenplay is where the movie fell down. There's only so much you can do with editing and according to Forster, he felt the script was underdeveloped, even before the strike. Due to the external pressures and minimal time-frame I think he lost sight of what his movie was about. I'm not suggesting he couldn't have improved upon the final cut, but it certainly wouldn't have been elevated to anything resembling brilliance.
This is a direct quote - "I was very aware going into it that my objective in that particular film was to make it more like a ‘70s, very straightforward revenge movie, and that sort of pace was my point of view.". I get this, and I think it was a great angle with which to approach the film, but QoS didn't deliver on his vision entirely. It delivered a mixed bag of ideas, some good, some not so good. The 'revenge' angle is not explicit, see 'Get Carter' for how to make a revenge film. I can't blame the guy entirely, but I have my suspicions he's relatively quick to shift the blame for the film's shortcomings.
He also claims that - "I do think in the third act, some of it I wish we could have had more time to develop the script in a more profound and in-depth way". Which I would also agree with. The third act is an amalgamation of decent cinematography, driven by a loose set of goals, little jeopardy, nothing revelatory and general sense of flatness, until the tacked on ending - which leaves you wondering 'why weren't there more scenes like that in the actual film?'.
I gave you an extensive list, if you have trouble reading, in that case I am sorry.
I prefer Most of DAD's actionscenes as they are actually well done and do make sense.
The real travesty of the series seems to be QoB, not enough script, Bourne people doing a job in the wrong series, not enough editing time, crap titlesong. At the end of the day EON failed this production completely by continueing instead of halting the movie.