›

Marc Forster still defending his work on 'Quantum of Solace'

JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
edited September 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 1,380
"Quantum of Solace" director Marc Forster is still fielding questions about his work on the film which left a lot of critics and fans disappointed after the almost universally appreciated "Casino Royale" helmed by Martin Campbell.

Speaking to <a href="http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/2011/09/13/marc_forster_talks_world_war_z_his_eclectic_career/"; target="_blank">IndieWire</a> about his upcoming movie "Machine Gun Preacher", Forster admitted that there were drawbacks with heading into such a big property

“‘Quantum of Solace’ was a bit of a different circumstance than a lot of my other films because you’re stepping into a franchise, and also in that particular film, we’re dealing with a script from the writer’s strike, which was difficult to handle because there was never time to really develop a finished script. Most of the time was about scouting locations more than what was on the page.” All that being said, he likes the film, while acknowledging that it may not have been what people were after from a Bond picture: “I’m very pleased with how the film turned out. 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… It’s just that it was a very intensified and rushed experience. People are always looking for what they love most in that particular franchise, and ultimately you can’t please everyone. 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.”

“Machine Gun Preacher” opens in New York and Los Angeles on September 23rd, and goes wider the following Friday, September 30th.
«1345678

Comments

  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    Forster has every right to defend his work-- QoS is one of he best films of the post-classic era and Forster had a better grasp of the character of Bond than any director since Hunt.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    He makes decent points about the short length fitting the revenge theme (overlong might have been monotonous) and the writers' strike. However, there is no excuse for the incomprehensible editing nor his firing Danny Kleinman for the title sequence.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Why does he have to defend his work? So some people didnt like the quick editing? There is lots to enjoy about QoS without banging on about this. His eye for colour was astonishing - the browns and yellows of the desert contrasting with the whites and blacks of the civilised world. He had a good grasp of character and got a very good performance from Olga and Dan and his mixing of action and Tosca at the Bregenz opera house was very good.

    It may take ten years, it may take twenty years but I believe QoS will be seen as a little jewell eventually.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Why does he have to defend his work? So some people didnt like the quick editing? There is lots to enjoy about QoS without banging on about this. His eye for colour was astonishing - the browns and yellows of the desert contrasting with the whites and blacks of the civilised world. He had a good grasp of character and got a very good performance from Olga and Dan and his mixing of action and Tosca at the Bregenz opera house was very good.

    It may take ten years, it may take twenty years but I believe QoS will be seen as a little jewell eventually.
    I strongly feel QoS will forever be another LTK - at least amongst Bond fans. Some will love it, some will loathe it but it certainly won't hold up in the way the 60s films (and some of the subsequent flicks) have. It falls short on good old fashioned fun.

    Foster feels the need to defend it, Craig himself has apparently said the film was "cobbled together", Martin Campbell didn't like it and Roger Moore wasn't wild about it either. Three out of four of those people have made previous contributions to the Bond series that were enormously sucessful. Their opinions speak for themselves.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Forster's hardly going to bite his nose to spite his face on this. Of course he's going to defend it and he has every right to. He makes some very interesting points, however, most of what he says can easily be countered and it may not be all entirely down to him just to be fair.

    The writers strike. This is being used as a focal excuse for the way the film turned out but 21 years earlier wasn't LTK affected by the writer's strike also? Look how that film turned out; easily one of the best Bond films made and one of the best revenge films made. LTK trounces QoS in every way as a total package.

    For me QoS isn't a bad film at all, it's story could have been developed more but in terms of the message and themes it was trying to convey it got the job done. I feell what really hurt this film more than anything is that, the action was ramped up and brought to the forefront and yet for all the action we got, the editing and resullting viewing of it was painfully and horribly executed and therefore makes it harder to appreciate.

    QoS' action and the movie overall would have fared better had the exposition been much better and if there were fewer action scenes.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492

    Foster feels the need to defend it, Craig himself has apparently said the film was "cobbled together", Martin Campbell didn't like it and Roger Moore wasn't wild about it either. Three out of four of those people have made previous contributions to the Bond series that were enormously sucessful. Their opinions speak for themselves.
    Of course if you didnt like it then their opinions are obviously cast iron fact.

    They are in fact opinions - not the word of law. Roger Moore if I remember rightly didnt like TLD much. Does that mean TLD is a bad film?

    There is much to enjoy about QoS. To me the good far outweighs the bad.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2011 Posts: 11,189

    Foster feels the need to defend it, Craig himself has apparently said the film was "cobbled together", Martin Campbell didn't like it and Roger Moore wasn't wild about it either. Three out of four of those people have made previous contributions to the Bond series that were enormously sucessful. Their opinions speak for themselves.
    Of course if you didnt like it then their opinions are obviously cast iron fact.

    They are in fact opinions - not the word of law. Roger Moore if I remember rightly didnt like TLD much. Does that mean TLD is a bad film?

    There is much to enjoy about QoS. To me the good far outweighs the bad.

    Of course you are right @actonsteve. No opinion is fact (Fleming himself didnt like DN or Connery when he first saw them).
    I also remember Lewis Gilbert saying he didn't like Daniel Craig in a radio interview last year.

    But, as I'm not overly keen on the film, I will side with Moore, Campbell and Craig on this one. If I want a fun piece of escapism (which is what Bond, whether it be a more serious adventure or a lighter tongue-in-cheek one, has always been about) I won't go to QoS. Don't get me wrong it has some good bits but lacks a certain something in my mind.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    edited September 2011 Posts: 7,653
    QoS is an awefully made 007 movie, and of course he can defend but it remains the worst movie in the franchise imho.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    They should have asked him what he thought of the editing of the film.
    The guy stuffed up the film and he should admit it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    QoS is an awefully made 007 movie, and of course he can defend but it remains the worst movie in the franchise imho.
    Agreed.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    QoS is an awefully made 007 movie, and of course he can defend but it remains the worst movie in the franchise imho.
    When QoS is ranked worse in someone's mind than the filthy DAD, I question so much.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited September 2011 Posts: 1,261
    About the writer's strike: To my knowledge Forster rejected the P&W script, so that Haggis, instead of polishing the script as he did with CR, had to begin almost from scratch, and therefore managed to finsih his first draft only hours before the strike actually began. So they had to hire Zetumer to rewrite and update the script during shooting.

    And maybe he wanted QOS to be that way? So he would not have to regret this?
    And do we know that Forster fired Kleinmann? Maybe Kleinmann was not offered the job, as Forster wanted MK12 to do the opening credits? As well as the fast pace editing?
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    About the writer's strike: To my knowledge Forster rejected the P&W script, so that Haggis, insteqad of polishing the script as he did with CR, had to befin almost from scratch, and therefore managed to finsih his first draft hours before the strike actually began. So they had to hire Zetumer to rewrite and uodate the script during shooting.

    Does anyone have any details on what the Purvis and Wade script was like? It would be interesting to compare...

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    No doubt the main (only?) drawback was lack of exposition with far too much action and awful editing. The speed and pace of the film is very refreshing, I'm glad it's not Casino Royale 2 and doubt what we get next will be either. Each of Craig's films I think will look and feel very different and distinct. Forster has a right to defend it, Quantum Of Solace contains some great moments.
    And do we know that Forster fired Kleinmann? Maybe Kleinmann was not offered the job, as Forster wanted MK12 to do the opening credits?
    Yes I believe this was the case.
  • CharlesManhattenCharlesManhatten
    Posts: 14
    I agree with a prior poster. For good or bad, QoS will ultimately be viewed as the LTK of the 21st century.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2011 Posts: 11,189
    QoS is an awefully made 007 movie, and of course he can defend but it remains the worst movie in the franchise imho.
    When QoS is ranked worse in someone's mind than the filthy DAD, I question so much.
    I used to think it was the worst but now I don't - DAD is a pretty strong contender for that position. In fairness Quantum does have some good intentions and Craig, despite being not as good as in the previous film, does what he can. You do feel he is doing his best to make something out of it.

    While Foster has every right to defend his work, QoS remains one of the least entertaining films for me - hence its not far behind DAD. When I first left the cinema in 2008 my first thought was "that was missing something". I'd never thought that before with Bond and I still feel it to this day.

    (Damn I said I'd take a break and now I'm sucked back in - damn you Quantum :p )

    QoS' action and the movie overall would have fared better had the exposition been much better and if there were fewer action scenes.
    I think your right. Threre's one particular scene in the film that sums up a lot of its flaws for me and thats the scene in the airplane between Bond and Camille. The two are talking in an intimate quite sweet manner:

    "He tried to kill a friend of mine"
    "a woman?"
    "yes, but its not what you think"
    "your mother?"
    "she likes to think so"

    Then, out of nowhere, gunfire interrupts it and we're launched into another pretty average, overly-edited action scene.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @BAIN123, not necessarily like that. After that, he asks her about Greene, and as she goes into how she wasn't sleeping with Greene for a certain reason, the gunfire interrupts. I'm sure that doesn't change your view on it, and I'll agree - the editing is very extreme in that scene - but I still enjoy the movie. It has tons of action, I liked the characters, and the whole guessing game throughout the film as to who can really be trusted.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    The action scene was needed to get Bond and Camille into the sinkhole so they could find the water and know Greene was after it. It's just down to bad story writing using action to get from A to B.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    The action scene was needed to get Bond and Camille into the sinkhole so they could find the water and know Greene was after it. It's just down to bad story writing using action to get from A to B.
    Or the plane could have been running low on fuel when they stole it, so they have to parachute down, and that way they find the water without an unnecessary action scene.

  • Goldfinger1964Goldfinger1964
    edited September 2011 Posts: 3
    LOVED Quantum of Solace! Marc Forster made an excellent and very modern feeling movie in a 46 year old franchise - not an easy thing to do. Fresh, fast and invigorating, for once a Bond film did not feel like it was made for my father back in 1979. The use of color, the opera, the Mathis scenes, all really, really good. The shortened length and sparse story actually played well - after Casino Royale you knew what Bond was after and that nothing was going to stop him - what's more to tell? Extraneous dialog to spell it all out? QoS is a great follow up to the events of Casino Royale and one of the best Bond films ever. There are a few scenes that could have been better edited - the transition from Bond and Mathis in Italy to them in the plane being one jarring one but the action through out- Fist Class! Without a writers strike it could have been an A+ instead of an A- . So much better than LTK - which is in the bottom 3rd for sure. TMWTG and LTK two of the worst, at least DAD had spectacle and set pieces.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    The action scene was needed to get Bond and Camille into the sinkhole so they could find the water and know Greene was after it. It's just down to bad story writing using action to get from A to B.
    Or the plane could have been running low on fuel when they stole it, so they have to parachute down, and that way they find the water without an unnecessary action scene.

    It could have simply been shot at by a faceless fighter jet (minus the rapid cut aerial battle which was really just there for padding as well as to tick off the "air" element on Forsters wish list) Unable to land the plane they parachute into the sand dune.

    I do feel a bit bad about always being critical of Quantum but what bugs me is just how forced that scene feels. As i said it comes out of nowhere and just seems like an excuse for some action. The sudden shooting down of Bonds aircraft was actually done a lot better in GE IMHO.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492

    Then, out of nowhere, gunfire interrupts it and we're launched into another pretty average, overly-edited action scene.
    I have to say the plane chase is my second favourite action scene in the movie (after Siena) and I look forward to it each time I watch.

    As you said there is some nice dialogue in the scene then a surprise attack. But I love the look of the huge lumbering aircraft being pursued by the nifty Bolivian fighter. The way it has to squeeze between mountain peaks and I especially like when it climbs high and Bond and Camille shoot down to the bottom of the plane before they can escape. All accompanied by some rousing music.

    As for surprise attacks? How is it worse then GE when a not mentioned before missile is launched from a not mentioned lake to destroy Pierces daydreaming - er, I mean piloting..

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189

    Then, out of nowhere, gunfire interrupts it and we're launched into another pretty average, overly-edited action scene.
    As for surprise attacks? How is it worse then GE when a not mentioned before missile is launched from a not mentioned lake to destroy Pierces daydreaming - er, I mean piloting..

    Well for one thing it doesn't need to take a sudden shot of steriods to get the point across. We get the idea that they have been hit by a missile without the cut-every-two seconds stuff.
  • BounineBounine
    edited September 2011 Posts: 2,599
    Forster was the one who wanted pretty much non-stop action. What character work there is, is excellent (but there isn't enough of it) as is the dialogue and the natural style of humour in most parts. The cinematography in the non action scenes is very creative and refreshing. As for plot development, there is much room for improvement. There’s way too much action obviously and it’s too tightly edited. Much too fast paced for my liking.

    I am happy with the level of humour in the film. Seeing it was criticised for not having enough, it wouldn't surprise me if Bond 23 has way too much of the funnies this time around. For the darker take of the Craig era, there definitely shouldn’t be any more humour than what is in CR and once again it should lend itself to naturalism like in QOS.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I'm really going to have to watch this again some time (soon) and see if my opinion has changed after three years, maybe second time around I may hold this particular Bond release in a more favorable light but we will have to see. I seem to have forgotten a few significant parts of what even took place. But I am adamant that when I saw it in it's entireity on first release I was less than impressed.

    Watch this space
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    QOS for me is not the worst, and neither a great one (I give 6,86 out of 10 in my personal ranking and is on position 16).
    The strike is a good reason why it isn't great, but not the only one. For example, leaving the gunbarrel at the end (one of my biggest complains on this movie) has nothing to do with the writer's strike.
    Also I've always found stupid that Foster argument of the four elements... A Bond movie should be defined according to the narrative structure of Fleming and the Bond formula of the movies, not the classical classification of matter!
    In conclusion, despite the strike, it could have been much better, in my opinion...
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    QOS is still better than the Brosnan films which I loathe. Aside for the Brosnan films having too much action and bad dialogue, the main problem I feel is Brosnan himself. If these films had have had a much better actor like Craig in the role the dialogue would have been more bearable.

    My favourite two scenes in QOS are when Bond is chatting with Mathis at his villa followed by the scene with Bond drinking on the plane then talking to Mathis again.

    I remember coming out of this film feeling slightly disappointed but not near as much as I would have felt not knowing beforehand that the film was going to consist of almost endless action.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    I don't think Forster should answer for the film he made. Obviously the films has its fans and while I may not be its biggest supporter, I too recognise its merits and strengths.

    I disagree, however, with the 70s revenge film as an excuse for the Bournesque pacing and the short supply of material. Even a strong revenge film can at least boost up its feature length to well over 110 minutes. Even a strong revenge film can hold a shot for more than 2 seconds. Even a strong revenge film can have its characters developed over a number of scenes, instead of wasting them on four quick flashes. And even in a strong revenge film, the interesting stuff happens on screen instead of off screen.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    He's trying to defend QOS? Good luck to him, I say. It's easily the worst Bond of it's decade, and one of the worst Bonds in the cannon.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited September 2011 Posts: 13,356
    Another problem seemed to be Quantum Of Solace focused more on how Bond was feeling and coping with Vesper as the main plot (which was done well in my opinion) with Greene and co. as superfluous stuff on the side that was there just because it's expected in a Bond film which actually ended up as being very weak. It's characters suffered because of the film's main idea.

    If this was wanted in a Bond film, it should have been added to Casino Royale for one longer, and better, film.
Sign In or Register to comment.