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
Our evil plot is coming to fruition!
It is in my top 10 (it's a tough battle between Quantum and From Russia with love for second place honestly)
Quantum of solace is such a strong bond film light compact and has so many cool underrated touches. For example Craig doesn't say Vesper till the very end of the film he doesn't even mention the name of the drink...
again I am nervous when I get to craig era as Quantum of Solace has this promise of finding out more about the secret organization in the next film and sadly Spectre answers those questions with "Yeah no secret it's just Spectre and Blofeld"...
One wonders if they got the rights to spectre and Blofeld in say 1993 if Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies wouldn't of been vastly different films. (though Hopkins as Blofeld .... yeah it would of been really cool even if Brosnan is still 007)
I did watch a bit of the Josh Brolin as 007 a few days agoe and since I saw Royale 54 I am wondering how extensive should my bond journey be?
Should I watch Royale 67? Never Say Never Again? Diamonds Aren't Forever? A play through of James Bond the Duel so I can get my third Dalton fix (which in retrospect as cool as From Russia with the love the video game was wouldn't of been cooler to have say the living daylights and play as Dalton's bond? or heck if EA had real balls and did A view to a Kill or Octopussy with Dalton's Bond the way we kind of got with Activision?)
Questions I am pondering as I really have never seen all of Royale 67 (and don't really want to) and I haven't seen Never say Never again in ages (and again don't really want to) but I am going to watch the official films I don't like (Goldfinger Diamonds are forever the man with the golden gun Moonraker A View to a Kill Die another day Skyfall and Spectre so maybe I should bite the bullet and see Royale 67 etc any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated)
The PTS is edited really well. Really well. I love that chase. Fast but mostly coherent. There are other parts though (namely White's escape down in that bunker thingy) that, if you take out individuals frames/moments, you can tell that the film crew is literally pointing the camera at NOTHING of interest to telling the story of the action.
I don't have any issue with quick cutting, hand held camera, or any of that so long as it's done by professionals. There are moments in QoS that are edited well, but often times the action is edited and photographed within an inch of its life to the point where it becomes incoherent.
I'm not saying you don't know film editing or techniques etc etc, I'm just saying that I find the editing in the action scenes (most, not all) to be really, really poor. Not saying you're wrong, just that I definitely don't like the way it's edited, and I feel that I can argue (with some clarity and intelligence) that they are of poor quality - just as you argue that they are not.If you pause/take out bits and pieces it becomes clearer. If it's supposed to be disorienting (the only excuse they could make) fine. I don't like that, but fine. But if it's not it's just bad filmmaking.
I find that those techniques - handheld camera and quick cutting - are utilized often by novice filmmakers who don't really know how to film compelling and thrilling action and instead use those techniques to give the appearance of "thrill" and movement where there isn't any to be had. They try to mask the flaws of the action scene and staging, but they don't know how to execute it properly.
For an example of these techniques being utilized by someone who is in total command and uses it as a pure stylistic choice to accentuate their personal brand of how they want the action to feel - The Bourne Ultimatum.
I think QoS is a unique film, because it combines that gritty, contact, fast cut type of editing with the larger than life Bond universe. I appreciate that.
CR did it too, but it veered more to the longer range edits, while QoS took it a step further to the close cuts.
In terms of the actual style of the fights and action sequences though, I personally can't tell any difference between Bourne and QoS. They are the same to my eye.
Here's a combo of the best of them
That was the new benchmark. Everything from then on was just a refinement, but that film and that fight was incredible.
I agree. And you definatetly have to be a fan of it. Otherwise it feels a little bit unconfortable to watch it. For me it was still OK in CR but a little too much in QoS. I mean there had been great fight sequences already in the Connery Era for instance. They shouldn't have gone beyond that. But I'm not a big fan of the Bourne films either.
@DaltonCraig007, I love the Ultimatum fight, but the Identity one and the other one in Supremacy (with the Treadstone Agent in Munich) were also great. QoS definitely took a page out of all 3 of those Bourne fights. I love them all much more than any of the more recent ones in SP/SF (although the Hinx fight is up there).
What I'd really like to see again one day is a Ronin style chase in a Bond film. So not the close cut Bourne style chase, but a more longer range, expansive one, which still remains energetic and visceral. Similar to TSWLM with the Lotus.
The early stuff is strong, so is the assault on the volcano, but perhaps too much was made about the wedding. Perhaps more intrigue in Tokyo instead.
You don't see White escape. That's fine. But what I meant was the visual storytelling that tells us what actually happens is really bad. As you mentioned - it's all gesture. Except it's less than gesture, the camera is often looking at nothing.
Another example, I think, of a poorly edited action sequence is the QoS boat chase. Some parts are good, but more often than not I just can't keep up, in a bad way.
The Bourne Ultimatum fight between Bourne and Desh is the one I was specifically referring to. I think it's filmed quite well. Especially the book-as-a-weapon stuff. In that fight you see everything happen. Gesture is involved also, but you feel the scene much better, as well as seeing (mostly) the impact/stuntwork.
In a few sequences in QoS it feels like the handheld camera and quick cutting editing style is not utilized in order to create any sort of mood or experience, but to mask the weakness of the sequence and the weakness of the filmmaking team. It's been used as a crutch ever since the Bourne films (in American cinema) and I don't like that trend. But, as I mentioned, when it's used properly I don't have a problem with it (although more often than not I prefer good ole fashioned action sequences).
Films like John Wick are beginning to reintroduce some more classically filmed action sequences, which I really enjoy seeing. Also, obviously, Skyfall.
Bond vs. Slate is a great fight also I should add. In fact, it is edited less quickly than the Desh fight I think. That said, someone did some research and QoS has the shortest time per shot of any action film of the last X-amount of years I believe when it's all said and done. Ultimatum came pretty close. Just an interesting fact. The research was done awhile back though, and didn't compare all action films, just those with similar shooting and editing styles.
There are sequences that are shot and edited very well. But some of them I just pause it and I'm like "the camera is literally looking at nothing there. This isn't advancing the story of the action sequence whatsoever."
Another thing that slightly bums me out about QoS is just how damn much it takes from that Bourne series. Way more than CR ever did. I just wish Bond was the one inspiring imitators and not the other way around.
People on this forum, who I think have just been blinded by their Bond fandom, claim that they see "no Bourne" here at all, which I find absolutely preposterous and leads me to pretty much disregard their opinion entirely. I'm not trying to be mean at all. I respect everyone's opinion, but this is less opinion and more just "look at the two movies side by side" type thing. It's right there. From the shooting style to the wardrobe to the way both heroes "get dirty and bloody' etc. Forster was shooting for that pseudo-realism feel (many of the Bond trappings are gone). From the parkour chases etc etc etc. Bourne is everywhere.
The final scene where he confronts Yusef has moments that are shot for shot stolen from one of the final scenes from 2004's Bourne Supremacy. So when people say they don't see it I think they must not have ever seen the Bourne films or they're being wilfully ignorant.
ALL OF THIS SAID, I CAN'T WAIT TO REWATCH QUANTUM VERY SOON. *breathes heavily* man what is with my long ass posts lately.
This is a personal matter: I had to watch the PTS multiple times to figure out what happened, and it took even more views to figure out how exactly Bond killed Slate and what the hell he was doing with the anchor. I've watched The Battleship Potemkin, and at no point did I think to myself, "What the hell just happened?"
Yhis thread exploring the fighting merits of the Bourne films only serves to depress me and fuel my issues and utter disappointment with SP. Bourne had set a new benchmark for Bond to be playing catch up to and thankfully, for the sake of Bond 25 history looks set to repeat itself.
Even as a diehard Bond fan that's just something I myself can't and won't do. Bourne has been better and impressed me more than the last 3 Bond films and by a significant margin.
I love the Bond series too much to be so forgiving and accept their disappointing work, sending them the message that their lacklustre work is ok.
That is exactly how I feel about those films. So dull and uninteresting, the mind just wanders off.
I think I respect one or two of the Bourne films more, and think they are perhaps greater achievements, but I'd probably pop Spectre in over them as well.
Having said, that, I'm going to pop SP in my blu ray player now (2nd time in a week) just for fun before I lend it to dad. I'm curious about his view, because he is a lifelong Bond fan (books and films) and thinks quite highly of DC.