› ›

Daniel Craig says he had to write QoS scenes. Reason for failure.

forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
edited December 2011 in Actors Posts: 2,782
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/daniel-craig-slams-his-own-bond-re-writes.html

If this old news serve me the burn notice.
«1

Comments

  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Not new. He made the statements in an interview with Time Out magazine. They keep getting picked up by different Web site.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2011 Posts: 14,590
    Mr. Westen, you have been burned ;) Seriously though, considering the situation of only Craig and Forster reworking the script, QoS turned out alright. No one can expect Craig to be a good writer AND a superb Bond at the same time (see what I did there, Craig haters?). The important thing is he acknowledges the problems with QoS, and heaven forbid if this should happen again, Craig will be prepared to pick up the pen.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    edited December 2011 Posts: 2,782
    cool, i thought some members here might not have picked up on this. i only saw this bit of QoS news abouts an hour ago.

    QBranch, is that why he didn't write a red hot sweaty no nonsense love scene with the boy Olga?
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    But weren't there reports at the time that a writer named Joshua Zetumer *was* on location doing rewrites? (He didn't get a credit but there were multiple stories about this.)
  • QuarterdeckQuarterdeck
    Posts: 136
    I'm rather saddened by this as I love QoS. It sounds to me as if DC is trying to apologise for QoS perceived mistakes - he need not! He talked up the film big time at the release - as he should - but I felt at the time he really believed it.

    It's a bit of a worry that he should be so susceptible to criticism...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    How much did he write?! Great work Dan on any front!
    Quarterdeck wrote:
    I'm rather saddened by this as I love QoS. It sounds to me as if DC is trying to apologise for QoS perceived mistakes - he need not! He talked up the film big time at the release - as he should - but I felt at the time he really believed it.

    It's a bit of a worry that he should be so susceptible to criticism...
    I'm with you. I love it and don't see where all the hate comes from.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    This is really old news, like 3 year old news. The fact is, QoS was a rushed film and the script hadn't even been completed before filming started. The writers strike hurt the film creatively but with the way things turned out a decent enough job was done. I personally feel QoS would have been even better had they opted put of the frenetic shakey can/quiche chop edits.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    doubleoego wrote:
    This is really old news, like 3 year old news. The fact is, QoS was a rushed film and the script hadn't even been completed before filming started. The writers strike hurt the film creatively but with the way things turned out a decent enough job was done. I personally feel QoS would have been even better had they opted put of the frenetic shakey can/quiche chop edits.

    Actually, the credited writers of Quantum of Solace (Haggis and Purvis) completed and turned in a script the day of the writer's strike, and it supposedly was not intended to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale. Why this was scrapped is unknown, but it was almost definitely a rushed effort that would not have been much better than what we got.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's my understNding that the credit writers submitted an incomplete script, hence all the rewrites and filling in. An actual solid and completed script was never accomplished prior to the strike from my own understanding.
  • QuarterdeckQuarterdeck
    Posts: 136
    But that's the odd thing - all this talk now of re-writes on the set etc...it's not a bad movie! Sure, I worried about the choppy editing on first viewing...but I've been won round. It just bothers me now that DC and others now feel the need to apologise for it - don't!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Quarterdeck wrote:
    But that's the odd thing - all this talk now of re-writes on the set etc...it's not a bad movie! Sure, I worried about the choppy editing on first viewing...but I've been won round. It just bothers me now that DC and others now feel the need to apologise for it - don't!

    It's BAD editing and I'm sure most professionals would tell you that. It's just a weaker, rushed attempt to copy the current trends in films.

    I'm glad Craig has come out and said he thinks the film is flawed. It is! It has some good scenes and Craig does what he can but its FAR from a great Bond film.

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I thought it was a good movie. It wasn't as bad as Goldfinger, or Diamonds are Forever.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Agent007391 wrote:
    I thought it was a good movie. It wasn't as bad as Goldfinger, or Diamonds are Forever.

    Thank you! Someone understands how lame Goldfinger is! =D> Finally!
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Quarterdeck wrote:
    I'm rather saddened by this as I love QoS. It sounds to me as if DC is trying to apologise for QoS perceived mistakes - he need not! He talked up the film big time at the release - as he should - but I felt at the time he really believed it.

    It's a bit of a worry that he should be so susceptible to criticism...

    I think there is a huge amount a pressure on DC at the moment. There is a lot riding on him and Skyfall. He made such a huge splash with CR and then QOS came with a lukewarm critical and fan reception. Skyfall is therefore the redeeming Bond film (or at least a lot is riding on it to be)--not to say that he lost Bond credibility with QOS, which he didn't, it's just that QOS seemed to underwhelm for a lot of folks, and DC is fully aware of this. Add to the fact, that we've been delayed an extra 2 years in production, so the anticipation is really building and I'm sure there's a lot of anxiey on Dan.

    Basically, I think in order to really hype up SF, DC is painting QOS as rather weak, saying we got off track, but now we're back!

  • danslittlefingerdanslittlefinger
    Posts: 886
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Quarterdeck wrote:
    I'm rather saddened by this as I love QoS. It sounds to me as if DC is trying to apologise for QoS perceived mistakes - he need not! He talked up the film big time at the release - as he should - but I felt at the time he really believed it.

    It's a bit of a worry that he should be so susceptible to criticism...

    I think there is a huge amount a pressure on DC at the moment. There is a lot riding on him and Skyfall. He made such a huge splash with CR and then QOS came with a lukewarm critical and fan reception. Skyfall is therefore the redeeming Bond film (or at least a lot is riding on it to be)--not to say that he lost Bond credibility with QOS, which he didn't, it's just that QOS seemed to underwhelm for a lot of folks, and DC is fully aware of this. Add to the fact, that we've been delayed an extra 2 years in production, so the anticipation is really building and I'm sure there's a lot of anxiey on Dan.

    Basically, I think in order to really hype up SF, DC is painting QOS as rather weak, saying we got off track, but now we're back!

    Reverse psychology? Could be. Oldest trick in the book and effective when used correctly.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Quantum of solace's main problem was that it forgot it was a bond film. To me, in alot of ways, it was a bond film in name only. It was confusing what was going on, the villians (apart from white) are down there with gustav graves and zao as the worst in the series, and quantum of solace is very forgettable. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as CR but I also thought it wouldn't feel like a bad bourne movie. The best film in the series, licence to kill, handeled the bond going rogue aspect alot better.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    00Beast wrote:
    Agent007391 wrote:
    I thought it was a good movie. It wasn't as bad as Goldfinger, or Diamonds are Forever.

    Thank you! Someone understands how lame Goldfinger is! =D> Finally!

    Quantum of solace, better than goldfinger??????????? *starts to feel ill, falls to the floor, clutched heart in pain and passes out*
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    Now we know why it sucked.
  • agentHHHagentHHH
    Posts: 9
    Funny how shakey cam in the Bourne series is described as cutting-edge-of-your-seat editing but somehow crap in QOS.Make up your minds joe public.QOS has some of the coolest moments in a bond film.
    Which leads me to believe that people were just out to lambast QOS.
    I mean to say it's a worst film than view to a kill,octopussy and for your eyes only..puhleeez.To think it almost equaled the box office of CR it was that crap
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    agentHHH wrote:
    Funny how shakey cam in the Bourne series is described as cutting-edge-of-your-seat editing but somehow crap in QOS.Make up your minds joe public.QOS has some of the coolest moments in a bond film.
    Which leads me to believe that people were just out to lambast QOS.
    I mean to say it's a worst film than view to a kill,octopussy and for your eyes only..puhleeez.To think it almost equaled the box office of CR it was that crap

    It's because the shakey cam stuff was overdone in QoS. With Bourne it worked because there was a tense, jittery build up prior to the action scenes themselves. The action complemented the fast moving story which was better established in Bourne. Here, it doesn't and seems more like a distraction than an asset. The opening scene is an example. There's no exposition prior to the action, its just...BANG.

    OP and AVTAK are far more entertaining, less pretentious flicks IMO. Quantum does have its moments and has some quite cool shots and music but feels somewhat...underwelming.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    If the rest of the film hadn't followed in a similar manner, the PTS quick-cut really wasn't all bad. Many revere it as a very excellent car chase among general films. That camera-style didn't transfer well to the rest of the film. However I must say kudos to the hotel scene where Bond dances around to evade MI6 guards and talks to M. That was just straight up class, the music, and the camerawork.
  • solacesolace
    Posts: 4
    I love QOS. Nothing to apologise for. People say it was a bad bond yet those same people like AVTAK better. Go figure.
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited December 2011 Posts: 348
    solace wrote:
    People say it was a bad bond yet those same people like AVTAK better. Go figure.

    Uh, AVTAK has Chris Walken, Grace Jones, one of Rog's finest performances, Patrick Macnee, a tight screenplay and a cracking title song from Duran Duran.

    More than enough reason to love it, for all its flaws.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2011 Posts: 11,189
    I do, better story, better directed action, better baddie, better title song, better entertainment value.

    Look at this:


    Now look at this:


    Which shows Bond in more peril?
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,276
    BAIN123 - thank you for proving reasons why QoS really suck. IMO, it wasn't the script that destroyed the movie (which I found to be okay), but the editing!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2011 Posts: 12,837
    agentHHH wrote:
    Funny how shakey cam in the Bourne series is described as cutting-edge-of-your-seat editing but somehow crap in QOS.Make up your minds joe public.QOS has some of the coolest moments in a bond film.
    Which leads me to believe that people were just out to lambast QOS.
    I mean to say it's a worst film than view to a kill,octopussy and for your eyes only..puhleeez.To think it almost equaled the box office of CR it was that crap

    Actually, alot of people thought the shakey cam was overdone in the bourne series. And this isn't bourne, this is bond.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Yes, AVTAK is a real masterpiece of the 1980's. An old Moore yes, but still amazingly charming, charismatic, and still enjoying himself. A cracking main theme, a wonderful score from Barry, top notch villain. Exciting action scenes, well-shot film... What's not to like ? 9/10 for AVTAK, IMO.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Zekidk wrote:
    BAIN123 - thank you for proving reasons why QoS really suck. IMO, it wasn't the script that destroyed the movie (which I found to be okay), but the editing!

    I'm not saying it sucked completely. Some of it was ok but as a whole it was mediocre IMO.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Shark wrote:
    solace wrote:
    People say it was a bad bond yet those same people like AVTAK better. Go figure.

    Uh, AVTAK has Chris Walken, Grace Jones, one of Rog's finest performances, Patrick Macnee, a tight screenplay and a cracking title song from Duran Duran.

    More than enough reason to love it, for all its flaws.

    Max zorin and may day>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>domonic green and elvis
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Max Zorin>>>>>>>>>Mayday>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dominic Green>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Elvis
Sign In or Register to comment.