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
no... chances are it would've looked 99.9% the same...
the director tells the editor, this is what i want - make it look that way...
the editor (to break it down in simple terms) is pretty much a puppet, and the director pulls the strings.... if the editor didn't meet the director's expectations or vision, they would've been sacked and a new editor brought it..... which is why, often times, you'll see multiple editors on a film..... the editor can offer suggestions and opinions, but it's ultimately the director's decision - no creative input goes into the film without the director's approval.... Forster had a set vision for the film from the very beginning - so it's unlikely very much would've changed in post.
Although I didn't mention it in my first comment, I do hold Foster responsible!
yes...
I just recently shot my own short film, do you think I am going to let someone else edit it together without any of my input?? Hell no!..... the only, absolutely only way the director would have no say so in the edit, is if he/she was removed from the project during post, and the final edit was put together by the producers and the editor... either way - the editor works to the vision and specifications of someone else, not their own.
In my mind there's no doubt that they hired Pearson because of his "skills" in editing Bourne 2 and 3. That kind of editing - which I really do not like - has almost become his trademark! Hence my comment!
at the end of the day Zekidk.... it still boils down to 2 men sitting in room, editing the film together.... the editor, and the director..
yes, my no budget 3 day short is eons different than a 90 day 200 million dollar production...... but it still gets cut together the same exact way, using the same exact techniques...
trust me when i say, there isn't a shot/scene/piece of music - ANYTHING, that goes into the film during post without the director's input first, at all.... often times, certain studios want the film to only be a certain length, which force directors to have to make tough decisions about scenes they want to cut out.. do you think the editor just does that on his own?.. no - it's the directors call.... all the editor does, is what the director tells him to do.... very much in the way the head cameraman, DP, or cinematographer does while shooting the film - the director tells him what he wants to see, and it's the DP's job to make it happen, thats it.
Here's how I think it went down: Someone - maybe the producers, maybe Foster - wanted QoS to look like the latest Bourne-movie. Enter Richard Pearson who certainly helped all he could. At the end of the day that decision was a big mistake, IMO!
same goes for editing... sure the director could do it himself, but why?.. hire someone who knows what they are doing, and knows their way around the equipment so they can make the director's work easier.
now there were two editors on QOS.. and who knows... i gave 1 scenario as to why there might be 2 editors on a film during post.... but often times, you can have an editor who's only job is make a rough cut of the film - which means, they remove the slate markers from scenes, and arrange the clips on a timeline, in the order that the script calls for... then someone else can be brought in to go into those further (with the director) and make the necessary cuts.... so who knows why they were brought on... your guess is as good as mine.... but typically, like DPs, directors tend to stick with people they've worked with before..
this is the reason why i get annoyed by people who accuse David Arnold of trying to squeeze every frame of film with music - THATS NOT HIS CALL... it's not like once the film is done editing, they just hand it to him to place music wherever he pleases... no - that again is a procress that the directors are involved in as well... they may not be present during all the writing - but if they want a scene with or without music, again, thats the director's call - not the editor's - not the composer...
And I think that pretty much sums up what I am trying to say. And I know about filmmaking, as well. Think this sums it up rather nicely:
"However, the job of an editor isn’t simply to mechanically put pieces of a film together, cut off film slates, or edit dialogue scenes. A film editor must creatively work with the layers of images, story, dialogue, music, pacing, as well as the actors' performances to effectively "re-imagine" and even rewrite the film to craft a cohesive whole. Editors usually play a dynamic role in the making of a film."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing
you can add on - " to the director's specifications." to that as well....... all that is true - but that gives the false impression that once shooting is over, the director bids everyone a farewell, and it off to the next project.... NOT.. AT.. ALL... his job is only half over..
remember, while all that you quoted is true..... at the end of the day - it's what the director wants, so even if the editor cut something together, but the director doesn't like it - then you're SOL... and if you want to argue about it...... then there's the door, see yourself out..... now, as an editor you're out of a job.....
i also dabble in graphic work too, and while i can come up with frilly explanations as to what my job is.... in the end, if i am working for a client, who wants a stupid cartoon unicorn jumping over a rainbow, then thats what i am being paid to do.... i could offer suggestions, or ideas for something a little different, but if they want that damned unicorn, then they'll get it, or else i'm out of a paycheck........ understand?
No one is arguing that "once shooting is over, the director bids everyone a farewell" at all. Of course the director is responsible for molding the editors cut.
If Skyfall is anything like DAD I´ll eat my hat. After I get a hat.
But I do agree with everything that you say here.
But at the same time, it could turn out to be another FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
"Everybody expecting SKYFALL to be awesome" is not evidence that it will be an abject failure. Everybody expected CASINO ROYALE to be awesome, too (especially after production reports began to filter down) ... and it was. I think you're being alarmist for the sake of being alarmist.
Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds are forever may be considered the worst of the bond series but they are all good in there own ways and lets face it they are more bond than QOS
the good thing is that Skyfall will probarly wont be as horrible as QOS
That's your opinion. It's not a fact.
OMG, it's Jinx, she's...she's hideous ;)
Here's a funny DAD fan review I found.
I'm just not getting my hopes up too high. If it turns out as the greatest bond film ever, fantastic. If not, I won't have got my hopes up too high.Thta the way I see it.
@shadowonthesun Alot of fans were expecting CR to be terrible just because of craig, I wasn't one of them, but thier were people threatening to boycott the film, so not everybody was expecting that to turn out great.
Fully agreed. A decent playing time is important to me. QOS felt wrong as a short Bond, the shortest ever, like an extended episode from some non-existing Bond TV series. I want scope, a fully loaded and intricate script and a feature length of at least 2hrs 10mins.
Interesting how you mention QoS as the anti-CR. I've quite often thought of QoS as the negative film to the high quality photo that is CR.
Mendes and Craig wanting to make the best film they can (as opposed to homage, tribute, homage) is a mature approach, and Fleming would respect that. I'm confident they'll do the right thing.
I want to be able to finish my large popcorn just after the credits roll- not have a quarter of a box leftover!
No. It tried too hard to be Bourne.
I figure that first cut was about 2 hrs, but once editing the whole thing they ended up with a much shorter running time, because of the "no clips longer than one second"-rule invented in Bourne 2 and 3.
Wasn't my own idea, read it somewhere on the net at the time. But there's some details and elements that look as if the idea was to get a twisted mirror image of CR. Doesn't belong right here maybe, but the expectations on QOS were so high because CR did its thing so fine. And then the next flick just pushed the high speed button and lacked a decent story, yet had many of the original's elements 'twisted'.
Go in and enjoy it for what it is. I suspect the only ones who are going to be moaning are those expecting it to be another MR.