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
Bradley also said 'One of the things I really believe is that we shouldn’t try and make everything feel perfectly staged...I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience.'
That sounds like a good description of QOS's actions scenes to me. The credit/blame (depending on your POV) lies with Bradley, not Forster.
I don't mind some of the action scenes in QoS. The car chase PTS is great, so is the fight scene on the balcony, and the rooftop chase. I think the hanging glass scene is a bit too messy though, and the boat chase and plane chase don't grab me that much either, not because they are messy but because they are just not overly exciting for me.
I do like the end fight scene though at the hotel in the desert, and Arnold's soundtrack too throughout.
Here's his pitch for the job... ;-)
I wouldn’t necessarily put it like that. While it is true that many of the action scenes were shot by the Second Unit team, I don’t think this extends to every set up of them (an example I suspect being the plane sequence, the interiors of which were clearly shot on a soundstage so likely would have been done by Forster. It’s a scene which contains some of the worst, most jarring editing of the film - jump cuts, disorientating line breaks etc. - which I suspect points to a lack of coverage).
Usually as well the Second Unit team have to follow the visual strategy that the film/director have established. Essentially if handheld cinematography is employed it’s something the director would have had to sign off on.
It’s similar to what I see written about the editing of QOS - namely that Forster isn’t to blame for their style/incompetence. Well no, rapid cutting is a stylistic choice which has to be discussed beforehand and even worked on with the director, and it’s clear quite bold choices were being made in this area (the film ‘jumps the line’ simply when characters are walking down the hall of MI6, which is something most first year film students know to avoid). While the director doesn’t do everything (or even oversee everything, as with a Second Unit team) their creative choices have a huge impact in terms of how other people do their jobs on the film.
Not necessarily. He might be required to use one if the schedule for the film is too intense for one unit (and ultimately this is something EON might suggest or even insist on).
Some of Nolan’s action sequences arguably would have benefitted from a good 2nd Unit team too. Especially in the last two Dark Knight films. The truck chase is notoriously a pretty confusing sequence to follow in TDK, and there’s a strange tendency in TDKR to film very choreographed fight scenes using rather wide shots which give away…. well, how choreographed they look (which is especially weird considering Batman Begins makes great use of rapid editing and jerky camera movements when Batman is first introduced, making him seem like a force of nature/gives a very particular, but creative impression of the character).
+1
I have the same suspicion that there was not enough coverage shot and that some of the editing is an attempt to cover that up. And the "jumping the line" is just...inexcusable.
I wonder if Forster got in over his head on a production this large, with sky-high expectations after CR no less, and that what we see (or don't see) in the film is the product of that.
Ultimately, the final film is the director's responsibility.
That’s what my main criticism is with Forster. I’m happy that he did direct, the actors did well. But he was the second director (after Michael Apted) where I think EON was more interested in drama and awards than story, writer’s strike or not. And Daniel Craig pushed that as well. Just a mix of material from Bond books and sites, with a hint of personal speculation. Not trying to start a fight here. I’m moving on from Daniel Craig and Marc Forster.
Yes, that was always a big one for me too. There was a thread here a couple of years back that attempted to explain it but it essentially derailed into people explaining what they think happened.
The ending of the plane sequence where Bond forces the other plane to crash doesn't work incredibly well for me, but I think that may be a script problem: I feel like it asks the audience to have a bit more knowledge of how planes fly than perhaps most of us do.
Not quite sure how one can be more interested in drama than story: drama is story.
I'm not keen on this imagined version of real people that's used to bash them.
Yeah I've always thought that too. I've grown to enjoy QOS now, but that boat chase still does my head in to this day
Couldn't agree more about SF, particularly the fight with Patrice, way too obvious choreography!
Have to say I love the action in QOS, and think its the best of Craigs Bond movies!
You and I both. I can accept it's not for everyone and some don't care for the editing or other factors but it hits a sweet spot for me and the action alone makes QoS the easiest one to rewatch and my favorite in the Craig era overall.
As much as I love them, you'll never see anything as stylish in a Mission Impossible movie, and I kind of think that's half the point of Bond.
Or just a good, tense, spy scene ala Third Man, or like the safe scene in OHMSS.
That’s the Bond I want, albeit serious and with real stakes.
Yes, agreed about the car chase. It jumped very quickly to the quarry--an interesting setting, wasted--and then jumped just as quickly out of it. I love when that car rolls down almost on top of Bond, possibly the best shot in the movie.
What I love about SF is when the action (minus, I guess the magic empty train car) comes directly from story. The attack on M at Parliament is the best example. Bond running and shooting the fire extinguisher is not exactly novel action but we are so invested in him saving M at that point that it doesn't matter.
I wish Forster had played to his strengths more--the scene with Bond and Mathis in the plane could have played out at least as long as the (hilarious) cab scene that follows.
Yes, the thing I really respect about SF is that there's almost nothing in the way of action scenes in it: you get the opening and climax, but between that there's pretty much only a couple of fights and the tube foot chase. And yet it's still a really exciting and involving movie.
Am really missing something about SF, I dont find it exciting or involving at all!
I must say, the division about SF amongst Bond fans here is one of the strangest things I’ve encountered on these forums. It’s generally regarded as one of the better, if not the best Bond films amongst non fans I know.
I kinda hope we get something more stripped down and like it for Bond 26. Honestly, a Bond film doesn’t need to be massive in scale to be exciting. Just has to have a story and style people can be invested in.
I agree. I preferred the ending in the novel to the sinking house. It was incredibly simple, yet effective.
That was a Haggis re-write.
I don’t mind the sinking house, and I understand why he made the decision (P&W’s ending was very, very similar to the novel’s conclusion).
I didn’t know Haggis was responsible for that. I don’t mind the sequence per se, and I see why they would include it. It’s a Bond movie, you need to have the big “3rd Act” Set Piece to cap the movie off, and I still remember clear as day from when I first watched it in theaters back in 06, and being blown away by it. It’s still wonderfully shot and edited, and Craig is just a beast in that entire scene. But then when I read Fleming’s novel for the first time, I was taken back by how emotional I was reading those final passages, and ever since then I’ve preferred the somber ending of the novel.
BTW is there a copy of P&W’s initial drafts for Casino Royale online? After reading ‘Some Kind of Hero’, I’d love to read some of those drafts if they are available.