Where does Bond go after Craig?

1572573575577578687

Comments

  • Posts: 1,394
    peter wrote: »
    Let's not pretend that Bourne 2 and Bourne 3 hadn't been released!

    Uhm, who is pretending this? And what's your point? Like really, what is it you're trying to say?

    Bond was following that trend. I don't want to defend Forster but it may not have been his fault. Maybe he did what they asked.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I don't think anyone was pretending that EoN wasn't influenced by Bourne, though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 23 Posts: 16,498
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think it'll ever make my top ten, but the story is quite thoughtful and has good themes running through it. Whether it's still a bit too slight to be a follow up to CR I think is up for debate, but I think the direction is even a bit more guilty than even the editing of making it hard to appreciate.

    The biggest issue I have with Forster is:

    In screenwriting some of us were taught to learn the rules of the craft inside and out; to be an absolute expert in everything to do with writing a film, and then, and only then, you can start breaking the rules (if it helps tell a better story).

    With Forster it feels like he skipped all the rule, and learning the rules, of crafting tight action films, and he went straight to breaking the rules.

    Yeah I know what you mean. I'm afraid I was kind of, seems silly to say it, offended in the cinema when the film started and went straight into the car chase with no preamble whatsoever. Film grammar to me is that you have to be introduced to the film, have the table laid in front of you and have the situation established. You can't just start in the middle of a scene and expect me to respond as I would do as if you'd done the proper opening beforehand- I find it kind of presumptuous. Plus I'm a Bond fan who had watched CR a few times by then and remembered how it ended: for me to feel that way makes me wonder how someone who had last seen it once, two years previously felt about it.

    I would actually quite like to see an edit of the film which cuts out the car chase and opens it with Bond arriving at Sienna and getting Mr White out of the boot. Then you'd have the M scene to work as the introduction to the film before an exciting action sequence kicks in.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 23 Posts: 6,333
    I didn't mind being dropped into the car chase, and I understand the gag is that White is in the trunk. Nice little payoff, there.

    What I did mind was the inexplicable, confusing, headache-inducing editing...it felt like all the rules of film editing were being broken, including the crockery.

    Think what Glen would have done with this PTS. It would have been a proper action sequence, that's for sure.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 23 Posts: 3,154
    Forster gets all the stick, but it's worth remembering that EON hired Dan Bradley, Second Unit director on The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, for QOS and that he, not Forster, blocked out and shot most of the action scenes. Including the opening car chase. Also, that EON hired one of the Bourne Supremacy's editors for QOS. That suggests the kind of film that EON wanted to make and how they wanted it to look, no?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,850
    I can relate QOS to the early Bond films in the 60s and descriptions of the non-traditional editing employed breaking the rules. History repeating.

  • Posts: 2,008
    The obvious influence or nods to other films often takes me out of the film itself: the Blaxploition influence, the Jaws influence, the Star Wars influence, the nod to CE3K, the Bourne influence, etc. Do they lessen a Bond film? Probably not. But are they necessary? Not really. I like QoS. But the car chase stands out as an editing exercise rather than a car chase one appreciates for the daring and stunt work. I would prefer a Bond film not remind me other non-Bond films.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,333
    I would say that the nods are subtly necessary in that it keeps Bond films fresh and relevant, by adapting to the current cinema trends. It doesn't always work, though (*coughSPcough*).
  • edited June 23 Posts: 4,226
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think it'll ever make my top ten, but the story is quite thoughtful and has good themes running through it. Whether it's still a bit too slight to be a follow up to CR I think is up for debate, but I think the direction is even a bit more guilty than even the editing of making it hard to appreciate.

    The biggest issue I have with Forster is:

    In screenwriting some of us were taught to learn the rules of the craft inside and out; to be an absolute expert in everything to do with writing a film, and then, and only then, you can start breaking the rules (if it helps tell a better story).

    With Forster it feels like he skipped all the rule, and learning the rules, of crafting tight action films, and he went straight to breaking the rules.

    Not a scriptwriting example, but I always say that the start of the Sienna chase cutting to the horse rally is like something a first year film school student would do. In theory it's clever - very much in the vein of Kuleshov/Eisenstein's editing techniques that creates a symbolic meaning - but in practice it interrupts a perfectly tense interrogation scene and does nothing to actually tell the story. The horse race isn't even all that relevant later to the chase beyond being the first point they start from, and we get an establishing shot of it at the beginning of the scene anyway.

    If they'd wanted to do some clever editing/directing and build up some tension they could have filmed and cut to insert shots of, say, Mitchell slowly reaching for his gun or him giving Mr. White a look, tighter close ups of Bond looking around and then finally clocking Mitchell etc. The sort of 'Hitchcock's bomb' approach where the audience are shown the danger before the actual characters know of it. But no, random cuts to the horse race happening a mile away it is...

    So yeah, I definitely can see where you're coming from there with Forster.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,228
    QoS has the bones of a good story, that is it’s strength and why it has garnered admiration over the years ; but the script needed more development and different choices needed to made in editing and pacing.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    The script for QOS just needed another polish, it's got a fresh energy to the film, it still feels really modern. The action is superb, I just wish the editing was better and more clear, the boat chase will always frustrate me. Daniel and Olga were both great

    QOS is one of the most stylish films of the series too
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,035
    I can absolutely admit to some imperfections in QOS, but that doesn't stop it from cracking my top 5. Craigs's second best after Casino for me. Needed one more pass at the script? Yes. A few more assessments in the editing room? Yes, probably. But the bones of a great story are there and elements like Craig's performance, score, cinematography, style, and action are firing in all cylinders IMO.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 695
    QOS was the last Bond I liked. When Bond walks into the darkness at the end I feel that we never got that version of his Bond back, and SF-NTTD are some kind of non-canon alternative continuity.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    slide_99 wrote: »
    QOS was the last Bond I liked. When Bond walks into the darkness at the end I feel that we never got that version of his Bond back, and SF-NTTD are some kind of non-canon alternative continuity.

    So you've seen NTTD, finally?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 23 Posts: 3,154
    slide_99 wrote: »
    When Bond walks into the darkness at the end I feel that we never got that version of his Bond back.
    Yes, I feel that too. CraigBond was never again the unrelenting force of nature that he was in QOS. Said it before but I can't help but feel that there's a much longer time jump between the events of QOS and those of SF than the four years between the actual films themselves. I can believe that the Bond of QOS eventually became the Bond of SF, but maybe not in just four years...stress of the job not withstanding, obvs.
  • Posts: 2,008
    echo wrote: »
    I would say that the nods are subtly necessary in that it keeps Bond films fresh and relevant, by adapting to the current cinema trends. It doesn't always work, though (*coughSPcough*).

    Copying others doesn't feel fresh to me. I want others copying Bond. But of course it's all a matter of how we view things.
  • edited June 24 Posts: 4,226
    My issue with QOS is that Craig's Bond is a little bit too superhuman in a rather fake and outlandish way at times. It's actually not dissimilar to SP and NTTD in my opinion - for whatever reason we have a Bond who is almost indestructible and unflappable during action sequences.

    It's one of the major things that always disappointed me about QOS. I never felt Bond was genuinely in danger or could get hurt at any point, which is such a shame. In CR we saw Bond taking punches/tumbles, downing whiskey after a fight and taking time to look himself in the mirror. In SF, while very much a heightened reality type Bond film in the classic mould, we saw a Bond having to recover from his injuries and getting over quite deep psychological trauma.

    The Bond in SF's PTS is actually still very much the agent he was in QOS. Actually he's arguably better/more seasoned. The issues come in when he sees his fellow agent dying (although he gets on with the job), and when he gets shot (even then he manages to nearly beat up Patrice before Moneypenny shoots him again). Ultimately though, SF is a film about Bond coming back from that experience. It's far more evocative than QOS in my opinion.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,035
    Bond's wounds in QOS are more emotional than physical.
  • Posts: 4,226
    Bond's wounds in QOS are more emotional than physical.

    I get that (and by the way, that's one thing I like about the movie, Bond's more vulnerable moments). But when you go from a Bond in CR who visibly struggles to keep up with a parkour expert, who gets bloodied during fights, and is even seen having to recover from quite nasty torture injuries, to one who can fall great heights without injury, or beat up opponents without getting any injuries in the process himself, something doesn't quite chime. I think some of that physical vulnerability could have gone into QOS (like I said, I think if Green had injured Bond during the ax fight/put him at a disadvantage we could have gotten much more impactful fight. As it is it's rather boring, and even watching the film for the first time I never thought Bond was in danger).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 24 Posts: 3,154
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Bond in SF's PTS is actually still very much the agent he was in QOS.
    Oh, I dunno. I've always thought that the Bond that killed Slate would've slapped Patrice off the top of that train in a tenth of the time. Probably literally a tenth of the time, given QOS's editing. Oho, etc.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited June 24 Posts: 7,161
    At the risk of sounding like a melancholic (which I quite honestly am to be fair).

    I wish we could go to the sort of Bond film that I fell in love with when I was younger: a standalone mission with unforgettable characters, stunning locations, glamorous surroundings, (a little bit of) humour and some remarks about food / wine / brandy / ... .

    I loved CR - QOS, just like I loved OHMSS and LTK, but those atypical entries felt fresh because they didn't happen every single time. At this point the atypical Bond film has become the norm and I feel each time they want to surpass the previous one in that area (with the exception of SP perhaps). I feel it's been overdone and it would be refreshing to go back to a standalone mission without too many emotional bruises again.

    I must admit I sometimes think: "If this is the way they want to keep going, do I really want them to continue?"

    I'm not saying I want the Bond films to stop being made, though I am expressing a hearfelt concern here in the way things have been going lately.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,498
    007HallY wrote: »
    My issue with QOS is that Craig's Bond is a little bit too superhuman in a rather fake and outlandish way at times. It's actually not dissimilar to SP and NTTD in my opinion - for whatever reason we have a Bond who is almost indestructible and unflappable during action sequences.

    It's one of the major things that always disappointed me about QOS. I never felt Bond was genuinely in danger or could get hurt at any point, which is such a shame. In CR we saw Bond taking punches/tumbles, downing whiskey after a fight and taking time to look himself in the mirror. In SF, while very much a heightened reality type Bond film in the classic mould, we saw a Bond having to recover from his injuries and getting over quite deep psychological trauma.

    That’s an interesting point: I hadn’t really noticed that before.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 24 Posts: 2,121
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    At the risk of sounding like a melancholic (which I quite honestly am to be fair).

    I wish we could go to the sort of Bond film that I fell in love with when I was younger: a standalone mission with unforgettable characters, stunning locations, glamorous surroundings, (a little bit of) humour and some remarks about food / wine / brandy / ... .

    I loved CR - QOS, just like I loved OHMSS and LTK, but those atypical entries felt fresh because they didn't happen every single time. At this point the atypical Bond film has become the norm and I feel each time they want to surpass the previous one in that area (with the exception of SP perhaps). I feel it's been overdone and it would be refreshing to go back to a standalone mission without too many emotional bruises again.

    I must admit I sometimes think: "If this is the way they want to keep going, do I really want them to continue?"

    I'm not saying I want the Bond films to stop being made, though I am expressing a hearfelt concern here in the way things have been going lately.

    Yeah. @GoldenGun I feel you. Slight depth and slight lightness are needed in Bond films. That's why I feel the next director should look at The Living Daylights & GoldenEye for inspiration. I feel those Bond films got the balance really well....Casino Royale as well...that's why you love it too, I guess.
  • edited June 24 Posts: 4,226
    Venutius wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Bond in SF's PTS is actually still very much the agent he was in QOS.
    Oh, I dunno. I've always thought that the Bond that killed Slate would've slapped Patrice off the top of that train in a tenth of the time. Probably literally a tenth of the time, given QOS's editing. Oho, etc.

    I think Bond did pretty well considering he had a bullet in his shoulder at that point! But I guess the point of that PTS is that we see Bond taking those hits, and then ultimately ‘dying’. If he hadn’t been injured I think he could have beaten Patrice.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Yes, indeed - good points. Although the Bond of QOS was such a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine that his T-levels alone would've deflected Patrice's bullets. 😉
  • edited June 24 Posts: 4,226
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, indeed - good points. Although the Bond of QOS was such a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine that his T-levels alone would've deflected Patrice's bullets. 😉

    😂 And with super speed QOS editing/lack of insert shots? Patrice’s bullets never stood a chance
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 945
    That's one of my issues with QoS - the lift 'fight' is Bond easily slapping down three MI6 agents, which I felt was self-consciously Borne-like, only Bourne is supposed to be super-agent only other super-agents can handle, whilst Bond... yes, he's better than your standard agent, but MI6 should know his strengths and use appropriate personnel. The distance between them shouldn't be so great. As it is, it jars with the fight at the end where Bond then struggles with the rather pathetic Greene, who he should have been able to handle easily. They're two extremes and they don't sit well together for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,498
    I must admit I quite like how Craig's Bond is able to easily deal with lower level grunts: he is supposed to be the best of the best. Folks don't like the machine gun escape from the crater base in Spectre, but I tend to think that's just how he should deal with it- extremely professionally. He is going to be better at marksmanship than these guys.
  • Posts: 4,226
    At risk of sounding like a hypocrite/going back on what I said before I actually think Bond escaping the hotel is one of the coolest moments of the film! So I can’t hate that scene. Can understand the criticism though.

    I think what exemplifies it is when you compare the Madagascar chase in CR to the Siena one in QOS. In the former, Bond sometimes struggles to keep up, getting knocked about, pushing himself to keep going. He even resorts to rather brutish techniques to better his skilled parkour opponent. Sure, there’s an element of heightened reality but it feels like this guy could escape from Bond. In QOS Bond falls from inexplicably great heights and doesn’t even seem to pause. Like I said, it never feels like Bond is actually in danger of getting killed, and there’s this weird disconnect from the film trying to feel/look ‘realistic’ while having those implausibilities.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,223
    That's one of my issues with QoS - the lift 'fight' is Bond easily slapping down three MI6 agents, which I felt was self-consciously Borne-like, only Bourne is supposed to be super-agent only other super-agents can handle, whilst Bond... yes, he's better than your standard agent, but MI6 should know his strengths and use appropriate personnel. The distance between them shouldn't be so great. As it is, it jars with the fight at the end where Bond then struggles with the rather pathetic Greene, who he should have been able to handle easily. They're two extremes and they don't sit well together for me.

    I don't know if they're really that extreme - Greene was like a rabid dog swinging an axe for the majority of that final fight.
Sign In or Register to comment.