Marc Forster still defending his work on 'Quantum of Solace'

135678

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,446
    JBFan626 wrote:
    <blockquote rel="Samuel001">Another problem seemed to be <i>Quantum Of Solace</i> focused more on how Bond was feeling and coping with Vesper as the main plot (which was done well in my opinion) with Greene and co. as superfluous stuff on the side that was there just because it's expected in a Bond film which actually ended up as being very weak.</blockquote>

    I had a different reaction. I felt the movie didn't focus <i>enough</i> on the Bond coping with Vesper angle since this is how it was set up to be at the end of CR. The film halfheartedly wanted us to believe at times that it was, which is evident in badgering lines M gives Bond throughout about killing everyone--contrived, contrived, contrived.... The real heart of the story was surrounded around Camille's tragedy and her dealing with revenge. I never really got the sense from Bond that he was on a revenge mission, but rather just <i>another</i> standard Bond mission. The Greene and co. plotline, to me was the central plotline with Camille story adding some depth. But what Foster is saying here, and what I agree with, about the the third act not being fully developed, is really about getting deeper at the core of BOTH Camille and Bond's pain. I know Bond fans say they are sick of Bond "dealing with his feelings" and want Bond23 to be more traditional faire. The issue is though, that QOS handled this subject poorly, for what CR set-up. Had it been delivered better, like say the way it is in OHMSS, we would have had a much better, original Bond picture in QOS. And dare I say, would leave a lot of us wanting more of this kind of a Bond film.

    This is an old post that I must have missed but I wholeheartedly agree. They decided on making QoS a sequel and then didn't have the balls to follow through. I don't have much else to say as you've summed up my POV exactly.
  • Posts: 533

    Another problem seemed to be Quantum Of Solace focused more on how Bond was feeling and coping with Vesper as the main plot (which was done well in my opinion) with Greene and co. as superfluous stuff on the side that was there just because it's expected in a Bond film which actually ended up as being very weak. It's characters suffered because of the film's main idea.


    Heartily DISAGREE with you, but we all are entitled to our opinions.
  • Posts: 1,146
    I'd still rather watch this than Pierce parasailing a tsunami
  • I'm suprised QOShyt did'nt kill the franchise.
  • Posts: 5,745
    samshwey wrote:
    I'm suprised QOShyt did'nt kill the franchise.

    How? When it made half a Billion at the box office? Or had an average rating of 7/10?
  • Posts: 51
    Just goes to show that shoehorning a "revenge" plot into a film doesn't automatically make it good. QOS is easily the second-weakest of the "modern-day" (post-Dalton) films. The only reason DAD is worse is because of the CGI and Halle Berry.
  • It's always strange for me to see people rating QoS so close to DAD. Even with all it's flaws (and I for my part really enjoy QoS), it's not near the parody of Bond that was DAD!
    Pierce surfing on the CGI tsunami, Jinx and Sith Lord Graves weren't that much worse than too fast editing and too much action? Really?
  • Posts: 1,492
    Forster made an uneven film in story but solid in tone. All he needs to do is put his film next to the last three Brosnan films to feel better about himself.

    =)) =))

    So true.

    The tosca scene alone is better then most Brosnans.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,447
    Personal taste eh? Where would we be without it.

    I've read that QOS is a great Bond film
    QOS is the worst Bond film
    QOS is 'easilly' the second worst Bond film since Dalton.

    And every one written as if it's the generally accepted opinion. :-O
  • QOS is actually a pretty good movie had it come out after DAD I think it would have been more welcomed, but it didn't it had to follow CR hence the obvious backlash. The truth is Bond movies aren't easy to make, if directors veer to far on the side of comedy they end up essentially making a parody and if it goes too dark you end up loosing all the ingredigents of why the films work so well in the first place.
    Qos was dark, but I like the dark gritty Bond's a lot. The biggest problem I have with the movie is that while it was sold as a sequelt o CR I don't think it properly dealt with the issues left by the film regarding Bond's mental state. But in the details i think its a good film.
  • I too like the darker harder Bond QoS was just not a very good movie. It was still better than making Bond a laughing stock and a wimp.
  • lewisblake wrote:
    With QOS it's very frustrating because you can tell there are all the elements there to make a great film - it's just that some elements of the script and basic screenplay are a mess, thus infecting the rest of the film and tainting elements of the film which were on par with CR. Of course, if we use logic or ockhams razor it's obvious to see that the writer's strike thingy had a major impact on QOS.

    After watching QOS I was hoping they'd release a directors-cut or something that radically added clarity to the mess of the screenplay or switched pieces of the jigsaw around so they'd fit to make the great film QOS could have been.
    But again the director isn't to blame.....maybe he could have delayed the filming so we would have resulted in a better written film but that's all he could have done. Director's don't write scripts and screenplays unless they are auteurs.

    I understand the basic premise of your post but I would disagree with the idea that the director is not to blame.

    Forster is on record as having jettisoned the original script as it wasn't the story that he "wanted to tell". He was the one who wanted the smaller scale, corporations-are-the-enemy-and governments-let-them-get-away-with-it story. So for those who think the villain's scheme is too small or who think that QoS isn't enough of a direct continuation of CR...well, that is indeed Forster.

    The other thing that a lot of people don't like is the confusing way in which scenes are edited. Sometimes it's beautiful and stylish, at other times it's just confusing. Again, this comes down to Forster. The director has the grand vision and it's he who tells the editor the way that he wants the film to look.

    I've mentioned, perhaps up-thread, that I'd love to see a "non-director's cut" of QoS. Had Forster been a little more...restrained I think that a lot of people would like QoS more. Don't get me wrong, I like it and think that Forster did a lot of good things with it. I just think that he went too far with some things and would have benefited from the producers saving him (and the audience) from his excesses.

  • I like Quantum of Solace quite a bit. It’s certainly no Top 5 Bond film or even Top 10, but it’s a solid entry and it serves a very specific purpose – to be the third act of the Bond/Vesper story, of which CR was the first two acts.

    I realize many people hate it, and that’s fine – it’s all opinion. And heck, if we couldn’t argue about Bond movies, the world would be a little less fun!

    Oh, and Forster has every right to defend his work, just as much as others have every right to criticize it.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I agree with all those offering a defence of QoS on here.

    I enjoyed it in the cinema. More so than CR actually.

    It's a fast-paced and no-frills movie, more in the tradition of the earlier films than the bloated behemoths of the Brosnan era (or, frankly, CR).

    The story is indeed weak and QoS is far from being a classic. But it's not the disaster some make it out to be.

    As many have pointed out before, the Tosca scene is amongst the best, truly Bondian sequences for a VERY long time.

    The editing is indeed often confusing and perhaps Greene could have benefited from ramping up the camp a little bit, but basically I think Forster did a decent job in difficult circumstances.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,372
    Getafix wrote:
    I agree with all those offering a defence of QoS on here.

    I enjoyed it in the cinema. More so than CR actually.

    It's a fast-paced and no-frills movie, more in the tradition of the earlier films than the bloated behemoths of the Brosnan era (or, frankly, CR).

    The story is indeed weak and QoS is far from being a classic. But it's not the disaster some make it out to be.

    As many have pointed out before, the Tosca scene is amongst the best, truly Bondian sequences for a VERY long time.

    The editing is indeed often confusing and perhaps Greene could have benefited from ramping up the camp a little bit, but basically I think Forster did a decent job in difficult circumstances.

    Indeed. Although I enjoyed Casino Royale's epic-ness. I was not bored, or felt CR had a set piece too far.

    On the first time I saw QoS, I left the cinema, thinking; "that was it?". But on the second time, and on DVD later, I got accustomed to it. Strangely, QoS was the only film that I wanted to see again at the cinema; I had a feeling there was a hidden gem, inside of the editing.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,305
    I agree for the first time in a while, I too wanted to watch Quantum Of Solace again, as soon as I came out of the cinema and felt I couldn't properly judge it until I'd done so. I do feel too many jumped to a quick conclusion on first viewing.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 12,382
    I thought I'd judged it too soon, so I did rewatch it.

    I watched for the first time at the cinema (which was lucky, since I almost missed it), I didn't like it. I watched it on DVD, I didn't like it. I watched it on DVD again (although to be fair I was a bit drunk this time), and I didn't like it.

    I saw it on TV this year, I didn't like it, and lastly just about a month ago I saw it as pat of my Bondathon and I didn't like it.

    I think I've given it enough chances to be honest, I can see why some people like it and it has some great moments, but I don't think me and QOS will ever get along.
  • I can't help but feel that a lot of people on this thread are doing whatever possible to try to like this film, because deep down they really want to. And I only say that because I too have been in that exact same position. I wanted to see it in the cinema again, I wanted to uncover the gem that I thought was in there somewhere.

    However, a few years removed now, I strongly believe that the film is a let down, a complete missed opportunity. I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I like QoS. In fact I would go as far as saying there are less things I dislike about QoS than CR (perhaps because it's shorter). I don't like the fact that it's so short, I hate they killed Mathis (I love Mathis), I don't like the editing of some scenes (which leads me back to the first point). The visuals are stunning, as well as the pallette of colours, I actually like the title sequence, the story was different but interesting. The Tosca scene is one of my favourites from the whole franchise. I think if things had happened differently, no writters strike, different editing, if Forster had calmed down for a moment while deciding what's in and what's out of the final cut (so many things were out it hurts to think about it) it would be much more loved than it is. Still, I like it a lot and I like it more every time I watch it, something I can't say about several other Bond films.
  • Posts: 1,492
    I I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.

    /And what if people get that "feeling of satisfaction" without having to want to like it? What if they make up their own mind about the film? Your projecting - you are deciding for yourself and them WHY they like it and are so off the mark it is unbelievable.

    Just because you don't like it you don't seem to accept why people do.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    You know what, QoS is what it is and thankfully, SF, a supposedly infinitely superior film is here in a few days.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2012 Posts: 10,446
    However, a few years removed now, I strongly believe that the film is a let down, a complete missed opportunity. I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.

    Good post. A lot of posts about QoS are about how 'if this had happened' or 'if that had happened' (even Sandy's below does this) - fact is, they didn't! I feel pretty similar to you @wildjiveboon. I think it's flaws are accepted more readily on this forum than the flaws of any other Bond picture.

    I, like you, want to love this film but it does disappoint. I stuck it on again last week and I really enjoy the first 20 minutes or so until we arrive in Haiti. After that it rattles along at such a pace that it's borderline incoherent, and even more so the story just seems to be, quite frankly, a bit boring. This film could have been outstanding had it been a 90min revenge film that centred solely on Bond's search for truth and justice at all costs.

    They set it up as a direct sequel, which was a bold and clever move IMO, then totally dropped the ball. Quantum's plan was bollocks - rather than having one overarching narrative about eco-terrorism they should have exposed Quantum for what they are - a silent organisation who somehow have 'people everywhere'. There should have been a whole series of incidents kicking off around the world that MI6 were too late to stop. Not huge international incidents, smaller incidents with far reaching consequences involving commerce, banking etc. Bond should have been like a bullet smashing his way to the top of the organisation without a moment's thought for duty, just an unstoppable urge to avenge Vesper.

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 299
    actonsteve wrote:
    I I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.

    /And what if people get that "feeling of satisfaction" without having to want to like it? What if they make up their own mind about the film? Your projecting - you are deciding for yourself and them WHY they like it and are so off the mark it is unbelievable.

    Just because you don't like it you don't seem to accept why people do.

    The only reason I have stated this is because, when reading threads about the appreciation of other films, I feel that what has been written has come across in a more simple, straight-forward manner. The sense of passion and support has been much more apparent and steamlined in the way it's been conveyed. That's just how it reads me.

    Obviously some people like QOS, and they are certainly entitled to do so. My observation only stems from the fact that I've noticed that a lot of its supporters tend to point out all of its strong points while inevitably signaling its weaknesses. That doesn't seem to happen a lot with other films that are more universally loved. And that leads me to believe that it has something to do with people truly wanting to like it, convincing themselves of such. Like I mentioned in my post, this only resonates with me because I too initially was one of those people.
  • Posts: 7,642
    QUANTUM OF BOURNE is a pretentious and pathetic mess that could have been avoided with a better director, no Bourne editor and action director, and a script.

    The Tosca scene was pretty good but it does not safe the movie.

    The throwing of Mathis body in the bin is so UNBond that it hurts the movie in a bad way.

    And for the actionscenes I can only say LALD did it better as did MR (and no CGI in MR for the jump out of the plane). Sienna = the Bourne Supremecy borrowed, the carchase was edited to dead, too bad that it suffered from cutting 3 Alfa's to two Alfa's.

    Overall I can safely say that Bond23 did not have any standard to live up to.
  • RC7 wrote:
    However, a few years removed now, I strongly believe that the film is a let down, a complete missed opportunity. I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.

    I think it's flaws are accepted more readily on this forum than the flaws of any other Bond picture.

    I think that statement you just wrote @RC7 is quite accurate on your part. I think you do get where I'm coming from with this.
  • Posts: 1,492
    [ And that leads me to believe that it has something to do with people truly wanting to like it, convincing themselves of such.

    Or they could genuinely like it? Considered that?

  • actonsteve wrote:
    [ And that leads me to believe that it has something to do with people truly wanting to like it, convincing themselves of such.

    Or they could genuinely like it? Considered that?

    Of course, absolutely. Like I mentioned earlier, I regonize some folks like it for what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. I am only observing that a large number of people who support it still inevitably point out its flaws, which makes me question just how genuinely they may like it in comparrison to some of the other films. Like @RC7 pointed out, the flaws of this film are more readily accepted than all the others. And to me at least, that just begs a question.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    actonsteve wrote:
    [ And that leads me to believe that it has something to do with people truly wanting to like it, convincing themselves of such.

    Or they could genuinely like it? Considered that?

    Of course, absolutely. Like I mentioned earlier, I regonize some folks like it for what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. I am only observing that a large number of people who support it still inevitably point out its flaws, which makes me question just how genuinely they may like it in comparrison to some of the other films. Like @RC7 pointed out, the flaws of this film are more readily accepted than all the others. And to me at least, that just begs a question.

    I point out its flaws but I can point flaws in every single film! I genuinely like it, otherwise I wouldn't even bother posting anything in here.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 73
    I love QoS, I honestly think the Craig era is in many ways the true successor to the classic era, Dr No-OHMSS.*

    *Not that I don't love the films inbetween.**


    **Most of them.
  • I love QoS, I honestly think the Craig era is in many ways the true successor to the classic era, Dr No-OHMSS.

    See, I really don't see it. I always hear people talking about how Craig is similar to Connery, etc, but I really don't see it.

    SF might make me think differently, since they said they are trying to make a film with a 60s feeling.
Sign In or Register to comment.