Bourne's Dan Bradley tapped to aid Bond stunts

Red Indian

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i61cdc71247ef46a7ec4bddbba9463397

I think this is good news. Bond's fighting skills could always use a little extra punch!

00-Agent

I don't know. Does this mean we are going to have the "shaky camera" style during the action sequences? I found this to be distracting and hard to follow during some of the action scenes in the Bourne films. It seems to be a difficult technique to pull off well. With the Bourne films sometimes I didn't even notice it and at other times I found it very annoying. Maybe that is the editor's fault.

i expect u2 die

00-Agent wrote:

I don't know. Does this mean we are going to have the "shaky camera" style during the action sequences? I found this to be distracting and hard to follow during some of the action scenes in the Bourne films. It seems to be a difficult technique to pull off well. With the Bourne films sometimes I didn't even notice it and at other times I found it very annoying. Maybe that is the editor's fault.

That's the director's fault. I'm sure Forster will shield us from that kind of drug-trip

emtiem

00-Agent wrote:

I don't know. Does this mean we are going to have the "shaky camera" style during the action sequences? I found this to be distracting and hard to follow during some of the action scenes in the Bourne films. It seems to be a difficult technique to pull off well. With the Bourne films sometimes I didn't even notice it and at other times I found it very annoying. Maybe that is the editor's fault.

I never found it distracting and found it added to the tension quite a lot, but one thing that is very interesting is how economic it is; you see everything you need to see and usually for no longer than you need. That's the mark of someone very accomplished behind the camera, and although I'm sure the style will not stay in the Greengrass mould, you can bet it'll be very, very good. Better than Vic Armstrong shooting everything from half a mile away, anyway!

The guy who had his role for CR and which Bradley is replacing was of course the same fella who did the action for The Bourne Identity, so at least it's all consistent!

spectre7

Yes you can blame Greengrass for those problems, Bradley would have had to shoot footage that matched the main unit.

If the report is accurate, then Bradley has just finished work on Indiana Jones IV and there's no way Spielberg would allow shakeycam junk . . . hopefully Forster isn't thinking about shakeycam, and if he is then Mickey & Babs better set him straight.

Loeffelholz

I actually don't mind the long lens being used for action sequences; IMO it's more cinematic than an excess of tight-on shots, which can be claustrophobic, overly stylized and sometimes difficult to contextualize for the viewer.

A balance between the two is more ideal, for my own personal taste---which is what I thought they did well in CR: the panoramic aerial view of Bond and Mollaka, high up on the crane, versus the confined peril of the stairwell fight later on.

A bit of close-in handheld, at the right moments, can enhance the action. But I prefer it to be the exception rather than the rule.

highhopes

I posted this in another thread, but I'm moving it here:

I can't say I'm thrilled by this Bradley news. I was thinking with Forster's track record, the characterization that was so promising in CR would flourish in Bond 22.
But this item falls right into the hands of guys like the one who created this thread( I'm talking about the BOURNE WILL BEAT BOND'S ASS guy, where this first appeared): immature, silly people who think the measure of a good film -- even an "action film" -- is how much running, jumping and punching it contains.

I have nothing against action, and I expect a certain amount of it in a Bond film and would be disappointed if it wasn't there. But just as I thought the first Bourne film was the best because it presented a character along with the running, jumping, etc ..., I think CR's real strength was in presenting Bond as a human being, not just an action hero. The above news smacks of insecurity on the part of the filmmakers, if you ask me. It sounds like back-sliding.

I don't want Bond to "beat Bourne's ass." I want a good movie, and if that means not so much running, jumping, etc ... I'm fine with it.

emtiem wrote:

The guy who had his role for CR and which Bradley is replacing was of course the same fella who did the action for The Bourne Identity, so at least it's all consistent!

That's interesting; maybe that's why I liked BI better than BU.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

I actually don't mind the long lens being used for action sequences, IMO it's much more cinematic than an excess of tight-on shots, which can be claustrophobic, overly stylized and sometimes difficult to contextualize for the viewer.

I'd say it was the difference between being in the action and just watching it from a distance.

Loeffelholz wrote:

A balance between the two is more ideal, for my own personal taste---which is what I thought they did well in CR: the panoramic aerial view of Bond and Mollaka, high up on the crane, versus the confined peril of the stairwell fight later on.

A bit of close-in handheld, at the right moments, can enhance the action. But I prefer it to be the exception rather than the rule.

Fair points, and there's nothing cooler than the long shot on top of the building at the docks in YOLT

emtiem

highhopes wrote:

I have nothing against action, and I expect a certain amount of it in a Bond film and would be disappointed if it wasn't there. But just as I thought the first Bourne film was the best because it presented a character along with the running, jumping, etc ..., I think CR's real strength was in presenting Bond as a human being, not just an action hero. The above news smacks of insecurity on the part of the filmmakers, if you ask me. It sounds like back-sliding.

I don't follow you; just because a filmmaker hires a costume designer it doesn't mean the film will be exclusively about dresses.
Bond films have action, they may as well have the best action, no? Just because they have a certain amount of good action, it doesn't automatically follow that there wil be nothing else.

Loeffelholz

emtiem wrote:

Fair points, and there's nothing cooler than the long shot on top of the building at the docks in YOLT

I really enjoyed that, actually; I'm reminded of a prolonged high-crane shot of about three hundred extras fighting and moving through a town in "The Longest Day," or the Bedouin raiders sweeping into Aqqaba (sic?) in "Lawrence of Arabia." There is a place for that kind of thing, even today---or maybe especially today, in the era of green screens and digital character multiplication.

Loeffelholz

emtiem wrote:

I'd say it was the difference between being in the action and just watching it from a distance.

Being in the action is great, but...just as actually being in a fight isn't necessarily cinematic, too much of it on the screen can be problematic, which is why I like to see longer 'master shots' to counterbalance the close-in (even hand-held!) stuff.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

just as actually being in a fight isn't necessarily cinematic

Oh I'd say that it is. If the character you're identifying with is in the fight, then the audience should feel as if they're in there too; that's cinema. Of course there's many exceptions: the Ipcress File fight which has the audience as a spy themselves; watching from a phone box some yards away. Not too keen on that myself, but I can see how it works.
I can see where you're coming from, establishing shots are needed, but in the case of Ultimatum there are as many as you need- I remember there being longer shots to show us when the fight was moving to the bathroom, for example.

Loeffelholz

Well...we're going to have to disagree there. Cinema is fun for me, and being in a fight is't. As I said, being in the fight is fine, but IMO once subjective context has been exploited and then run its course, it's time to show the viewer something else. How long one sticks with such a thing is a directorial 'style' issue---and/or a moviegoer's taste issue, and no two are alike.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

just as actually being in a fight isn't necessarily cinematic

Oh I'd say that it is.

Well...we're going to have to disagree there. Cinema is fun for me...and fighting isn't.

I think we're talking about two things here; fighting is never supposed to be fun, and dramatic cinema is about challenging the viewer through their attachment to the characters created. Thus if the hero through whose eyes you're following the film is in any dramatic situation then the viewer should understand what his or her experience is in that situation, usually through being shown how it feels to be there. Watching a one-to-one fight or argument involving your point of reference character from half a mile for any other reason than stylistic doesn't really make sense. There's always going to be exceptions to the rule in art, but as a rule, if you want a reaction formed from the hero's experience, then you've got to be in there with him.

Loeffelholz

We're pretty much always talking about two different things... {[]

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

We're pretty much always talking about two different things... {[]

Okay; forget it.

Loeffelholz

Loeffelholz wrote:

As I said, being in the fight is fine, but IMO once subjective context has been exploited and then run its course, it's time to show the viewer something else. How long one sticks with such a thing is a directorial 'style' issue---and/or a moviegoer's taste issue, and no two are alike.

Sorry, but I don't think I can explain myself any better than this. I guess words fail me

7289

I will weigh in against the shakey hand held camera. It is a technique that has been worn to death in movies and television.

I suspect hiring this Bradley fellow off the Bourne movies is an attempt to balance the action with the charecter driven style of Forster.

All I know is that I will be comparing Bond 22 with CR'06, in my view the best Bond film since FRWL.

highhopes

emtiem wrote:

highhopes wrote:

I have nothing against action, and I expect a certain amount of it in a Bond film and would be disappointed if it wasn't there. But just as I thought the first Bourne film was the best because it presented a character along with the running, jumping, etc ..., I think CR's real strength was in presenting Bond as a human being, not just an action hero. The above news smacks of insecurity on the part of the filmmakers, if you ask me. It sounds like back-sliding.

I don't follow you; just because a filmmaker hires a costume designer it doesn't mean the film will be exclusively about dresses.
Bond films have action, they may as well have the best action, no? Just because they have a certain amount of good action, it doesn't automatically follow that there wil be nothing else.

True. But we do need something to argue about the next 14 months, don't we? And if extrapolating from meager scraps of information is what I need to do to make that happen, then by god, let the hand-wringing begin. Think of it as my own personal "blond Bond" beef.

I dunno -- I guess the suggestion of the story is that Eon feels compelled to crank up the action after BU (which, again, I found far weaker than BI, but I have a lower threshold for running and jumping than many people), and I just don't think it's necessary, at least just for its own sake. Eon needs to go its own way. There was no "action deficiency" that needs to be redressed, as far as I'm concerned, in CR or any of the other films in the series. There has often been a "story and characterization deficiency" in the Bond films, which CR went a long way toward fixing with CR, and I don't want Eon to take its eye off the ball. Give us more of the new Bond, not a Bourne retread.

frostbitten

I think the amount and quality of the action in CR are just fine. The fight on the stairs, for example, is flashy enough for me (the Bourne fights are better choreographed, although I would also argue that the audience's appreciation for the choreography and the skills of the combatants is somewhat diminished by the way the fights were shot, with a lot of extreme close-ups and quick cuts). However, Bond the character and Bond the movie are about so much more than fighting. Strong storylines ( I found the Bourne storyline to be a relatively simple one that was stretched too thin to cover a trilogy), and deep character developments are more important to Bond 22's success than having state-of-the-art fight scenes or car chases. In other words, the most exciting thing about Bond22, to me at least, is the on-going participation of Paul Haggis rather than Dan Bradley coming on board.