Just a thought - but would one of the editing contributors in this string comment please. The teaser (car chase) and opening action scene (rooftop chase) appear to be an ideal 'long' teaser (ie, the credits would appear after Bond shoots his gun at Mitchell - similar to the CR teaser). Maybe Foster originally planned this, but then deemed it too long based on the films running time? Also, I think the sound quality was poor.I
It isn't exactly like the Bourne editing. No where near as well executed.
I don't like the Bourne style of editing at all. That said, this was not done as well as that. I hope Forster is not asked back, and I hope next time a fully developed script is used. This is utterly forgettable.
It's Foster not Forster and while the storyline is much sleeker than many bloated sagas that are all the rage (like the PotC movies for example) it is bulls**t that the script is undeveloped at all, when it is full of subtleties that are not spoonfed to the audience, and hasn't got any genuine plotholes if you break down systematically (unlike the obstensively more funner but very leaky GoldenEye script).
And the action scenes were directed by a Bourne director, Dan Bradley, so don't make out the production crew didn't know what they were doing.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
......it is bulls**t that the script is undeveloped at all, when it is full of subtleties that are not spoonfed to the audience....
I dont need spoonfeeding but I found the plot pretty boring and would have been totally incomprehensible if you had not seen CR. It is undeveloped IMO and the relationships are extremely weak. As a stand alone film it would make no sense.
My problem with the editing is that it was pretentious. I had no trouble following what was going on. I just thought it was unoriginal and way too in love with itself. This includes the tight close-ups and frantic cuts but also the Coppola-inspired parallel montage.
The desert scenes, on the other, were handled quite well, with some real drama provided by the contrast of close-up and open space.
Agreed 100%. This is exactly how I feel.I thought the editing was awful. Made me feel nauseous.
I dont need spoonfeeding but I found the plot pretty boring and would have been totally incomprehensible if you had not seen CR. It is undeveloped IMO and the relationships are extremely weak. As a stand alone film it would make no sense.
I thought it was pretty obvious in the build up of this film that it was a Sequel and generally you have to see the first installment to fully understand the following sequel. Just my opinion
Yes, Once agan what could have been a great film is spoiled by jerky cameras and harsh editing. It annoyed me in the Bourne films and it annoys here. You can't work out what is ging on. How many Alfa Romeos were chasing Bond in his Aston?
I kept wanting to pause and rewind. This is meant to be a Bond film not a pop video. I can only assume they do this to 'cheat' viewers so they can't spot any continuity issues if they edit fast on a shaky camera. Why bother using great looking cars if you can't see them.
It isn't exactly like the Bourne editing. No where near as well executed.
I don't like the Bourne style of editing at all. That said, this was not done as well as that. I hope Forster is not asked back, and I hope next time a fully developed script is used. This is utterly forgettable.
It's Foster not Forster and while the storyline is much sleeker than many bloated sagas that are all the rage (like the PotC movies for example) it is bulls**t that the script is undeveloped at all, when it is full of subtleties that are not spoonfed to the audience, and hasn't got any genuine plotholes if you break down systematically (unlike the obstensively more funner but very leaky GoldenEye script).
And the action scenes were directed by a Bourne director, Dan Bradley, so don't make out the production crew didn't know what they were doing.
Are you done ranting like a 12 year old now or are you going to don your Bond sunglasses and labeled watch and hunt me down because I thought the movie was crap? Perhaps not putting so much of your self-esteem into a movie would be a good thing from here on out, Ace.
Two different surnames spelled very slightly differently should die a quick death (like Thorn and Thorne). X-(
I dont need spoonfeeding but I found the plot pretty boring and would have been totally incomprehensible if you had not seen CR. It is undeveloped IMO and the relationships are extremely weak. As a stand alone film it would make no sense
I knew Casino Royale back to front, so not taking QoS as a stand alone from my perspective seems lost to me. I agree the next movie should work more as a stand alone as not to alienate newcomers, but could reward people who seen CR and QoS.
I thought Bond had a convincing relationship with M and Mathis, while Camille was streets ahead of the likes of Christmas Jones.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
... while Camille was streets ahead of the likes of Christmas Jones.
I really liked Camille. I would like her to return at some stage and to see her and Bonds relationship develope.It seemed more natural and convincing than Bond and Vespers ever did. What I like about Camille was that for once, she did seem like 'Bonds equal' but without having to give all the attitude and hoopla to prove it.
My problems were with Mathis, they may have a relationship from CR but there really wasn't any point in bringing him back and with Fields who was quite unecessary to the whole proceedings.
I could go on but we're digressing from editing somewhat. )
I can only assume they do this to 'cheat' viewers so they can't spot any continuity issues if they edit fast on a shaky camera.
The close ups are used to involve the audience. They show the emotions of the characters and show what's happening in more detail.
The fast cuts build pace. You might not fully understand each individual shot, but just from watching it you get a sense that all of it is happening very, very fast.
As for the cameras, they're not jerky, it's just the pace of the cuts.
Wow, there's a lot of high powered posts coming here! However, for my penny's worth....
I'm not an editor, but having watched 1000s of films over my years, I have always considered the editors role to be important as he/she will be able to:
1. control the pace of a film
2. improve the audiences understanding
3. make it look/sound better
The problem with QOS is that the editing doesn't fulfil any of these functions, it's a purely technical exercise, as if the film makers are showing off.
Most of the previous comments have focussed on the action scenes, and I agree they are poorly handled. The first three chase scenes are all so rapidly cut I had a difficult time estabishing who was doing what and to whom. I didn't even realise it was 007 driving the car at first because the Aston Martin was shown so fleetingly and not in a long shot. In Siena, I had no idea who was winning the climatic fight. And the speedboats just foxed me from start to finish. Eventually I just gave up trying.
An even bigger offence however has been the lack of intelligence shown over the story, with several occurances being taken at face value. So for instance, Bond doesn't even seduce Agent Fields, they just end up in bed, why? When Bond talks to Mathis on the plane, I didn't even realise they were on a plane. Bond's escape from Leither in the bar is so quick, I had to blink twice - was Bond really just hiding upstairs? I'm still not sure. We dont witness the denoument between Bond and Greene. During the opera sequence I couldn't work out where Bond was going, and couldn't hear what the Quantum agents were saying because the music was too loud. These are a few examples.
I have a sneaking suspicion there were time constraints put on the director & editor (i.e. keep it short!) and they have removed scenes that slowed the movie down. However, given everything else happens at breakneck pace, a little breather here and there may have been useful.
I am not an expert as I said, but it looks an extremely shoddy job to me.
I love the quick pace direction & editing ala Bourne but believe you me I've seen the Bourne trilogy countless times and QOS is no Bourne movie, but it wishes it was and there lies the rub. QOS shakes, crashes, causes nausea like a Bourne, it boasts Bourne alumni as editor, second-unit director and stunt coordinator but this is no Bourne Supremacy [More like Bourne Simulation or Bond Inferiority].
Since the editor, second-unit director and stunt coorinator are all graduates of the Bourne trilogy [Where they did an exemplary job] then the fault must lie on Marc Forster's shoulders. In QOS he tries to emulate Paul Greengrass director of 'Supremacy' & 'Ultimatum' and fails. As bumpy a ride that the Greengrass action scenes are you never get lost as to who's who and what's what, with Forster you do. You're left sometimes wondering which guy is Bond and which is the bad guy. At the end of the boat chase Bond suddenly uses an anchor and it happens so fast that you don't see clearly where it came from. I'm all for adopting a reality-like break neck speed but this is still a movie and editing/direction should show us cause and effect not effect...cut to effect...cut to effect...slowwww down.
Our eyes can take in a lot of info [movies are 24 frames per second] but it seems to me that within' the actual action scenes there are seconds missing which makes you feel somewhat lost. If you took any action scene from the Bourne trilogy, Live Free Die Harder or whatever and re-edited them just taking out 10 frames here, 20 frames there and you compared them them to the origonal you would notice clearly something is missing. Those misplaced seconds/milliseconds made up of film stock frames means that a clear coherent flow of action is nowhere to be found. To use once again the boat scene in QOS as an example - Bond see's anchor (Cause) then uses anchor (effect) not Bond grabs anchor and uses it. Somewhere along the line Forster lost the narritive flow of the entire movie. Bond is in hotel intercepts a brief case and out of nowhere Camille appears - way too abrupt [There is no flow , Camille is the second main character behind Bond and her appearance is treated way too brusque].
Then there's the sound editing, the opera singer is too loud, we can't here Bond, Mr.White and the other members of Quantum. The singer is secondary so should be lower than the dialogue which is primary to the story flow. You don't want movie goers asking one another in the theatre 'what did he or she say' and the film is moved onto the next scene. I think Marc Forster was in over his head and if you watch the video blogs and interviews of him you get a sense of this. Which is probably why he has refused Bab's & Micky G's offer to return[Thank G*D] and will return to a more comfortable arty fare terrain of Stranger Than Fiction [Which he excels at].
I love Bond [Both books and movies] but as CR and Craig have proven it can be brilliant, not the hit and miss derivative affair that is QOS. They should have taken more of an example from Fleming's short which is brilliantly subtle. Cubby Broccoli always said[About making Bond films] whenever you get lost always go back to Fleming. Ol' Cubby was prophetic, for a dash of Fleming self-restrained would have done this movie nicely.
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. My methods may seem uncivilized, but I know my responsibilities are to Queen and country...not personal gain."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Wow, there's a lot of high powered posts coming here! However, for my penny's worth....
I'm not an editor, but having watched 1000s of films over my years, I have always considered the editors role to be important as he/she will be able to:
1. control the pace of a film
2. improve the audiences understanding
3. make it look/sound better
The problem with QOS is that the editing doesn't fulfil any of these functions, it's a purely technical exercise, as if the film makers are showing off.
Most of the previous comments have focussed on the action scenes, and I agree they are poorly handled. The first three chase scenes are all so rapidly cut I had a difficult time estabishing who was doing what and to whom. I didn't even realise it was 007 driving the car at first because the Aston Martin was shown so fleetingly and not in a long shot. In Siena, I had no idea who was winning the climatic fight. And the speedboats just foxed me from start to finish. Eventually I just gave up trying.
An even bigger offence however has been the lack of intelligence shown over the story, with several occurances being taken at face value. So for instance, Bond doesn't even seduce Agent Fields, they just end up in bed, why? When Bond talks to Mathis on the plane, I didn't even realise they were on a plane. Bond's escape from Leither in the bar is so quick, I had to blink twice - was Bond really just hiding upstairs? I'm still not sure. We dont witness the denoument between Bond and Greene. During the opera sequence I couldn't work out where Bond was going, and couldn't hear what the Quantum agents were saying because the music was too loud. These are a few examples.
I have a sneaking suspicion there were time constraints put on the director & editor (i.e. keep it short!) and they have removed scenes that slowed the movie down. However, given everything else happens at breakneck pace, a little breather here and there may have been useful.
I am not an expert as I said, but it looks an extremely shoddy job to me.
This would have got top marks form any of my lecturers in college. - Clear, precise analysis of the narrative. Well done!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I didn't have any problems following any of the scenes you mention, chris. ?:)
One of my mates said the same thing! Maybe I'm getting long in the tooth. Interestingly though, Blueman, I see Scottbuster2000 has posted similar feelings to mine, and I don't believe the two of us are alone. I still struggled on second viewing! I'd be really interested to know what the test screening comments were like as I can't imagine this problem was unknown to the production team.
The ADHD editing was the weakest element of the film . . . and I suspect will be viewed disdainfully in the future the same way the dreaded 70s-style zoom was when I was a teen in the 80s.
I'm not a fan of the shaky-cam and quick cuts. The action scenes seemed like a little more than a slideshow with sound effects and music. The climax of the chase down in Italy left me wanting to understand which guy in the suit was Bond, the one in the scaffolding or the one hanging by his ankle. It wasn't really until I kind of guessed that it was Bond hanging and then found my guess was correct when he fired.
But after viewing it and comparing to another form of editing, I do have to admit I still like it better than the speed ramping that was used in Die Another Day.
Comments
It's Foster not Forster and while the storyline is much sleeker than many bloated sagas that are all the rage (like the PotC movies for example) it is bulls**t that the script is undeveloped at all, when it is full of subtleties that are not spoonfed to the audience, and hasn't got any genuine plotholes if you break down systematically (unlike the obstensively more funner but very leaky GoldenEye script).
And the action scenes were directed by a Bourne director, Dan Bradley, so don't make out the production crew didn't know what they were doing.
Actually, its Forster not Foster ...
I dont need spoonfeeding but I found the plot pretty boring and would have been totally incomprehensible if you had not seen CR. It is undeveloped IMO and the relationships are extremely weak. As a stand alone film it would make no sense.
Agreed 100%. This is exactly how I feel.I thought the editing was awful. Made me feel nauseous.
I thought it was pretty obvious in the build up of this film that it was a Sequel and generally you have to see the first installment to fully understand the following sequel. Just my opinion
I kept wanting to pause and rewind. This is meant to be a Bond film not a pop video. I can only assume they do this to 'cheat' viewers so they can't spot any continuity issues if they edit fast on a shaky camera. Why bother using great looking cars if you can't see them.
Are you done ranting like a 12 year old now or are you going to don your Bond sunglasses and labeled watch and hunt me down because I thought the movie was crap? Perhaps not putting so much of your self-esteem into a movie would be a good thing from here on out, Ace.
Two different surnames spelled very slightly differently should die a quick death (like Thorn and Thorne). X-(
I knew Casino Royale back to front, so not taking QoS as a stand alone from my perspective seems lost to me. I agree the next movie should work more as a stand alone as not to alienate newcomers, but could reward people who seen CR and QoS.
I thought Bond had a convincing relationship with M and Mathis, while Camille was streets ahead of the likes of Christmas Jones.
I really liked Camille. I would like her to return at some stage and to see her and Bonds relationship develope.It seemed more natural and convincing than Bond and Vespers ever did. What I like about Camille was that for once, she did seem like 'Bonds equal' but without having to give all the attitude and hoopla to prove it.
My problems were with Mathis, they may have a relationship from CR but there really wasn't any point in bringing him back and with Fields who was quite unecessary to the whole proceedings.
I could go on but we're digressing from editing somewhat.
The close ups are used to involve the audience. They show the emotions of the characters and show what's happening in more detail.
The fast cuts build pace. You might not fully understand each individual shot, but just from watching it you get a sense that all of it is happening very, very fast.
As for the cameras, they're not jerky, it's just the pace of the cuts.
I'm not an editor, but having watched 1000s of films over my years, I have always considered the editors role to be important as he/she will be able to:
1. control the pace of a film
2. improve the audiences understanding
3. make it look/sound better
The problem with QOS is that the editing doesn't fulfil any of these functions, it's a purely technical exercise, as if the film makers are showing off.
Most of the previous comments have focussed on the action scenes, and I agree they are poorly handled. The first three chase scenes are all so rapidly cut I had a difficult time estabishing who was doing what and to whom. I didn't even realise it was 007 driving the car at first because the Aston Martin was shown so fleetingly and not in a long shot. In Siena, I had no idea who was winning the climatic fight. And the speedboats just foxed me from start to finish. Eventually I just gave up trying.
An even bigger offence however has been the lack of intelligence shown over the story, with several occurances being taken at face value. So for instance, Bond doesn't even seduce Agent Fields, they just end up in bed, why? When Bond talks to Mathis on the plane, I didn't even realise they were on a plane. Bond's escape from Leither in the bar is so quick, I had to blink twice - was Bond really just hiding upstairs? I'm still not sure. We dont witness the denoument between Bond and Greene. During the opera sequence I couldn't work out where Bond was going, and couldn't hear what the Quantum agents were saying because the music was too loud. These are a few examples.
I have a sneaking suspicion there were time constraints put on the director & editor (i.e. keep it short!) and they have removed scenes that slowed the movie down. However, given everything else happens at breakneck pace, a little breather here and there may have been useful.
I am not an expert as I said, but it looks an extremely shoddy job to me.
I like the disorienting feel of that style of editing.
Since the editor, second-unit director and stunt coorinator are all graduates of the Bourne trilogy [Where they did an exemplary job] then the fault must lie on Marc Forster's shoulders. In QOS he tries to emulate Paul Greengrass director of 'Supremacy' & 'Ultimatum' and fails. As bumpy a ride that the Greengrass action scenes are you never get lost as to who's who and what's what, with Forster you do. You're left sometimes wondering which guy is Bond and which is the bad guy. At the end of the boat chase Bond suddenly uses an anchor and it happens so fast that you don't see clearly where it came from. I'm all for adopting a reality-like break neck speed but this is still a movie and editing/direction should show us cause and effect not effect...cut to effect...cut to effect...slowwww down.
Our eyes can take in a lot of info [movies are 24 frames per second] but it seems to me that within' the actual action scenes there are seconds missing which makes you feel somewhat lost. If you took any action scene from the Bourne trilogy, Live Free Die Harder or whatever and re-edited them just taking out 10 frames here, 20 frames there and you compared them them to the origonal you would notice clearly something is missing. Those misplaced seconds/milliseconds made up of film stock frames means that a clear coherent flow of action is nowhere to be found. To use once again the boat scene in QOS as an example - Bond see's anchor (Cause) then uses anchor (effect) not Bond grabs anchor and uses it. Somewhere along the line Forster lost the narritive flow of the entire movie. Bond is in hotel intercepts a brief case and out of nowhere Camille appears - way too abrupt [There is no flow , Camille is the second main character behind Bond and her appearance is treated way too brusque].
Then there's the sound editing, the opera singer is too loud, we can't here Bond, Mr.White and the other members of Quantum. The singer is secondary so should be lower than the dialogue which is primary to the story flow. You don't want movie goers asking one another in the theatre 'what did he or she say' and the film is moved onto the next scene. I think Marc Forster was in over his head and if you watch the video blogs and interviews of him you get a sense of this. Which is probably why he has refused Bab's & Micky G's offer to return[Thank G*D] and will return to a more comfortable arty fare terrain of Stranger Than Fiction [Which he excels at].
I love Bond [Both books and movies] but as CR and Craig have proven it can be brilliant, not the hit and miss derivative affair that is QOS. They should have taken more of an example from Fleming's short which is brilliantly subtle. Cubby Broccoli always said[About making Bond films] whenever you get lost always go back to Fleming. Ol' Cubby was prophetic, for a dash of Fleming self-restrained would have done this movie nicely.
*************************************************************************************************************
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. My methods may seem uncivilized, but I know my responsibilities are to Queen and country...not personal gain."
This would have got top marks form any of my lecturers in college. - Clear, precise analysis of the narrative. Well done!
One of my mates said the same thing! Maybe I'm getting long in the tooth. Interestingly though, Blueman, I see Scottbuster2000 has posted similar feelings to mine, and I don't believe the two of us are alone. I still struggled on second viewing! I'd be really interested to know what the test screening comments were like as I can't imagine this problem was unknown to the production team.
But after viewing it and comparing to another form of editing, I do have to admit I still like it better than the speed ramping that was used in Die Another Day.