Quantum of Solace 007

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

I could not believe how lame the 3d title sequance was, just awful. The type design for the opening credits was even worse.

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Now that the "revenge" is over, the next film needs to restore some of the humor and style of the older films. Think of how much fun movies like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY were. Amazing locales that were beautifully photographed, gorgeous but strong female characters, awesome bad guy headquarters, etc. Take for instance that car chase through the olive-tree-laden hills in FOR YOUR EYES. Not only are the stunts and action great, but it's filled with humor. Those movies had dazzling action set pieces (pyramids in Egypt, underwater scuba battles and skiing chases down bobsled runs in FOR YOUR EYES), but these films also had a certain grace, style and sense of adventure that are sorely missing in these latest "Bond as a super soldier" movies.

[Paul Bruening]

Now that the "revenge" is over, the next film needs to restore some of the humor and style of the older films. Think of how much fun movies like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY were. Amazing locales that were beautifully photographed, gorgeous but strong female characters, awesome bad guy headquarters, etc. Take for instance that car chase through the olive-tree-laden hills in FOR YOUR EYES. Not only are the stunts and action great, but it's filled with humor. Those movies had dazzling action set pieces (pyramids in Egypt, underwater scuba battles and skiing chases down bobsled runs in FOR YOUR EYES), but these films also had a certain grace, style and sense of adventure that are sorely missing in these latest "Bond as a super soldier" movies.

 

"For your eyes only, darling."

[Tom Lowe]

haha, yeah! how shot was she with that crossbow? :lol:

[Chris Keth]

Hi,

 

I could not believe how lame the 3d title sequance was, just awful. The type design for the opening credits was even worse.

 

Stephen

 

I found myself wishing the title sequence was entirely comprised of the footage of the woman covered in sand. That could have been expanded to make a very classic-feeling Bond title sequence. That was great while the rest was pretty lame.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I saw this tonight. Over all pretty good. It's a new type of Bond, not the type at all those of us 35+ grew up on. No gadgets at all, not one.

 

'Dr.No' had no gadgets and it's still my favorite.

 

The gadgets in 'From Russia with Love' were minimal, the attache case and Col.Kleb's shoe.

[Simon Roel]

That's what I'm talking about!

 

Tim,

I can only imagine what the DP was up against time-wise, so it's always a bit unfair to judge. Part of the problem was the color correction for me - fleshy, meaty, magenta skin tones in a combination with slightly too hard sources (for my taste). I also don't seem to recall the moodiness you remember. For me it all felt a bit too filled in and with some constant backlight washing relentlessly on them.

 

There were some nice shots as well, in all fairness. I liked the night stuff in the alleyways of Bolivia. I also liked the stuff in the cave after the parachute stuff - nice and moody and old school on Olga in particular (very Ozzie Morris or Raoul Coutard how he had two dots in her eyes). Some nice and harsh desert stuff with the sun in zenith.

 

I really must disagree with you about this Steadicam-scene. From a director's POV I think it becomes boring, and the intensity of the action seems to evaporate after awhile, as if the protoganist actor got tired from all the stunt work. Also, due to not having coverage you can easily spot certain choreography misstakes, e.g. the last bad guy on the stairs bringing his arm back on his back while the protagonist only grabs him by the neck.

 

Not a fan although I enjoy long takes - just don't do it for the sake of doing it or it will attention to itself and so pull the viewer out of the unreflected immersion in the movie.

[John Allen]

Ok so maybe I'm just too young to know the real "bond", but to me this was one of my favorite bonds. My reason is because all of the bonds had this cheesy "I'm James Bond and I'm better than Superman so you should come sleep with me tonight." That corniness is absolutely absurd. In my opinion all of the other James Bonds had no realism what so ever. The last one Casino Royale, even tho I must admit that I did enjoy it, I still think that it looked like it was made in the 90's. It was much too colorful, low contrasted, and it was like they were trying to go for the same old cheesy, sleezy Bond film. I personally think that if Quantum of Solace looked like a Bourne then GREAT!!! Thank goodness that a Bond film is actually getting to where it should be. Instead of it being a bunch of lame films where the hero just gets layed all the time. It's supposed to be a thriller, NOT Austin Powers.

 

And as for the Action shots, I liked what I saw. It felt very 60's like. I liked how each shot was no longer than 2 or 3 sec. long. It added confusion which in my mind is very realistic and smart. It gets you watching closer to see what's happening. Oh and I loved the idea of using silence to enhance the action shot.

 

I think overall the Quantum of Solace was a great film, and I think all of you guys are way too critical about this, AND other things. Sometimes I wonder if you all have a life, cause all I see is that everybody on here just likes to complain and tear apart things that you were never able to work on yourself. It reminds me very much of kids in high school. I'm getting very sick of all the crap that I have to read through on this forum. Everybody has a very critical view of everything.

But again I think this Bond was a good one. It's finally getting away from the old lame Bond films and is trying to move on to something new. I think that Mark Forster did a great job!!

[David Mullen ASC]

Sometimes I wonder if you all have a life, cause all I see is that everybody on here just likes to complain and tear apart things that you were never able to work on yourself. It reminds me very much of kids in high school. I'm getting very sick of all the crap that I have to read through on this forum. Everybody has a very critical view of everything.

 

No one is forcing you to read anything on this forum.

 

Being able to analyze why something works or doesn't work, and separate personal taste from purely technical issues, is an important skill for a cinematographer, so it's no small wonder that many of us are critical types. We're self-critical, which is hyper-important, but that spills over into general criticism and analysis of the artform which we love and have devoted our lives to.

 

I worked quite a bit this year, but I managed to keep posting, so perhaps by definition, I don't "have a life"... but don't assume that the person posting the most is therefore working the least.

 

Some of us here are sometimes a bit too apt to tear apart someone's hard work, for my tastes, simply because I remind myself constantly that it is very hard to make movies, and even harder to make good ones, so "judge not lest you be judged" comes to mind an awful lot... but the truth is that some of the most critical people on this forum are also some of the most talented cinematographers I have ever known. Adam Frisch, for example -- I wish I were as good as he is. You'd be lucky, John, if you had half his talent someday, and that's not a knock on you, just a suggestion that you take what he says seriously.

 

We sometimes go too far in our criticisms, but that's partly because most of us here are movielovers, and some of us our lifelong fans of James Bond movies as well. And if some of those James Bond fans are critical of the latest movie, I don't see why their opinions are any less valuable than a newcomer to the James Bond franchise.

 

I know it's partly an age thing (though Tim Partridge is a young man), though some of us also make movies for a living and find the whole "shoot with a dozen cameras and chop it up in post" sort of a lazy way of designing an action sequence. I mean, a high school student could direct a modern action sequence given enough camera angles and cuts, as long as he had a professional stunt team, etc. It takes real directorial skill to actually choreograph a sequence in front of the camera so that the camera moves and cuts come at the right beats to the action to enhance the experience.

 

Yes, you could say that the confusion caused by how the action scenes were edited in QOS was deliberate... or you could just say it was confusing, and not in a helpful way that made the action more exciting to watch. Knowing that Marc Foster and Roberto Schaeffer actually wanted to avoid a contemporary Bourne-style when they went into this project, the fact that it ended up being very Bourne-like suggests to me that the studio stepped in during the editing stage and asked for the action scenes to be cut-up more, perhaps to the point where something that made sense originally now was confusing to watch.

[Will Earl]

I stand corrected, a few of the plane shots were entirely CG - weird I remember seeing the original turnover (the edited sequence that gets handed over to vfx) and then seeing the final film and thinking there wasn't much done in that sequence. A couple of articles on the VFX, talks a little bit about the use of the Dalsa and Cinealta cameras.

 

http://www.fxguide.com/article508.html

http://www.fxguide.com/article509.html

[John Allen]

No one is forcing you to read anything on this forum.

 

Being able to analyze why something works or doesn't work, and separate personal taste from purely technical issues, is an important skill for a cinematographer, so it's no small wonder that many of us are critical types. We're self-critical, which is hyper-important, but that spills over into general criticism and analysis of the artform which we love and have devoted our lives to.

 

I worked quite a bit this year, but I managed to keep posting, so perhaps by definition, I don't "have a life"... but don't assume that the person posting the most is therefore working the least.

 

Some of us here are sometimes a bit too apt to tear apart someone's hard work, for my tastes, simply because I remind myself constantly that it is very hard to make movies, and even harder to make good ones, so "judge not lest you be judged" comes to mind an awful lot... but the truth is that some of the most critical people on this forum are also some of the most talented cinematographers I have ever known. Adam Frisch, for example -- I wish I were as good as he is. You'd be lucky, John, if you had half his talent someday, and that's not a knock on you, just a suggestion that you take what he says seriously.

 

We sometimes go too far in our criticisms, but that's partly because most of us here are movielovers, and some of us our lifelong fans of James Bond movies as well. And if some of those James Bond fans are critical of the latest movie, I don't see why their opinions are any less valuable than a newcomer to the James Bond franchise.

 

I know it's partly an age thing (though Tim Partridge is a young man), though some of us also make movies for a living and find the whole "shoot with a dozen cameras and chop it up in post" sort of a lazy way of designing an action sequence. I mean, a high school student could direct a modern action sequence given enough camera angles and cuts, as long as he had a professional stunt team, etc. It takes real directorial skill to actually choreograph a sequence in front of the camera so that the camera moves and cuts come at the right beats to the action to enhance the experience.

 

Yes, you could say that the confusion caused by how the action scenes were edited in QOS was deliberate... or you could just say it was confusing, and not in a helpful way that made the action more exciting to watch. Knowing that Marc Foster and Roberto Schaeffer actually wanted to avoid a contemporary Bourne-style when they went into this project, the fact that it ended up being very Bourne-like suggests to me that the studio stepped in during the editing stage and asked for the action scenes to be cut-up more, perhaps to the point where something that made sense originally now was confusing to watch.

 

 

I'm sorry, I probably didn't phrase my self correctly. I'm not trying to say that everyone on here are dumb or are untalented, but what I meant was that it seems that every post that I seem to read is very critical about the smallest things. I too feel that being critical is a necessity to getting better, but I believe that it needs to be helpful criticism. The criticism that I've come across a lot on here sounds a lot more like a comment from some jealous high school kid that wasn't invited to the party. Oh and I also didn't mean you don't have a life just because you post on here a lot. I meant to mean that there are a lot of people on here that are just blabbing on about how this or that sucks and it's really gotten to me. And I know I don't HAVE to read this forum, but I really want to, cause it's been helpful in the past. I just don't want to see it get to the point where people are going on and on about how terrible something is. Share your opinion and then be done with it, do ramble on and on about it, that just makes you look very juvenile.

 

I too realize that it is very hard to make a film and I, for example, have not reached the point where I am the least bit satisfied with my work, which I think strives me to keep pushing. So I really don't feel that I have any right to criticize DP's that are 100x better than me. I'm the one who is trying to be as good or better than them. I'm not saying not to be critical, and to just love everything I see, but instead I say that we should sometimes keep it to ourselves. And if we want to share our thoughts on something, we should have logical reasons for our opinion, and not just say "I hated this and that!!" Why did you hate it? What did you find wrong with that particular shot. You know what I'm getting at?

 

Also, I would be a very lucky man to be as good as you or Adam someday. Which I'm not sure why you think I don't take what he says seriously. I mean to get to where you and Adam are and a fear that I might get stuck in some corner photo store for all of my life is what somewhat makes me work very hard. And to clear something, I was never referring to you or Adam when I said that people are jealous or whatever I said. You and Adam are two of the only ones I really enjoy hearing from, because you two have good reasons to back up your comments.

 

Anyway, I hope that you understand what I meant to say now. I hope that I haven't offended anyone on this forum, but rather opened everyones eyes so that they might back up their opinions a little better and not be so quick just to say "I hate that film." But I guess why should I really care? It's not like I'm effected by those posts other than I have to read through a bunch of that till I find few that actually have good reasoning.

[Jason Debus]

Can you give some examples of what you are talking about John?

[John Allen]

Hmmm, well I guess I was wrong. I got the impression earlier when I was reading the posts that people were not giving a lot of reason why they didn't like this film and that they were just rambling on. But now that I look at them again I see that I spoke too hastely, and that most of them did back their comments somewhat. So I'm sorry about taking it off subject, which now I see there was no reason to do so. I guess I'm the one in the wrong. lol Ironic.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, we do sometimes give the impression of being a cranky bunch...

[John Allen]

Haha, I have felt the effect many a times, which was what provoked me to say something.

I hope no one took anything that I might have said offensively. I'm sorry if you did, because that wasn't my desire. :)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Adam Frisch, for example -- I wish I were as good as he is. You'd be lucky, John, if you had half his talent someday, and that's not a knock on you, just a suggestion that you take what he says seriously.

Last time I paid for the coffee. David is just trying to get another free mocha out of me. :lol:

 

Obviously totally untrue, but thanks anyway.

[John Allen]

Don't be so humble Adam. You have some amazing stuff. I like the naturalness of it. I hold very high respect for both you and David, just so you know. And if I am so fortunate to meet you two someday, then I will buy you both mocha's. lol