Support NeoGAF

[Solo]

But that didn't happen in Bourne 3. And uh the girl doesn't die in Bourne 1. And she dies in Bourne 2 in the first 10 minutes.


So yeah. Just accept the simple fact that Bond movies are painfully formulaic.

Er, Bourne 3 is nothing but a retread of the first two films. Insert standard shakey cam fistfight here, insert standard car chase there, insert Bourne-outsmarts-CIA-in-large-crowd scene there. The Waterloo scene is almost a shot for shot ripoff of the scene in Supremacy. And in every movie, the big bad just ends up being another rung up the political ladder. zZZzzzZZzz

Fun fact: Bond didnt get formulaic in just its third film. Bourne did.

EDIT: nice edit

EDIT2: goddamn 500 errors

 

[Blader]

I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to let Marc Forster direct an action flick. The guy's a pretty good director but that is nowhere close to his element. Most action scenes in Quantum of Solace were some of the worst I've seen in a long time, completely muddled and failing to strike any sort of tension or excitement.

The action was pretty well done, considering it's not what Forster usually does. The problem wasn't the action, it was how it was edited.

 

[Dabanton]

Forster and his editor need to cut their next flick inside a full sized theater so they can get an idea of what they are putting moviegoers through while the scenes are being put together. Seriously. They really fucked up the editing on these action scenes IMO but like you said, it looks fine on a smaller screen.

They do edit in theatres quite big ones. The film had a lot of problems a hell of a lot of post had to be done on it. Hopefully this time they get a solid script together. The writers strike forced their hand last time as they needed it finished before that kicked off, also Bond had to be out in time for it's royal première.

The action thing is weird as i went along to the cast and crew and it was fine we were sitting quite far back though. The following week i went to see it with friends and i sat closer to the front of the cinema and man the scenes were a blurry mess something i don't think Forster took into account during the editing as they also sit quite far back.

 

[Solo]

Yeah, the WGA strike cannot be mentioned enough. Even though I still enjoy QoS a ton, theres no doubt it could have been something great with more time to polish/flesh it out.

 

[Schattenjäger]

It almost assuredly will not have gadgets, q, or money penny. So don't go in expecting that type of stuff again any time soon.

i believe Craig said he wanted Q and Moneypenny in the next one... not sure how much pull he has though

and they belong in a Bond movie for bloody sake!

 

[neoism]

LET Martin Campbell direct goddamn it!!!!!!

 

[Marty Chinn]

My problem with QoS is it felt like an incomplete movie. I felt like we saw the middle act of a movie. While Casino Royale could stand alone, it now acts like the first act a of QoS, then when you get to the end of QoS you need the third act. It just sorta ends and not in a satisfyng way. There also felt like there was one too many action sequences for it. So in the end we got the middle act of a movie filled with action sequences. That's why I feel like QoS is a let down. Better than Goldeneye? Are you kidding?

 

[Spotless Mind]

Q and Money Penny returning would be fine with me, just as long as they give some dimension to them and they aren't there solely for campy one-liners.

 

[Cheebs]

I read Michael Wilson saying they have no plans to bring them back any time soon after QoS so I was going off that.

As for them, I'd only accept the return of Q if Hugh Laurie played him (assuming they would not re-use John Cleese)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Er, Bourne 3 is nothing but a retread of the first two films. Insert standard shakey cam fistfight here, insert standard car chase there, insert Bourne-outsmarts-CIA-in-large-crowd scene there. The Waterloo scene is almost a shot for shot ripoff of the scene in Supremacy. And in every movie, the big bad just ends up being another rung up the political ladder. zZZzzzZZzz

Fun fact: Bond didnt get formulaic in just its third film. Bourne did.

EDIT: nice edit

EDIT2: goddamn 500 errors

Bond has been rehashing the same tired ideas for decades though. Each Bourne movie brought something new to the table for the series (not the genre). Bourne 3 may be similar but that's mainly because it's a direct sequel to the second film; it happens like what, minutes after the end of Supremacy?

 

[Cheebs]

I'd rather watch Moonraker than either of the 3 Bourne movies and I liked them a lot. They were just very forgettable.

 

[Peru]

You guys are out of your mind and on a blanket-hating bandwagon. QoS was a stylish, brief and effective action movie. One of the better of the decade.

 

[Wes]

QoS was a stylish, brief and effective action movie. One of the better of the decade.

That's not what Bond films are about though

 

[afternoon delight]

I enjoyed both efforts. Day One, once again.

 

[Dead]

I enjoyed both efforts. Day One, once again.

Pretty much. I'll still take Quantum over any of the Moore, Brosnan and Dalton flicks.

 

[bud]

It almost assuredly will not have gadgets, q, or money penny. So don't go in expecting that type of stuff again any time soon.

so what? neither did casino royale.

that doesn't mean it can't be a bond movie anymore.

 

[gabe90]

Just saw QoS on an airplane 2 weeks ago, and then happened to see Diamonds are Forever last night on the SciFi channel...and wow what a difference.

Really didn't like QoS at all.

Frost/Nixon on the other hand is one of the better movies in recent memory, so hopefully this will be a new beginning for the Craig bonds.

 

[Peru]

Just saw QoS on an airplane 2 weeks ago, and then happened to see Diamonds are Forever last night on the SciFi channel...and wow what a difference.

Yeah, Diamonds are Forever is one the shittiest Bond films.

 

[gabe90]

Yeah, Diamonds are Forever is one the shittiest Bond films.

I just meant in the genre of the movies I guess. QoS really didn't feel like a Bond movie whatsoever.

Regardless of quality of the film, DaF was a Bond film while QoS seemed like as mix of Bourne and...generic. Again, saw it on a airplane, so maybe it had more character on the big screen.

 

[rezuth]

This is a very intresting addition to the writers. This person has only written drama movies before ( and damn good drama movies I might add) so it seems like they are admitting failure with Quantum of Solace. It was suppose to be moving and upsetting at places where it just did nothing emotinally.

Does this mean we will see more dramatic scenes in the next Bond?

 

[Solo]

LET Martin Campbell direct goddamn it!!!!!!

Its not that he's being prohibited. He has chosen to step back after both his films.

That's why I feel like QoS is a let down. Better than Goldeneye? Are you kidding?

Goldeneye is the most overrated Bond movie, so no, Im not kidding you.

Bond has been rehashing the same tired ideas for decades though. Each Bourne movie brought something new to the table for the series (not the genre).

Have you not heard the idea for Bourne 4? You know, the one that sounds exactly like...... Casino Royale?

:lol

You guys are out of your mind and on a blanket-hating bandwagon. QoS was a stylish, brief and effective action movie. One of the better of the decade.

Preach! My love for QoS increases with each viewing.

That's not what Bond films are about though

Part of the problem is the mindset that Bond films have to be "about" a certain thing though. That was the mindset that let to the formulaic Bond of the 70s-90s. They basically had a checklist of shit to fit into every movie.
- requisite Moneypenny pining? Check
- requisite Q/Bond gadget scene/banter? Check
- requisite one liners? Check
and so on

I love that CR and QoS have finally broken the mould. That there are people out there actively calling for a return to formulaic "traditional" Bond is beyond my comprehension.

Have you all forgotten the last traditional Bond movie? You know, the one with invisible cars, paragliding on glaciers, and a pot-bellied Bond? Yeah, lets get back to that......

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Also, please give me a real Bond theme, not some toothless 00s crap.

I don't care if you have to get Shirley Bassey herself.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

If we still had Sean Connery from The Rock, I wouldn't him reprising his role as Bond. Having an old Bond would be cool:

 

[Solo]

If we still had Sean Connery from The Rock, I wouldn't him reprising his role as Bond. Having an old Bond would be cool:

His role in The Rock basically was James Bond, had he been captured and locked up for 30 years.

But yeah, I agree. He looked a hell of a lot better in that than he did in Diamonds Are Forever.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Casino Royales brilliance cannot be doubted.

QoS wasn't bad considering the plot. Craigs acting made that movie a lot better than it should have been.

The most important thing for Bond 23 isn't even script, it's just putting pieces around him that complement him. Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen (Vesper and Le Chiffre) were placed and things pretty much took off on their own.

We won't ever get another Eva Green, but I'm hoping we can get a kick ass villain for the next film.

 

[DMczaf]

His role in The Rock basically was James Bond, had he been captured and locked up for 30 years.

But yeah, I agree. He looked a hell of a lot better in that than he did in Diamonds Are Forever.

What about Never Say Never Again?

 

[Dabanton]

I love that CR and QoS have finally broken the mould. That there are people out there actively calling for a return to formulaic "traditional" Bond is beyond my comprehension.

Have you all forgotten the last traditional Bond movie? You know, the one with invisible cars, paragliding on glaciers, and a pot-bellied Bond? Yeah, lets get back to that......

Agree,to return to the old style would be a massive step back,CR was magnificent QoS was underpar but enjoyable. But as i mentioned the writers strike meant that the script had to be finished or the film would have missed it's agreed release date.

I know the next film will be great,they have the time to get it locked down correctly this time.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I didn't like Casino Royale as much as most people seem to, and I didn't hate Quantum of Solace as much as most people seem to. CR was clearly better, though. I don't know, maybe I just expect different things from my Bond films.

 

[Charlatanized]

Back on track a bit, I can't say that the Peter Morgan news is entirely encouraging. Sure, The Last King of Scotland & Frost/Nixon were fine screenplays, but they were both adapted from existing material (a novel & a stage play, respecitively). I don't really see how that qualifies him to write a Bond film. Maybe they plan on adapting an unused story from one of the books? The titles are all pretty much taken (what's left, "Property of a Lady?" "Risico?" "The Hildrebrand Rarity?" Though I guess they did have the balls to call a movie "Quantum of Solace"), but most of the movies had little to do with the book in question anyway, so there's plenty of material left to mine. Maybe it's a sign that they're heading toward more adaptation.

He also wrote The Queen, which I hear good things about.

EDIT: Well, reading a bit more, I guess he's in the position Haggis had--third man, polishing things up. Think he should be good at that. Maybe he can wrangle Purvis & Wade's sometimes inane ideas.

 

[duckroll]

I don't think for Bond the scriptwriters alone mean anything at all. You can have the most talented scriptwriters on the dialog, but in the end it's still an action movie about a spy who does crazy shit and kills rich baddies with stupid plans while banging every female in the movie.

What makes the best Bond movies work is good direction. Martin Campbell clearly showed how much difference this makes with Goldeneye and Casino Royale. Obviously the big factor is how good the director is at understand how to make the set pieces visually engaging, and also how to edit and cut the movie and scenes such that the audience is well informed and entertained, instead of being annoyed and/or confused.

 

[NotWii]

Looks like Casino Royale was a fluke.

Martin Campbell is no fluke!

 

[GCX]

I didn't like QoS' action scenes at all. Everything was done with confusing 0,5 sec cuts and they tried to be too "artistic" by always having a second focus on some horse race or opera act. Just keep the action simple and enjoyable, please.

 

[Decado]

I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to let Marc Forster direct an action flick. The guy's a pretty good director but that is nowhere close to his element. Most action scenes in Quantum of Solace were some of the worst I've seen in a long time, completely muddled and failing to strike any sort of tension or excitement.

I love how obvious it was that he was trying to cut it to PG-13 during every action scene. I've never seen so many characters shot with the camera pointed at their back!

Anyway, writers seem good. What about the Director? And will we be seeing another Bond in 2010?

 

[Cheebs]

I love how obvious it was that he was trying to cut it to PG-13 during every action scene. I've never seen so many characters shot with the camera pointed at their back!

Anyway, writers seem good. What about the Director? And will we be seeing another Bond in 2010?

2011.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Have you not heard the idea for Bourne 4? You know, the one that sounds exactly like...... Casino Royale?

:lol
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parsifal_Mosaic

The possible inclusion of a double agent in now way suggests it'll be "exactly" like CR. And that's assuming they go along with what the rumors are saying right now

 

[Solo]

but most of the movies had little to do with the book in question anyway, so there's plenty of material left to mine. Maybe it's a sign that they're heading toward more adaptation.

Until the day I die I will continue to request a FAITHFUL adaptation of both Live And Let Die and You Only Live Twice. Adaptations of these actually holding close to Fleming's novels would be great.

2011.

Its actually uncertain now. Originally it was definitely going to be 2011, with the transition from Sony back to MGM adding a year to the production cycle. However, a recent interview with Michael G. Wilson (that I posted in one of the Bond threads here) had him saying that Craig is ready to go, and that they are trying to get a script ready to shoot in January 2010. Since CR commenced shooting January 2006 and released November 2006, and QoS commenced shooting January 2008 and released November 2008, if they can get shooting by Janaury 2010, then we'll have a fall 2010 movie.

In brief: could be either 2010 or 2011 at this point.

 

[Cheebs]

Until the day I die I will continue to request a FAITHFUL adaptation of both Live And Let Die and You Only Live Twice. Adaptations of these actually holding close to Fleming's novels would be great.



Its actually uncertain now. Originally it was definitely going to be 2011, with the transition from Sony back to MGM adding a year to the production cycle. However, a recent interview with Michael G. Wilson (that I posted in one of the Bond threads here) had him saying that Craig is ready to go, and that they are trying to get a script ready to shoot in January 2010. Since CR commenced shooting January 2006 and released November 2006, and QoS commenced shooting January 2008 and released November 2008, if they can get shooting by Janaury 2010, then we'll have a fall 2010 movie.

In brief: could be either 2010 or 2011 at this point.

I reeeaally hope they stick to the 2011 original schedule. 2010 would mean it would pretty damn rushed seeing how the script isn't even written yet. I don't want the film to be rushed. I don't like how they put the movie out so quickly after production. Give it some breathing time for a slow process like most films of this budget.

 

[Solo]

We'll know soon enough. If we're hearing about casting come October, then its a go for 2010.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Bond has been rehashing the same tired ideas for decades though. Each Bourne movie brought something new to the table for the series (not the genre). Bourne 3 may be similar but that's mainly because it's a direct sequel to the second film; it happens like what, minutes after the end of Supremacy?

No. Ultimatum takes place before the ending of Supremacy. Just after he tells the Russian girl he killed her parents, which is why I don't see 3 being a sequel.

PS-Bourne 4 won't be inspired by Parsifal Mosaic. That'll get its own movie. As of now, we don't know anything about Bourne 4's plot.

PPS-Bourne trilogy formula may be tiring, but the music, car chases, and fight scenes kick the shit out of the recent Bond films and any other similiar film for now and forever.

 

[Solo]

How can that be when CR is better than any of the Bourne movies?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[StoOgE]

QoS, while it has it's problems was much better on a second watch on bluray.

 

[JimiNutz]

Hopefully they finally get the balance right!

Casino Royal was a great movie (probably over hyped on GAF though) but it needed more balls to the wall action. I understand that they needed to have the whole Vesper love story in there to explain why Bond is the way that he is, but I found the last 3rd of the movie painfully dull. The grand finale in the sinking house was also very anti-climatic and pedestrian IMO.

QoS had some really fantastic action scenes but was completely devoid of any sort of meaningful plot. There was no story gluing all the fantastic action together.

One thing that both movies were missing is a decent villain. That emo pussy that cries blood in the first movie was an embarrassment, and the second dude that looked like a slimy toad wasn't much of an improvement.

If they can finally find the middle ground, combine the best bits of Casino Royal with the best bits of QoS, and find a decent villain, then we should have an absolutely fantastic Bond movie on our hands.
It's a shame Daniel Craig still has a face uglier than my Grandmothers anus, but I'll forgive his ugly hide because he still manages to pull off the stone cold killer angle pretty well.

I'd still take any of the Bourne movies over CR or QoS, which pains me to say since I'm a Brit named James (I also happen to be a super good looking government agent)
so I have a natural bias for the James Bond character :lol

 

[Cheebs]

How can that be when CR is better than any of the Bourne movies?

In the end Bond will win out. In 20 years there will be still Bond films coming out, not so much for Bourne.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The only thing i'll agree with Solo is that Supremacy is the best Bourne movie. I hope the 4th will follows Supremacy's style.

 

[Solo]

:lol :lol :lol

Funny because its true, I can only assume.

The only thing i'll agree with Solo is that Supremacy is the best Bourne movie. I hope the 4th will follows Supremacy's style.

Well at least we're on the same page here. TBS>TBI>>>>TBU

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I find Identity and Supremacy's plot more engaging than CR. No BS elements like "look at me! I'm so hot stepping out of the ocean with my hot body while I casually look around!"

 

[Solo]

Thats like a 3 second shot, man! Damon wishes he were that buff!

Besides, more than anything it was taking the piss out of the scene in Dr No (first Bond movie) where Ursula Andress makes her entrance in a similar way.

 

[whytemyke]

I read Michael Wilson saying they have no plans to bring them back any time soon after QoS so I was going off that.

As for them, I'd only accept the return of Q if Hugh Laurie played him (assuming they would not re-use John Cleese)

thought of michael winslow for some reason :lol



anyways, yeah. i'm not sure how I'd like to see the next Bond movie... it'd be cool if they used Craig to remake an older Bond film (this is the only series where I'll accept hollywood remake.) BUT it'd be sweet to see another new story, too.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

I know it's not really possible at this point, but Sean Connery as a Bond villain would automatically be the greatest thing ever.