I did think 28 Days Later, but I was struck by how that chaotic style was very much part of that films narrative rather than Boyle just having a preference for it. Going by what you’re saying about Trance, that says to me that Boyle would aim for whatever best suits the film in regards to any action set pieces.
I believe Forster is maligned unfairly. He and his team definitely tried to push boundaries and to show something that Bond films had not done yet. But he himself said that he wanted to work much longer on the editing than the incredibly short post production time allowed.
And that’s what I think has also impacted negatively on SPECTRE: too little time for post production.
Which is totally absurd and should have been a concern for the producers. Build in enough time for post - or at least start earlier with shooting. Of course, nowadays films are being edited on the set already so you can watch a rough cut very early on after principal photography. But still you need time to readjust and view the material shot with some distance.
1 Like
I read plenty of books.
Absolutely!
My penny’s worth is that tight edit-turn arounds is often a decision made by the finance department, rather than production, let alone the director or editor having a say. Sure it’s crazy to give the creatives carte blanche (post Heaven’s Gate), but the balance it’s skewed way over towards the finance dep. who see a film as nothing more than a product.
And compounding this there often seems to be plenty of incompetence in the finance deps. to go round. It’s as though they start with a pot of money, then spend most of it on the Talent, most of what’s left on Production and Post comes in last like an after thought.
Of course that’s not the case for the heavily cgi’d productions, as post has to take a bigger chunk, but on a movie like Bond it too often appears to be seen as an after thought and certainly (wrongly) a technical exercise - wholly predictable in terms of the hours it takes.
But of course the edit is an organic process which always throws up more questions than the script answered and those issues take time to address properly. I call this the thinking time - when under the cosh you can knock the film together and everyone pats one another on the back, thinking it’s a good job. But with a little thinking time for reviewing and experimenting there’s always other ways to tell the story and sometimes they’re far better.
Without this space to think you miss that stuff, only to spot it on transmission or with an audience. Of course then it’s too late.
Ergo the best directors always want to be in the edit and have final cut because they know that this is as much part of the creative process as writing the script, acting the parts and directing. And by the same token i can see exactly where Forster is coming from when he said the edit was too rushed.
Can’t remember who said it, but i agree whole heartedly that “The script isn’t finished until the edit is locked.” (paraphrased).
Btw, speaking of Forster…
I think that artistically he brought much to Bond; the visceral urgency of the opening car chase and the opera scene are outstanding.
But i’d guess that an infinite time in the edit wouldn’t have been able to fix the rescue of Camilla at the docks and the plane chase/freefall; under-written and not well enough covered on the shoot (not sure what the B, C or D cams were doing (if there were any), but there was very little geography.
Looked to me like he assumed it’d be sufficient to shoot just the storyboard and left himself short of coverage in the edit. Either that those messy scenes were artistic choice to express ‘confusion’ (in which case it worked).
Could also be that Forster did not shoot the action himself - like Apted or some of the other directors - or that he really wanted to push the envelope, went too far and had no time anymore to push back by re-editing necessary material into those sequences.
The basic idea of having a chase sequence in all of the four elements is absolutely viable. But the preference for flashy impact over spatial clarity is also something that was very en vogue during that time. Unfortunately, IMO.
We know, of course, that Forster also had the misfortune to helm QOS during the writers strike, so all the script problems had consequences. In the end, the fact that he delivered a still exciting and coherent film is testament to his abilities.
Indeed, i’m a fan of the movie and always defend it here. And you’re right, it’s shortcomings were probably due to all of the above reasons. But the action did seem designed to be ‘expressive’.
In confined spaces, such as the scaffold fight and the fight with Slate i believe this worked, but the same principle applied to spectacle did not.
Which isn’t to say it can’t work, Greengrass’ first 2 Bourne films pull it off. Forster handled the action a little better in World War Z (though the CGI in that was a little poor imo).
1 Like
I disagree in regards to Forster. I think he tried too hard to both emulate other action films of the time (Bourne films) and inject too much artistic vision. The chase in Siena comes to mind with shots intercut of Bond and Mitchell and the parade. The cuts work during the Tosca scene, but are annoying in Siena. Also, the shaky cam is just way too overdone. Using mk12 for the main title sequence was a poor choice as they gave us arguably the worst MTS of the series coupled with the series’ worst song.
Dan Bradley, who’d been 2nd unit director on the Bourne films (among others) was working with the 2nd unit on QoS and many (not all) of the action set-pieces were helmed by him (certainly the opening car chase and the rooftop chase). And if my memory serves me correctly, he was hired prior to Forster (who was not first choice). I think (don’t know, just remember reading it somewhere), Pearson came in because of Bradley who he’d worked with on Supremacy; Chesse was Forster’s “guy”
Did Forster make a conscious decision to mimic Bourne? I don’t know, but I definitely understand how the action sequences ended up there.
2 Likes
This all rings true!
SAF was right to compare this to Apted… Where Apted relied too heavily upon Armstrong, Forster seems to have relied upon Bradley, in which case it’s a forgone conclusion we’d get ‘Bourne-alike’ action.
But it’s probably not fair for us to single out the directors for blame. It was probably Eon’s call to completely compartmentalise the action, having decided Apted and Forster where not experienced enough.
I see their predicament, but the right call would’ve been to hire a director who could handle the action. I guess directors who can do action and also deliver drama to the calibre Eon now aim for are very expensive and very busy (Villeneuve, Nolan).
1 Like
Superheroes may be dominating the box office but you know what else is in now; retro nostalgia. Maybe it’s time for Bond to echo Bond. And by that I don’t mean visual references, rehashed plot points but an attempt to evoke the feel of the 60’s 70’s Bond.
I think that’s what Spectre was going for…
1 Like
Odd-J - Bradley was “hot” at the time. Bourne Ultimatum had come out earlier in '07 and I remember reading a US GQ article about Bradley calling him the “next big action director.” Decent article, and Bradley explains how the car stunt at the end of Ultimatum when it rides the rail was inspired by him watching skateboarders. He was very much a stunt - 2nd unit guy in demand and when I heard EON had tabbed him for QoS I for one thought it was a good pick-up.
Bradley never went on to the “next big etc” - he only helmed the Red Dawn remake, but his filmography speaks for himself. As someone who like QoS a lot, it’s obvious I’m going to defend most of the artistic choices when it comes to the action (the car chase never gets old) and Bradley deserves a lot of the credit.
I guess it depends how one feels about it all - I do think the “too much like Bourne” criticism that’s thrown around is thrown around from a fan being protective perspective, rather than genuine film criticism. By any measure the action in Bourne, especially Supremacy, is top-notch, and as for Bradley, as I said, his filmography speaks for itself.
So, Universal…
And 3rd December the show will be on the road.
4 Likes
Amazing news! So does this mean Universal only have the distribution for Bond 25? Will we have to go through this arduous process again in a couple years?
No word on how long the arrangement lasts. It was likely made to send a message that BOND 25 is still on track. And to show that Universal is dedicated enough to the affair to make other contenders think twice. How this affects MGM‘s possible sale is anybody’s guess.
It potentially puts Universal in a good place to buy their assets I’d assume, given Bond’s status as MGM’s golden goose. Of course it could also mean MGM limps on for another few years and the planned sale is postponed.
Frankly, I think this must be seen in light of the recent Reuters headline. Universal isn’t going to put money into the BOND 25 basket for a one-off. Look at their franchise portfolio, there is nothing even remotely in the Bond category. If they commit to BOND 25 they do it with an eye on the rest of the business…
I’d agree. Despite their hopes, Dark Universe hasn’t really clicked, and Bourne hasn’t evolved in the franchise they wanted.
Bourne is more or less a one-trick-pony, it just gets a new iteration every so often but the substance just isn’t there. There’s not even the development of the original books, much less a formula that would carry the story over a longer time. How many action chases do we want to see? How many corrupt despicable characters can the CIA employ on how many killer programs?
The way to set this up for a longer perspective would have been the XIII route, make the respective iterations significantly different, add real mysteries to the equation. None of that happened. In terms of variety and entertainment value Bond is miles ahead of Bourne.
Glad we have some official news.
The content wars are on.
The future is clearly Comcast vs Disney. While I think Comcast’s last minute bid for 20th Century Fox will be unsuccessful them potentially snatching up MGM after Bond 25 would help them compete with Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm/Pixar.
Universal could also potentially exploit the Bond property in their theme parks.
2 Likes