Advice for the Director/Producer for the next bond
jillmasterson
Posts: 4MI6 Agent
If you could tell the Director what to improve for the next Bond film, what would it be?
I would tell them that film editor Richard Pearson needs to be fired! I was completely dizzy from watching all of those cuts during the action scenes last night and you really lose a lot of the awesomeness because the frames were cut every 2 seconds.
I seriously thought I was going to have a seizure. #1 this isn't lame bourne or cloverfield. It does not enhance the film to shake the camera or do cuts every 2 seconds, in fact it takes away from the movie. How many cars were destroyed in the making of this film? And did we get to see any of it? NO!
But besides being dizzy and wanting to throw up, I thought the movie was great. The bond girl was perfect, the fire ember scene was artistic, Daniel Craig is fantastic and the best bond besides Timothy.
Overall, it was a step backwards from Casino Royale. CR was realistic and made you believe that Bond could exist and it didn't need crazy cuts of action to project the story well.
I would tell them that film editor Richard Pearson needs to be fired! I was completely dizzy from watching all of those cuts during the action scenes last night and you really lose a lot of the awesomeness because the frames were cut every 2 seconds.
I seriously thought I was going to have a seizure. #1 this isn't lame bourne or cloverfield. It does not enhance the film to shake the camera or do cuts every 2 seconds, in fact it takes away from the movie. How many cars were destroyed in the making of this film? And did we get to see any of it? NO!
But besides being dizzy and wanting to throw up, I thought the movie was great. The bond girl was perfect, the fire ember scene was artistic, Daniel Craig is fantastic and the best bond besides Timothy.
Overall, it was a step backwards from Casino Royale. CR was realistic and made you believe that Bond could exist and it didn't need crazy cuts of action to project the story well.
Comments
8-)
It just seems that everybody ha something against the style in which it's been edited. Personally, I don't mind it.
Also, it hasn't been cut badly, it's just a certain style. It's supposed to get the audience more involved with whats going on on-screen, especially when the plot is filled with emotion. Also, the fast cuts give a sensation of a fast pace.
It just looks like a lot of people prefer a more traditional style.
Fair enough, but why in your opinion?
Personally I would agree, though: new editor and director would be good for B23
Barring that, here's a start: DON'T. MESS. WITH. A. WINNING. FORMULA!!!!!!!!!!!! Sexual tension. Sexy climes. Twisted climaxes. Bond charm. Nice cars. Non-sensical, maniacal, and downright absurd villains. Women that can act, and don't dress like prostitutes. A Bond that kills as a last resort and out of protection for his MISSION!!!!!! Comical asides.
It's simple, really.
Greetings, c_a_r_t_e_r 35.
Just wanted to clarify something. Why EXACTLY should people stop "going on" about the editing?
Take a look at the posts so far. The editing is becoming a MAJOR issue for a lot of fans. And simply saying not to complain about it ISN'T going to change the legitimate complaints one fraction.
If, in your opinion, everything is hunky-dory with the editing, all power to you. But please don't imply that we, who believe the shooting style is chaotic, are somehow wasting our breath and your time in the process.
You better get used to the fact that this is not an issue that will go away.
I come from the old-school Peter Hunt and Stuard Baird type of editing. What school is that? The one in which the editing is lightning-fast AND readable. Which, IMO, is not the case of QOS.
Is it possible to legitimately criticize an aspect of the film which is seriously bothering fans without having to put up with a "get over it" attitude?
I believe it is. And with QOS, we better "agree to disagree" because this Bond film has the potential to be the most divisive ever.
In the end, its simply a difference of opinion. Don't you agree?
"I can't find the...stationary."
Fast cuts and shakey cameras are not the issue.
Storytelling is what is really being addressed here.
"When do you sleep, 007?"
"Never on the firm's time, sir."
[Bournebournebournebournebournebournebourne...BOURNE! Bourney-bourne-bourne...buh-buh-buh-Booouuurne]
comparisons to other action film franchises, by avoiding the seductively easy route of trendy close-in, shaky handheld cameras and chaotic editing tactics. Let's try something truly brave, and show a few long shots, for perspective's sake...
I'm prepared to argue all day long about the artistic truth to be found in "subjective perspective" viewpoint, and the disciplined application of close-ups and quick-cuts...but we've seen it now. Let's not be afraid to also try what's worked for several decades...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Scripts still need work; they're definitely better than they were in the Brosnan era, but they're not as deep as some of us want to believe. In particular, I fond Mathis' death scene in this film mostly exploitative rather than meaningful.
Well put.
I think that to some extent the in- close/jerky style is just a fact about how action movies are made at the moment. Therefore I wouldn't want or expect it to entirely dissapear in Bond 23.I think it's a question of balance. I don't think it would take much of a shift to 'pull back' occassionaly which would probably be enough to unite the divided opinions re the editing style.
Apart from the editing, this was another major gripe with the movie as far as I was concerned.
I think it has been well established that Craig is a tough nut, now they need to focus on the style and his idiosyncrasies a little more.