I have yet to watch, BUT...

[Jedi007]

My disappointment at the casting of Craig didn't stop me from seeing CR in theaters, and right after this message I'll probably gonna go out and see QOS. However, from the reviews I've read it seems like the current direction this franchise is heading is just like what my friends here have predicted and feared: following the "Bourne" Tradition of shaky cam and blurry images and totally dropping off Bond "touches".

A thread from imdb.com: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/boa ... /121745129

Posts Highlights:

"Badly filmed and edited. It was difficult to follow and I just didn't care. The first technically incompetent Bond film. "

"Well the best bond films were written as books, not movie scripts. Casino Royale was an original book " - I like this one post, it shows clearly that the people in charge of the Bond franchise after the loss of Cubby could only make a "proper" movie as long as they have a blueprint to follow. The films in Brosnan's tenure were not based in any Fleming books, and in the end we got DAD (a film that's still enjoyable, though feels like a Michael Bay film with OTT drama and action scenes ala Armageddon).

"The problem with the action scenes were that I couldn't see what was going on. The camera started shaking violently, everything became a blurry haze, then everyone except Bond was dead. It was really pathetic.
Didn't have too much action, just too bad action. " - probably much worse than Bourne action scenes. I have yet to see.

"It wasn't the quantity of the action that bothered me, but the way they presented it. Like you said: blurry images and crashes and bangs! Actually come to think of it, it also did feel like in some cases they shoehorned more action into the script just because they felt they had to - "Speedboat chase? Check? Aeroplane chase? Check?""

"I never got a good look at the guy Bond was chasing after White's interogation it was so blury. What the hell is going on with the modern action films, we don;t want blurred action scenes!"

"well, of course the action sucked... look who directed the movie
he never did any action before, and they give him a Bond movie? who's bright idea was that?" - yeah, WHO'S bright idea was that?

Anyway, as a movie buff, I'm still gonna go see QOS, spend my money on a film I'm probably gonna be disappointed with.

[English Agent]

My disappointment at the casting of Craig didn't stop me from seeing CR in theaters, and right after this message I'll probably gonna go out and see QOS. However, from the reviews I've read it seems like the current direction this franchise is heading is just like what my friends here have predicted and feared: following the "Bourne" Tradition of shaky cam and blurry images and totally dropping off Bond "touches".

A thread from imdb.com: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/boa ... /121745129

Posts Highlights:

"Badly filmed and edited. It was difficult to follow and I just didn't care. The first technically incompetent Bond film. "

"Well the best bond films were written as books, not movie scripts. Casino Royale was an original book " - I like this one post, it shows clearly that the people in charge of the Bond franchise after the loss of Cubby could only make a "proper" movie as long as they have a blueprint to follow. The films in Brosnan's tenure were not based in any Fleming books, and in the end we got DAD (a film that's still enjoyable, though feels like a Michael Bay film with OTT drama and action scenes ala Armageddon).

"The problem with the action scenes were that I couldn't see what was going on. The camera started shaking violently, everything became a blurry haze, then everyone except Bond was dead. It was really pathetic.
Didn't have too much action, just too bad action. " - probably much worse than Bourne action scenes. I have yet to see.

"It wasn't the quantity of the action that bothered me, but the way they presented it. Like you said: blurry images and crashes and bangs! Actually come to think of it, it also did feel like in some cases they shoehorned more action into the script just because they felt they had to - "Speedboat chase? Check? Aeroplane chase? Check?""

"I never got a good look at the guy Bond was chasing after White's interogation it was so blury. What the hell is going on with the modern action films, we don;t want blurred action scenes!"

"well, of course the action sucked... look who directed the movie
he never did any action before, and they give him a Bond movie? who's bright idea was that?" - yeah, WHO'S bright idea was that?

Anyway, as a movie buff, I'm still gonna go see QOS, spend my money on a film I'm probably gonna be disappointed with.

Unfortunately............this post is correct!!!

Its the first Bond film, that i can in all honestly say was a technical disaster........you really dont get to see all of whats going
on, and is really the only reason for me why the film dissapoints so much.

But, its such a huge minus..........i mean Bond films have always been known for there technical excellence, even if some films were let down by a less than inspiring script.

As has been mentioned by many people, whats the point of having Grade A technical teams spending weeks setting up complex action sequences.........for their hard work to be totally undone by a director and two editors who didn't have a clue how to put an action sequence together, and then for them to cut out the vital sequences which would allow us to see and understand what was going on.

Yes, the producers hired the action co-ordinator from the Bourne films 'Dan Bradley'...........but they overlooked one thing,
Marc Forsters personal editors had never worked on a action film before, and didn't know how to put his sequences together.
Much was made of the special 'snake-eye' camera for the airplane sequence..........but i didnt see what it brought to this action sequence. The action sequences in the film consisted of loads of 1 second cuts from all camera angles which did'nt
give the viewer a chance to comprehend what was going on.

To make things worse the film doesn't really compensate in the drama stakes of the film, as there isn't much of that either,
apart from a few very good scenes. So...........what was the point of hiring a drama director to make an action film?

I mean the filmmakers spent $230 million on the film........but it wasn't all shown on the screen.........which was Cubby's
B's message to his inheritors of the franchise........'put the money on the screen'.

Its strange though that i also find that some people can live with this type of filming.......in fact youngsters seem to like this type of filming......maybe its because they are more used to this type of filming from watching todays music videos.

In a nutshell..............i was so dissapointed with the way the film was assembled, that i havn't yet been able to go back and see the film, as i don't want to be dissapointed again!!

AB

[Blowfeld]

Maybe their work will be realised in a later release. Go back to the original prints and let another have a go at the editing.

I know it's never been done to a 007 film beyond restoring a scene truncated for Classification and Rating reasons.However it could be a possibility.

[Mazer Rackham]

^^^You want a Superman 2 re-cut?
That is bad. A unaffected source may no longer exist and the style of filming may be exactly what is on screen. If so nothing can fix the style but if it exists the stuff on the cutting room floor could be added back.

Never see the light of day, its not Eon's style. I'd be grateful for OHMSS fight scenes at normal speed.

This won't happen unless Quark is panned hard. Then they might consider a re edit to save face.

[Omega]

Any follow up?

My disappointment at the casting of Craig didn't stop me from seeing CR in theaters, and right after this message I'll probably gonna go out and see QOS. However, from the reviews I've read it seems like the current direction this franchise is heading is just like what my friends here have predicted and feared: following the "Bourne" Tradition of shaky cam and blurry images and totally dropping off Bond "touches".

A thread from imdb.com: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/boa ... /121745129

Posts Highlights:

"Badly filmed and edited. It was difficult to follow and I just didn't care. The first technically incompetent Bond film. "

"Well the best bond films were written as books, not movie scripts. Casino Royale was an original book " - I like this one post, it shows clearly that the people in charge of the Bond franchise after the loss of Cubby could only make a "proper" movie as long as they have a blueprint to follow. The films in Brosnan's tenure were not based in any Fleming books, and in the end we got DAD (a film that's still enjoyable, though feels like a Michael Bay film with OTT drama and action scenes ala Armageddon).

"The problem with the action scenes were that I couldn't see what was going on. The camera started shaking violently, everything became a blurry haze, then everyone except Bond was dead. It was really pathetic.
Didn't have too much action, just too bad action. " - probably much worse than Bourne action scenes. I have yet to see.

"It wasn't the quantity of the action that bothered me, but the way they presented it. Like you said: blurry images and crashes and bangs! Actually come to think of it, it also did feel like in some cases they shoehorned more action into the script just because they felt they had to - "Speedboat chase? Check? Aeroplane chase? Check?""

"I never got a good look at the guy Bond was chasing after White's interogation it was so blury. What the hell is going on with the modern action films, we don;t want blurred action scenes!"

"well, of course the action sucked... look who directed the movie
he never did any action before, and they give him a Bond movie? who's bright idea was that?" - yeah, WHO'S bright idea was that?

Anyway, as a movie buff, I'm still gonna go see QOS, spend my money on a film I'm probably gonna be disappointed with.