Bond 23 (2012)

[grim_tales]

I agree with Brad/Mark, Bourne Identity was fine, in the sequels the shaky cam suited the gritty fast paced style, but as Brad says, it didnt fit QoS. I'll have to watch it again.
Somehow I doubt Sam Mendes will employ shaky cam.

[Shingster]

I personally think the use of heavy shakey-cam in Bond films betrays the classical Hollywood roots of the series. Throwing in a bit of gritty realism is good but you've still got to maintain the glamour and scale, which is a balance Martin Campbell got right with Casino Royale. Marc Forster on the otherhand had the setpieces and the hard-hitting hand-to-hand stuff but fluffed it with a heavy-handed contemporary shakey style and god awful editing.

The Bourne series will always be the better example of the merits (and distractions) of the shakey-cam stylee, because the whole point of the Bourne films is that you're supposed to be placed in the action from the same frenzied perspective as the protagonist.

[grim_tales]

Martin Campbell was a good director choice for Casino Royale, since he had already done Goldeneye which was the "comeback" film for Bond after Licence to Kill.

[gasteropod]

I think Sam Mendes is a reliable guy, it should be good.

[bradavon]

@ Shingster: I completely agree. CR still has a Bond feel to it, QOS certainly doesn't.

[Markgway]

And yet I thoroughly enjoyed QOS... but Bournes 2 and 3 gave me a headache. It's all subjective. QOS may eschew the 'classic' Bond style but that in itself doesn't make it a bad film - at very worst it makes it a bad Bond film; though I personally wouldn't agree with that assertion. The Bond series has gone thru countless style and tone changes in the 46 years between Dr. No and QOS - and QOS is just another one (is the gritty handheld style more of a dramatic change than Die Another Day's CGI surfing or Licence to Kill's personalised revenge thriller or Diamonds Are Forever's camp humour?) Many critics seem to accept Bourne for whatever it is or chooses to be - and that's fine - but act as if QOS has broken some unwritten rule. Double standards in play. There's a style change between Bourne Identity and Supremacy - for the worse IMO - but that's OK, apparently.

[grim_tales]

I enjoyed QOS a lot too.

[thelostdragon]

I remember hating Bourne 1, kinda liking Bourne 2, although its fight scenes gave me a headache as well, but really enjoying part 3. The fight scenes in this one were better, but still too confusing and unclear.

[bradavon]

@ Mark: I'm confused how you can dislike the action style in Bourne but like it in QOS? Die Another Day is hideous. I wish that film didn't exist.

As mentioned, people/critics accept it in Bourne because it's appropriate to the subject matter. In Bond it isn't. It's that simple.

[gasteropod]

The action is shit because you can't see what's going on, it's nothing to do with suiting the style of a Bond film, I'd hate it in any film.

[Markgway]

@ Mark: I'm confused how you can dislike the action style in Bourne but like it in QOS?

Because it's handled worse in the Bourne sequels. If the action were delivered vice-versa I would be as critical of QOS as I am of Bourne. I accept that the camerawork and editing are flawed in QOS - just that it didn't happen to bother me anywhere near as much as it did with Bourne. It surprises me when you have critics who criticize the action in QOS yet praise Bourne which is more headache inducing (IMO, natch). For my money the action in QOS is closer to Identity than Ultimatum. Gritty and handheld, but not impossible to follow. Seriously check out that Youtube link and see how bad some of Bourne is. I don't recall anything in QOS (save perhaps the pre-credits chase) coming close.

Die Another Day is hideous. I wish that film didn't exist.

That's an exaggeration, surely? It's no classic, but it's entertaining in parts (like Moonraker). I'm no fan of the invisible car or CGI surfing (OK- that's ideous!) but there's a lot more to it than that. For me the worst aspect is Halle Berry - my least fave Bond girl in recent memory. Take it for popcorn fodder and it's mindless fun.

As mentioned, people/critics accept it in Bourne because it's appropriate to the subject matter. In Bond it isn't. It's that simple.

Simplistic. Bourne shouldn't get a free ride because it's a gritty spy thriller. The shift in style and tone of the Bond series puts it on similar if not equal footing with Bourne - why should the action be judged differently? Pod is more consistant than us - he hates the action in all the aforementioned films.

[grim_tales]

The first half of Die Another Day was good and seemed to point to a grittier style (a la Bourne) then it became awful with the crap sci-fi plot and invisible car.
I got Bourne on BD for Xmas so I need to rewatch, I remember not having many problems with the action in Identity.

[gasteropod]

I enjoyed Die Another Day at the cinema, then when I watched it on DVD I was like 'this is crap', then when I watched it on Blu-ray (in my Bond box set) I was like 'ahh it's OK'. Obviously, not a good Bond film, but as Mark says, it's mindless fun.

[bradavon]

Die Another Day stopped feeling like Bourne, when the opening credits stopped. They didn't have the balls to carry it through to conclusion.

That's an exaggeration, surely?

Not really. The film is just wrong, in so many ways. Halle Berry is so hot in Die Another Day, so I forgive her . Oddly I forgive Moonraker because it's a Roger Moore film and a lot of his were silly.

Simplistic. Bourne shouldn't get a free ride because it's a gritty spy thriller. The shift in style and tone of the Bond series puts it on similar if not equal footing with Bourne - why should the action be judged differently? Pod is more consistant than us - he hates the action in all the aforementioned films.

Because as mentioned, the Bourne films move at a frantic pace. Who's Pod?

I hated it in the cinema and literally found myself laughing when it wasn't supposed to be funny and in despair at some of the ridiculous ideas being shown. The CGI surfing really is hideous.

[gasteropod]

Who's Pod?

gasteropod

[Markgway]

Because as mentioned, the Bourne films move at a frantic pace.

As opposed to the million miles per hour QOS...?

Who's Pod?

[Yi-Long]

I didn't like the action-scenes in the Bourne movies either. I almost walked out of the cinema angrily with that whole car-chase in Moscow in pt. 2, plus it's the reason I still haven't seen pt. 3.

I love the first 2 movies story-wise and acting-wise and location-wise etc etc... but I would have considered them 5-star movies if they hadn't completely fucked up the action like they did.

It's just extremely frustrating seeing a potentially great movie partly ruined because of horrible action-scenes.

[Shingster]

With the Bourne sequels the entire films are at breakneck pace with wobbly shakeycam all over the place so your mind never has to make the switch when the action kicks in, as opposed to QoS where fuck all happens in between the action.

[Yi-Long]

With the Bourne sequels the entire films are at breakneck pace with wobbly shakeycam all over the place so your mind never has to make the switch when the action kicks in, as opposed to QoS where fuck all happens in between the action.

Considering the action in Bond is just horrible, I rather watch just the scenes in-between the action.

And the Bourne-movies being at break-neck speed isn't a good excuse for having piss-poor horrible action-scenes. I actually like the pacing in the first 2 Bourne flicks btw, but the action-scenes were just ruining the whole movie for me.

I don't know who's responsible for the whole shaky-cam + MTV-editing crap that's been all the hype the last couple of years in Hollywood, but that guy needs to be shot in the face repeatedly, from different angles, with tight shots. Until he's shaking like hell on the floor and sees his life cut away before his eyes...

...and then someone should charge him 8 bucks for the privilege.

[gasteropod]

I'm glad Yi feels the same as me about the action in QoS, I reckon you other guys must be on amphetamines when watching it to be able to follow it comfortably.

[thelostdragon]

It's just extremely frustrating seeing a potentially great movie partly ruined because of horrible action-scenes.

Exactly the thoughts I had about "Batman Begins".

[gasteropod]

Exactly the thoughts I had about "Batman Begins".

Yeah that was a shame, we could have had some great brutal scenes but instead we have a load of quick-cutting 'because Batman moves around unseen'. Well yeah he does, but obviously not when he's just beating the shit out of someone, fool! Nolan fucked up there.

[bradavon]

I've never seen anyone call Gas Pod before. Thank Y, that's Markgway.

With the Bourne sequels the entire films are at breakneck pace with wobbly shakeycam all over the place so your mind never has to make the switch when the action kicks in, as opposed to QoS where fuck all happens in between the action.

Agreed.

And the Bourne-movies being at break-neck speed isn't a good excuse for having piss-poor horrible action-scenes.

The Bourne films are very popular. Your viewpoint on their Editing and DOP style is very much in the minority and if Bourne 4 ever comes, expect more of the same.

I don't know who's responsible for the whole shaky-cam + MTV-editing crap that's been all the hype the last couple of years in Hollywood, but that guy needs to be shot in the face repeatedly, from different angles, with tight shots.

Is it still being used? I think the phase is coming to an end.

Yeah that was a shame, we could have had some great brutal scenes but instead we have a load of quick-cutting 'because Batman moves around unseen'. Well yeah he does, but obviously not when he's just beating the shit out of someone, fool! Nolan fucked up there.

I kind of agree. Batman Begins is definitely the weaker film next to Dark Knight.

[Yi-Long]

And the Bourne-movies being at break-neck speed isn't a good excuse for having piss-poor horrible action-scenes.

The Bourne films are very popular. Your viewpoint on their Editing and DOP style is very much in the minority and if Bourne 4 ever comes, expect more of the same.

I'm not sure if I'm in the minority, but whoever likes the action in the Bourne sequels must not be aware of the fact that it can look much much better.

I think it's a case of ignorance over preference.

Not just that btw, but it also undermines the quality of the action-scenes themselfs. What use is it to have great choreography or big car-chases which takes days to shoot, when you're gonna edit and shoot it in a way where you can't even tell what's going on!? Absolutely makes no sense whatsoever...

[Shingster]

Not sure how you gauge terms like "minority" or "majority" when it comes to the shakey-cam issue. I didn't mind the action in the Bourne films that much, but it's not exactly a technique I'm fond of, and sure Yi's opinion maybe is a "minority" one if we count the number of people who rave about the Bourne films over those who moan about them, but he's certainly not a lone voice on the issue is he? Most Bourne threads on internet forums the world over tend to be split on the issue!

If you sat a hundred people down to watch a shakey-cam, staccato fight sequence and then a classic, more static HK style sequence and asked them to vote, what would be the "minority" verdict there?