113 replies to this topic

[Publius]

I actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE will end up inferior to CASINO ROYALE.

I can see this going either way. If QoS is like the non-romance segments of CR, I'll probably like it better. While I think showing Bond falling for Vesper and learning some very important lessons was a must (and was done extraordinarily well), now that that's out of the way QoS has no excuse not being the Wrath of Khan to CR's Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Whereas CR was the OHMSS of our day, QoS has the potential (and so far looks) to be LTK done right, which is what I prefer.

Really, what I loved about CR was Craig mixing Connery's Bond interpretation with Dalton's, down-to-earth action that flowed from the narrative, a retro-yet-modern look, and great dialogue (the kind we've only seen in isolation since the 60s). I already know QoS has the first three in spades, so what I'm truly waiting for is to see if the magic of CR's witty banter was recaptured. I'm not worrying whether I'll be blown away by the plot (sometimes simple is good), so long as they don't stick to anything too predictable. Honestly, even most of the Bond classics dazzled with just a slight twist here and there to a basic premise.

[Harmsway]

I actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE will end up inferior to CASINO ROYALE.

I can see this going either way. If QoS is like the non-romance segments of CR, I'll probably like it better.

Why? Not a fan of CASINO ROYALE's romance?

For me, I feel like the real struggle for QUANTUM is to come up with a story that's anywhere near as emotionally involving as the Bond/Vesper love story from CASINO ROYALE. There are things about QUANTUM that undeniably look superior to CASINO ROYALE (the action, for one thing), but if the emotional investment isn't there to the same degree, it's just not going to stay with me the same way. It was the Bond/Vesper story that sold CASINO ROYALE for me.

I'm going to be skeptical about QUANTUM until I see evidence that the drama is going to be well in place. Forster's gone on about character development... I hope it's there and really well handled. Otherwise, I can't imagine QUANTUM being anything other than something of a slight disappointment.

[tdalton]

I actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE will end up inferior to CASINO ROYALE.

I can see this going either way. If QoS is like the non-romance segments of CR, I'll probably like it better.

Why? Not a fan of CASINO ROYALE's romance?

For me, I feel like the real struggle for QUANTUM is to come up with a story that's anywhere near as emotionally involving as the Bond/Vesper love story from CASINO ROYALE. There are things about QUANTUM that undeniably look superior to CASINO ROYALE (the action, for one thing), but if the emotional investment isn't there to the same degree, it's just not going to stay with me the same way. It was the Bond/Vesper story that sold CASINO ROYALE for me.

I'm going to be skeptical about QUANTUM until I see evidence that the drama is going to be well in place. Forster's gone on about character development... I hope it's there and really well handled. Otherwise, I can't imagine QUANTUM being anything other than something of a slight disappointment.

I would agree that QUANTUM would be something of a disappointment after CASINO ROYALE if the character development that Forster has spoken a great deal about is either absent or doesn't measure up. Hopefully it will measure up to the work we've seen in other Forster films (and I'm beginning to think that it might as I'm becoming more optimistic about the film), and if it does, then QUANTUM could turn out to be a good, solid entry in the Bond franchise. If it doesn't then I'm not sure how the film will turn out (it will at that point, I think, depend on how good and involving the action is) but, in the end, it's just a movie and regardless of the quality of the final film, there will always be another one to follow that can either continue building on the good aspects of the film and/or correcting any problems that were present in the film.

[Harmsway]

I would agree that QUANTUM would be something of a disappointment after CASINO ROYALE if the character development that Forster has spoken a great deal about is either absent or doesn't measure up.

Yes. I mean, it could still be one humdinger of a Bond film (not all of Fleming's Bond novels were particularly dramatic or character-driven, some of them were still just straight-up Bond adventures that were handled really well), but when measured against CASINO ROYALE, just won't have the same appeal.

but, in the end, it's just a movie and regardless of the quality of the final film, there will always be another one to follow that can either continue building on the good aspects of the film and/or correcting any problems that were present in the film.

To some degree, I wonder whether QUANTUM's really something of a "filler" film. A follow-up to CASINO ROYALE that wraps up a lot of the loose ends and then paves the way for even more interesting stories down the road.

[DaveBond21]

I'm not going to compare it to Casino Royale at all. I am just going to enjoy it for what it is.

[Harmsway]

I'm not going to compare it to Casino Royale at all. I am just going to enjoy it for what it is.

That would be easier, I think, if QUANTUM wasn't CASINO ROYALE II, but it is. It's all about what happened in CASINO ROYALE and developing that further, so the comparison is practically unavoidable.

[DaveBond21]

I'm not going to compare it to Casino Royale at all. I am just going to enjoy it for what it is.

That would be easier, I think, if QUANTUM wasn't CASINO ROYALE II, but it is. It's all about what happened in CASINO ROYALE and developing that further, so the comparison is practically unavoidable.

It's going to be millions of movie-goers' first ever Bond, so there will definitely be a standalone element to it, that you won't need to have seen Casino Royale to know what is going on. I think that already makes it easier for me to not compare it with any other Bond movies. I know it's going to be great, just from the trailer. Plus it's a Bond film.

But maybe I'm easily pleased when it comes to 007 movies?



I mean, I enjoyed TWINE, so what do I know?

[Flash1087]

I mean, I enjoyed TWINE, so what do I know?

Yeah...you know what, I think you're an alright guy otherwise, I'll let that slide.

[BoogieBond]

I would agree that QUANTUM would be something of a disappointment after CASINO ROYALE if the character development that Forster has spoken a great deal about is either absent or doesn't measure up. Hopefully it will measure up to the work we've seen in other Forster films (and I'm beginning to think that it might as I'm becoming more optimistic about the film), and if it does, then QUANTUM could turn out to be a good, solid entry in the Bond franchise. If it doesn't then I'm not sure how the film will turn out (it will at that point, I think, depend on how good and involving the action is) but, in the end, it's just a movie and regardless of the quality of the final film, there will always be another one to follow that can either continue building on the good aspects of the film and/or correcting any problems that were present in the film.

Good to see your post and I agree with you Tdalton
However good this one is, It could be a disappointment, just because of circumstances, just because it isn't Casino Royale. It cannot have the breakthrough effect of Casino Royale, it probably won't be as affecting(going on a journey with Bond), and I am braced for that(But hope its not true and that it is just a feeling). But, having been on a Forster watch(watched about 3-4 films) recently, I am confident there is going to plenty of character and room for development for actors such as Craig. One thing I noticed in the films I watched of his, his main characters were developed, and the stories were quite original. I have no qualms on that side. Surely Forster wouldn't put his name to an action fest, that is not why he is on board.

The one area of concern for me, just on watching the trailer is the action(Too pretty picture, not exhilarating enough), but I am sure I will be convinced and turned around come November(or even during the September trailer)

Edited by BoogieBond, 15 August 2008 - 11:46 AM.

[Melack]

I actually think QUANTUM OF SOLACE will end up inferior to CASINO ROYALE.

I can see this going either way. If QoS is like the non-romance segments of CR, I'll probably like it better.

Why? Not a fan of CASINO ROYALE's romance?

For me, I feel like the real struggle for QUANTUM is to come up with a story that's anywhere near as emotionally involving as the Bond/Vesper love story from CASINO ROYALE. There are things about QUANTUM that undeniably look superior to CASINO ROYALE (the action, for one thing), but if the emotional investment isn't there to the same degree, it's just not going to stay with me the same way. It was the Bond/Vesper story that sold CASINO ROYALE for me.

I'm going to be skeptical about QUANTUM until I see evidence that the drama is going to be well in place. Forster's gone on about character development... I hope it's there and really well handled. Otherwise, I can't imagine QUANTUM being anything other than something of a slight disappointment.

I agree so much it's silly.

The romance part really was the special thing in CR for me. In my opinion it's one of the hardest things to do to make a love story believeable on film, sometimes it makes och breaks the film itself.

The chemistry between Craig and Green was great and I totally fell for the love story.

It's so easy to fail with a love story in an actionfilm, just look at the love stories in other actionfilms like Attack of the Clones, Superman Returns and not even the Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes thing is anywhere near Bond and Vespers.

I like how someone said CR was the OHMSS of our time as it's my two favourite Bond films. Let's just hope QOS is better than DAF

[Publius]

Why? Not a fan of CASINO ROYALE's romance?

I liked it well enough, but I have some problems with Eva Green. Not that she was bad, just that I think her depiction was a little off from what I wanted to see. Her better moments ("dinner jackets," shower scene, beach scene) seemed to be alternated with... I don't want to say "overacting," but it just didn't strike me as a great match for Craig's extremely natural performance.

Also, the reason I said I hope it's like CR sans the romance is that the kind of character development I prefer usually has nothing to do with love stories. For example, my favorite moment in CR as far as character growth or evolution is concerned is when Bond mumbles "the big picture" (and Le Chiffre nods) during the torture sequence after Le Chiffre gives Bond that lecture reminding him of M's similar speech earlier in the film. It was nothing new to the somewhat seasoned Bond, but now he was living it rather than just hearing it said. Fantastic scene that probably doesn't get enough mention.

[SecretAgentFan]

Hmm, to each his own. Personally, I think Bond has to move on now from Vesper. Too much of him sulking away wouldn´t work. It will be refreshing to see Bond dealing with the Olga-Character without falling in love with her.

[DavidSomerset]

Hmm, to each his own. Personally, I think Bond has to move on now from Vesper. Too much of him sulking away wouldn´t work. It will be refreshing to see Bond dealing with the Olga-Character without falling in love with her.

I would prefer that Bond does a dance at the opening credits like Austin Powers in TSWSM, relieved that "the bitch is dead".

[dodge]

With one exception that I know of--1941--Spielberg has brought every film he's made on or before schedule. And most of Spielberg's films have had major budget. Clint Eastwood is also famous for never going over schedule or budget. Surely there are many more great or simply fine directors in that club.

Well sure. But what does that have to do with anything we're talking about? Forster's not going over schedule or over budget on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and never has before to my knowledge. So your point is...?

So, to clarify here: is Eon itself difficult in this regard?

They are difficult in that Bond films, for better or worse, are generally produced on a very tight timetable, which is not the case for most other kinds of movies.

have all Bond directors suffered as poor Marc has?

Well, most of the Bond directors probably didn't care as much as Marc does, purely because I imagine Marc's a seemingly more careful director than any of the previous Bond directors. He's really a craftsman... the other Bond directors (Campbell included), weren't really filmmakers in the same sense. The Bond franchise has generally been manned by for-hire hacks.There's also the issue that many of the previous Bond directors had been used to such tight scheduling. Forster's enjoyed a really relaxed schedule on his smaller films... so taking this leap into the fast-paced Bond production is clearly something he's not used to.

As a special favor, may I ask: was Campbell in the same fix with GE and/or CR?

Yes. The editing schedule was pretty tight for both of those films, and it's one of the reasons Campbell was so burnt out by the end of his time on CASINO ROYALE. Bond films are produced fast and furious, with little time to breathe.

Harms, come on now, really. I stated quite clearly: over schedule OR budget. You're swinging below the belt here by zeroing in on the budget alone. My concern about schedule is valid--and there are numerous directors who are known for bringing films in on time. I named two. Surely there are more, including big budget Action directors.
So, the real question was: is three something about Eon that makes it difficult to stick to a schedule. And that part you have answered, for which I thank you. May I unprotect my jewels now?


As for the second quote, I'm having trouble with the concept of all Bond films till now having been manned--or unmanned--by hacks who couldn't rub two artsy sticks together. Until, of course, Marc Forster, who arrived with a choir of angels to lead us all to higher ground. I'll wait till November. Meanwhile, there's no need to slime the occasionally great work done by prior Bond directors. Cheers!

Your occasionally rebellious pupil,

Dodge

[Harmsway]

For example, my favorite moment in CR as far as character growth or evolution is concerned is when Bond mumbles "the big picture" (and Le Chiffre nods) during the torture sequence after Le Chiffre gives Bond that lecture reminding him of M's similar speech earlier in the film. It was nothing new to the somewhat seasoned Bond, but now he was living it rather than just hearing it said. Fantastic scene that probably doesn't get enough mention.

It's a fantastic, wonderful moment. If there's enough of those in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, well, we're set. I just want to be sure that there's going to be some real meat to it, and so far, nothing I've seen from this production so far has convinced me of it. That's not to say it won't be there in the final product, but the character arc for Bond they've talked about sounds a bit so-so (though perhaps their execution of it is much more exciting than what I'm imagining), the trailer was nothing but action so it didn't really give us an idea of the film, and the plot summary more or less sounded like a typical Bond adventure. So we'll see.

[DavidSomerset]

I dont really think Marc Foster is going to do a Citizen Kane from QOS. Imagine David Lean making Thunderball...The past Bond directors (pre Brozza's era) did a mighty good job, which a Oscar winning artsy Director could not have managed. For a TMWTGG, even George Hamilton had GF.

[Harmsway]

Harms, come on now, really. I stated quite clearly: over schedule OR budget. You're swinging below the belt here by zeroing in on the budget alone.

I didn't believe I did:

"Forster's not going over schedule or over budget on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and never has before to my knowledge."

As for the second quote, I'm having trouble with the concept of all Bond films till now having been manned--or unmanned--by hacks who couldn't rub two artsy sticks together.

Looking at their respective careers outside of Bond, it does seem that way.

Until, of course, Marc Forster, who arrived with a choir of angels to lead us all to higher ground.

Well, as I've said, I don't believe Marc is necessarily leading us all "to higher ground," by virtue of the fact that I'm not expecting QUANTUM to be better than CASINO ROYALE. The Bond franchise is an odd place wherein a hack can do better work than an acclaimed artist.

[DavidSomerset]

... The Bond franchise is an odd place wherein a hack can do better work than an acclaimed artist.

Would you like Brett Ratner with your fries, Sir? I wouldnt want him near 007. He will make Felix into a "Jar Jar Bling Bling" sidekick.

Edited by DavidSomerset, 15 August 2008 - 02:43 PM.

[Judo chop]

We have a Bond who is coming directly off of a strong character story, and we have a director who specializes in character drama who has talked briefly about building on the character arc some more. He has also talked about creating a visual style the likes of those from the 60’s spy thrillers. We have a returning writer who, aside from a few peculiar pen strokes, delivered fantastic dialogue in CR. Also returning from CR is the bulk of a tremendous cast.

Those clues point to the promised land.

We have assurances that the film will be loaded with action, we have a trailer that, aside from a smattering of typical Dench-M scolding, is nothing but action, none of which looks particularly breathtaking, and talk about yet another Bond girl who is fiercely independent, on her own revenge mission and ready to kick butt.

Those point to DAD.

Oh dear, oh dear. What’s a fan to make of all this?

Put them on a scale and I think the good side outweighs the bad.

[DR76]

After seeing "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", I really think that a film can be over-worked and destroyed during the post-processing...

I don't recall "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being destroyed.

[Judo chop]

After seeing "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", I really think that a film can be over-worked and destroyed during the post-processing...

I don't recall "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being destroyed.

True. It was never built in the first place.

(Darling, don't hide behind this Doctor mask. You're still a Lady to me.)

[Safari Suit]

Lets not forget Lewis Gilbert in the "not a hack" category. Alfie and Educating Rita piss all over dribble like Stranger Than Fiction.

[Judo chop]

I think the problem with Harms’ statement that has people fired up, is his use of the terms “for hire”, “workman” and “hack”. I think he’s using them all interchangeably, where to most (myself included), “hack” is viewed as mostly derogatory. As for the Bond directors, “for hire” they were. I don’t think it’s unfair to call each of them “workman”, although some clearly had more talent than others. There’s not really an esteemed career among them, with a few arguments to be made.

“Hack”, to me, implies a director who consistently produces results ranging from mediocre to total failure, which Young and Gilbert and Campbell have not. So, personally, I wouldn’t label them as such.

Or maybe I’m way off? I’ll leave that to Harmsway to say.

[Safari Suit]

There’s not really an esteemed career among them, with a few arguments to be made.

Gilbert and Campbell had significant artistic/commercial hits in three different decades. Not bad.

[Judo chop]

There’s not really an esteemed career among them, with a few arguments to be made.

Gilbert and Campbell had significant artistic/commercial hits in three different decades. Not bad.

Sure. Campbell's churned out a few decent action flicks, and his career seems to be on the up, but surely in part thanks to a smash with Casino Royale. I said there were a few arguments to be made. Gilbert though? What has he done since Moonraker?

In any case, 'not bad' isn't the equivalent of 'esteemed'. I'm not sure how you intended it to mean, but I would say 'not bad' is closer to 'workman'.

[Safari Suit]

Since Moonraker Gilbert has made Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine. I don't know how those films were/are viewed in the US, but in the UK they were massive commercial and critical successes which are still popular today.

[DamnCoffee]

Since Moonraker Gilbert has made Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine. I don't know how those films were/are viewed in the US, but in the UK they were massive commercial and critical successes which are still popular today.

Yep. I remember watching Educating Rita in my Drama Class. *nods*

[Mr_Wint]

I respect that there's some people on here who doesn't really like anything else besides FRWL and CR. But saying that the Bondfilms were made by a gang of hack-directors is just pushing things too far

I know that it is somewhat controversial to label a pop-cultural phenomenon like Bond as "brilliant", but I am doing it anyway. Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Glen and Hunt were all talented and all worked on first-class filmproductions that holds up well even to this day (something you really can't say about many other films made during this era!). They were not hired to direct low-quality trash or anything close to direct-to-VHS type of garbage. If you think they just walked around the set incompetently, you really should have your head examined. There's no need to look at other films they did - the bondfilms speaks for themselves. Let's try to get some perspective.

[Harmsway]

I think the problem with Harms’ statement that has people fired up, is his use of the terms “for hire”, “workman” and “hack”. I think he’s using them all interchangeably, where to most (myself included), “hack” is viewed as mostly derogatory. As for the Bond directors, “for hire” they were. I don’t think it’s unfair to call each of them “workman”, although some clearly had more talent than others. There’s not really an esteemed career among them, with a few arguments to be made.

“Hack”, to me, implies a director who consistently produces results ranging from mediocre to total failure, which Young and Gilbert and Campbell have not. So, personally, I wouldn’t label them as such.

Or maybe I’m way off? I’ll leave that to Harmsway to say.

You got it right.

There's no need to look at other films they did - the bondfilms speaks for themselves. Let's try to get some perspective.

No, I don't think the Bond films speak for themselves, and I do think to get perspective on these individuals' capabilities, one must look at what their output is when left without the guidance and support of EON.

[dodge]

I think the problem with Harms’ statement that has people fired up, is his use of the terms “for hire”, “workman” and “hack”. I think he’s using them all interchangeably, where to most (myself included), “hack” is viewed as mostly derogatory. As for the Bond directors, “for hire” they were. I don’t think it’s unfair to call each of them “workman”, although some clearly had more talent than others. There’s not really an esteemed career among them, with a few arguments to be made.

“Hack”, to me, implies a director who consistently produces results ranging from mediocre to total failure, which Young and Gilbert and Campbell have not. So, personally, I wouldn’t label them as such.Or maybe I’m way off? I’ll leave that to Harmsway to say.

You got it right.

There's no need to look at other films they did - the bondfilms speaks for themselves. Let's try to get some perspective.

No, I don't think the Bond films speak for themselves, and I do think to get perspective on these individuals' capabilities, one must look at what their output is when left without the guidance and support of EON.

You nailed it there.