70 replies to this topic

[Bond Bug]

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

I take it you feel like I do then about some of the needless nitpicking this film is receiving. Anyone would think all the previous films were literary masterpieces. The sad thing is I'm starting to have a bit of a backlash against Casino Royale. It's a great film but by no means perfect. It seems the rose tinted glasses are out in force.

That's exactly it. Casino Royale set the bar so high and Quantum does not stand up to it. I admit my expectations were sky high after reading interviews with Marc Forster who talked about creating an arthouse movie out of Bond and how the backgrounds would be sympathetic to Bond's psychological state. How could the director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and the Kite Runner fail so spectacularly? If this movie followed Die Another Die, I think those who criticise it would be more forgiving.

[Zorin Industries]

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

But to say SOLACE does not have a "cohesive screenplay" sort of demands evidence to support that. I was not asking you to justify yourself, just your opinion. No worries though. It's only a film.

An example - the boat chase. What was the point in it? To rescue the girl who Bond then dumps unconscious in the arms of a stranger.

It is just mindless action for the sake of it.

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

Quite right. Just as I have no need to state I work in TV drama to repeat that's what we got.

I'm glad we agree then!

I thought the boat chase was triggered by BOND clearly realising CAMILLE was an innocent out of her depth and that - having had not only the death of VESPER and the escape of MR WHITE to deal with as a result of Quantum's shenanigans - BOND wanted to stir things up by rescuing her to make a point but to not have any use for her right away. It's sort of there with what happens to FIELDS. He cannot just use these women any more as there is often a consequence.

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

I take it you feel like I do then about some of the needless nitpicking this film is receiving. Anyone would think all the previous films were literary masterpieces. The sad thing is I'm starting to have a bit of a backlash against Casino Royale. It's a great film but by no means perfect. It seems the rose tinted glasses are out in force.

That's exactly it. Casino Royale set the bar so high and Quantum does not stand up to it. I admit my expectations were sky high after reading interviews with Marc Forster who talked about creating an arthouse movie out of Bond and how the backgrounds would be sympathetic to Bond's psychological state. How could the director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and the Kite Runner fail so spectacularly? If this movie followed Die Another Die, I think those who criticise it would be more forgiving.

Marc Forster did not state he set out to make an "art house" movie. That is what people felt he was going to do solely by looking at his track record. Which is not very "arthouse" anyway.

"Arthouse"....

"Auteur"....

They are often bandied about in lazy filmic discussion with scant awareness of what they really mean.

[avl]

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

I take it you feel like I do then about some of the needless nitpicking this film is receiving. Anyone would think all the previous films were literary masterpieces. The sad thing is I'm starting to have a bit of a backlash against Casino Royale. It's a great film but by no means perfect. It seems the rose tinted glasses are out in force.

That's exactly it. Casino Royale set the bar so high and Quantum does not stand up to it. I admit my expectations were sky high after reading interviews with Marc Forster who talked about creating an arthouse movie out of Bond and how the backgrounds would be sympathetic to Bond's psychological state. How could the director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and the Kite Runner fail so spectacularly? If this movie followed Die Another Die, I think those who criticise it would be more forgiving.

Is not art house, but it does have artistry. The Tosca sequence for example - supremely stylish and confident film making, the use of silence, the intercutting between the opera and the gun fight. The symbolism of the giant eye, and Bond voyeuristically spying (yes, actual spying) on the Quantum's inner sanctum meeting in plain sight. Fantastic stuff.

The desert landscape - symbolic of Bond's emotional closed-off state, and deliberately inserted by Forster to make this connection.

Forster totally succeeds in his stated aims!

[Bond Bug]

I thought the boat chase was triggered by BOND clearly realising CAMILLE was an innocent out of her depth and that - having had not only the death of VESPER and the escape of MR WHITE to deal with as a result of Quantum's shenanigans - BOND wanted to stir things up by rescuing her to make a point but to not have any use for her right away. It's sort of there with what happens to FIELDS. He cannot just use these women any more as there is often a consequence.

Dumping her in the arms of a stranger meant the Quantum guys could have got hold of her again. He clearly had no concern for her safety.

Is not art house, but it does have artistry. The Tosca sequence for example - supremely stylish and confident film making, the use of silence, the intercutting between the opera and the gun fight. The symbolism of the giant eye, and Bond voyeuristically spying (yes, actual spying) on the Quantum's inner sanctum meeting in plain sight. Fantastic stuff.

The desert landscape - symbolic of Bond's emotional closed-off state, and deliberately inserted by Forster to make this connection.

Forster totally succeeds in his stated aims!

There were scenes that looked like no other Bond movie and that was a very good thing. I apologise for misquoting Forster. He said he wanted to create the feel of an arthouse movie.

[dee-bee-five]

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

I take it you feel like I do then about some of the needless nitpicking this film is receiving. Anyone would think all the previous films were literary masterpieces. The sad thing is I'm starting to have a bit of a backlash against Casino Royale. It's a great film but by no means perfect. It seems the rose tinted glasses are out in force.

That's exactly it. Casino Royale set the bar so high and Quantum does not stand up to it. I admit my expectations were sky high after reading interviews with Marc Forster who talked about creating an arthouse movie out of Bond and how the backgrounds would be sympathetic to Bond's psychological state. How could the director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and the Kite Runner fail so spectacularly?

That's the point, he hasn't, at least for some of us. Why do you refuse to accept that some of us are bowled over by Quantum of Solace and keep coming back with the same negative remarks, repeated over and over again, in some vain attempt to make us change our minds? Okay, you didn't like the movie; I respect that. Please equally accept that some of us loved it. I absolutely agree with you that Casino Royale set the bar high. Where we disagree is that I think Quantum has at least matched it, if not set the bar even higher. And please don't come back at me and tell me I'm wrong because that is my opinion, to which I'm perfectly entitled, as you are yours.

[Bond Bug]

That's the point, he hasn't, at least for some of us. Why do you refuse to accept that some of us are bowled over by Quantum of Solace and keep coming back with the same negative remarks, repeated over and over again, in some vain attempt to make us change our minds? Okay, you didn't like the movie; I respect that. Please equally accept that some of us loved it. I absolutely agree with you that Casino Royale set the bar high. Where we disagree is that I think Quantum has at least matched it, if not set the bar even higher. And please don't come back at me and tell me I'm wrong because that is my opinion, to which I'm perfectly entitled, as you are yours.

I am pleased you enjoyed the movie. I want people to enjoy the movie. I want lots of people to see this movie and for it to outgross Casino Royale. I thought it was a "discussion forum," that would suggest I am allowed to create a thread and reply to those who make comments.

[dee-bee-five]

That's the point, he hasn't, at least for some of us. Why do you refuse to accept that some of us are bowled over by Quantum of Solace and keep coming back with the same negative remarks, repeated over and over again, in some vain attempt to make us change our minds? Okay, you didn't like the movie; I respect that. Please equally accept that some of us loved it. I absolutely agree with you that Casino Royale set the bar high. Where we disagree is that I think Quantum has at least matched it, if not set the bar even higher. And please don't come back at me and tell me I'm wrong because that is my opinion, to which I'm perfectly entitled, as you are yours.

I am pleased you enjoyed the movie. I want people to enjoy the movie. I want lots of people to see this movie and for it to outgross Casino Royale. I thought it was a "discussion forum," that would suggest I am allowed to create a thread and reply to those who make comments.

Indeed. But there comes a stage when continuing circular arguments become pointless. This is one of them.

[JimmyBond]

High five dee-bee-five!

[Roebuck]

Funny how you only seem to post in threads that support your argument. Can you just not see the others, or do these ones attract you like a magnet?

I see the fans of the movie saying how great it was, but I don't see anyone able to explain the plot like how Quantum are going to "control the world's water supply" to quote Greene, or if Bond even got the right person. And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions. Quantum still exists and the secret agent working on the case has failed to gather intelligence. Make all the excuses you like. This movie sucked.

Bond isn’t investigating Quantum’s water scam and, even when he

Spoiler

stumbles upon the final piece of the puzzle in the sinkhole,

isn’t particularly interested. Green is a link to Vesper’s boyfriend and nothing more. Bond might well have brought him in for interrogation if the idiot hadn’t had Mathis and Fields killed. Bond’s working through a lot of guilt here as he’s realizing how many innocents have died so he can ‘’avenge’’ Vesper.

Quantum is trying to do something bold and fresh with the series, with the audience being asked to provide many of the answers themselves. Many fans won’t take to it, but hopefully it marks the demise of the infamous Bond Formula.

[quantumofsolace]

I don't believe Greene thinks he can take over the worlds water supply. I don't think he even says that. He says it the most precious resource and he wants to control as much of it as he can.

[bendertherobot]

There was NO PLOT to "control the world's water supply," to quote Greene.

The fact you read the "plot to control the world's water supply" into my quote says more about your understanding of the plot than anything else.