159 replies to this topic

[Bill]

DrNoNo--

Here, here! It was certainly not clear--the friend I saw it with thought that M, White and every one else in the room was shot. Which again leads one to wonder why Bond would chase after the shooter instead of coming to their assistance?! Very poorly done!

Bill

[HildebrandRarity]

DrNoNo--

Here, here! It was certainly not clear--the friend I saw it with thought that M, White and every one else in the room was shot. Which again leads one to wonder why Bond would chase after the shooter instead of coming to their assistance?! Very poorly done!

Bill

Bond checked to see if M was ok and when he saw her going out to the exit only then did he go after Mitchell. It's on screen.

I suggest you go see the film again to find out what you missed.

If you miss things like this then how can you blame some of us for thinking that some of these posts are dumb...and that some Bond fans like dumbed-down story telling?

?

Baffling.

[Jim]

If what the series stands for is exposition of crashing obviousness that would underestimate the mental faculties of an apple...

If what the series stands for is largely inept and flyweight characterisation...

If what the series stands for is meaningless tick-box drivel...

If what the series stands for is reheat, fail to inspire and take the money simply for the sake of reliance on a name rather than endeavouring to try something new...

Then yes, it is the worst film in that series. But then, that series is utter rubbish.

Its principle achievement is to expose what godawful nonsense we've been willing to accept in the past.

[HildebrandRarity]

Jim, you know that you're wasting your back-handed insult, right?

These people are too dumb to comprehend what you just wrote.

Let's call a spade a spade and be done with it.

I'm getting sick of this. Only within this month did I realize that people go to the movies to snooze...to close their eyes and have brain farts.

Sad but true.

[Daddy Bond]

DrNoNo--

Here, here! It was certainly not clear--the friend I saw it with thought that M, White and every one else in the room was shot. Which again leads one to wonder why Bond would chase after the shooter instead of coming to their assistance?! Very poorly done!

Bill

Bond checked to see if M was ok and when he saw her going out to the exit only then did he go after Mitchell. It's on screen.

I suggest you go see the film again to find out what you missed.

If you miss things like this then how can you blame some of us for thinking that some of these posts are dumb...and that some Bond fans like dumbed-down story telling?

?

Baffling.

Yeah, I know. It's simply amazing how many of the criticisms have been directed at things people just simply missed (or didn't understand )that were up on the screen, plain as day. I don't mind people not liking the movie for legit reasons, but so many are letting us know by their criticisms that they need a dumbed down Bond in order for them to follow the story.

However, to be fair, the edit was pretty quick, so if you blinked, you might have missed it. However, I hope many of the critics will go back and give the movie a re-watch after learning how much they missed (that so many of us didn't miss).

[Bondian]

However, to be fair, the edit was pretty quick, so if you blinked, you might have missed it. However, I hope many of the critics will go back and give the movie a re-watch after learning how much they missed (that so many of us didn't miss).

Maybe the quick editing was a ploy to get people to go and see the movie for a second time.

Cannot believe all the negativity from people who enjoyed the movie. If you've enjoyed it, fine. But for those who missed something because they blinked when you didn't at a certain point in the film, they should be labelled as "dumb".

[Jim]

Jim, you know that you're wasting your back-handed insult, right?

These people are too dumb to comprehend what you just wrote.

Let's call a spade a spade and be done with it.

I'm getting sick of this. Only within this month did I realize that people go to the movies to snooze...to close their eyes and have brain farts.

Sad but true.

Well, that's a leedle feisty, and "dumb" is probably a bit strong, given that it's only a film and not some sort of entrance exam, but it is curious that it's become so polarizing.

[JimmyBond]

But for those who missed something because they blinked when you didn't at a certain point in the film, they should be labelled as "dumb".

Thank you, I agree with you.

[Jim]

Maybe the quick editing was a ploy to get people to go and see the movie for a second time.

You might have something there, although it would be defended on an artistic basis, I'm sure.

[madler007]

In context, as a direct sequel, most of this movie scores. But lets face it, it could have been a classic but had many flaws. 1.) both the car chase & roof top action were better in Bourne 2 & 3. 2.)Some close choppy action good, but not all the time. 3.) the boat action scene just horrible. 4.) Lack of famous bond theme score missing, just takes a lot of fun out of both CR & QoS. 5.) Plot points. Holes as big as Montana. Bond saves Camille at end of boat scene & just hands here off to someone at the dock. C,mon. The next scene should have been her waking up in his arms. And at end he saves her from rape & burned to death & they just walk away, nice knowing you. Death of Mathis. Throwing him in garbage, just sooooooooooo wrong. We also do not get a great scene where 007 interegates Greene before leaving him to die or getting info out of scared as , Vesper so-called boyfriend. And Bond leaving Fields behind at party to Greene & henchman. What 007 think would happen to her. A scene dealing with her death would have been exciting. Finally a dull, no chemistry exciting Camille. I see more sexy stuff on prime time TV.

[avl]

Well, that's a leedle feisty, and "dumb" is probably a bit strong, given that it's only a film and not some sort of entrance exam, but it is curious that it's become so polarizing.

I think it all down to the editing and the pace. Some people seem to want to luxuriate in a Bond film like a warm bath or a comfy pair of slippers. Both have their place of course, but QoS is neither

Edited by avl, 18 November 2008 - 05:49 PM.

[Bondian]

Now. Can we all be civil and get on discussing Bond as opposed to being diagnoses as having some form of dementia?

Anyone notice those two squirrels at it in the hotels scene?

What? You missed it?

Maybe the quick editing was a ploy to get people to go and see the movie for a second time.

You might have something there, although it would be defended on an artistic basis, I'm sure.

Of course.

[DrNoNo]

I take offense to the fact that Bill, myself, or anyone else on these forums is "dumb" for watching this movie and questioning it.

When you are watching the movie, it looks like M gets shot. Plain and simple. Many people in the theater I was in gasped. M just got shot!

There is nothing "dumb" about it. There is nothing to figure out.

M gets shot. Or, that's what it looks like.

The only thing "dumb" is the editing.

I'm glad people like this movie. I don't sit around hoping for fans to turn against the series.

But seriously. If you can step away from fandom briefly and look at the film from an objective perspective, it's really not that good. It's not awful, but it's definitely not going to go down in history as a top notch film.

Bill (original poster) wrote quite possibly the best QOS review I have found yet on these forums. I suggest some of you re-read it because obviously, you're not getting it. Just like I didn't get this movie.

[Bondian]

When you are watching the movie, it looks like M gets shot. Plain and simple. Many people in the theater I was in gasped. M just got shot!

There is nothing "dumb" about it. There is nothing to figure out.

M gets shot. Or, that's what it looks like.

To be honest, I thought that as well. So did three other people who I was with.

It was edited that way to make you think she'd been shot. It's a kind of shock moment for the audience who naturally would close their eyes in reaction. Of course, when we see 'M' again in one piece we assumed she was injured/dead. So, if you hadn't of blinked right at that moment, you'd know she was not shot.

It's like the scene when Camille picks up Bond, I was sure she'd shot him. When he says "that wasn't very nice" I still thought she's shot him.

Now. How dumb is that?

[Bill]

HildebrandRarity--

I am not going to doubt the possibility that Bond checked on M before going out.

However, when I saw it, my friend who saw it with me, and five other people I know--casual Bond fans who are not as obsessive as we are here--ALL missed it. We all thought that M had been shot and Bond did not check on her.

And Bondian--I could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

Just to add to that--I am 40 years old, an attorney, and have been a Bond fan for 29 years. I have read all of the books by Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Gardner, Benson and Faulks, and the first three by Higson (and only because the latest ones have yet to be published in the US) and the first Moneypenny Diaries (same reason why I have not read the whole trilogy). I have seen all of the films multiple times. I have read many of the Bond reference books, and seen many Bond documentaries on the DVDs and elsewhere. I wrote my thesis in college on James Bond, for which I received an A, and even spoke at the Bond conference at Hofstra last year.

Thus, I certainly do not consider myself dumb by any means, and for anyone to say so is insulting. My Bond credentials speak for themselves. To say that we need a "dumbed down" Bond adventure to follow the story pretty much states that all of the prior stories were just that, DaddyBond. Very interesting take on Bond fandom.

Moreover, criticism of a confusing storyline is certainly legitimate.

And, Jim, while I do not doubt your Bond appreciation, I am curious as to how much of what has come before would you consider "godawful nonsense."

Bill

Edited by Bill, 18 November 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[JimmyBond]

But seriously. If you can step away from fandom briefly and look at the film from an objective perspective, it's really not that good. It's not awful, but it's definitely not going to go down in history as a top notch film.

For someone who takes offence to being called dumb, you're sure not doing yourself any favors by taking cheap shots at the other side. I can take an objective look at this film, and I find it to be a work of art. Simply the most beautiful film of the series.

Bill (original poster) wrote quite possibly the best QOS review I have found yet on these forums. I suggest some of you re-read it because obviously, you're not getting it. Just like I didn't get this movie.

Thank you I read it, I got it. He didnt like it, just like you. Stop making it seem like your opinion is the right one, and don't try to argue that because that is exactly what you are doing.

[avl]

One of the problems I have with Bill's review is the assumption that, and I quote:

"The arthouse nonsense. Sorry to say, Bond is not the place to experiment with different ways to tell a story. It should be straightforward without extraneous information on screen. Thus, why the hell did we keep cutting to the horses in Siena if they had nothing to do with the story? Also, the shoot-em-up in the Opera, with the slow motion and no sound looked just ridiculous. Something similar may have worked in The Godfather, but not Bond."

Why do Bond films have to have such limitations? And why shouldn't we applaud a Bond film that aims higher than the same old same old?

[HildebrandRarity]

I take offense to the fact that Bill, myself, or anyone else on these forums is "dumb" for watching this movie and questioning it.

When you are watching the movie, it looks like M gets shot. Plain and simple. Many people in the theater I was in gasped. M just got shot!

There is nothing "dumb" about it. There is nothing to figure out.

M gets shot. Or, that's what it looks like.

The only thing "dumb" is the editing.

I'm glad people like this movie. I don't sit around hoping for fans to turn against the series.

But seriously. If you can step away from fandom briefly and look at the film from an objective perspective, it's really not that good. It's not awful, but it's definitely not going to go down in history as a top notch film.

Bill (original poster) wrote quite possibly the best QOS review I have found yet on these forums. I suggest some of you re-read it because obviously, you're not getting it. Just like I didn't get this movie.

Yes but I was not responding to whether "M got shot or not"...my response revolved around:

DrNoNo--

Which again leads one to wonder why Bond would chase after the shooter instead of coming to their assistance?! Very poorly done!

Bill

Bond saw M taking off towards the exit. Bond also needed to get to the traitor. Why is it "very poorly done"? Bond had to make a choice. Did Bond make the wrong choice? If not, then what's the criticism?

When someone says it's the Worst Film Of The Series without actully having viewed it carefully, then they deserve to get smacked on the head with a newspaper, presentation at Hofstra or not!

[Bill]

Hildebrand Rarity--

I will take that last comment as a joke--I have no desire to get into personal insults. We are all fans, after all.

And the bottom line is yes, I understand a second viewing may be helpful to clarify some of the problems that I have with the film. It's just that a second viewing has never been necessary before to understand what we have seen!

Bill

[HildebrandRarity]

Bill, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Two things:

1. This movie starts (according to Daniel Craig in pre-screening interviews) with a James Bond who is "in turmoil" and "confused". The editing technique used echoes this. Therefore, you need to pay attention because the first 15 minutes go by very rapidly and you need to have your eyes and ears on full alert. Bond is confused in a confusing world where things happen fast. It's techique mirroring the script, in my view.

2. What are your two or three favourite Bond films, just as a matter of curiosity?

PS

You really ought to see the movie properly before coming on here with bastards like me lurking about before declaring it the Worst In The Series. It does you a dis-service.

[Jet Set Willy]

This is not the worst film in the series. I think its one of the best. However, one moment kills it for me....

Bond, and a very thin girl plummets from a few thousand feet in QoS and a few moments later they are walking around and climbing heaps of rock. This is the single biggest problem in QoS. Forget the loud moans from critics regarding the Bradley/Bourne shaky cam, the supposed lack of plot, Craig being too cold and ruthless, Mathis being dumped in a garbage truck, Dominic being too non-existent, too much action, etc.

This one scene is where it all falls apart for me. The aftermath of the freefall scene. The plane sequence was well-done, we had elements of realism, the bad guys came from nowhere and took the audience by suprise, the engine burning out wasn't that badly done, the CGI was passable, hell - even the freefall scene had me still glued to the screen, my hands gripped to the chair. It was done in a realistic fashion, seeing the faces contort with the wind. And then the parachute opens a couple of metres from the ground, and....

They collapse on the floor. At that moment, silence fell in the cinema. Are they both ok? Did they make it? Are they still alive? Or are they both fine, right as rain and we are suddenly back in DAD territory again?

Unfortunately, it was the latter.

After all that hard work done beforehand too in CR - Bond hesitating before crane jumping, Bond dazed and bloodied after the stairwell fight, Bond examining his wounds in the bathroom while necking a glass of bourbon, Bond passing out on the grass after the car crash, Bond half-dead on the back seat of Le Chiffre's car, Bond nervous before the torture scene, Bond screaming out in pain, Bond recovering in hospital. Even in QoS this continues. Bond looking perturbed in the car chase, looking dusty, bloody and knackered, Bond tying cloth around his arm wound in Slate's apartment, Bond gasping for breath during the plane scene.

The omission of them both recovering after the freefall is criminal in my book, and strips away all the hard work achieved with the reboot process by EON up until this moment in the film. Without that crucial scene, the film crashed right back down to the bottom of the barrel with a bang, far louder and harder than Bond and Camille's freefall.

What was Forster thinking? Seeing that moment again for the third time suddenly made me very angry, as I doubt Campbell would have allowed that to happen in CR, and given that we are within the same realistic confines in QoS, it seemed shoddy that Forster thought he could get away with it.

[Bill]

Hildebrand Rariry--

1. Good point on the turmoil and confusion. I seem to have missed out on the pre-screening interviews with Craig where he mentioned this. To be honest, I have not been following every step of production on this one, like I used to before CR. I am still not crazy about the reboot, and as such, some of my enthusiasm has waned. However, I have been coming to terms with the concept, and as it seems here to stay, I have no choice but to accept it! The fact that CR is ultimately a great movie has certainly helped with that.

I would also hazard a guess that the majority of the film going public also missed out on said interviews--so how can the average person be anything but confused?

2. Let me preface my top three Bond films by stating that my favorite Bond is Roger Moore, and I think his best are TSWLM, FYEO and OP. As for the others, my favorite Connery is FRWL, OHMSS is one of the best in the series, Dalton's best is TLD, my favorite Brosnan is DAD, and CR is spectacular. Now, I have never ranked all of the films in order, but I stick to my opinion that what ever the ultimate ranking is, QOS is so far below to not even be in the same league with the others.

Bill

Edited by Bill, 18 November 2008 - 10:21 PM.

[ACE]

Worst film in the series is a bit harsh, Bill. Your reputation has proceeded you and it is good. I guess if one has been a veteran Bond watcher for a long time, one gets accustomed to a certain film. Myself, and a lot of people I know, have just got used to certain Bond things over the years. It is natural. IMHO, that is why the shock of the first viewing of QoS can impact more deeply on veteran fans.

For example, in pre-publicity, if we are told about a henchperson, our pre-knowledge conditions us to expect a physical heavy who accompanies the "main" villain. The "main" villain him/herself must have a chairman-of-the-board-ish quality to them. An intellectual nemesis if you will. Over some 20 films, these things have been fed to us in one form or another. The variations have always been exceptions to the rule. However, is it that our Pavlovian fan reactions feel a pang in the absence of something we have reasonably come to expect? And is the pang, the kernal of a disappointment, a feeling of something missing? Does our fandom work against us? Would someone newer to Bond just accept these variations as this film's uniqueness?

I personally don't think the formula is bad but I do think it does benefit from being stretched occasionally. Just from an artistic point of view. However, when it is tampered with, people do get passionate. Strictly speaking, the gun barrel or the theme song or titles, do not affect the story being told. I'm not going to argue that QoS isn't deeply controversial and I can totally see why people feel that the baby has gone out with the bathwater somewhat. But it boils down to a subjective question of taste. Nobody is "wrong" for disliking QoS. Or "wrong" for liking it. And a vote either way is not evidence of one's knowledge or taste (or lack thereof).

Some people felt that with Casino Royale. I know a lot of veteran Bond watchers, steeped in the literary and filmic history of Bond who still feel that Daniel Craig is not the right man for the job (physically) and that Casino Royale and his casting is an insult to Fleming and the Bond film tradition. There is a very strong contingent (who don't post on forums) who feel that Fleming's character has been lost in the last few films and that the films will never achieve the creative heights of the past. These people have to a greater or lesser extent, tolerated most of the post Connery (post OHMSS) films so it is a very good bet that their Bond mojo is in a different place. The cards are stacked against their enjoyment. I guess no one can ever make anyone feel positive about a movie. It is so subjective. And enjoyment or enthusiasm define one's fandom, perhaps. My fandom comes from enjoyment and when I don't enjoy Bond product, I am not a fan of it. I couldn't dislike something profusely and repeatedly yet continue to invest my time, money and mental energy in being a "fan" of it. And if I did, would I would be a "fan" with no continuing enjoyment or enthusiasm: a massive contradiction in terms. If finding the enjoyment, the positive Bond makes my judgment on art or films or books "wrong" in some people's eyes, I am happy to be incorrect. It is inexplicable how one man's ceiling is another man's floor, taste-wise.

QOS has a similar fan and critical vibe to when Licence To Kill came out. It came off the back of a more classic, Fleming-based tale and in 1989 LTK was felt a bridge too far in Bond terms. Many people said it was the best Bond film without Bond etc. Now, it seems to fit quite happily in the series, albeit as an experimental adventure. I wonder when (if ever) will QOS ever fit into the comfortable family of films a lot of fans want?

[Judo chop]

I cannot fathom anyone preferring TWINE or AVTAK to QOS. I don't mean that to be hateful at all, and I respect everyone's opinions, but it's as much beyond my comprehension as the mind of Christopher Walken.

Look how much dialogue Roger Moore had in AVTAK compared to Craig in QoS.

I'll take a pint of Newcastle over a case of Michelob any day.

The non-action scenes were more than "filler."

Yes, Bond & Chuck Lee walking down the pier was riveting.

The stuntman stood in for Roger Moore.

Yes, I could tell.

Craig was the stuntman and that's nearly all we saw of him.

The royal "we," I assume? You should stay for the second half next time.

In AVTAK, Bond had class, charm, charisma. All lacking in QoS.

Yes, Craig is a terrible Bond. Where have I been?

In AVTAK, we understood who the bad guy was and what his motivation was.

It helped that Goldfinger explained all that first.

Yes AVTAK had plenty of faults, but it also had a sense of fun and the audience was not given eyestrain because of machine-gun style editing.

Well, I got some serious earstrain from hearing "JAAAAAAAMES!!!!!?&$!!!" more times than one can count on one hand. But I think we can agree that plenty of folks had as much fun in QOS as the others didn't have.

And I haven't even mentioned the theme songs.

You've got me there, friend. But hey, AVTAK's got a whole lot of Bond films there.

Give me Bond giving Patrick McNee a ticking off anyday over Bond dumping his friend in the garbage. Bond has no class in QoS. He is not Bond in anything other than name.

You're right, he should have left Mathis to decompose in a lake. See, for me, Roger Moore is only Bond in name. I love him to death and would rather hang out with him than any other Bond actor, but I personally prefer Fleming's vision of Bond to Cubby's. And I'm glad to see him back.

See the problem perfectly laid out before (ok... behind) us. Some people want AVTAK Bond, and some people want something new and challenging. What we need are two separate forums and...

well...

...I guess there'd be nothing to argue about.

[MarkA]

It is natural. IMHO, that is why the shock of the first viewing of QoS can impact more deeply on veteran fans.

Thanks for trying to calm the flames ACE. Some of these debates (if you can call them that) are getting decidedly nasty on this site, sadly so. But I still think even saying the veteran fans cannot take change slightly wide of the mark. I am all for the formula being shaken up, and really embraced what was done with Casino Royale. But I still think QOS was a badly scripted over directed mess. Not by any means the worst Bond. Too interesting for that, with some nice performances but still a mess. Nothing to do with not excepting change. But at least you tried to understand both points of view and didn't resort to the usual accusations of dumb and stupid which a lot of pro QOS fans seem to be doing. If you look at a lot of these anti QOS posts, most have interesting things to say why they don't like the film. Don't insult them. You know who you are.

[ACE]

It is natural. IMHO, that is why the shock of the first viewing of QoS can impact more deeply on veteran fans.

Thanks for trying to calm the flames ACE... But I still think even saying the veteran fans cannot take change slightly wide of the mark... Not by any means the worst Bond. Too interesting for that, with some nice performances but still a mess. Nothing to do with not excepting change. But at least you tried to understand both points of view and didn't resort to the usual accusations of dumb and stupid which a lot of pro QOS fans seem to be doing...

Thanks. But I am NOT saying that veteran fans cannot accept change. I am postulating whether it could be a reason why some people understandably involved with Bond over a long time may feel uneasy with QOS. I am trying to explore the difference. The language of the internet discourse is so unhelpful - people misinterpret or are not careful in phrasing. I have tried to be. I framed it as a question and included myself amongst them. And even then the post is misrepresented. Too many of my friends dislike QOS for me not to take them seriously. However, many of them agree with the above reasons why they may not have taken to the film.

For example, in recent years I have loved real-world, contempory spy thrillers like the Jack Ryan films, the Bourne Trilogy, Spy Game etc. These films are populist entertainments. People going to see them expect a certain degree of story and characterization. But they do not go in expecting to see The Villain, The Girl, The Henchperson etc. No one goes into these films expecting certain tropes to be fulfilled. In Bond they do, naturally. We have been conditoned to expect them and the marketing exploits our expectation. However, if those elements are reorganized or toyed with, I think it does affect someone more steeped in Bond lore than someone who isn't.

No-one normally evaluates the title, the credit sequence, the song and the opening icon as part of the film. A good foreign language thriller has an original title that is incomprehensible to us but it does not affect our enjoyment of the film itself. Whether one likes the Moby song used in Bourne, it does not form part of that film's narrative apart from as a moodsetter. Would a deficieny in the titles, the title or the main credit music affect our overall enjoyment of any of the films cited above?

In Bond, part of the expectation is the enjoyment of these elements which, quite properly have come to represent more than in reality our enjoyment of the film would necessitate. If someone was to review a Korean thriller by saying they thought the title was incomprehensible and they did not like the song on the opening credits, we might question them a bit. With Bond these same elements serve no more of a narrative function, yet we place much more value on them. Someone coming to the cinema for the first time, without books on Bond or even the DVDs would be less cognisant of the elements that "should" be in place but aren't. That is all I am speculating on.

What would you say to people who think Daniel Craig was miscast and that Casino Royale was a travesty? There is a huge number of people out there (and they tend not to post on forums). What would we say to them? Are they "wrong"?

At the end of the day, it always boils down to taste. Not knowledge, endurance or third party feelings. It boils down to a subjective take on art.

[rogermoore007]

I believe you all missed the double-taking pigeon. I was the only one among my friends who saw it. It flew away just as Bond and the baddie he was fighting fell through the glass roof. D*mn you Mark Forster.

Edited by rogermoore007, 18 November 2008 - 11:43 PM.

[MarkA]

What would you say to people who think Daniel Craig was miscast and that Casino Royale was a travesty? There is a huge number of people out there (and they tend not to post on forums). What would we say to them? Are they "wrong"?

No one is wrong. And for someone who likes to debate strongly like me I feel some of the said debates have got down to the "You are dumb" or "I work in the industry so I know better" level. Pointless reasoning. See you over a beer. Better face to face.

[Loomis]

For example, in recent years I have loved real-world, contempory spy thrillers like the Jack Ryan films, the Bourne Trilogy, Spy Game etc. These films are populist entertainments. People going to see them expect a certain degree of story and characterization. But they do not go in expecting to see The Villain, The Girl, The Henchperson etc. No one goes into these films expecting certain tropes to be fulfilled. In Bond they do, naturally. We have been conditoned to expect them and the marketing exploits our expectation. However, if those elements are reorganized or toyed with, I think it does affect someone more steeped in Bond lore than someone who isn't.

No-one normally evaluates the title, the credit sequence, the song and the opening icon as part of the film. A good foreign language thriller has an original title that is incomprehensible to us but it does not affect our enjoyment of the film itself. Whether one likes the Moby song used in Bourne, it does not form part of that film's narrative apart from as a moodsetter. Would a deficieny in the titles, the title or the main credit music affect our overall enjoyment of any of the films cited above?

In Bond, part of the expectation is the enjoyment of these elements which, quite properly have come to represent more than in reality our enjoyment of the film would necessitate. If someone was to review a Korean thriller by saying they thought the title was incomprehensible and they did not like the song on the opening credits, we might question them a bit. With Bond these same elements serve no more of a narrative function, yet we place much more value on them. Someone coming to the cinema for the first time, without books on Bond or even the DVDs would be less cognisant of the elements that "should" be in place but aren't.

Some bloody good points there, ACE.

[ACE]

Well, we can't blow against the wind, MarkA. When we were lads, we didn't have this new fangled InterNet machine. All we had was discussion. We can't blame the medium or sink to LCD either. We must just try to extract edutainment from these boards. It is what it is. So long as we don't resort to that type of discussion, it's fine, no? Yes, I'll have a pint of Leffe, please.