16 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

***SPOILERS included***

How many traditional 007 elements can you take away from a James Bond film and still have it be a James Bond film? That seems to be the question posed by the new Bond movie, Quantum Of Solace. But where Casino Royale tinkered with the Bond formula and successfully turned it into a smooth running, high-powered vehicle, QOS overhauls the formula, resulting in an engine that isn't running on all its cylinders.

Quantum Of Solace, directed by Marc Forster, tries to be different from all the other Bond films that have come before it, and in that regard, it succeeds. However, different doesn't necessarily mean better, and what has been taken away leaves little to distinguish itself as a Bond film. Prior to Casino Royale, there was criticism in some quarters that Bond was too formulaic, that EON needed to quit marking off the Bondian elements on its checklist, and that many--if not most--of those elements needed changing. Well, in QOS, they're not just changed, they're missing, and what we are left with is not a James Bond film, but a film with James Bond in it. It's almost as if Forster and company made their own checklist of what Bondian elements NOT to include. For instance:

Moving the gunbarrel: CHECK. In Casino Royale, the gunbarrel was moved to the end of the pre-titles sequence to signify Bond's getting his license to kill. Fortunately, in that particular instance, it worked okay. With QOS, however, the gunbarrel is moved to the end of the film where, at best it seems anti-climactic, or, at worst, out of place. It proves beyond all doubt that, CR excepted, the only place for the gunbarrel is at the beginning of a Bond film where it helps set the mood and anticipation for what's to come. Other problems with the gunbarrel is that it is by far the biggest in the series, nearly taking up the entire screen, and Daniel Craig walks through it so fast, it's almost as if he can't wait for the movie to get over so he and us can go on home. Indeed, the gunbarrel hasn't even disappeared before Craig has resumed walking again!

A lackadaisical title sequence: CHECK. Another Way To Die, the theme song by Jack White and Alicia Keys--the first duet in Bond history--is a decent affair, but by no means is it among the series' best. However, their song is done no favors by titles designer MK12 who create one of the worst title sequences in the series. Nearly monochromatic with Bond showing up a handful of times pointing his gun at nothing in particular and barely recognizable women lounging in desert sands, it is one big snooze fest. Former titles designer Daniel Kleinman came up with dazzling efforts in each of his five previous outings and his effort in Casino Royale completely dwarfs MK12's effort in both style and substance.

No Q, no Moneypenny: CHECK and CHECK. Okay, QOS begins only an hour or so after Casino Royale and that film didn't have the longtime Bond stalwarts either. Nevertheless, it is another series staple that is missing.

No gadgets: CHECK. Bond films have been accused of having too many gadgets in the past. However, like it or not, it is very Bondian to have gadgets and something is missing without them, as is the case with QOS.

Include Bourne-style film-making: CHECK. Here is one of the biggest problems about QOS. Bond movies are renowned for actually performing their dangerous stunts, showing those stunts in all their awe-inspiring splendor, and making it look effortless. We get absolutely none of that in QOS. Thanks to Forster and his editors Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson, along with second-unit director Dan Bradley, we're given extremely tight cropping, shaky cam, and ridiculously rapid-fire editing that refuses to let the viewer comprehend what is going on. Whether it be the car chase in the PTS, the foot chase in Siena, or the boat chase in Haiti, the viewer has a very difficult time, if not sometimes impossible time, discerning what exactly has happened on screen. That certainly has not been the case in Bond films past such as The Spy Who Loved Me's skiing off the cliff or GoldenEye's bungee jump. In those instances, the filmmakers allowed the viewer to experience the wow factor, in this case, the thrill of the fall--all in one cut. Similarly, in From Russia With Love, Bond's fight on the Orient Express with Donald "Red" Grant is among the best fights in cinema history and is widely considered the best in the 007 series. That's because not only was the stunt fighting good, but director Terence Young and editor Peter Hunt allowed the viewer to take in the life and death struggle of the two combatants. You could see it in Sean Connery's and Robert Shaw's faces and in their actions. Not so in QOS. Thanks to the tight cropping, shaky cam, and super-quick editing the action scenes lose their excitement and originality as well as their power to awe. The viewers can't appreciate what the filmmakers and stuntmen are doing because they can't see it or decipher it, and when viewers can't absorb what is being shown to them, that cannot be considered good filmmaking. Consequently, QOS is the worst edited film in the series.

Create an ineffectual henchman: CHECK: The pre-release build-up of the main henchman, Elvis, was promising. He looked and sounded like someone who could be dangerous when provoked into action. However, in the film, he is the most ineffectual, boring, invisible henchman the series has ever created. He is given absolutely nothing to do that even remotely makes him look threatening. His biggest scene is tumbling down a flight of stairs after Fields trips him and for a split-second his monk-cut toupee falls off. It happens so fast that if you blinked, you missed it. It wasn't even worth revealing and further undermined the character who is later seen with a neck brace. Elvis is easily THE WORST henchman in the series and a complete letdown by the EON team.

Killing off a beloved character: CHECK. Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis was a wonderful character and worthy of the novels' much-beloved version. Mathis is Bond's best friend in Europe and along with Felix Leiter and Bill Tanner, form the closest parts of 007's inner circle. In the novels, Mathis does not die. Nevertheless, in QOS, Mathis is killed and not in a good or worthy way either. Two crooked Bolivian motorcycle cops are shocked to find Mathis alive and panic and start shooting and critically wound him before being killed by Bond. Then after Mathis dies, Bond callously tosses him in a nearby dumpster--something James Bond would NEVER, EVER do to his friend. It's a total disrespecting of a terrific character.

No saying of Bond, James Bond: CHECK. The line, "Bond, James Bond" has become synonymous with the 007 films. More than any other line, it is Bond's tag line. In fact, it's among the most famous line in movie history. Of the previous 22 films (counting the rogue Never Say Never Again), the line has been said in 19 of them--and in every film since 1967. Now for QOS, it's missing again. It has become a part of Bond and his character in how he introduces himself. To not include it is to take away some of what makes Bond, Bond. There are three things that shouldn't be messed with in 007 films: the gunbarrel at the very beginning, Bond's ultra-suave and cool womanizing personality, and his saying "Bond, James Bond" once in a film. Other than a brief liaison with Fields, QOS fails to do all three.

Other less traditional problems with the film are Bond, after just having rescued Camille from Greene's and Medrano's men, hands off her unconscious body to a dockside valet and walks away without learning anything about her, her motives, why Greene and Medrano might want to have her killed, or what she knows about Greene and Quantum. Another is Mathis asking Bond what he's drinking on the airplane when it's obvious that it is the exact same drink that he saw Bond ordering throughout Casino Royale. Also, the editing sometimes makes no sense whatsoever as in the Siena safehouse where it appears that M is shot only to appear completely healthy in her next scene, the boat chase with an incomprehensible ending (how did Bond stop the other boat?), and the freefall landing where as cut, there is no possible way that Bond and Camille could have survived the landing.

Now there are some good things in Quantum Of Solace. First and foremost is the acting. Daniel Craig gives another solid performance as James Bond 007. Likewise, does Judi Dench as M. Their scenes together crackle and are among the best Bond-M scenes in the series. In fact, Dench gives her best performance in a Bond film yet. Craig, meanwhile, continues making his Bond a rough, tough, dangerous 007 who won't let any obstacle stand in his way of getting his man, and yet, ironically, he becomes the only Bond other than George Lazenby who does not kill both the villain and his top henchman in the same film. Nevertheless, Craig's confrontation with Vesper's lover, Yusef, at the conclusion of the film is excellent and well done all around by everyone involved. Another classic scene occurs at the Bregenz opera theater where Craig forces himself into the Quantum meeting causing the members to get up and leave the theater thereby allowing him to take their picture. It is pure 007 entertainment at its best, as is the scene when Bond strolls into a high-class hotel in Bolivia and states to the receptionist that he, Mathis, and Fields are teachers on sabbatical who have just won the lottery. Mathieu Amalric does a good job with his Dominic Greene character--a man who is thought to be a good environmentalist and yet is a greedy S.O.B. in reality. His cultured sliminess is enjoyable to watch and one looks forward to his comeuppance. Joaquin Cosio is good and suitably menacing as Medrano. Beautiful to look at and interesting on screen, Olga Kurylenko does a good job of portraying the determined and vulnerable sides of Camille Montes. Giannini is again wonderful as world-weary Mathis in an all-too-brief role. He has a good rapport with Craig and their characters' relationship is a highlight of the film and series. Lastly, Jesper Christensen makes another winning appearance as the mysterious Mr. White. His scenes in the Siena safehouse and at the Bregenz opera theater are both funny and chilling. Not since the days of the unseen Ernst Stavro Blofeld in From Russia With Love and Thunderball has a character seemed so exciting, sinister, and interesting. He alone makes the Quantum organization more exciting and dangerous. Hopefully, he and Quantum return soon.

David Arnold makes a welcome return to the composer's chair and his music doesn't disappoint, although one could quibble that there is not enough of the James Bond Theme prevalent in the film. Among the score highlights are Time To Get Out, Inside Man, Pursuit At Port au Prince, and Target Terminated. Arnold continues to enhance his legacy as the second greatest Bond composer behind the great John Barry. Hopefully, he, too, returns.

Ultimately, Quantum Of Solace shakes up the Bond formula--but at a price. Much of what makes a 007 film is missing. While the film is enjoyable overall, there are several negatives that counter-balance the positives. Subtle changes to the Bond formula are fine, but when they're made on such a large scale as QOS, it's asking for trouble. We're no longer seeing Bond, we're seeing generic action and Bourne-lite. The series hasn't been successful for 46 years for nothing. EON did virtually everything right in Casino Royale, but the same cannot be said for QOS. As a result, the filmmakers should remember the old axiom. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Overall grade: 7 out of 10

[Harmsway]

Create an ineffectual henchman: CHECK: The pre-release build-up of the main henchman, Elvis, was promising. He looked and sounded like someone who could be dangerous when provoked into action. However, in the film, he is the most ineffectual, boring, invisible henchman the series has ever created. He is given absolutely nothing to do that even remotely makes him look threatening. His biggest scene is tumbling down a flight of stairs after Fields trips him and for a split-second his monk-cut toupee falls off. It happens so fast that if you blinked, you missed it. It wasn't even worth revealing and further undermined the character who is later seen with a neck brace. Elvis is easily THE WORST henchman in the series and a complete letdown by the EON team.

There's a good case to be made that Elvis is more intended as a joke character than anything else (even Taubman referred to the character as a "goofball"). That's not to say that the character is necessarily a success, but it's worth considering that the filmmakers weren't interested in creating a "threatening" character.

No saying of Bond, James Bond: CHECK. The line, "Bond, James Bond" has become synonymous with the 007 films. More than any other line, it is Bond's tag line. In fact, it's among the most famous line in movie history. Of the previous 22 films (counting the rogue Never Say Never Again), the line has been said in 19 of them--and in every film since 1967. Now for QOS, it's missing again. It has become a part of Bond and his character in how he introduces himself. To not include it is to take away some of what makes Bond, Bond. There are three things that shouldn't be messed with in 007 films: the gunbarrel at the very beginning, Bond's ultra-suave and cool womanizing personality, and his saying "Bond, James Bond" once in a film. Other than a brief liaison with Fields, QOS fails to do all three.

Surely the liason with Fields is enough, at least for a film that is dealing with a heartbroken Bond?

And I strongly disagree that "Bond, James Bond" is an essential for a Bond film. It's better when it's not used every film, that way when it appears, it actually has something to it. Otherwise, it gets to be a rather dull cliche, as it did for the majority of the Bond franchise.

Another is Mathis asking Bond what he's drinking on the airplane when it's obvious that it is the exact same drink that he saw Bond ordering throughout Casino Royale.

Does Mathis have a perfect memory? And how can Mathis be quite certain that it's the same recipe from CASINO ROYALE? Visually similar, perhaps, but not necessarily the same thing. And even if Mathis had an inkling about the drink Bond had, maybe he asked just to confirm his suspicions?

Subtle changes to the Bond formula are fine, but when they're made on such a large scale as QOS, it's asking for trouble.

So the Bond franchise tweaks the gunbarrel, drops "Bond, James Bond" and suddenly we've moved away from "subtle changes"? I'm confused.

As a result, the filmmakers should remember the old axiom. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ah, but change is the only thing keeping the Bond franchise from breaking. Heck, it practically broke down prior to CASINO ROYALE, and it wouldn't do to just repeat CASINO ROYALE... QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to take risks of its own.

[Bondian]

As our Jim would say, it's an opinion.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Create an ineffectual henchman: CHECK: The pre-release build-up of the main henchman, Elvis, was promising. He looked and sounded like someone who could be dangerous when provoked into action. However, in the film, he is the most ineffectual, boring, invisible henchman the series has ever created. He is given absolutely nothing to do that even remotely makes him look threatening. His biggest scene is tumbling down a flight of stairs after Fields trips him and for a split-second his monk-cut toupee falls off. It happens so fast that if you blinked, you missed it. It wasn't even worth revealing and further undermined the character who is later seen with a neck brace. Elvis is easily THE WORST henchman in the series and a complete letdown by the EON team.

There's a good case to be made that Elvis is more intended as a joke character than anything else (even Taubman referred to the character as a "goofball"). That's not to say that the character is necessarily a success, but it's worth considering that the filmmakers weren't interested in creating a "threatening" character.

I'm not completely convinced that he was meant to be a comic character, but I won't discount it either. Regardless, his character doesn't work for me, humorous or otherwise.

No saying of Bond, James Bond: CHECK. The line, "Bond, James Bond" has become synonymous with the 007 films. More than any other line, it is Bond's tag line. In fact, it's among the most famous line in movie history. Of the previous 22 films (counting the rogue Never Say Never Again), the line has been said in 19 of them--and in every film since 1967. Now for QOS, it's missing again. It has become a part of Bond and his character in how he introduces himself. To not include it is to take away some of what makes Bond, Bond. There are three things that shouldn't be messed with in 007 films: the gunbarrel at the very beginning, Bond's ultra-suave and cool womanizing personality, and his saying "Bond, James Bond" once in a film. Other than a brief liaison with Fields, QOS fails to do all three.

Surely the liason with Fields is enough, at least for a film that is dealing with a heartbroken Bond?

Personally, I would have preferred a liaison with Camille. Regardless, the Fields scene has virtually no set up and is over within a minute. And the so-called pick-up line is just plain bad and to me seems unrealistic that he would be able to pick up Fields with such a poor line without any sexual tension beforehand, in my opinion.

And I strongly disagree that "Bond, James Bond" is an essential for a Bond film. It's better when it's not used every film, that way when it appears, it actually has something to it. Otherwise, it gets to be a rather dull cliche, as it did for the majority of the Bond franchise.

I don't see anything wrong with using "Bond, James Bond" ONCE in every film. I agree that twice is too much, but not once. It's Bond's catch phrase and the way he says it is cool. I don't find it a dull cliche at all.

Another is Mathis asking Bond what he's drinking on the airplane when it's obvious that it is the exact same drink that he saw Bond ordering throughout Casino Royale.

Does Mathis have a perfect memory? And how can Mathis be quite certain that it's the same recipe from CASINO ROYALE? Visually similar, perhaps, but not necessarily the same thing. And even if Mathis had an inkling about the drink Bond had, maybe he asked just to confirm his suspicions?

If Bond had ordered it only once or twice, I could see it, but he drank it all through the card game, so I would think that even if he couldn't remember the name or what was in it, that he would recognize that it was the same drink Bond had drunk all the time in Casino Royale. I will grant you that Mathis could have been confirming his suspicions about the drink, but I think he would have just asked Bond if it was his Casino Royale martini. Personally, I think the writers put it in there just to state the ingredients of Bond's drink again.

Subtle changes to the Bond formula are fine, but when they're made on such a large scale as QOS, it's asking for trouble.

So the Bond franchise tweaks the gunbarrel, drops "Bond, James Bond" and suddenly we've moved away from "subtle changes"? I'm confused.

I consider moving the gunbarrel to the end of the film a major change. Dropping "Bond, James Bond" isn't quite as big a change as it's not been said three times in the past, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a subtle one. Certainly after having said it in every film for the past 41 years it is a significant change.

As a result, the filmmakers should remember the old axiom. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ah, but change is the only thing keeping the Bond franchise from breaking. Heck, it practically broke down prior to CASINO ROYALE, and it wouldn't do to just repeat CASINO ROYALE... QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to take risks of its own.

I'm not asking to repeat Casino Royale, although a similar route would not be a bad one to go down. However, Quantum Of Solace didn't just take a step in another direction, it took a (pun intended) quantum leap.

[Harmsway]

I'm not completely convinced that he was meant to be a comic character, but I won't discount it either. Regardless, his character doesn't work for me, humorous or otherwise.

Fair enough. I'm more or less convinced that his character was meant to humorous, but I'm willing to suggest that Forster doesn't do a great job of communicating that to the audience.

Personally, I would have preferred a liaison with Camille.

I think that would have ruined everything that's interesting and powerful about that relationship, which was a nice wink at Bond's relationship with Gala Brand in the novels.

Regardless, the Fields scene has virtually no set up and is over within a minute.

Sure. But it strikes me as very Connery-esque in that way.

And the so-called pick-up line is just plain bad and to me seems unrealistic that he would be able to pick up Fields with such a poor line without any sexual tension beforehand, in my opinion.

I thought the line was great. It was just a casual... "You wanna have sex?" and it left Fields with the response of either leaving or going. If another guy other than Craig had said it, I wouldn't have bought it. But I do think Craig has loads of sexual charisma and charm, and so I think he probably could get away with such a line (I saw the scene with two females, and they were grinning this whole scene, and as soon as he uttered the "stationery" line, the girl next to me uttered, "He's so sexy!").

I don't see anything wrong with using "Bond, James Bond" ONCE in every film. I agree that twice is too much, but not once. It's Bond's catch phrase and the way he says it is cool. I don't find it a dull cliche at all.

Sure, it's Bond's catch phrase, but it definitely becomes old after a while. I liked how, in the Connery films, they would take the occasional break from the line (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE). That way, when it actually appeared, it meant a bit more. You couldn't just take it for granted.

If Bond had ordered it only once or twice, I could see it, but he drank it all through the card game, so I would think that even if he couldn't remember the name or what was in it, that he would recognize that it was the same drink Bond had drunk all the time in Casino Royale.

How can you recognize what a drink is just from visual appearance? I agree, it looked similar, but heck, there are a lot of drinks that ultimately look very similar but have subtle differences.

I will grant you that Mathis could have been confirming his suspicions about the drink, but I think he would have just asked Bond if it was his Casino Royale martini. Personally, I think the writers put it in there just to state the ingredients of Bond's drink again.

I think they put it in there to make a point about Bond's character in the scene. It's just another connection to Vesper - it's the "Vesper" martini, after all.

I consider moving the gunbarrel to the end of the film a major change.

But it's not a significant one, given that the gunbarrel is extraneous to the film itself.

Dropping "Bond, James Bond" isn't quite as big a change as it's not been said three times in the past, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a subtle one. Certainly after having said it in every film for the past 41 years it is a significant change.

A "significant change"? A line that has no real bearing on character or story, takes up a second or so, and is missing and is then some sort of "significant change"? I find that absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not asking to repeat Casino Royale, although a similar route would not be a bad one to go down. However, Quantum Of Solace didn't just take a step in another direction, it took a (pun intended) quantum leap.

I also find this statement rather ridiculous. A "quantum leap"? QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a traditional Bond flick in most aspects, and most things about the character were well in place. If anything, it was a small step away from CASINO ROYALE, but in the end, I think CASINO ROYALE took some more significant leaps than QUANTUM OF SOLACE ever did.

All things considered, aside from a few touches here and there, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a pretty traditional Bond adventure.

[Mister E]

Sure, it's Bond's catch phrase, but it definitely becomes old after a while. I liked how, in the Connery films, they would take the occasional break from the line (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE). That way, when it actually appeared, it meant a bit more. You couldn't just take it for granted.

I like how it was sort of made of when Tilly Masterson cut off Connery's "Bond,James Bond" in Goldfinger.

[Judo chop]

I'm not completely convinced that he was meant to be a comic character, but I won't discount it either. Regardless, his character doesn't work for me, humorous or otherwise.

Fair enough. I'm more or less convinced that his character was meant to humorous, but I'm willing to suggest that Forster doesn't do a great job of communicating that to the audience.

This is my battle of the week. I think Elvis is one of the more daring moves the EON films have made.

If you don't mind Harms, I'd like to modify your statement:

Forster doesn't do a great job of plainly communicating that to the audience.

As we should forgive (ie. 'understand') Elvis' impotence on the basis of it being intentional, I think we should forgive ('understand') Forster's subtle (maybe even disguised) delivery of the humor on the basis of that being very intentional as well.

I believe it was Forster's intent all along for Elvis' humor to be embedded, rather than up front and plainly announced. Most of the best stuff in QoS is handled the same way. The cuts back and forth between Palio and the chase, as well as the cuts back and forth between Tosca and the kitchen shootout probably aren't going to be noticed on a first try by an average movie viewer. The 'shakey cam' action almost innately requires a second viewing to take in. The jibber jabber between Mathis and the cab driver is hysterical, but in some moments we're required to simultaneously read two lines of captions for translations. Clues leading to the next link in Quantum are quickly tossed to us in single sentences and during the din of machine gun fire, and are likely to be missed.

QOS is a "pay attention" type of film across the board. Hence, there's every reason to assume that, to discover Elvis' value as a character, the same kind of attention would be asked of us. I don't think it's fair to say Elvis doesn't work b/c he didn't garner Jim Carey types of laughs on the first try.

I defend him so strongly because, as I said, I think he's a remarkable step for the Bond films. He's truly a one-of-a-kind of character in Bond, quite possibly the first unique step to be taken since Bond hit his stride in GOLDFINGER.

And personally I find him to be completely hysterical. All of the above would be only brave failure if it wasn't funny. But I've had myself in tears with the thought of what Forster and co. have done. For me, it works. And it was worth the time and attention it took to get there.

[HildebrandRarity]

It would kill the series if they didn't experiment here and there. Where most franchises fizzle out at the 3rd or 4th movie, Bond is on it's 23rd given the success of it's 22nd.

Who else can say that about their franchise?

I suggest if we get the same damn thing over and over again, then it's the end. Or it will get parodied to hell like Mike Meyers did with Blofeld.

Look, I was very dissapointed with the POS that was For Your Eyes Only back in '81...but I got over it and moved on. We've had some good Bond movies since FYEO. It wasn't my cup of tea.

Q0S is not your cup of tea but it's success and it's variation on a theme will ensure a movie which *will* give you what you want.

Daniel Craig says the next one will have gags.

Happy?

[Double-Oh Agent]

I don't need or necessarily want gags in my Bond films, but I do want some of the traditional Bond elements (i.e. the gunbarrel and the Bond, James Bond line). If Bond 23 is along the lines (read: not a copy) of Casino Royale then great. If it's along the lines of Quantum Of Solace, I may very well be disappointed again. And I can enjoy some tweakings of the formula. After all, my favorite Bond film is Licence To Kill, which I find works better as a revenge 007 film than QOS does.

After reading a large number of posts in the past couple of weeks, it would appear that those who are not as wild about QOS, such as me, prefer tweakings and subtle changes to the Bond formula, while those that love QOS care little about the formula and enjoy change in whatever size it occurs. Ultimately, it will be up to EON to determine which direction we all go down in Bond 23. If nothing else, it should be interesting.

[Daddy Bond]

Let's see what Bond elements we have:

The main character's name is James Bond: CHECK
The main character's code number is 007: CHECK
The main character is an assassin/secret agent for the British govt.: CHECK
The main character works for MI6: CHECK
Bond's boss is M (the same lady as in the previous 5 Bond movies): CHECK
Felix Leiter plays an important roll: CHECK
The Bond theme is used in the movie: CHECK
Bond drives an Aston Martin: CHECK
Wears a fine watch (an Omega this time): CHECK
Dresses well: CHECK
Bond has a taste for the finer things in life (hotel sequence): CHECK
The movie has fantastic action sequences: CHECK
The movie has a gunbarrel (albeit at the end): CHECK
There is a title sequence with silhoetted women: CHECK
There are exotic locations around the world: CHECK
Bond drinks a martini (though without the usual line): CHECK
There are two Bond girls: CHECK
The movie has some pretty cool high tech stuff (albeit at MI6): CHECK
Bond carries and uses a Walther PPK as his weapon of choice: CHECK
There is bad guy committing crimes on a large scale: CHECK
His crime is very reminiscient of something Fleming would have created: CHECK
There is a set (the hotel in the desert) very reminiscient of some of the earlier Ken Adams sets: CHECK
A new international organization of evil reminiscient of SPECTRE: CHECK
Reference to other Bond literary characters: Vesper, Mathis: CHECK
A sequal to a previous Bond movie: Casino Royale (a Fleming book): CHECK
There is a lot of intelligent, well placed humor: CHECK
Some very interesting moments reminiscient of previous Bond films: CHECK

Let's see, 27+ Bond movie elements clearly in the film. And, might I add, for once, they were so cleverly woven into the plot that they did not jump out at you and did not seem forced.

Yup, plenty of Bond there. And might I add that other Bond elements have been missing from other very Bondian movies (i.e. no Q in Dr. No, etc., etc.)

About the only missing elements are:

1. "Bond, James Bond" (I think they said they tried this in various places and it didn't seem to work for this story).
2. Q (not in every Bond movie to date)
3. Money Penny
4. The gunbarrel at the beginning.
5. The shaken and not stirred line.

Really, the elements missing in QoS are almost identical to the elements missing in CR, and others of these elements have been missing in other Bond films.

If these few elements are what qualifies or disqualifies a film from being a Bond movie and the above 27+ elements are NOT enough to make a film a Bond film, then Bond has reached its end.

Honestly, as HildebrandRarity pointed out, these changes are necessary to revitalize Bond and keep Bond from spiraling into a dated, irrelevant, cliched old codger of a franchise.

Bravo to QoS! I hope the next Bond film doesn't jettison the bold, refreshing new ground that has given us (IMHO) two of the best Bond movies in the 22 movie history.

Sure, it would be nice to have Q and Moneypenny back, and the gunbarrel at the beginning (IF THEY DO NOT DETRACT FROM AND TRULY CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCELLENT PLOT), but we should be applauding the last two films rather than rejecting QoS because a few insignificant (although fun) theatrical Bond elements are missing.

Some of these changes will work better than the others, but the changes are very welcome in my book.

[Joe Bond]

I am going to have to agree with Judo Chop on the character Elvis since I found his character to be a more funny and interesting henchman than any of the Le Chiffre's henchmen from CR or even any hencheman from the Brosnan era (maybe with the exception of Alan Cumming's character from GE but it was maybe a touch OTT for me). As for not having the gunbarrel at the begining, its my opinion that the opening shot would be ruined if a gunbarrel was at the beggining and the fact the dark music that starts during the Columbia logo perfectly sets the tone of the movie for me. Plus having the fact that CR ended with a cut to black and having QoS start with a direct cut from black to the opening shot perfectly shows to me that we are seeing the rest of the story that was started in CR and the direct cut in for QoS has more of an emotional impact than having a gunbarrel at the beginning and in fact the beginning really got my blood running and I did not need a gunbarrel to pump me up. In fact, I view CR and QoS as like a two part movie where the first part is CR and QoS being the second part and it perfectly sets up the character of James Bond and when he does certain things in future movies (like having short relationships with women or not killing someone because he needs information) we know why he does this and it will have more impact since we have seen what has made him do these things. I could care less for catch phrases since I see no point in keep having them in every film even if its just once because like Harmsway said it doesn't contribute to the story or characters its just a line for the sake of having it in the film and I feel the "Bond. James Bond" line in CR added something to the story and the character of James Bond so I don't feel that was just putting it in the movie for the sake of the line. I am really happy with where the franchise is at this moment since they are taking risks and it sounds as though the next film will be different than the last two and I have confidence that with Daniel Craig the franchise will explore new things that have not been done before and some of the traditional elements like gadgets and humor will be introduced again, but not forced, in new ways and there won't be fixed formulaic structure to them so they won't be as predictable as in the Brosnan era. I just don't see the point of having a film be identical in structure of another film with different characters and stories unless its a spoof like OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies which has similar sequences to Dr. No and the Pink Panther but its well done since its making fun of those movies (and is pretty funny with one of the best young Sean Connery impersonations I have seen in a spy spoof) unlike Moonraker which is essentially the same movie as TSWLM except taking place in space instead of underwater.

Licence To Kill, which I find works better as a revenge 007 film than QOS does

I like Licence to Kill too but I think Licence to Kill is a revenge film but QoS is not since everyone else in QoS thinks Bond does what he does because of revenge but really he is doing what he does for what he thinks is his duty and I think QoS is a better film since it does not have forced element like Q which is one of the things I did not like in Licence to kill because I felt his character was forced into the movie.

Edited by Joe Bond, 25 November 2008 - 09:00 PM.

[Daddy Bond]

Let's see what Bond elements we have:

The main character's name is James Bond: CHECK
The main character's code number is 007: CHECK
The main character is an assassin/secret agent for the British govt.: CHECK
The main character works for MI6: CHECK
Bond's boss is M (the same lady as in the previous 5 Bond movies): CHECK
Felix Leiter plays an important roll: CHECK
The Bond theme is used in the movie: CHECK
Bond drives an Aston Martin: CHECK
Wears a fine watch (an Omega this time): CHECK
Dresses well: CHECK
Bond has a taste for the finer things in life (hotel sequence): CHECK
The movie has fantastic action sequences: CHECK
The movie has a gunbarrel (albeit at the end): CHECK
There is a title sequence with silhoetted women: CHECK
There are exotic locations around the world: CHECK
Bond drinks a martini (though without the usual line): CHECK
There are two Bond girls: CHECK
The movie has some pretty cool high tech stuff (albeit at MI6): CHECK
Bond carries and uses a Walther PPK as his weapon of choice: CHECK
There is bad guy committing crimes on a large scale: CHECK
His crime is very reminiscient of something Fleming would have created: CHECK
There is a set (the hotel in the desert) very reminiscient of some of the earlier Ken Adams sets: CHECK
A new international organization of evil reminiscient of SPECTRE: CHECK
Reference to other Bond literary characters: Vesper, Mathis: CHECK
A sequal to a previous Bond movie: Casino Royale (a Fleming book): CHECK
There is a lot of intelligent, well placed humor: CHECK
Some very interesting moments reminiscient of previous Bond films: CHECK

Let's see, 27+ Bond movie elements clearly in the film. And, might I add, for once, they were so cleverly woven into the plot that they did not jump out at you and did not seem forced.

Yup, plenty of Bond there. And might I add that other Bond elements have been missing from other very Bondian movies (i.e. no Q in Dr. No, etc., etc.)

About the only missing elements are:

1. "Bond, James Bond" (I think they said they tried this in various places and it didn't seem to work for this story).
2. Q (not in every Bond movie to date)
3. Money Penny
4. The gunbarrel at the beginning.
5. The shaken and not stirred line.

Really, the elements missing in QoS are almost identical to the elements missing in CR, and others of these elements have been missing in other Bond films.

If these few elements are what qualifies or disqualifies a film from being a Bond movie and the above 27+ elements are NOT enough to make a film a Bond film, then Bond has reached its end.

Honestly, as HildebrandRarity pointed out, these changes are necessary to revitalize Bond and keep Bond from spiraling into a dated, irrelevant, cliched old codger of a franchise.

Bravo to QoS! I hope the next Bond film doesn't jettison the bold, refreshing new ground that has given us (IMHO) two of the best Bond movies in the 22 movie history.

Sure, it would be nice to have Q and Moneypenny back, and the gunbarrel at the beginning (IF THEY DO NOT DETRACT FROM AND TRULY CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCELLENT PLOT), but we should be applauding the last two films rather than rejecting QoS because a few insignificant (although fun) theatrical Bond elements are missing.

Some of these changes will work better than the others, but the changes are very welcome in my book.

By the way, I agree HildeBrandRarity!

[plankattack]

After reading a large number of posts in the past couple of weeks, it would appear that those who are not as wild about QOS, such as me, prefer tweakings and subtle changes to the Bond formula, while those that love QOS care little about the formula and enjoy change in whatever size it occurs. Ultimately, it will be up to EON to determine which direction we all go down in Bond 23. If nothing else, it should be interesting.

Double-Oh has really hit the nail on the head here. With the exception of those who don't like QoS "'cos I couldn't follow the action!" most of us fall into one of these two groups. (the action crowd - well, if that's their major gripe, then they're action fans more than Bond-fans).

I don't believe in change for change's sake, but I do believe that progressive change is vital for the franchise's existence. For too long, the series maintained an almost pantomine-like existence - dragging everything out on cue on a two-year basis. So appearance leads to expectation, which leads to appearance. The appearance of a "Q-scene" or "Moneypenny-byplay" has almost become more important than their quality or what they add. Case in point - Moneypenny in DAF. The whole scene is ludicrous and adds nothing to the film other than, "great there's Lois and Sean. Glad to see the back of Laz, business as usual."

Someone else on another thread mentioned that they were having trouble watching the Sir Rog films at the moment, because they almost feel as if they're from another franchise altogether. I don't have that problem, but in watching those it is apparent how stale, yep, that word, the series had become in terms of it's originality and ability to surprise.

I think everyone could find compromise in having many of the old touchstones and being surprised at the same time, but as the series itself has proved, that's a near-impossible balancing act to pull off.

I'm going to trust EON (don't have a choice really) - they are committed to bringing back many things, but I believe they want to do it in a way that does impress us, or surprise us. Q is coming back, I believe the gun-barrel will be back at the start of the film, and of course DC is going to utter that line. The difference is they're going to come from the story, not just be dragged out on cue.

Case in point. Critics say that QoS is Bourne-lite (I hate these comparisons, 'cos I like Bourne and Bond - off with my head I say!). No, do you know what was Bourne-lite? Ultimatum was Bourne-lite - it was Supremacy re-made, but without the surprise. It's what happens when you don't try to be different, don't try to grow. Kind of like EON - 67-87.......

Edited by plankattack, 25 November 2008 - 10:19 PM.

[Major Tallon]

Among those who felt a need to keep the character fresh by taking a daring departure from the formulaic Bond structure, and suffered considerable criticism as a result, was Ian Lancaster Fleming. The Spy Who Loved Me, anyone?

[MattofSteel]

Let's see what Bond elements we have:

The main character's name is James Bond: CHECK
The main character's code number is 007: CHECK
The main character is an assassin/secret agent for the British govt.: CHECK
The main character works for MI6: CHECK
Bond's boss is M (the same lady as in the previous 5 Bond movies): CHECK
Felix Leiter plays an important roll: CHECK
The Bond theme is used in the movie: CHECK
Bond drives an Aston Martin: CHECK
Wears a fine watch (an Omega this time): CHECK
Dresses well: CHECK
Bond has a taste for the finer things in life (hotel sequence): CHECK
The movie has fantastic action sequences: CHECK
The movie has a gunbarrel (albeit at the end): CHECK
There is a title sequence with silhoetted women: CHECK
There are exotic locations around the world: CHECK
Bond drinks a martini (though without the usual line): CHECK
There are two Bond girls: CHECK
The movie has some pretty cool high tech stuff (albeit at MI6): CHECK
Bond carries and uses a Walther PPK as his weapon of choice: CHECK
There is bad guy committing crimes on a large scale: CHECK
His crime is very reminiscient of something Fleming would have created: CHECK
There is a set (the hotel in the desert) very reminiscient of some of the earlier Ken Adams sets: CHECK
A new international organization of evil reminiscient of SPECTRE: CHECK
Reference to other Bond literary characters: Vesper, Mathis: CHECK
A sequal to a previous Bond movie: Casino Royale (a Fleming book): CHECK
There is a lot of intelligent, well placed humor: CHECK
Some very interesting moments reminiscient of previous Bond films: CHECK

Let's see, 27+ Bond movie elements clearly in the film. And, might I add, for once, they were so cleverly woven into the plot that they did not jump out at you and did not seem forced.

Yup, plenty of Bond there. And might I add that other Bond elements have been missing from other very Bondian movies (i.e. no Q in Dr. No, etc., etc.)

About the only missing elements are:

1. "Bond, James Bond" (I think they said they tried this in various places and it didn't seem to work for this story).
2. Q (not in every Bond movie to date)
3. Money Penny
4. The gunbarrel at the beginning.
5. The shaken and not stirred line.

Really, the elements missing in QoS are almost identical to the elements missing in CR, and others of these elements have been missing in other Bond films.

If these few elements are what qualifies or disqualifies a film from being a Bond movie and the above 27+ elements are NOT enough to make a film a Bond film, then Bond has reached its end.

Honestly, as HildebrandRarity pointed out, these changes are necessary to revitalize Bond and keep Bond from spiraling into a dated, irrelevant, cliched old codger of a franchise.

Bravo to QoS! I hope the next Bond film doesn't jettison the bold, refreshing new ground that has given us (IMHO) two of the best Bond movies in the 22 movie history.

Sure, it would be nice to have Q and Moneypenny back, and the gunbarrel at the beginning (IF THEY DO NOT DETRACT FROM AND TRULY CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCELLENT PLOT), but we should be applauding the last two films rather than rejecting QoS because a few insignificant (although fun) theatrical Bond elements are missing.

Some of these changes will work better than the others, but the changes are very welcome in my book.

Thank you.

Among those who felt a need to keep the character fresh by taking a daring departure from the formulaic Bond structure, and suffered considerable criticism as a result, was Ian Lancaster Fleming. The Spy Who Loved Me, anyone?

Indeed, but I think we can agree that TSWLM (novel) is far more a departure from "traditional Bond" than QoS can possibly be considered.

[HildebrandRarity]

I don't need or necessarily want gags in my Bond films, but I do want some of the traditional Bond elements (i.e. the gunbarrel and the Bond, James Bond line). If Bond 23 is along the lines (read: not a copy) of Casino Royale then great. If it's along the lines of Quantum Of Solace, I may very well be disappointed again. And I can enjoy some tweakings of the formula. After all, my favorite Bond film is Licence To Kill, which I find works better as a revenge 007 film than QOS does.

After reading a large number of posts in the past couple of weeks, it would appear that those who are not as wild about QOS, such as me, prefer tweakings and subtle changes to the Bond formula, while those that love QOS care little about the formula and enjoy change in whatever size it occurs. Ultimately, it will be up to EON to determine which direction we all go down in Bond 23. If nothing else, it should be interesting.

Well, Double-Oh, I don't want Bond 23 to be either 'like' Casino Royale or like Quantum Of Solace. We already have them. I've watched Casino Royale to death and i've watched Quantum five times already...and will watch it to death as well.

Who knows what Eon will give us. It could be an "action comedy", it could be a "sexually heightened" Bond, it could be a "space" Bond. Or an "occult" Bond. Who knows. But Quantum's financial success indicates that NEW Bond fans are being created in the 9 - 19 age group and many of the old Bond fans (like me) don't mind being taken on a new adventure with Daniel Craig as 007. It also means there are different tangents they could go on. That's exciting...I think. And i'm sure the gunbarrel will be back as the very first shot of the movie.

And as Daddy has cited, there are many, many Bondian elements in the flick. Heck, 007 is pissed on six martinis even. Just because he doesn't say "shaken, not stirred", doesn't make it any less Bond. In fact, it's ONLY Bond.

Lastly, I disagree that QOS is a 'revenge' film. LTK was, sure, but QOS is a "path to arrival" film were Bond becomes 007.

It wouldn't surprise me if the next Bond film were simply titled "007" or "007 Of The Secret Service"

[MattofSteel]

I'm pretty sure that I'm the one they're "making" the films for me right now. I don't mean that selfishly, I mean I'm the target demographic and the last two happened to be exactly what I wanted to see.

I'm 23, male, came into the franchise because of GoldenEye for the Nintendo 64, grew into it with the Brosnan era (and, supposedly b/c of my age and Bourne, I loves me some fast editing! ).

But, I'm wildly nostalgic and my preferred Bonds are the early Connery ones. I've "matured" as a fan in the last ten years that I've been one. That's why I loved CR so much - it felt like a lost Connery film, the closest thing to a Connery/Young combination since, well, Thunderball.

Quantum felt very much the same to me, just with faster editing. How some can say it doesn't "feel" like Bond is beyond me. It's so rich in nostalgia in spots in terms of design while at the same time being frighteningly modern. It's the perfect balance that I, being the type of fan that I am, hope to get out of a Bond film.

It's a film that contains a near-perfect balance of what I understand is needed in a contemporary spy thriller, and what is appropriate in terms of nostalgia and harkening back to the series' roots. Much like CR.

I'm just sort of cautiously waiting for the thing to go off the rails again, but I think while Dan's around that won't be happening.