887 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

I'd be delighted as I hate.

Jim goes through all the trouble of shepherding us back into civil decorum, and here you are only a few moments later spraying your hate-filled vitriol across the boards.

[DamnCoffee]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

[Santa]

I'd be delighted as I hate.

Jim goes through all the trouble of shepherding us back into civil decorum, and here you are only a few moments later spraying your hate-filled vitriol across the boards.

I love chocolate, I love puppies, I love ice-cream, I love swimming, I love the smell of cucumber, I love fresh, clean sheets on the bed, I love high heels, I love freshly squeezed orange juice, I love Joan Collins, I love sweet potatoes, I love my Fitflops, I love Professor Colin Pillinger, I love my dog, I love LOVE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE. I am full of love.
But I'm not so keen on Judo Chop.

[byline]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

Have there ever been director's/extended cuts of Bond films? If not, then I would think the chances of this one being re-edited are pretty remote.

[MattofSteel]

<song>Why can't we all just get along?</song>

As it happens, I don't think a recut will ever happen, and it's unfortunate, because there truly is a phenomenal film masked by the needlessly messy cutting. I'm not sure if it's because I'm a film buff, or trying to get into it as a career, but I tend to see every film nowadays as more than just its final product. Which is probably the wrong way to judge it, but I can't help it.

I loved the film, but I can't say I've ever grandstanded on an extreme end of the debate. Yes, I fully realize the script needed several more drafts and that the editing is terrible in places. But the concept, the aesthetic, the production design, the score, and the experience - all were phenomenal, and saved the film for me. It doesn't take much with Bond to make me happy, and everything I've seen from the Craig era thus far leaves me ecstatic.

I'll stop before this turns into a Bond 23 anticipation rant!

[DamnCoffee]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

Have there ever been director's/extended cuts of Bond films? If not, then I would think the chances of this one being re-edited are pretty remote.

Well, we've never had a 3 Disc Special Edition Re-Release of a Bond movie untill Casino Royale, so never say never!

[byline]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

Have there ever been director's/extended cuts of Bond films? If not, then I would think the chances of this one being re-edited are pretty remote.

Well, we've never had a 3 Disc Special Edition Re-Release of a Bond movie untill Casino Royale, so never say never!

Good point. And it sounds like Forster might be up for a re-edit, so who knows?

[HH007]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

I don't think it's very likely, to be honest. The film we have is the film we have.

[DamnCoffee]

Maybe I should just ask Marc via his Twitter page?

[double o ego]

Hildebrand Rarity could have been more diplomatic, but, with regard to the substance of his statement, he couldn't have been more correct.

It goes beyond diplomacy. "What stupidity" is a characterization meant to antagonize the other poster. It's not a discussion of ideas, which IMO is what we should stick with if we intend to have any sort of discussion at all. It's pretty simple, really. If a poster believes a statement is inaccurate, then say it's inaccurate, but don't characterize other posters as "stupid" or use some other other polarizing epithet that does nothing to further discussion.

Well said and much appreciated.

Marc Foster said in an interview that he realizes his editorial approach confused audiences and that he wants to recut. If I find that I'll post it here. So far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on whether or not this will happen on the special edition release. Foster can correct his editorial mistakes and still let the film be "like a bullet fired at the audience."

There are many things I like about Quantum of Solace, but the editorial approach is not one of them.

Richard

That's essentially how I feel about QoS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Marc Foster said in an interview that he realizes his editorial approach confused audiences and that he wants to recut. If I find that I'll post it here.

Bullpucky; it would've been posted on the main page and had a 5-page topic devoted to it were that so.

I can understand if you don't like it, but don't go stuffing words into the director's mouth to make he look as though he shares your viewpoint.

[MattofSteel]

Yeah....I'll reconsider if someone can physically pull a link or a quote, but that sounds awfully made up to me.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I re-watched it all tonight and have to say that my views on it are swiftly improving! After 3 views my rating was "poo poo ca ca", but after a few more viewings it's pretty much made it up to "really quite good!"

[DamnCoffee]

I watched the movie for the first time on Blu-Ray tonight, and I have to say that my opinions on it have improved, but only slightly. It's still a, what did Kermode say... "A mess and a half of a film", but I have to say that the HD transfer really does bring some of the more positive things to light, that for some reason, were over shadowed in the DVD release.

[dee-bee-five]

So, how likely do you guys think a Quantum of Solace Directors/Extended Cut actually is?

Hopefully "very unlikely" as QoS is perfect the way it is (for me), thank you very much.

[HildebrandRarity]

Just to clear things up here (and I hope Jim allows me to *), there were two primary reasons why I used the "what stupidity" phrase:

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

2) This thread is full of negativity. The negativity is spewed out by people who, likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world. In my world, you fight fire with fire...and so I struck back because, quite frankly, that type of negativey deserved it. undiplomatic? Fine.

Once again, kindly show me a direct quote from Forster which says that he's going to re-jig Quantum Of Solace for the handful who didn't like it...and give the 80,000,000 world-wide ticket buyers who did like it, something appreciably different.

I find the idea that Forster is going to with a perfectly good piece of work to be dumb.



* I hope Jim won't think i'm trying to perpetuate an argument...because I am not. I waited an entire page to think and respond to the attacks on me and, so, I feel the need to respond back.

[Zorin Industries]

Yes, the idea that Marc Forster is going to re-edit SOLACE is ludicrous. He has only ever mentioned he would have liked more time. EVERY director wants more time. But it doesn't work like that. And it certainly doesn't work like that in Bond films. Compiling some deleted scenes on a SOLACE future DVD release is NOT the same as "re-editing" a film.

So for those who have planned to ever like SOLACE (and don't because of all sorts of narrow minded parameters) then get used to the fact that you are a) someone who did get it someone who didn't or c) someone who didn't get it but is beginning to on DVD.

[Manticore]

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

2) This thread is full of negativity. The negativity is spewed out by people who, likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world.

Hum...You wasn't attacking the person...No, it's obvious...
It doesn't matter anyway. I'm agree this thread is negative.

[HH007]

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

2) This thread is full of negativity. The negativity is spewed out by people who, likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world.

Hum...You wasn't attacking the person...No, it's obvious...
It doesn't matter anyway. I'm agree this thread is negative.

"For Those Who Didn't Like Qos, come in!"

Yes... this whole thread was started on a topic of negativity.

[byline]

Just to clear things up here (and I hope Jim allows me to *), there were two primary reasons why I used the "what stupidity" phrase:

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

Thanks for the clarification, but the fact that you felt compelled to attack the position is still, IMO, not a great way to discuss a point (not to mention the fact that it's often quite difficult to convey intent in this type of written forum). So, rather than attacking the position, why not simply address it with language that's a lot less polarizing? Like, "Your point is inaccurate; here's why." FWIW, if we all did that, it would further more in the way of civil discourse, and we'd actually accomplish a lot more than just attacking people -- or positions -- back and forth.

It's true that much in this thread is negative. After all, it's for people who didn't like the movie (but of course that doesn't stop those of us who do like it from chiming in). If the poster you were replying to had been using similar language, then maybe I could see the "tit for tat" motivation. But your choice of wording struck me as a "pile-on" approach, and that's the very thing that contributes to the negativity.

Edited by byline, 27 May 2009 - 04:12 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Just to clear things up here (and I hope Jim allows me to *), there were two primary reasons why I used the "what stupidity" phrase:

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

Thanks for the clarification, but the fact that you felt compelled to attack the position is still, IMO, not a great way to discuss a point (not to mention the fact that it's often quite difficult to convey intent in this type of written forum). So, rather than attacking the position, why not simply address it with language that's a lot less polarizing? Like, "Your point is inaccurate; here's why." FWIW, if we all did that, it would further more in the way of civil discourse, and we'd actually accomplish a lot more than just attacking people -- or positions -- back and forth.

It's true that much in this thread is negative. After all, it's for people who didn't like the movie (but of course that doesn't stop those of us who do like it from chiming in). If the poster you were replying to had been using similar language, then maybe I could see the "tit for tat" motivation. But your choice of wording struck me as a "pile-on" approach, and that's the very thing that contributes to the negativity.

I agree!! And I don't going to add much more, to avoid provoking another angry reaction from HildebrandRarity, which has happened too often against anyone who dares to disagree with him, especially regarding QOS. I mean, to say that some people in these thread "likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world"; isn't particularly polite or civilized, and indeed, implies attack persons, not positions.

[byline]

I mean, to say that some people in these thread "likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world"; isn't particularly polite or civilized, and indeed, implies attack persons, not positions.

True enough.

[DamnCoffee]

*sighs* Can we change the ing subject please, this is getting really draining.

You do all realise, if this carries on, this thread will be locked.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, lock it, then; we've heard enough bile and vitriol from either side to last one lifetime, thank you very much.

[dee-bee-five]

Just to clear things up here (and I hope Jim allows me to *), there were two primary reasons why I used the "what stupidity" phrase:

1) A poster here (I don't recall the screen name) abused the English language and a major player's supposed quotes to suit their own opinion/argument (i.e. that Quantum Of Solace is, um, incomplete (my term)). So...I took it upon myself to refute their idea in the manner I did because I found the whole idea to be, well, dumb.

I was attacking the position, not the person. There's a difference.

Thanks for the clarification, but the fact that you felt compelled to attack the position is still, IMO, not a great way to discuss a point (not to mention the fact that it's often quite difficult to convey intent in this type of written forum). So, rather than attacking the position, why not simply address it with language that's a lot less polarizing? Like, "Your point is inaccurate; here's why." FWIW, if we all did that, it would further more in the way of civil discourse, and we'd actually accomplish a lot more than just attacking people -- or positions -- back and forth.

It's true that much in this thread is negative. After all, it's for people who didn't like the movie (but of course that doesn't stop those of us who do like it from chiming in). If the poster you were replying to had been using similar language, then maybe I could see the "tit for tat" motivation. But your choice of wording struck me as a "pile-on" approach, and that's the very thing that contributes to the negativity.

I agree!! And I don't going to add much more, to avoid provoking another angry reaction from HildebrandRarity, which has happened too often against anyone who dares to disagree with him, especially regarding QOS. I mean, to say that some people in these thread "likely, have accomplished nothing to very little in their little lives and wouldn't know how to go about adding any value to the world"; isn't particularly polite or civilized, and indeed, implies attack persons, not positions.

Though we often disagree, particularly on QoS, I agree with you on this. It is impossible to judge how much (or little) someone has accomplished in life from his/her postings on an internet fan site. Not that it's anyone's business in the first place.

[Loomis]

Indeed. Very uncalled for, Hilly.

[Jim]

*sighs* Can we change the ing subject please, this is getting really draining.

You do all realise, if this carries on, this thread will be locked.

I realise that.

Will realise it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, then, let's come to a realization! I've had enough petty bickering!

The topic title was a bait to begin with: For Those That Didn't Like QoS, come in? Whatever happened to those threads for Fans of [THIS MOVIE] Only, with people posting things they liked about it? I can understand why some people dislike this movie, but it doesn't have to descend into personal attacks!

I thought we had rules about those! What happened to them?

[JimmyBond]

Can you imagine how crazy Eddie will get if this thread is locked? He'd probably think it was an attempt by the mods to silent his dissent.

[Jim]

Can you imagine how crazy Eddie will get if this thread is locked? He'd probably think it was an attempt by the mods to silent his dissent.

Shall we find out?