97 replies to this topic

[the doctor]

ive been on a couple of other forums and sites recently and noticed that when the topic of QoS or Bond in general comes up most people (being the general public) seem to complain about Bond not being Bond. now i know this has been said a few times even when Casino Royale came out but it seems now that people a going against the 'realistic' Bond.
So has Quantum caused this backlash? as far as i remember Craig's Bond was loved by the public now people seem a bit 'eh' about him. is the tide turning on the realistic bond now?

[DamnCoffee]

I have to say, from all of the people who I've heard dislike Quantum, they say that Craig was one of the things that made it tolerable.

[DDspike22]

I was totally for the idea of bringing Bond back to his roots and making him a serious,gritty spy again. And this concept worked perfectly in CR but i think in QOS at a certain point in i started to miss the more light hearted aspects of 007,not like full blown out sillyness like roger moore but make it more fun instead of so hardcore and dull in tone.

[Vanya86]

It's not the realism, it's the lack of catchphrases. From what I've read the reason people are calling QoS 'un-Bond' was the lack of Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, 'Bond, James Bond' and 'shaken not stirred'. Bring back the little things and they'll stop complaining.

[dee-bee-five]

It's not the realism, it's the lack of catchphrases. From what I've read the reason people are calling QoS 'un-Bond' was the lack of Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, 'Bond, James Bond' and 'shaken not stirred'. Bring back the little things and they'll stop complaining.

I rather they didn't. I'd prefer Eon to continue on the path they've taken, stripping such inconsequential bells and whistles from the series. CR and QoS have been, to my mind, pure flemingian Bond. More of that, please.

[zencat]

I was totally for the idea of bringing Bond back to his roots and making him a serious,gritty spy again.

Thing is, James Bond has never been a serious, gritty spy. Even in Fleming. A dash of fantasy and pulp is a HUGE part of James Bond.

And this concept worked perfectly in CR but i think in QOS at a certain point in i started to miss the more light hearted aspects of 007,not like full blown out sillyness like roger moore but make it more fun instead of so hardcore and dull in tone.

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

[jaguar007]

It is a few loud fanboys who are complaigning about the former cliches. I think it was the fast action edits that the casual filmgoer had a problem with. If it was not for fanboys and publicity around no "Bond, James Bond" or "shaken not stirred" most people would probably had never noticed. You never hear people complaining about lack of "Bond, James Bond" in FRWL, TB or YOLT or the lack of "SNS" in most of the movies prior to TLD.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Trust me, I had a harder time with the "fast edits" in Taken than the cutting in Quantum of Solace, so that point's moot for me.

[Ultraussie (Jordan.adams)]

Quantum of Solace was excellent. And, realistic. Thankyou Mr. Craig.

[zencat]

It is a few loud fanboys who are complaigning about the former cliches. I think it was the fast action edits that the casual filmgoer had a problem with. If it was not for fanboys and publicity around no "Bond, James Bond" or "shaken not stirred" most people would probably had never noticed. You never hear people complaining about lack of "Bond, James Bond" in FRWL, TB or YOLT or the lack of "SNS" in most of the movies prior to TLD.

Trust me, I had a harder time with the "fast edits" in Taken than the cutting in Quantum of Solace, so that point's moot for me.

Well, yes. The #1 problem with QOS (and the only problem for me, because I liked it as Bond film) was the editing. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The only conversations I've had "in the wild" begin and end with this complaint. I soooo wish they would have been able to get Stuart Baird in there to recut some of the action.

[MattofSteel]

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

Perfect summation.

Well, yes. The #1 problem with QOS (and the only problem for me, because I liked it as Bond film) was the editing. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The only conversations I've had "in the wild" begin and end with this complaint. I soooo wish they would have been able to get Stuart Baird in there to recut some of the action.

Again, totally agree. Baird did some phenomenal work in CR. QoS was just a mess at times, even when it wasn't trying to be intense and quick. I've got no problem with jump cuts and any other element derivative of French new wave films you want to throw in there (bad reference? ), but it shouldn't be so jarring as to physically remove you from the film. Rhythm was just off.

[DDspike22]

I was totally for the idea of bringing Bond back to his roots and making him a serious,gritty spy again.

Thing is, James Bond has never been a serious, gritty spy. Even in Fleming. A dash of fantasy and pulp is a HUGE part of James Bond.

And this concept worked perfectly in CR but i think in QOS at a certain point in i started to miss the more light hearted aspects of 007,not like full blown out sillyness like roger moore but make it more fun instead of so hardcore and dull in tone.

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

yea i think you nailed it on the head there. CR was both serious and fun with that fantasty bond element at the same time, and this also was never an issue with Craig, hes fantastic in the role, its more or less a few parts of QOS that may have raised this issue, i also could careless about the absence of moneypenny,Q or any of the catchphrases. but the overall tone of the film was very bleak. i understand that QOS did have to have a certain bleak tone throughout becuase of Bond's current state and loss of Vesper, perhaps why even craig himself said Bond 23 would be a little more light hearted.

[Ytadel]

I reject the notion that Casino Royale was a 'realistic' Bond. It shed the absurd excess that had come to crescendo in Die Another Day (and a couple decades back in Moonraker), such as the Austin Powers-esque one-liners and the science fiction gadgetry, but it was very much a distillation of the best elements of the extravagance, flamboyance, and romance that had characterized the series all along.

James Bond still wore a tuxedo, drank vodka martinis, bedded beautiful women, and had car chases amongst various exotic, photogenic cities, there was still high-budget big-screen stunts and action, there was a flamboyant villain named Le Chiffre who sneered, wore an all-black tuxedo, wept blood, and called 007 "Mr. Bond," and it was all scored to brassy, John Barry-esque music. Where the movie was successful was in taking all that and marrying it with a new undercurrent of depth and pathos, with a darker tone and better dialogue and characters, but it was still absolutely, unmistakably BOND. It looked, sounded, and felt like BOND, just a newer, better, more muscular Bond.

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is the first movie of the entire 22-movie series where it really feels like the director was embarrassed to be doing a Bond movie, and in response rejected not only the Brosnan-era excesses but the very spirit of the series. And no, it has nothing to do with Q, Moneypenny, or catchphrases, so don't bother with those strawman arguments. It has to do with the fact that it rejected the basic cinematic language in terms of visuals, style, mood, and motifs that had been followed for 46 years up to that point, a language which occasionally resulted in great, sometimes good, sometimes mediocre, and a couple of occasions bad movies, but was always clear and truly distinctive. Not only this language present in Casino Royale but it was actually more recognizable than it had been in ages.

And I question whether or not anyone who calls QoS "Flemingesque" has really read much Fleming, because Ian Fleming's novels all painted the portrait of exotic cities, elegant high society living, flamboyant, larger-than-life villains with interesting schemes and henchmen, action, and adventure. Pretty much the only initial cinematic extrapolation was the brassy music; the one-liners and sci-fi gadgets and stripping the character of any pathos would come later and dilute the formula, but Fleming was always larger-than-life and flamboyant and romantic.

Now don't get me wrong, despite how it may sound, I don't hate or even dislike Quantum of Solace; it was a fun action movie. From a basic quality perspective, it's better than numerous other Bond films; I would watch Quantum of Solace before Moonraker in a heartbeat. But it's the first time in 22 movies that if you changed the character's name from James Bond it would be near-impossible to identify it as a part of the series. I understand how people bristle at this and agree 100%, and I reject the notion that Casino Royale and QoS are thematic and stylistic blood brothers; they feel, look, and play wildly different.

There are a million action movies out there, but Bond is special and has always had a special touch and if wanting the series to retain that special touch makes me a fanboy so be it.

[Turn]

The thing I find funny about the QoS backlash is the people now complaining there isn't any humor, no Q and Moneypenny, no "Bond, James Bond" and no this or that. And these were the things they were complaining there was too much of before and it needed another direction.

It was like CR took everyone by surprise with how good a film could be without those elements. It was fresh again. QoS took it a bit further. Now people want the familiar and comfortable back.

Give me the fresh direction they are in rather than compromising on those elements.

[00Twelve]

James Bond still wore a tuxedo, drank vodka martinis, bedded beautiful women, and had car chases amongst various exotic, photogenic cities, there was still high-budget big-screen stunts and action,

Don't mean to leave out the rest of your sentence, but to be fair, all of these elements were entirely present in QOS.

And I question whether or not anyone who calls QoS "Flemingesque" has really read much Fleming, because Ian Fleming's novels all painted the portrait of exotic cities, elegant high society living, flamboyant, larger-than-life villains with interesting schemes and henchmen, action, and adventure. Pretty much the only initial cinematic extrapolation was the brassy music; the one-liners and sci-fi gadgets and stripping the character of any pathos would come later and dilute the formula, but Fleming was always larger-than-life and flamboyant and romantic.

QOS represents, to me, early Fleming. LALD-time Fleming. In the early novels, Bond liked to throw his weight around with his enemies. The opera scene is pure, PURE early Fleming. Bond's ruthless efficiency is reminiscent to me of the way he dispatched the Robber or Wint & Kidd. There's plenty of Fleming to be found in QOS. But I'm glad you like it either way.

[Qwerty]

Trust me, I had a harder time with the "fast edits" in Taken than the cutting in Quantum of Solace, so that point's moot for me.

Well, yes. The #1 problem with QOS (and the only problem for me, because I liked it as Bond film) was the editing. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The only conversations I've had "in the wild" begin and end with this complaint. I soooo wish they would have been able to get Stuart Baird in there to recut some of the action.

Agreed. The editing really took away from what could have been some magnificent action sequences, most especially in the first half of the film.

Other than that really, I'm quite a huge fan of the film. Although I really haven't had a chance to watch it over and over on DVD yet, I think I may even prefer it to Casino Royale.

No matter how different and un-Bondian it may be. A breath of fresh air, really.

[A Kristatos]

Trust me, I had a harder time with the "fast edits" in Taken than the cutting in Quantum of Solace, so that point's moot for me.

Well, yes. The #1 problem with QOS (and the only problem for me, because I liked it as Bond film) was the editing. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The only conversations I've had "in the wild" begin and end with this complaint. I soooo wish they would have been able to get Stuart Baird in there to recut some of the action.

Agreed. The editing really took away from what could have been some magnificent action sequences, most especially in the first half of the film.

Other than that really, I'm quite a huge fan of the film. Although I really haven't had a chance to watch it over and over on DVD yet, I think I may even prefer it to Casino Royale.

No matter how different and un-Bondian it may be. A breath of fresh air, really.

Agreed with everything Qwerty except I still believe CR is the better of the two movies. But both are solid top ten entries for me.

[jaguar007]

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is the first movie of the entire 22-movie series where it really feels like the director was embarrassed to be doing a Bond movie, and in response rejected not only the Brosnan-era excesses but the very spirit of the series. And no, it has nothing to do with Q, Moneypenny, or catchphrases, so don't bother with those strawman arguments. It has to do with the fact that it rejected the basic cinematic language in terms of visuals, style, mood, and motifs that had been followed for 46 years up to that point, a language which occasionally resulted in great, sometimes good, sometimes mediocre, and a couple of occasions bad movies, but was always clear and truly distinctive. Not only this language present in Casino Royale but it was actually more recognizable than it had been in ages.

Except QoS has all of the elements of the Bond "formula". It is just filmed and edited differently.

[Harmsway]

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

I think you're right on the money.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

Other than the part about Quantum Of Solace being a more conventional Bond film than Casino Royale, I agree with you too, zencat.

[spynovelfan]

James Bond still wore a tuxedo, drank vodka martinis, bedded beautiful women, and had car chases amongst various exotic, photogenic cities, there was still high-budget big-screen stunts and action, there was a flamboyant villain named Le Chiffre who sneered, wore an all-black tuxedo, wept blood, and called 007 "Mr. Bond," and it was all scored to brassy, John Barry-esque music.

Wasn't most of this, broadly speaking, in QoS, too? Not every specific thing, but it started with a car chase in Italy that ended in the Carrera marble mine, we then had a chase in the middle of the Siena Palio, there were loads of high-budget big-screen stunts and action. I found Greene slghtly less flamboyant than Le Chiffre, but whether or not he actually called him "Mr Bond", he still seemed of a similar stamp (perhaps even too similar). At any rate, I can't imagine the character working outside a Bond film: he was fairly over the top, even if he wasn't as over the top as some. He communicates to his minions via headsets at an opera performance! I didn't notice much difference between the scores of the two films, but I'm not really a score person.

Where the movie was successful was in taking all that and marrying it with a new undercurrent of depth and pathos, with a darker tone and better dialogue and characters, but it was still absolutely, unmistakably BOND. It looked, sounded, and felt like BOND, just a newer, better, more muscular Bond.

I felt all this with QoS, too.

And I question whether or not anyone who calls QoS "Flemingesque" has really read much Fleming, because Ian Fleming's novels all painted the portrait of exotic cities, elegant high society living, flamboyant, larger-than-life villains with interesting schemes and henchmen, action, and adventure.

Well, not all of them. Where's the portrait of elegant high society living in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME? At any rate, I think there are plenty of exotic cities in QoS, there's high society stuff in the opera and party scenes, and in the hotel that Bond switches to very Bondishly, I think Greene is pretty larger than life, as was the action and adventure. His henchman was disappointing, admittedly, and perhaps his scheme wasn't that interesting. But, frankly, I found the henchmen and schemes in some of the Fleming novels a bit disappointing, too, notably DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, CASINO ROYALE (no scheme at all) and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (where it's just a bit daft, or comes across that way: cereal and livestock under threat).

Pretty much the only initial cinematic extrapolation was the brassy music; the one-liners and sci-fi gadgets and stripping the character of any pathos would come later and dilute the formula, but Fleming was always larger-than-life and flamboyant and romantic.

I don't think he was always any of those things. There's not a lot that's larger-than-life or flamboyant in the short story QUANTUM OF SOLACE, for instance.

But it's the first time in 22 movies that if you changed the character's name from James Bond it would be near-impossible to identify it as a part of the series.

I don't agree with that at all! What about the opera scene? What other character could that be? I agree that it was tonally different in some ways, and I do wish it had been edited differently in parts and just generally easier to follow... but I can't see that it wasn't still obviously a Bond film.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think there is a backlash. However, as they always did, EON will adjust to the times. After the cynical and depressing last eight years, the next Bond will certainly bring in a lighter touch again. Right now, people are fed up with the darkness. They want some hope again. Bond will become more of a hero anybody can cheer for again, with more luxury and elegance (because the audience surely can´t afford it) and no soul pain (because the audience has enough).

Craig even admitted that they now could go to underwater lairs.

Yeah, that was meant ironically by him. But not totally, I guess.

[Loomis]

I think that's it really. It's not the absence of Q, Moneypenny, etc., because CR didn't have these elements and no one cared. It's a tonal thing. I actually think QOS is far more conventional Bond film than CR, but its tone is much more serious and bleak, hence it doesn't feel like a Bond film for general moviegoers. While it was measured, CR had a sense of Bondian fantasy (the villain cries blood) and playful wit (Bond returning to the table after the poising episode). That's what people missed, IMO.

I think you're right on the money.

So do I.

And as for whether QUANTUM OF SOLACE has caused a backlash (outside Bond fandom).... I don't know. Whenever I talk to regular people about the new 007 flick, the response tends to be the same: some liked it, some didn't, most thought it was okay. Having said that, I'm noticing that normal folk are very impressed by Craig and that his era has turned Bond into something of an event.

Seems to me that Bond's Character Arc™ will dictate a rather more "lighthearted" BOND 23, if only because he'll no longer be moping over Vesper.

I also agree with what SecretAgentFan has just posted.

[dee-bee-five]

I question whether or not anyone who calls QoS "Flemingesque" has really read much Fleming

I do. And I have. Given my age and the length of time I have been reading - and re-reading - Fleming, it's possible I've read more Fleming than you. Not that that make my opinion any more valid than yours. But as someone who has read a huge amount of Fleming, QoS is one of the very few films to really capture his spirit (particularly the early books).

[HildebrandRarity]

So has Quantum caused this backlash? as far as i remember Craig's Bond was loved by the public now people seem a bit 'eh' about him. is the tide turning on the realistic bond now?

$600 Million world-wide adjusted for Pound Sterling getting destroyed is a "backlash"?

Setting a new US high amidst the severest economic depression in three generations during which US Consumer Spending on movies declined 32 Percent is a backlash?

The stupidity is unbelievable.

Please let's stop being anal around here. Let's stop re-writing history.

Backlash my bumm! A tiny vocal minority are posting as if Q0S had racked up underwhelming OHMSS/TMWTGG/LTK-type numbers.

Look at the ing box office. And before people get stupid, let's see how the film does on cable, rentals and sales.

Pathetic!

People who are 'Bond Fans' should be thanking Eon for Quantum. It's one of the rare 007 films that doesn't lend itself to parody and comedic ridicule.

[Sigma7]

Craigs hair sucked for QOS, he needs the CR hairdo, . Qos had to many closeups, and fast editing (usual complaint) and the disjointed feel did not help its cause. It seems the movie had a rushed feel and seriously lacked the elegance and class of CR. Hopefully they will not make the same mistake for the next one

[Safari Suit]

You can't be anal and be rewriting history

[HildebrandRarity]

Qos had to many closeups, and fast editing (usual complaint) ...

Which has what to do with the thread title...you know, the thing about Q0S being a 'realistic' Bond movie?


[Young people (who don't post here) loved the editing. Old people will have to get used to it. Look at "Taken".]

[level007]

I really think people don't understand why QOS is so different.
QOS is a revenge story. Bond is angry and mad. he wants to find the people responsible for the death of Vesper. that's it. He only has this in mind.
For him there is no time for joke or be cool.
I mean when you are angry and mad about soemthing, you don't think of the rest, your mind is fully taken by your objective: find out who, what or why your are mad.

I think the very fast editing are clearly what the film needed. Bond has no time to lose, he wants to find the villain as soon as possible, whatever it takes.

the best example to illustrate this is the first scene, the aston martin chase.
At the end of the chase, bond is being shot by the guys in the Alfa Romeo. At one moment, there is a truck and because of it the villains can't shoot at bond and they make the mistake to give bond 2 second to act. And within those two secondes, bond has taken his machine gun and shoot at the right time and the right place. That's it. they are dead. Bond is not joking anymore. You make a small mistake and he will put a bullet in your head before you can see it coming.
The fast editing is supposed to increase the sensation of "we need to move fast and go directly to the point". No time to talk.

To put humoristic moment, catchline or too much coolness in QOS would have been a nonsense with the stat in which Bond is.

You can compare this to OHMSS and DAF. at the end of OHMSS bond is hurt and wants revenge, clearly. But in DAF they made the mistake to not make the things serioulsy, or maybe ignore completely the stroy that happened in OHMSS. What a disapointment. When i first saw DAF after OHMSS i was so mad at the filmmakers to go that way.

But now with QOS we have our revenge story, and it's what it should be.

To conclude this, just imagine you lose the person you love because of someone and you are given a licence to find him and kill him. I'm not sure you would making funny lines and jokes during that hard time.

I guess for Bond 23 we will return to a lighter story because now bond has free his mind and kill the people responsible for Vesper's death. Craig is now closer to Connery's Bond.

[HildebrandRarity]

There's plenty of sharp, appropriate, well-written humour in Q0S inspite of the meloncholic nature of the film. I wrote two big paragraphs outlining some of it in my thread in the Members' Review section of the Forums:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51654