249 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever.

Are you speaking to me or tdalton? Because as far as I'm concerned, QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't the "best Bond ever." I like it, and think it's better than most of the pack of Bond films (which isn't saying much, honestly), but I'm not praising it to the skies.

Just to ask the question to make sure I'm understanding what everyone's saying: I'm bored with James Bond simply because I thought that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the best of the Bond films?

For me, it's a far superior film to anything that EON has ever produced, rivaled only by CASINO ROYALE, the Dalton films, and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. The films other than those I just listed are what I find to be "appallingly average"

Edited by tdalton, 07 April 2009 - 06:15 AM.

[MrDraco]

yeah there are several things you miss during the first viewing or so in qos that catch your eye as time goes on...like how did Bond end up with a machine gun in the car chase?

[Harmsway]

yeah there are several things you miss during the first viewing or so in qos that catch your eye as time goes on...like how did Bond end up with a machine gun in the car chase?

Wasn't that supposed to be his gun from the end of CASINO ROYALE?

[00Twelve]

yeah there are several things you miss during the first viewing or so in qos that catch your eye as time goes on...like how did Bond end up with a machine gun in the car chase?

Wasn't that supposed to be his gun from the end of CASINO ROYALE?

Yep, that's how I understood it. Same one from CR and from the posters depicting Bond just after CR.

[JimmyBond]

yeah there are several things you miss during the first viewing or so in qos that catch your eye as time goes on...like how did Bond end up with a machine gun in the car chase?

He grabbed it from the backseat of his car.

[Craig Arthur]

yeah there are several things you miss during the first viewing or so in qos that catch your eye as time goes on...like how did Bond end up with a machine gun in the car chase?

He grabbed it from the backseat of his car.

No, it is from the glove compartment. You see him reach across but he cannot get at it at first because the guy in the backseat of the Alfa Romeo is shooting at him.

[sharpshooter]

No, it is from the glove compartment.

Pretty massive glove compartment to store a HK UMP9 submachine gun. Granted, he has taken off the silencer in this scene, but it’s still a large weapon.

The way I see it the gun is lying on the opposing front seat of the car. He can’t reach it, or doesn’t want to risk it, because he’s being fired upon at close range. When the two cars drive around the tractor, causing a break in gunfire, he manages to pick it up and do the deed.

[Eddie Burns]

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever.

Are you speaking to me or tdalton? Because as far as I'm concerned, QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't the "best Bond ever." I like it, and think it's better than most of the pack of Bond films (which isn't saying much, honestly), but I'm not praising it to the skies.

Just to ask the question to make sure I'm understanding what everyone's saying: I'm bored with James Bond simply because I thought that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the best of the Bond films?

For me, it's a far superior film to anything that EON has ever produced, rivaled only by CASINO ROYALE, the Dalton films, and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. The films other than those I just listed are what I find to be "appallingly average"

Yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

If QoS is your standard for a quality Bond film...the series would not have lasted if you were producer. As for me, I'd like my Bond movies to be without flashy camera tricks that represent the territory of first year film students, especially taking into account Forster's execution. You know, tricks that shout 'Look at me! I'm arty!'. I'm here to watch 007, not the director. The director should always make a stylistic choice if it enhances the movie or adds something to the story (see CR poison bathroom scene). Not just because 'it would be neat'.

I understand it's just your opinion, and your entitled to it, but films like OHMSS, DN, GF, TB are not "appallingly average". DN is the father of all action adventure films, OHMSS was the first Bond that took a risk, and had a director that incorporated flash editing, only this time he used it in moderation and sparingly. The other two speak for themselves, especially TB. TB has so much going on with the characters that you could write an essay. Bond/Domino/Largo/Volpe all interact very well. M's unshakeable belief in Bond is expressed here than in any other film. Connery's beach scene with Domino is my favourite scene in the whole series. You see all facets of the character and the putting on of the sunglasses is so subtle that one generally doesn't take any note of it.

QoS is 'appallingly average' because nothing happens in it. How does Bond get M's trust? What was introduced in QoS that people are still talking about? If anything, this movie was so bad it has made the directors uncertain of what direction to go in next exactly, and to what extent. The confidence from fans and critics that existed after CR, a confidence that made them make a movie as bad as QoS, is gone. The next one will be lighter so they say, but I don't want a light Bond film, never have. What's really scary is that Eon seem to think it was the whole mood of the movie that rubbed people up the wrong way. No, it was crap creative decisions, no script, terrible clueless director, and all round poor execution. This movie just gives me the sense that it thinks it's really clever and stylish, when really it just has an arty director with a huge budget.

HARMSWAY

True. And Bond is clearly different - if only in minor ways - at the end of QUANTUM OF SOLACE than he was at the beginning. Hence, QUANTUM OF SOLACE does give Bond a character arc of some kind.

But he 'never left'. Meaning he was acting in the same capacity as he was at the beginning of the movie. Yes he feels different because he's had closure now, but an arc like that didn't merit a whole movie. And it shows. Yusef is pretty much forgotten after 20min. And no one really cares about Bond's journey because of all the action, camera tricks of the director (Forster is terrible, absolutely terrible) that were put there to pad a non-story.

I now understand full well why Cubby never wanted overbearing directors with not so subtle styles. It drew attention to them and not Bond. Bond is the star here and will always be the star. Forster, for some reason thought he was the star of the show. Even Craig can't rise above all the turd Forster throws up on screen.

Eon have been very quiet in regards to QoS. Anyone remember how Barbara was everywhere after the success of CR? You couldn't shut her up. And the pride she felt was there for all to see. I don't think the feeling is the same this time around. I'm willing to bet anything QoS did not quite turn out as Eon expected it should, and it was too late to make any changes. They definitely think it was inferior to CR, I can tell that much. If they did adore the film, they would be everywhere defending or talking it up. But there's only so many times one can be asked about the editing before one blows his/her fuse. So....I understand.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 09 April 2009 - 05:23 AM.

[Harmsway]

Yes he feels different because he's had closure now, but an arc like that didn't merit a whole movie.

I'm not sure I agree. I think Bond's quest for closure is entirely enough for a film; I don't think the actual arc was handled particularly well (I think it ends up overwhelmed by other story components, and as such doesn't feel like a successful through-line in the narrative), but I think in concept, it's perfectly sufficient.

I'm willing to bet anything QoS did not quite turn out as Eon expected it should, and it was too late to make any changes.

Well, they did ask Marc Forster back, so they can't think too badly of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or at least of Forster's contribution to said film.

[JimmyBond]

Yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

As for me, I'd like my Bond movies to be without flashy camera tricks that represent the territory of first year film students, especially taking into account Forster's execution. You know, tricks that shout 'Look at me! I'm arty!'. I'm here to watch 007, not the director. The director should always make a stylistic choice if it enhances the movie or adds something to the story (see CR poison bathroom scene). Not just because 'it would be neat'.

Well why? We had 20 films where they were directed the way you like it. What's wrong with a little experimentation every now and then? I'm with tdalton, I loved QoS, and yes I do think it's the best film of the series, well as of late, I'm not sure it rivals the early Connery films, but it's much better than anything we've had for the last 30 or so years.

QoS is 'appallingly average' because nothing happens in it. How does Bond get M's trust? What was introduced in QoS that people are still talking about? If anything, this movie was so bad it has made the directors uncertain of what direction to go in next exactly, and to what extent. The confidence from fans and critics that existed after CR, a confidence that made them make a movie as bad as QoS, is gone. The next one will be lighter so they say, but I don't want a light Bond film, never have. What's really scary is that Eon seem to think it was the whole mood of the movie that rubbed people up the wrong way. No, it was crap creative decisions, no script, terrible clueless director, and all round poor execution. This movie just gives me the sense that it thinks it's really clever and stylish, when really it just has an arty director with a huge budget.

Like you told tdalton, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but don't try to pass it off as fact. Just because you say nothing happens in the film doesnt make it so.

I now understand full well why Cubby never wanted overbearing directors with not so subtle styles. It drew attention to them and not Bond. Bond is the star here and will always be the star. Forster, for some reason thought he was the star of the show. Even Craig can't rise above all the turd Forster throws up on screen.

I'm glad EON gave us a film where the director was the star, it made for something interesting. By all means Bond is the star and always will be, but why not mix it up a bit? I'd be all for it if the next Bond film went even further in the direction QoS was going, but I know they probably wont.

[Eddie Burns]

Yes he feels different because he's had closure now, but an arc like that didn't merit a whole movie.

I'm not sure I agree. I think Bond's quest for closure is entirely enough for a film; I don't think the actual arc was handled particularly well (I think it ends up overwhelmed by other story components, and as such doesn't feel like a successful through-line in the narrative), but I think in concept, it's perfectly sufficient.

I'm willing to bet anything QoS did not quite turn out as Eon expected it should, and it was too late to make any changes.

Well, they did ask Marc Forster back, so they can't think too badly of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or at least of Forster's contribution to said film.

Eon invite every director they enjoy working with back. Tamahori anyone? Plus I'm sure the offer was made before all those mixed reviews came in, highlighting the poor editing etc. If anything, Eon weren't perceptive enough to see a problem with the film and let it fly in the hope that that was what the 'public wanted to see'. Para-surfing anyone? I doubt Tamahori is ever coming back as I doubt Forster will ever come back.

As for the issue of closure being enough for a whole movie, maybe so. But explain why we have about 3/4 scenes only dealing with it, while the rest is just padded with action and some irrelevant plot in a desert? What is worse is when you come to the realization that they just presented a story based on a secret organization whose best idea to make money is selling water to Bolivians and emotional development of Bond goes no further than the end of CR ... what exactly is left? All but about 15min of QoS is pointless. Flash direction is not going to distract me from that fact.

Yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

As for me, I'd like my Bond movies to be without flashy camera tricks that represent the territory of first year film students, especially taking into account Forster's execution. You know, tricks that shout 'Look at me! I'm arty!'. I'm here to watch 007, not the director. The director should always make a stylistic choice if it enhances the movie or adds something to the story (see CR poison bathroom scene). Not just because 'it would be neat'.

Well why? We had 20 films where they were directed the way you like it. What's wrong with a little experimentation every now and then? I'm with tdalton, I loved QoS, and yes I do think it's the best film of the series, well as of late, I'm not sure it rivals the early Connery films, but it's much better than anything we've had for the last 30 or so years.

QoS is 'appallingly average' because nothing happens in it. How does Bond get M's trust? What was introduced in QoS that people are still talking about? If anything, this movie was so bad it has made the directors uncertain of what direction to go in next exactly, and to what extent. The confidence from fans and critics that existed after CR, a confidence that made them make a movie as bad as QoS, is gone. The next one will be lighter so they say, but I don't want a light Bond film, never have. What's really scary is that Eon seem to think it was the whole mood of the movie that rubbed people up the wrong way. No, it was crap creative decisions, no script, terrible clueless director, and all round poor execution. This movie just gives me the sense that it thinks it's really clever and stylish, when really it just has an arty director with a huge budget.

Like you told tdalton, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but don't try to pass it off as fact. Just because you say nothing happens in the film doesnt make it so.

I now understand full well why Cubby never wanted overbearing directors with not so subtle styles. It drew attention to them and not Bond. Bond is the star here and will always be the star. Forster, for some reason thought he was the star of the show. Even Craig can't rise above all the turd Forster throws up on screen.

I'm glad EON gave us a film where the director was the star, it made for something interesting. By all means Bond is the star and always will be, but why not mix it up a bit? I'd be all for it if the next Bond film went even further in the direction QoS was going, but I know they probably wont.

There is nothing ultimately wrong with experimentation, but if you are okay with camera tricks of a film school standard on a big budget production, just because it hasn't been done in the Bond series before, good for you pal. Plus saying it's better than a film during the seventies isn't saying much at all. If it's the best ever Bond film then it should be compared to its modern competition, but it fails in that regard. Mimicking Bourne alone discounts it from the 'Best Bond ever' category, in my book. Not helped by incorporating homages and scenes from earlier Bonds, instead of using those grey cells and coming up with something new.

What I mean by nothing happens in the movie is that this movie could have been shortened to half an hour and still have the desired effect. Probably more so as it would have felt even more like a 'bullet'. It's just explosions and action and fast editing. Mathis was unnecessary, as was Fields. One was there to add familiarity and continuity and the other to tick off the boxes. M is really stupid and incompetent in this one. In the large scheme of things Greene is irrelevant and hardly a benchmark as a villain.

As for the director being the star, I'm with you...but seriously mate...a arthouse director with no prior experience with action and in way out of his depth, and you are alright with him being the star? That's like saying if you needed knee surgery, you'd rather have the inexperienced arm surgeon rather than having the experienced leg surgeon. A further issue, is why did he do so much to take away from the story and put the focus on him? The tosca shootout, the palio horse race etc...it all screamed 'LOOK AT ME'. A good director meshes his style with the character and keeps the focus on the story and the character and enhances them at the same time. I mean seriously...a movie that purposely draws attention to the director without enhancing the movie at all is alright with you!? What part of 'Don't let them screw it up!' by Cubby don't you understand. A Bond movie in a directors hands (especially a director desperate for attention) such as Forster is no longer a Bond movie, instead it becomes whatever the director wants it to become. If Eon want to hire a star director, then make sure he knows what he's doing and has a prior experience. Hiring Forster then hiring Bourne Bradley and Bourne editor didn't really fool anybody.

[JimmyBond]

I'm too tired to respond to your various points of discussion. I will say this though, we'll have to agree do disagree. Where I see a great Bond film that is superbly directed and a great addition to the series you see something different.

[Onyx2626]

, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

Nice post Harms, so I'll just comment on this little part. I've tried to stay out of QoS arguments - our opinions are all subjective and it's clearly a film that has split us fans (unlike CR). But what I don't think is debatable is that it did try to push the envelope for a big franchise film. From Forster's arthouse style (yes, I love the fact that Tosca looks like one long commercial for some new European perfume, and why can't cross-cutting in Italy appear in a Bond?), to some of themes within the story, whether or not one thinks it worked isn't the point. To me the greatest thing about QoS is that it didn't set out to copy it's predecessor, or open the whole EON playbook for making a Bond film.

I don't know if we'll ever agree on how "good" QoS was, but I do feel repeated viewings will help highlight the fact that it tried to be different. And too often this franchise has fallen dangerously close to getting stale indeed.

Bravo Harms. Bravo Plankattack.
Everytime I try to compare this film to ANY Bond other than CR, my head explodes. Except LTK maybe. I am consoled by the fact that it infinately watchable at home!

I watched it twice right away. I watched the slam-bang PTS at least six times. One does not watch this film, it's too quick: you feel it.

I don't think I have ever been happier to pay full price for a DVD. Ever.

Except maybe Kubrick's 2001. At the risk of sounding cheap, I usually rent it and then wait for months for a used copy to come around.

Edited by Onyx2626, 10 April 2009 - 11:40 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever.

Are you speaking to me or tdalton? Because as far as I'm concerned, QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't the "best Bond ever." I like it, and think it's better than most of the pack of Bond films (which isn't saying much, honestly), but I'm not praising it to the skies.

Just to ask the question to make sure I'm understanding what everyone's saying: I'm bored with James Bond simply because I thought that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the best of the Bond films?

For me, it's a far superior film to anything that EON has ever produced, rivaled only by CASINO ROYALE, the Dalton films, and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. The films other than those I just listed are what I find to be "appallingly average"

Yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

As for me, I'd like my Bond movies to be without flashy camera tricks that represent the territory of first year film students, especially taking into account Forster's execution. You know, tricks that shout 'Look at me! I'm arty!'. I'm here to watch 007, not the director. The director should always make a stylistic choice if it enhances the movie or adds something to the story (see CR poison bathroom scene). Not just because 'it would be neat'.

Totally agree with this!! There's nothing wrong with the experimention as long as it's justified, just like in some scenes in CR, unlike QOS. And when I talk about justification, I'm pointing out simple reflections of the story, like the effects of the poison in Bond's body reflected by a chaotic shoots of the camera, not forced and pretensiously profound depictions of a supposed Bond's emotional journey, like in the Tosca scene of this Forster's work.

Nonetheless, I think QOS is not that bad (there are worse movies in the franchise), only an average Bond movie.

[tdalton]

Yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

As for me, I'd like my Bond movies to be without flashy camera tricks that represent the territory of first year film students, especially taking into account Forster's execution. You know, tricks that shout 'Look at me! I'm arty!'. I'm here to watch 007, not the director. The director should always make a stylistic choice if it enhances the movie or adds something to the story (see CR poison bathroom scene). Not just because 'it would be neat'.

Well why? We had 20 films where they were directed the way you like it. What's wrong with a little experimentation every now and then? I'm with tdalton, I loved QoS, and yes I do think it's the best film of the series, well as of late, I'm not sure it rivals the early Connery films, but it's much better than anything we've had for the last 30 or so years.

Completely agreed. We had 20 films done in the rather bland (for the most part, save for Connery's first two and Dalton's two), cookie-cutter style. The experimentation in QUANTUM OF SOLACE and, to a much lesser extent CASINO ROYALE, are very much welcome and appreciated.

QoS is 'appallingly average' because nothing happens in it. How does Bond get M's trust? What was introduced in QoS that people are still talking about? If anything, this movie was so bad it has made the directors uncertain of what direction to go in next exactly, and to what extent. The confidence from fans and critics that existed after CR, a confidence that made them make a movie as bad as QoS, is gone. The next one will be lighter so they say, but I don't want a light Bond film, never have. What's really scary is that Eon seem to think it was the whole mood of the movie that rubbed people up the wrong way. No, it was crap creative decisions, no script, terrible clueless director, and all round poor execution. This movie just gives me the sense that it thinks it's really clever and stylish, when really it just has an arty director with a huge budget.

Like you told tdalton, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but don't try to pass it off as fact. Just because you say nothing happens in the film doesnt make it so.

Well said.

Liking QUANTUM OF SOLACE does not mean that one is bored with the franchise. In fact, QUANTUM OF SOLACE has made me more excited for the Bond franchise than I've been in a while. I'm sure that feeling will go away with BOND 23 since it's going to be a return to the "traditional" style of Bond filmmaking, with all the humor and silliness that goes along with that, but for now, we've gotten the two best films in the franchise within the last 3 years, and that has me very excited for the future of the franchise.

I now understand full well why Cubby never wanted overbearing directors with not so subtle styles. It drew attention to them and not Bond. Bond is the star here and will always be the star. Forster, for some reason thought he was the star of the show. Even Craig can't rise above all the turd Forster throws up on screen.

I'm glad EON gave us a film where the director was the star, it made for something interesting. By all means Bond is the star and always will be, but why not mix it up a bit? I'd be all for it if the next Bond film went even further in the direction QoS was going, but I know they probably wont.

And, for a third time, completely agreed. It's great to have finally broken out of the mold of having the journeymen directors who don't have much visual flair or style. Forster's contributions on QUANTUM OF SOLACE are a big part of why the film is better than a good number of other Bond films. Adding to that, the acting is what puts it over the top, for me, in terms of being the best of the Bond films.

Edited by tdalton, 10 April 2009 - 11:05 PM.

[Eddie Burns]

, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

Nice post Harms, so I'll just comment on this little part. I've tried to stay out of QoS arguments - our opinions are all subjective and it's clearly a film that has split us fans (unlike CR). But what I don't think is debatable is that it did try to push the envelope for a big franchise film. From Forster's arthouse style (yes, I love the fact that Tosca looks like one long commercial for some new European perfume, and why can't cross-cutting in Italy appear in a Bond?), to some of themes within the story, whether or not one thinks it worked isn't the point. To me the greatest thing about QoS is that it didn't set out to copy it's predecessor, or open the whole EON playbook for making a Bond film.

I don't know if we'll ever agree on how "good" QoS was, but I do feel repeated viewings will help highlight the fact that it tried to be different. And too often this franchise has fallen dangerously close to getting stale indeed.

Bravo Harms. Bravo Plankattack.
Everytime I try to compare this film to ANY Bond other than CR, my head explodes. Except LTK maybe. I am consoled by the fact that it infinately watchable at home!

I watched it twice right away. I watched the slam-bang PTS at least six times. One does not watch this film, it's too quick: you feel it.

I don't think I have ever been happier to pay full price for a DVD. Ever.

Except maybe Kubrick's 2001. At the risk of sounding cheap, I usually rent it and then wait for months for a used copy to come around.

It is great that they broke free of the shackles that held them up in the past isn't it? So why not go the whole hog and make Bond gay, have M reveal herself to be his mother and Q his father, Moneypenny being his long lost adopted sister? I mean that's taking it even further right? The execution may not translate well on screen but at least it tries! Or just to change tack on the next one, have Forster return and film a movie where the safety of the free world depends on Bond taking a 1h30m dump. Have Forster try and make it feel like 'an arrow' and have him explore Bond's demons in relation to how embarrassment affects his work (I can really feel my creative juices pumping up). I mean they all try, don't they? Who cares about story, plot, character, hell even if it makes sense!?

You guys just like this film because it is different. The sad thing is, you're appreciation of the character and film franchise has sunk so low that your willing to accept turd (and try and pass it off as quality) just as long as it isn't like the first twenty of the series. By that, you are willing to accept any portrayal of Bond and his universe as long as Eon sell it well enough to you. And just because they entered new ground (albeit poorly) doesn't always mean they'll continue to do so. It could just be LTK all over again or OHMSS where the following film gets back to basics. It's clear to all that they don't have a plan or direction, if they had an inkling of an idea of where they want to take the character, I'd be more sympathetic and more willing to see the whole thing played out. Instead the next film is probably largely dependant on what will be the fad in 2011 or what direction Bourne goes next.

And, for a third time, completely agreed. It's great to have finally broken out of the mold of having the journeymen directors who don't have much visual flair or style. Forster's contributions on QUANTUM OF SOLACE are a big part of why the film is better than a good number of other Bond films. Adding to that, the acting is what puts it over the top, for me, in terms of being the best of the Bond films.

See...so once a director adds a little slow-mo...cross cutting...and choppy fast editing it's considered visual flair or style? Despite the cross cutting, slow-mo, and fast edits do nothing to enhance the story, character, or plot? I mean being there for the sake of being there?

This is what I mean by you being bored by the franchise. You need a little flash and flair to hold your attention, not story or character. Nothing Forster added improved anything...it was just there to make HIM stand out. A good director adds things that improve the story, Forster's tricks are Transporter like, where what you see is more impressive than substance making you forget exactly how crap the film actually is. Btw...a stylish director is usually exposed as such by how stylish his film is without the fancy camera stuff. It's exposed by how his characters come alive on screen, what they wear, how they interact with one another and most importantly originality (mother of all styles) and how memorable the film was. Forster fails on every single count even though the $200m budget tries to hide that as best it can.

But I'll agree to disagree because people really don't care for the character anymore. If someone like Forster can get it so wrong and still get praise in some quarters for getting it wrong because he did it differently, I'll never understand. I never wanted an action-fest for a sequel, and I'm sure most on here didn't either, especially action we can't see. But boy...have Eon sold it well and many fell for it hook line and sinker.

[tdalton]

See...so once a director adds a little slow-mo...cross cutting...and choppy fast editing it's considered visual flair or style? Despite the cross cutting, slow-mo, and fast edits do nothing to enhance the story, character, or plot? I mean being there for the sake of being there?

This is what I mean by you being bored by the franchise. You need a little flash and flair to hold your attention, not story or character. Nothing Forster added improved anything...it was just there to make HIM stand out. A good director adds things that improve the story, Forster's tricks are Transporter like, where what you see is more impressive than substance making you forget exactly how crap the film actually is. Btw...a stylish director is usually exposed as such by how stylish his film is without the fancy camera stuff. It's exposed by how his characters come alive on screen, what they wear, how they interact with one another and most importantly originality (mother of all styles) and how memorable the film was. Forster fails on every single count even though the $200m budget tries to hide that as best it can.

But I'll agree to disagree because people really don't care for the character anymore. If someone like Forster can get it so wrong and still get praise in some quarters for getting it wrong because he did it differently, I'll never understand. I never wanted an action-fest for a sequel, and I'm sure most on here didn't either, especially action we can't see. But boy...have Eon sold it well and many fell for it hook line and sinker.

The same could is true for the awful editing in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. That was choppy and very poorly done, and drew attention to the director for no other purpose than to draw attention to the director. One can see just as much of the fight scenes in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE as they can the fight scenes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. There's even moments in OHMSS where Bond knocks a man to the ground, and in the very next shot they're both on their feet again.

Liking QUANTUM OF SOLACE does not make me any less of a Bond fan than someone who names any of the other 21 films as they're favorite. I don't like QUANTUM OF SOLACE solely because it's different from what came before it. I like it because it's a good Bond movie. Craig is absolutely brilliant, once again, in the role this time around. I like the film because there's great performances (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Wright), there's great action (a good car chase, a great foot chase, the eco hotel finale), there's some great humor ("It's time to get out", "We're teachers on sabaatical...and we've just won the lottery"), it features what I feel to be David Arnold's best score by a mile, and it's got a very good story (I like the bait and switch that Haggis throws our way, making the viewer think the film is about Greene when in fact it's really about the search for Yusef). All of that is, to me, what makes QUANTUM OF SOLACE a great film, not the creative decisions that Forster made on the film. Some of them are nice touches that help to separate the film from what we've seen before because they are different, but they are not the sole reason, or even the main reason, that I found QUANTUM OF SOLACE to be a great Bond movie.

Edited by tdalton, 12 April 2009 - 10:04 PM.

[Loomis]

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever.

Are you speaking to me or tdalton? Because as far as I'm concerned, QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't the "best Bond ever." I like it, and think it's better than most of the pack of Bond films (which isn't saying much, honestly), but I'm not praising it to the skies.

Yeah. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but you know what? Whenever someone mentions "the last Bond film", excited and happy thoughts of CASINO ROYALE automatically pop into my head. It's like when someone mentions "the Prime Minister" I can't stop myself thinking of Tony Blair and it's only with some effort that I remember that it's actually Gordon Brown now. If you see what I'm trying to say.

[blueman]

See...so once a director adds a little slow-mo...cross cutting...and choppy fast editing it's considered visual flair or style? Despite the cross cutting, slow-mo, and fast edits do nothing to enhance the story, character, or plot? I mean being there for the sake of being there?

This is what I mean by you being bored by the franchise. You need a little flash and flair to hold your attention, not story or character. Nothing Forster added improved anything...it was just there to make HIM stand out. A good director adds things that improve the story, Forster's tricks are Transporter like, where what you see is more impressive than substance making you forget exactly how crap the film actually is. Btw...a stylish director is usually exposed as such by how stylish his film is without the fancy camera stuff. It's exposed by how his characters come alive on screen, what they wear, how they interact with one another and most importantly originality (mother of all styles) and how memorable the film was. Forster fails on every single count even though the $200m budget tries to hide that as best it can.

But I'll agree to disagree because people really don't care for the character anymore. If someone like Forster can get it so wrong and still get praise in some quarters for getting it wrong because he did it differently, I'll never understand. I never wanted an action-fest for a sequel, and I'm sure most on here didn't either, especially action we can't see. But boy...have Eon sold it well and many fell for it hook line and sinker.

The same could is true for the awful editing in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. That was choppy and very poorly done, and drew attention to the director for no other purpose than to draw attention to the director. One can see just as much of the fight scenes in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE as they can the fight scenes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. There's even moments in OHMSS where Bond knocks a man to the ground, and in the very next shot they're both on their feet again.

Liking QUANTUM OF SOLACE does not make me any less of a Bond fan than someone who names any of the other 21 films as they're favorite. I don't like QUANTUM OF SOLACE solely because it's different from what came before it. I like it because it's a good Bond movie. Craig is absolutely brilliant, once again, in the role this time around. I like the film because there's great performances (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Wright), there's great action (a good car chase, a great foot chase, the eco hotel finale), there's some great humor ("It's time to get out", "We're teachers on sabaatical...and we've just won the lottery"), it features what I feel to be David Arnold's best score by a mile, and it's got a very good story (I like the bait and switch that Haggis throws our way, making the viewer think the film is about Greene when in fact it's really about the search for Yusef). All of that is, to me, what makes QUANTUM OF SOLACE a great film, not the creative decisions that Forster made on the film. Some of them are nice touches that help to separate the film from what we've seen before because they are different, but they are not the sole reason, or even the main reason, that I found QUANTUM OF SOLACE to be a great Bond movie.

QOS is the most Fleming Bond, in style and substance, since OHMSS. That's where I come down on liking it so much. CR made up lots of lost ground in that regard, sure, but QOS is just on another level of Bondness. IMHO.

[tdalton]

QOS is the most Fleming Bond, in style and substance, since OHMSS. That's where I come down on liking it so much. CR made up lots of lost ground in that regard, sure, but QOS is just on another level of Bondness. IMHO.

Agreed. I like OHMSS as well, although it probably didn't come across that way in my last post. I don't see how the argument, however, holds up when one criticizes QUANTUM OF SOLACE for having poorly edited action sequences but then brings up ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE as a model for how an action sequence should be edited. If anything, those are the two films with the most in common in terms of editing.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I do agree with you about how QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the most Fleming-inspired film since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Craig's portrayal of Bond is probably the closest thing, with the possible exceptions of Connery's first two performances, there is to a reasonably accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond.

Edited by tdalton, 12 April 2009 - 10:29 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

QOS is the most Fleming Bond, in style and substance, since OHMSS. That's where I come down on liking it so much. CR made up lots of lost ground in that regard, sure, but QOS is just on another level of Bondness. IMHO.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I do agree with you about how QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the most Fleming-inspired film since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

... And what about LTK, wasn't that movie- according to some fans of the so called serious Bond- the "most Fleming-inspired film" ever??

I'm a little bit tired of hearing from the defenders, everytime that a Bond movie have mixed reviews and polarize fans, that is the most Fleming-inspired film (particularly when that flick isn't even a proper adaptation of a Fleming story), and hence that's why is so misunderstood and underrated by some people. I think that is just a lame excuse for the lack of a categorical popularity.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 12 April 2009 - 11:38 PM.

[tdalton]

I'm a little bit tired of hearing from the defenders, everytime that a Bond movie have mixed reviews and polarize fans, that is the most Fleming-inspired film (particularly when that flick isn't even a proper adaptation of a Fleming story), and hence that's why is so misunderstood and underrated by some people. I think that is just a lame excuse for the lack of a categorical popularity.

I don't think that anyone has made this case, though.

I think that the film may be underrated or viewed negatively by some because of how different it is from the other films, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have. It's all just a matter of personal opinion. I don't think that it's necessarily because some view QUANTUM OF SOLACE as being a more Fleming-inspired film that it's viewed negatively. CASINO ROYALE was a Fleming-inspired film, and it went on to be probably the biggest critical and commercial success of the franchise.

Edited by tdalton, 12 April 2009 - 11:59 PM.

[blueman]

LTK is a big piece of ****, won't get any kinds words from me about that film (ditto FYEO, while we're on the subject of supposedly Flemingesque Bond films... IMHO EON abandoned Fleming in '71 and hasn't looked back - til Craig, sorry tdalton but I view Dalton as more 80s pretty boy than Fleming Bond, oh the permutations and variations of opinion 'round these parts, lol).

[tdalton]

sorry tdalton but I view Dalton as more 80s pretty boy than Fleming Bond, oh the permutations and variations of opinion 'round these parts, lol).

No offense taken at all, although I don't think I've ever heard Dalton described quite like that. Just goes to show that there's probably never going to be any one thing that every part of the fanbase is going to agree on, and that's what makes the franchise great.

Edited by tdalton, 13 April 2009 - 12:39 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

tdalton, how can you say the editing on OHMSS is terrible? It's what stood out for me the most when I first watched it, in comparison to the other films. In spite of the film's length, it still felt dynamic.

Also, I wish Eddie Burns would stop badmouthing QOS and give some actual reasons for his dislike of it, not just straw-man appeals to the Brozza years!

[tdalton]

tdalton, how can you say the editing on OHMSS is terrible? It's what stood out for me the most when I first watched it, in comparison to the other films. In spite of the film's length, it still felt dynamic.

Also, I wish Eddie Burns would stop badmouthing QOS and give some actual reasons for his dislike of it, not just straw-man appeals to the Brozza years!

I just can't stand anything about the editing in that film. I think there's one scene where Bond knocks someone to the ground, and in the very next frame, they're both on their feet again. That just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying that they have to show him going through a long labored process of getting back up, but the overall speed and the quick cuts in the fight sequences just don't do it for me at all. The rest of the film is edited OK, I guess, but the fight sequences are just flat out terrible in the film. I understand that there's a great number of people that like that style, and I wish that I was one of them, but it just doesn't work for me.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I just can't stand anything about the editing in that film. I think there's one scene where Bond knocks someone to the ground, and in the very next frame, they're both on their feet again. That just doesn't work for me.

Actually, that's from the Bouvar fight in Thunderball; Bond goes head-over-heels with Bouvar, crouches, then a second later is upright pulling down a tapestry... wha?

I'm not saying that they have to show him going through a long labored process of getting back up, but the overall speed and the quick cuts in the fight sequences just don't do it for me at all.

Well, Bond is an expert fighter, so he's going to have quicker reactions to fisticuffs than a normal man would. If you don't like the editing, there's always the angle of the shots to appreciate, such as when Draco's black henchman smashes a lamp into a table in the hotel room fight, or the zoom-in/close-quarters coverage during the fight in the locker room; it's really distinctive.

The rest of the film is edited OK, I guess, but the fight sequences are just flat out terrible in the film. I understand that there's a great number of people that like that style, and I wish that I was one of them, but it just doesn't work for me.

Well, then, why do like QOS's fights so much? If anything else, you have to admit that both films' fight scenes are nowhere near as shaky as anything in the Bourne movies.

[tdalton]

I just can't stand anything about the editing in that film. I think there's one scene where Bond knocks someone to the ground, and in the very next frame, they're both on their feet again. That just doesn't work for me.

Actually, that's from the Bouvar fight in Thunderball; Bond goes head-over-heels with Bouvar, crouches, then a second later is upright pulling down a tapestry... wha?

I was thinking (and I could be wrong) that there's a scene in the OHMSS pre-titles when they're fighting in the ocean that something similar happens.

Either way, I don't particularly like the editing in OHMSS, or QUANTUM OF SOLACE for that matter. Both are fine films, but have their flaws just like the other films. In these films cases, the flaw is editing. In other films, it's other issues that are the main flaws.

[Royal Dalton]

It's like when someone mentions "the Prime Minister" I can't stop myself thinking of Tony Blair and it's only with some effort that I remember that it's actually Gordon Brown now. If you see what I'm trying to say.

You have a very sick mind, Loomis.

[Eddie Burns]

tdalton, how can you say the editing on OHMSS is terrible? It's what stood out for me the most when I first watched it, in comparison to the other films. In spite of the film's length, it still felt dynamic.

Also, I wish Eddie Burns would stop badmouthing QOS and give some actual reasons for his dislike of it, not just straw-man appeals to the Brozza years!

*Shots fired!* Lol!

Please never associate my name with the Brosnan years. Definitely the worst era of the franchise. It had it's moments but come on...at least give me some credit. QoS is crap. Sorry, but I don't understand how a director who has never worked on an action movie before all of a sudden makes the best ever Bond according to some. The desperation of some is just ridiculous.

OHMSS editing is terrible tDalton? Really? That was bloody 1969! The editing is a lot more enjoyable considering the era it was made in and at least it was done with Peter Hunt who basically revolutionized the whole process. The fact of the matter is I knew what was going on and who was who. Plus he took his time with the movie as it unfolded before our very eyes and then bam! A great fast action scene. He found the balance and it worked. Forster basically attempted something he'd never done before and makes a complete hash of it. Plus Hunt didn't knock us over the head with symbolism and amateurish cross cutting that really had no point to it. Did Forster think he was revolutionizing the franchise or something? By copying and hiring anything associated with Bourne? At least Hunt was the originator and I think many people had more of a problem getting over Lazenby at the time than the editing. Plus Bond's escape from Piz Gloria, in fact from the point Bofeld locks him up to the avalanche where Tracy gets caught makes up for any flaw in the movie. QoS cannot and does not even play in that league...it's not even in Bourne's league...it's with The Transporter in terms of comparison.

Once again the Fleming thing comes up with absolutely no basis whatsoever. I don't recall ever reading Fleming and coming across an action scene every 5 pages. In fact most of his books were great at building up the tension, something which doesn't happen in QoS. Secondly boys...THERE WAS NO COMPLETE SCRIPT! Stop giving Haggis credit for something you have no idea about. How do you know it wasn't P&W or Zetumer? You don't, you are just assuming Haggis had something to do with all the best bits because his name sounds better next to Fleming than P&W or Zetumer. The same Haggis that wanted to have Bond adopt Vesper's son! Yes very Fleming indeed.

As for the acting...you really think Craig stretched himself in this one? Really? I thought all he did was pout and look miserable and with his looks that's hardly a stretch, and I don't mean that as a criticism. Craig stretched himself in the action scenes of which we weren't privy to thanks to some creative decisions made by the overrated Forster. It was obvious he lacked direction and played it safe...scowl throughout the whole movie and hope it flies.

OHMSS and CR are bonafide classics.You can criticize the Moore/Connery/Lazenby/Brosnan era all you want, QoS is still a very poor movie. What frustrates me is that some just can't admit (except Harmsway) that the experiment went wrong, and please let us just get an experienced director in next time WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I admire the courage shown by Eon, but something also tells me they also didn't know what they wanted to do. And you know what...they still don't know what they want to do. Very reassuring.

If B23 comes out in 2011 then we'd have had only three Bonds this decade, the lowest ever in a decade(I discount the 90's because of all the litigation, but they still managed to churn out three in 5 years)...a clear sign they are slowly running out of ideas. This reboot hasn't really recharged them at all. If anything it has exposed their lack of creativity.

Let me add...IMHO!