249 replies to this topic

[byline]

I mean I could make the same argument about Seagal movies being layered since the guy goes through so much in his movies but still maintains a single expression.

Sorry, but I stopped reading your diatribe here. If you seriously believe that, as with Seagal, Craig maintains only one expression throughout the entirety of "Quantum of Solace," thus his acting is no better than Segal's, then we really are not watching the same film. The differences are subtle, but they most definitely are there.

Craig does not have the same facial expression when he shows tenderness toward Camille while trying to comfort her in the hotel fire (as he's coming to grips with the realization that he will have to kill her in order to spare her the agony of dying this way), or just before they part ways near the end. Or, for that matter, as he's struggling with his grief over Vesper on the plane, or as Mathis lies dying in his arms. His barely suppressed rage while confronting Yusef is a different kind of rage from when he confronts M in the hotel room. His grim stoicism -- which he's using to guard against others knowing his motives -- turns to humor at several points: just before flipping the henchman's motorcycle in Haiti, when he reveals himself to Quantum at the opera, when he drops Greene off in the desert, etc. There are countless moments where Craig's demeanor gives us that something moving behind his eyes. While not overt, it most definitely is there. It's too bad that you're not able to see it and consider Craig's Bond to be a "robot" throughout the film. I see exactly the opposite.

Edited by byline, 15 April 2009 - 02:10 PM.

[winstoninabox]

...So much so in fact, I'm wondering if the film school types can point to this movie in their editing classes as an example of how badly rushes can scale up from the small screen to the movie screen. The pre-title car chase looks absolutely fantastic on the little screen. I was also extremely impressed at the art gallery fight. In the theater I could barely figure out what was going on, but rewatching it on my TV I found I could catch everything...

I'm in no way disagreeing with you R. Dittmar, but for me it was a different experience. In the theater I loved the opening car chase (I'm yet to see the movie on DVD), especially the way the camera came sliding in over the water getting closer to the tunnel, then inter-cutting with the Aston, then the chase starting and the camera being slammed around, and it looked confused but you could just make out what was happening as the door got impaled and ripped off. Then the editing got a little easier to watch as the cars left the tunnel after the cars and trucks stopped banging into each other...

The same for the Siena foot chase. The little things like the fat guy in the crowd standing up and pointing, or the horses race being inter-cut with the foot chase, or more time being given in a shot to falling tomatoes than to the fighters themselves to me just looked fantastic. Bond hitting his head on the little wooden bench when he jumps down to the balcony was a nice touch. And I could watch again and again those few seconds where Bond and Mitchell spar and then fall through the glass window. To me the action scenes, while quickly edited, still contained so many little gems in them that only become apparent upon repeated viewings.

I don't know, I just found it really exciting, superbly edited, and was full of little details. That was the intention of the original question. If people had got more out of it, whether they felt no change, or whether it had gotten worse for them since seeing it on DVD. I'm looking forward to seeing more when I see it on DVD.

[Mr. Blofeld]

If anything, I thought it looked better on the big screen; you have a wider area of viewing, and so can catch the little movements of action on either side of the screen. The truck slamming into Bond, the police crashing into the little hut and then down the side of the mountain... believe me; everybody in the cinema felt the impact.

[JimmyBond]

??? sorry but LOL!

I'm glad you're having a laugh about this.

The car chase the best in the series? Maybe so, but that car chase is one of the worst I've ever seen in any movie made in the last 10 years. What exactly happens or is so special about the car chase? You can't see what's going on!

You might want to get eye glasses than. I have no idea seeing what's going on/

The foot chase is allright, but not a touch on CR's which I believe will go down as all time great foot chase...Sienna is just forgetful.

The foot chase in QoS is better paced and just more exciting than the chase from CR, at least to me.

About Craig's stoic performance...you find it layered, I find it mostly one-dimensional. I mean I could make the same argument about Seagal movies being layered since the guy goes through so much in his movies but still maintains a single expression. I've never said his performance was terrible, just a step backwards from CR.

This point was beautifully refuted above, so I'll leave it be. Just to say I disagree.

So Bond going back and asking for Field's report to mention that she showed true bravery convinced M? I really hope you are kidding. It is the weakest cop-out they could have used and here you have a Bond fan defending lazy writing. How does what Bond say affect anything? M wasn't sure he'd turned( turned to in what direction? nobody knows...another up from the writers), but was bringing him in just in case. She knew he didn't kill Fields, but he was causing more trouble than helping. Knocking out all her guards and re-appearing to talk to her just to mention Fields shouldn't have been enough. She was worried about his 'rage' remember? It had nothing to do with whether he was turned...that just ridiculous. C'mon...did you watch the movie? Are you sure?

If Bond was turned would he really go back to M and tell her they have to see this through? Would he make an effort to tell her about Fields? If you can't see that then you're the one who is kidding.

Can you at least understand what I mean when I say that I don't understand how a movie like this can be considered the best ever? Especially when it clearly relies on Bourne and CR without actually doing anything new (camera tricks don't count since they really didn't add anything)?

No, I can't understand what you mean when you keep confusing opinion with fact. Just because you say this film relies on Bourne doesnt make it so.

[Barnaby Jones]

Hi, guys, first post here...

Speaking for myself as a long-time Bond-fan both cinematic and literary, I have to say that repeat viewings on DVD have made me do a complete 180 on QoS. When I saw the first showing in IMAX last year I was very dissapointed. The plot didn't live up to Casino Royale and, although there was a lot of it, the action was boring because I couldn't see what the hell was happening to save my life. It was more confusing and irritating than exciting.

However, seeing it on the small screen instead of that gingantanormous IMAX screen is primarily the reason I've grown to love this film so much, I think. It's story still isn't the most riveting in the world, but it's the closure both we the audience and Bond needed after the events of CR. Something which was sorely lacking after the criminally underrated OHMSS. Anyway, the action, now that I can see what's going on, is incredible. The really quick cuts dont lend themselves to a big screen, at least for me, because it's just too much real estate for my eyes to cover and it's gone before you know it. On the small screen however it just makes the film all the more exciting. These are some of the best set pieces of any Bond. The acting, even from Kurylenko, is the best.

I'm starting to ramble so I'm just gonna cut it short and sweet and say that after being at the bottom of the barrel the first time I saw it, I'd now rank QoS at a close #2 behind CR for best of the series. QoS is intense, beautifully shot, I love the editing (the opera house sequence gave me a major old school Bond feel, it was great), the cast is stellar (Craig is Bond, period), and it satisfyingly closes an arc that was left wide open. If only the follow up to OHMSS had been this good, instead of the farce we ended up getting.

I also agree with those who have said this film ooozes Fleming. I didn't notice at first because I was so disoriented with it but letting the film sink in this is definitely the film that feels most like a Fleming story. It's so gritty and...oh man, I love it! I know it probably wont happen but I wouldn't mind Forster coming back for 23. The only other man I'd want more for the job at this point would be Martin Campbell, again.

Edited by Barnaby Jones, 15 April 2009 - 08:32 PM.

[tdalton]

??? sorry but LOL!

I'm glad you're having a laugh about this.

The car chase the best in the series? Maybe so, but that car chase is one of the worst I've ever seen in any movie made in the last 10 years. What exactly happens or is so special about the car chase? You can't see what's going on!

You might want to get eye glasses than. I have no idea seeing what's going on/

The foot chase is allright, but not a touch on CR's which I believe will go down as all time great foot chase...Sienna is just forgetful.

The foot chase in QoS is better paced and just more exciting than the chase from CR, at least to me.

About Craig's stoic performance...you find it layered, I find it mostly one-dimensional. I mean I could make the same argument about Seagal movies being layered since the guy goes through so much in his movies but still maintains a single expression. I've never said his performance was terrible, just a step backwards from CR.

This point was beautifully refuted above, so I'll leave it be. Just to say I disagree.

So Bond going back and asking for Field's report to mention that she showed true bravery convinced M? I really hope you are kidding. It is the weakest cop-out they could have used and here you have a Bond fan defending lazy writing. How does what Bond say affect anything? M wasn't sure he'd turned( turned to in what direction? nobody knows...another up from the writers), but was bringing him in just in case. She knew he didn't kill Fields, but he was causing more trouble than helping. Knocking out all her guards and re-appearing to talk to her just to mention Fields shouldn't have been enough. She was worried about his 'rage' remember? It had nothing to do with whether he was turned...that just ridiculous. C'mon...did you watch the movie? Are you sure?

If Bond was turned would he really go back to M and tell her they have to see this through? Would he make an effort to tell her about Fields? If you can't see that then you're the one who is kidding.

Can you at least understand what I mean when I say that I don't understand how a movie like this can be considered the best ever? Especially when it clearly relies on Bourne and CR without actually doing anything new (camera tricks don't count since they really didn't add anything)?

No, I can't understand what you mean when you keep confusing opinion with fact. Just because you say this film relies on Bourne doesnt make it so.

Completely agreed on every point, JimmyBond.

Just to further address a few points though:

1. The foot chase in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is, for me, infinitely better than the one in CASINO ROYALE. CR's free-running chase never did it for me, and it was always part of a first half of that film that featured boring, pointless action that served no purpose in furthering the plot of the story (although the Miami sequence moved the plot forward, it was still a rather dull sequence).

2. As for whether or not the new Bond relies on Bourne is not really an issue. Of course it does, to some degree. Bourne brought the gritty, serious spy film back to popularity, which allowed the Bond producers to go back to the type of film that they were producing in the early 60s when Connery was just getting into the role. And, as far as I'm concerned, copying Bourne isn't a bad thing at all, anyway. THE BOURNE IDENTITY is one of the best spy films I've ever seen (although THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM are amongst the worst), and the Bond producers would have been doing themselves a disservice by continuing on with the over-the-top action films of the Brosnan Era when the Bourne franchise had proven that what audiences wanted in spy films was the more serious type of spy film.

3. Agreed on Bond returning to M at the hotel. If Bond had turned and had gone back to M, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to try to get rid of M rather than tell her that they needed to see the operation through and to tell her that Fields showed great bravery in the line of duty. If Bond had turned, it wouldn't have served him any purpose to return to M, and if he decided to go back to see her, it would have been to do something other than to tell her how brave Fields was, it probably would have been to finish the job that Mitchell was meant to accomplish at the beginning of the film.

[tdalton]

Alright, so you like the movie for a lot more than just Forster. The action was poor, sorry. I know you adore it but there have been tons of better and more engaging action sequences in the series. If you want Bourne action, watch Bourne. An arthouse director cannot do action, the same way an action director cannot do a arthouse film. The story was thin and needed action to pad it out. Admittedly, they made it up as they went along. I don't pay attention to Arnold because he's not a good composer. The only thing that was stellar was the acting, but really with that cast I wasn't expecting anything else.

So there you have it tDalton...I respect your opinion that you like the film and i'll never change your mind. I wouldn't want to. But I've listed reasons why this movie doesn't deserve the high praise your giving it. And ultimately that is all I'm doing. CR is by far a classic. QoS, by being a sequel and by being largely influenced by a superior Bourne film(s), isn't and will never be so.

Can you at least understand what I mean when I say that I don't understand how a movie like this can be considered the best ever? Especially when it clearly relies on Bourne and CR without actually doing anything new (camera tricks don't count since they really didn't add anything)?

Why doesn't the movie deserve high praise? If someone likes something, then they should praise it, and the same should be said for those that don't like something. They should criticize it. But, to say that people who enjoy certain types of art (because that's what films are) are wrong, lazy, bored, or whatever else is quite unfair. It doesn't matter to me if someone doesn't like QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Everyone is entitled to say what they like or dislike in terms of art. But to criticize someone for liking or disliking something is very, very unfair. I personally can't stand THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIE ANOTHER DAY, or DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, but I don't think that those who like the films (or even claim them to be the best in the series) are any less of Bond fans for liking them.

Now we're saying that because QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a sequel that it means that it's a bad movie? By that logic, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THE GODFATHER PART II are horrible films. Also, I see nothing wrong with copying Bourne, if that's even what the Bond franchise currently is doing (which I don't think they necessarily are, as they had made serious, gritty Bond films long before Jason Bourne ever made it to the big screen). THE BOURNE IDENTITY is one of the best spy films to come along in quite awhile, so copying it isn't a bad thing in my opinion. EON follows trends and rarely sets them, and Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films. That's why the franchise has continually succeeded whereas other franchises that don't adapt eventually come to an end.

Edited by tdalton, 15 April 2009 - 11:45 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films.

... And MR & LTK are such great landmarks within the EON series, right??!!! I don't really think so. The most popular and critically acclaimed films in the franchise's history are precisely the ones that have been less influenced by fads i.e. GF & CR, not the one that strongly follows trends like QOS.

[tdalton]

Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films.

... And MR & LTK are such great landmarks within the EON series, right??!!! I don't really think so. The most popular and critically acclaimed films in the franchise's history are precisely the ones that have been less influenced by fads i.e. GF & CR, not the one that strongly follows trends like QOS.

For me, LTK is a landmark in the franchise. A great film which was, up until the release of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, my favorite of the franchise. MR, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

I would disagree that CASINO ROYALE doesn't follow trends. If anything, CASINO ROYALE has been one of the bigger trend-following Bond films of them all. First of all, it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight. CASINO ROYALE, much like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, also draws heavily upon the Bourne films (which, to be fair, in turn also drew on the early Bond films, so it could be argued that it's a case of Bond drawing upon its former self) as well, with the more physical action and a great reliance on realistic stunts and hand-to-hand combat action as opposed to the over-the-top computer generated spectacles of the previous four films.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films.

... And MR & LTK are such great landmarks within the EON series, right??!!! I don't really think so. The most popular and critically acclaimed films in the franchise's history are precisely the ones that have been less influenced by fads i.e. GF & CR, not the one that strongly follows trends like QOS.

For me, LTK is a landmark in the franchise. A great film which was, up until the release of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, my favorite of the franchise. MR, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

I would disagree that CASINO ROYALE doesn't follow trends. If anything, CASINO ROYALE has been one of the bigger trend-following Bond films of them all. First of all, it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight. CASINO ROYALE, much like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, also draws heavily upon the Bourne films (which, to be fair, in turn also drew on the early Bond films, so it could be argued that it's a case of Bond drawing upon its former self) as well, with the more physical action and a great reliance on realistic stunts and hand-to-hand combat action as opposed to the over-the-top computer generated spectacles of the previous four films.

First of all, you would have to agree with me that LTK is one of the less successful Bond movies at the BO in the entire franchise's history, while MR (alongside with AVTAK) is regarded by the majority of fans as one the weakest efforts in the Moore era and in the whole 007 series. So... these couple of trendy movies are hardly landmarks of the EON series, for most of the people.

Regarding CR, as I have posted in several other threads, there isn't any solid proof to state that Craig's debut is a trend follower.

You said "it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight", forgetting that the idea of reboot was in Wilson's sight since 1986 for TLD, it's true that they take the chance to make it, knowing the success of Batman Begins, but Nolan couldn't be the inspiration for Bond reboot- which is actually more of a retcon- because he didn't invented the concept nor he wasn't the first in use it for cinema (i.e. Godzilla's franchise has beeen rebooted several times since the eighties).

While the gritty approach was already developed and wrote by Purvis & Wade in 2002 for the early scripts of Jinx's spinoff, so I don't see anything that can really be related with Bourne movies from CR, unlike QOS, starting with the editing style of the action scenes that accidentally share the same editor and second unit director with The Bourne Supremacy.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 21 April 2009 - 07:19 AM.

[tdalton]

Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films.

... And MR & LTK are such great landmarks within the EON series, right??!!! I don't really think so. The most popular and critically acclaimed films in the franchise's history are precisely the ones that have been less influenced by fads i.e. GF & CR, not the one that strongly follows trends like QOS.

For me, LTK is a landmark in the franchise. A great film which was, up until the release of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, my favorite of the franchise. MR, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

I would disagree that CASINO ROYALE doesn't follow trends. If anything, CASINO ROYALE has been one of the bigger trend-following Bond films of them all. First of all, it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight. CASINO ROYALE, much like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, also draws heavily upon the Bourne films (which, to be fair, in turn also drew on the early Bond films, so it could be argued that it's a case of Bond drawing upon its former self) as well, with the more physical action and a great reliance on realistic stunts and hand-to-hand combat action as opposed to the over-the-top computer generated spectacles of the previous four films.

First of all, you would have to agree with me that LTK is one of the less successful Bond movies at the BO in the entire franchise's history, while MR (alongside with AVTAK) is regarded by the majority of fans as one the weakest efforts in the Moore era and in the whole 007 series. So... these couple of trendy movies are hardly landmarks of the EON series, for most of the people.

Regarding CR, as I have posted in several other threads, there isn't any solid proof to state that Craig's debut is a trend follower.

You said "it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight", forgetting that the idea of reboot was in Wilson's sight since 1986 for TLD, it's true that they take the chance to make it, knowing the success of Batman Begins, but Nolan couldn't be the inspiration for Bond reboot- which is actually more of a retcon- because he didn't invented the concept nor he wasn't the first in use it for cinema (i.e. Godzilla's franchise has beeen rebooted several times since the eighties).

While the gritty approach was already developed and wrote by Purvis & Wade in 2002 for the early scripts of Jinx's spinoff, so I don't see anything that can really be related with Bourne movies from CR, unlike QOS, starting with the editing style of the action scenes that accidentally share the same editor and second unit director with The Bourne Supremacy.

Just because Nolan didn't invent the reboot or retcon doesn't mean that he wasn't the inspiration behind the reboot. EON would have never gone down the road of rebooting Bond in the way that they did had BATMAN BEGINS not been as successful as it was, or if Hollywood had not been in the current trend of rebooting every successful property that they could find. Just because CASINO ROYALE is a considered a masterpiece by most of the fans doesn't mean that it isn't a trend follower, as virtually all of the Bond films since the first few have followed trends to some degree. It's been quite a while since Bond really set the trends (it may even be possible that GOLDFINGER was the last trend-setter in the Bond franchise), but Bond is always a franchise that is a reflection of the times, and one that allows what is popular at the time to dictate what type of film is going to be produced. That is hardly the type of franchise that is trend-setting, but is one that is a trend-follower, and CASINO ROYALE is no exception, regardless of the quality of that film.

CASINO ROYALE also has Bourne written all over it, even though they don't share the same editor or same second unit director. If Bourne hadn't come along and redefined the spy genre at the time (which it absolutely did with the masterpiece THE BOURNE IDENTITY and its two horrible sequels), then we would have seen EON continue down the road of making films like we had seen throughout the 1990s, because there would have been no reason to go ahead and make a more serious Bond film as there was no trend to support it at the time, as all Bond films follow the trends of the cinema at the time. In the 1990s, the trend in action films was the over-the-top, action-for-the-sake-of-action action films (ARMAGEDDON, THE MATRIX, and just about every other action film of the 90s and early 2000s would stand as evidence of this), and that is exactly what the Bond films emulated during that time. The Bond franchise always emulates what is popular at the time. When Dalton was Bond, the more "serious" type of action film, such as Tim Burton's BATMAN, DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, and other such films were the films of that time, and the Bond films, as a consequence, went more serious. In the 90s, we saw the more over-the-top action films, and the Bond series followed suit. In the 2000s, Bourne rewrote the rules for the action genre, showing that gritty, more serious films could thrive at the box office, and EON once again followed suit with the Bond franchise.

Edited by tdalton, 21 April 2009 - 09:30 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Bourne is a trend right now, that they're following, just like when they followed the Star Wars trend with MOONRAKER or the Miami Vice trend with LICENCE TO KILL, or the other countless trends they've followed over the years when making the Bond films.

... And MR & LTK are such great landmarks within the EON series, right??!!! I don't really think so. The most popular and critically acclaimed films in the franchise's history are precisely the ones that have been less influenced by fads i.e. GF & CR, not the one that strongly follows trends like QOS.

For me, LTK is a landmark in the franchise. A great film which was, up until the release of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, my favorite of the franchise. MR, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

I would disagree that CASINO ROYALE doesn't follow trends. If anything, CASINO ROYALE has been one of the bigger trend-following Bond films of them all. First of all, it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight. CASINO ROYALE, much like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, also draws heavily upon the Bourne films (which, to be fair, in turn also drew on the early Bond films, so it could be argued that it's a case of Bond drawing upon its former self) as well, with the more physical action and a great reliance on realistic stunts and hand-to-hand combat action as opposed to the over-the-top computer generated spectacles of the previous four films.

First of all, you would have to agree with me that LTK is one of the less successful Bond movies at the BO in the entire franchise's history, while MR (alongside with AVTAK) is regarded by the majority of fans as one the weakest efforts in the Moore era and in the whole 007 series. So... these couple of trendy movies are hardly landmarks of the EON series, for most of the people.

Regarding CR, as I have posted in several other threads, there isn't any solid proof to state that Craig's debut is a trend follower.

You said "it arrived on the scene during the Hollywood trend where studios were rebooting everything in sight", forgetting that the idea of reboot was in Wilson's sight since 1986 for TLD, it's true that they take the chance to make it, knowing the success of Batman Begins, but Nolan couldn't be the inspiration for Bond reboot- which is actually more of a retcon- because he didn't invented the concept nor he wasn't the first in use it for cinema (i.e. Godzilla's franchise has beeen rebooted several times since the eighties).

While the gritty approach was already developed and wrote by Purvis & Wade in 2002 for the early scripts of Jinx's spinoff, so I don't see anything that can really be related with Bourne movies from CR, unlike QOS, starting with the editing style of the action scenes that accidentally share the same editor and second unit director with The Bourne Supremacy.

Just because Nolan didn't invent the reboot or retcon doesn't mean that he wasn't the inspiration behind the reboot. EON would have never gone down the road of rebooting Bond in the way that they did had BATMAN BEGINS not been as successful as it was, or if Hollywood had not been in the current trend of rebooting every successful property that they could find. Just because CASINO ROYALE is a considered a masterpiece by most of the fans doesn't mean that it isn't a trend follower, as virtually all of the Bond films since the first few have followed trends to some degree. It's been quite a while since Bond really set the trends (it may even be possible that GOLDFINGER was the last trend-setter in the Bond franchise), but Bond is always a franchise that is a reflection of the times, and one that allows what is popular at the time to dictate what type of film is going to be produced. That is hardly the type of franchise that is trend-setting, but is one that is a trend-follower, and CASINO ROYALE is no exception, regardless of the quality of that film.

You're wrong, again...

First of all, i.e. 1977's TSWLM-many years after GF- isn't a filmic trend follower either (beyond the musical ones, with its disco flavored score).

Regarding to CR, you're forgetting another fact, the decision of make this movie as a faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name- hence necessarily a reboot or retcon for the EON series- was annnounced in february 2005, whereas the premiere of Batman Begins took place in june of that year, so I don't see how the Bond producers could have predicted the success of Nolan's work or trend many months before, it actually happened.

CASINO ROYALE also has Bourne written all over it, even though they don't share the same editor or same second unit director. If Bourne hadn't come along and redefined the spy genre at the time (which it absolutely did with the masterpiece THE BOURNE IDENTITY and its two horrible sequels), then we would have seen EON continue down the road of making films like we had seen throughout the 1990s, because there would have been no reason to go ahead and make a more serious Bond film as there was no trend to support it at the time, as all Bond films follow the trends of the cinema at the time. In the 1990s, the trend in action films was the over-the-top, action-for-the-sake-of-action action films (ARMAGEDDON, THE MATRIX, and just about every other action film of the 90s and early 2000s would stand as evidence of this), and that is exactly what the Bond films emulated during that time. The Bond franchise always emulates what is popular at the time. When Dalton was Bond, the more "serious" type of action film, such as Tim Burton's BATMAN, DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, and other such films were the films of that time, and the Bond films, as a consequence, went more serious. In the 90s, we saw the more over-the-top action films, and the Bond series followed suit. In the 2000s, Bourne rewrote the rules for the action genre, showing that gritty, more serious films could thrive at the box office, and EON once again followed suit with the Bond franchise.

Following your line of thought, there is something that does'n make any sense within the tradition of the EON... what was the reason to make a down-to-earth movie with FYEO, what trend they were following with that decision, or with making a serious OHMSS in the late sixties??!!! The only sensible answer to that I think it is acknowledging that this series have the tendency of going from one extreme to another, compensating the excess of the former end, which nothing have to do with following trends.

Of course, they have followed fads several times (but not all the films, since GF), however the results have been not so satisfactories- to say the least- in the long term.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 21 April 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[tdalton]

[b]You're wrong, again...

You're right.

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

Edited by tdalton, 21 April 2009 - 09:55 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

You're not bored with Bond, mate; if anything, I think you're the most pro-Fleming advocate of a Bond fan out there! Don't get discouraged...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You're wrong, again...

You're right.

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

I wasn't the one who argued that you're bored with the Bond franchise. When I said that you're wrong again, I was only referring about your insistence about CR being a trend follower- I thought that was very clear-. So, I would appreciate that you could exclusively dedicate to respond the points of my post (unless you don't have nothing to say to refute them, and I wouldn't want to think that you're simply avoiding them for that reason).

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 April 2009 - 08:10 AM.

[Sniperscope]

If you want Bourne action, watch Bourne. An arthouse director cannot do action, the same way an action director cannot do a arthouse film. The story was thin and needed action to pad it out.

Forster is in no way an "arthouse" director. He is completely mainstream, but has been largely involved in small budget, thoughtful films aimed at adults up until this point in his career. Don't so quickly dismiss Forster's efforts on QoS with a pejorative "arthouse" tag when really it isn't the slightest bit "arthouse". How can it compare to Brunel, Derlen, Warhol? That's "arthouse" my friend.
"Bourne" is also thrown up in a virtually pejorative manner as though Bond should be crucified for being influenced by another film (imagine that!) but there's also the subtle suggestion that the Bourne films somehow originated fast edits in action sequences. Ummmm... you ever watched any Hong Kong action film from the 80s? It was directors like Tsui Hark who started all that.
"Bourne action" like most Hollywood "innovations" is a development (decades later!) from previous ideas - most action films of the last 10 or so years owe an enormous debt to the stylistics of HK action cinema. Bourne and QoS, via Forster, continues on this tradition, don't you think?
What I see Forster as doing in QoS is largely deconstructing and paying homage to the genre which, over time, will become more appreciated on repeated DVD viewings.
Actually my reference to HK cinema was not as random as it may have seemed because I see many parallels between QoS and Wong Kar Wai's ASHES OF TIME, which in 1994, was a very under-appreciated and heavily criticized film that was also a deconstructive homage - in this case of HK martial arts films.
15 years later it has become recognized as a visionary masterpiece. It, like QoS, used incredibly quick editing during many fight sequences (actually they're even more difficult to distinguish than QoS - specifically when Jacky Cheung's character takes on a group of bandits in an inn), was located in a bleak, yet beautiful desert setting, de-emphasized expository plot and focused largely upon restrained, multilayered acting from the cast.
But I don't think it'll take as long as 15 years for many more people to appreciate QoS as a significant contribution to the the Bond canon.

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 April 2009 - 01:51 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

If you want Bourne action, watch Bourne. An arthouse director cannot do action, the same way an action director cannot do a arthouse film. The story was thin and needed action to pad it out.

"Bourne" is also thrown up in a virtually pejorative manner as though Bond should be crucified for being influenced by another film (imagine that!) but there's also the subtle suggestion that the Bourne films somehow originated fast edits in action sequences. Ummmm... you ever watched any Hong Kong action film from the 80s? It was directors like Tsui Hark who started all that.
"Bourne action" like most Hollywood "innovations" is a development (decades later!) from previous ideas - most action films of the last 10 or so years owe an enormous debt to the stylistics of HK action cinema. Bourne and QoS, via Forster, continues on this tradition, don't you think?
What I see Forster as doing in QoS is largely deconstructing and paying homage to the genre which, over time, will become more appreciated on repeated DVD viewings.
Actually my reference to HK cinema was not as random as it may have seemed because I see many parallels between QoS and Wong Kar Wai's ASHES OF TIME, which in 1994, was a very under-appreciated and heavily criticized film that was also a deconstructive homage - in this case of HK martial arts films.

Oh, C'mon!! Let's not fool us ourselves, the reason why QOS is how it is, it's because Forster didn't have any experience in action, hence he decided to delegate most of his responsabilities in that department, to the second unit director and editor, and it happens the coincidence, that these people were faithful representatives of the current trend in the genre, coming from Bourne's fame. There isn't nothing more artistically profound about this.

And as I explained earlier, it is not a good thing that Bond were influenced- not by another film, but- by a current trend.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 April 2009 - 08:24 PM.

[blueman]

Forster did the knife fight with Slate, IMO one of the best action sequences in a Bond film in decades. Ditto the car chase (even if it was handed off to those doltish Bourne dudes ).

QOS is polarizing to the fan base, and a hit with the general public. And, perhaps EON has embraced current trends cuz they followed their own diminished star faaaaaar too long? Better showing up late (or, returning to OHMSS form?) than going extinct.

Back to the debate!

[tdalton]

You're wrong, again...

You're right.

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

I wasn't the one who argued that you're bored with the Bond franchise. When I said that you're wrong again, I was only referring about your insistence about CR being a trend follower- I thought that was very clear-. So, I would appreciate that you could exclusively dedicate to respond the points of my post (unless you don't have nothing to say to refute them, and I wouldn't want to think that you're simply avoiding them for that reason).

When you said that you agreed with the post that stated that I was bored with the franchise because I liked QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I assumed that you also agreed with that point as well. Obviously my mistake, as that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think that, at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, there's plenty of trend-following in CASINO ROYALE, much of it drawn from the Bourne franchise, but also a bit from Batman as well. I seem to recall an article posted on the main page of this site a few years ago concerning the producers speaking out about Batman's influence on the film. I could be wrong about such an article existing, although I do seem to remember reading one, and I'll post it here if I can find it. But, for me, there's plenty of Bourne influence in both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but it's obvious that many others don't see it, so I'll just agree to disagree.

[Sniperscope]

"Bourne action" like most Hollywood "innovations" is a development (decades later!) from previous ideas - most action films of the last 10 or so years owe an enormous debt to the stylistics of HK action cinema. Bourne and QoS, via Forster, continues on this tradition, don't you think?

Oh, C'mon!! Let's not fool us ourselves, the reason why QOS is how it is, it's because Forster didn't have any experience in action, hence he decided to delegate most of his responsabilities in that department, to the second unit director and editor, and it happens the coincidence, that these people were faithful representatives of the current trend in the genre, coming from Bourne's fame. There isn't nothing more artistically profound about this.

And as I explained earlier, it is not a good thing that Bond were influenced- not by another film, but- by a current trend.

"Oh, c'mon" yourself Mr A-B!
Do you ever stop and think before heckling from the sideline?
I was making the point that QoS is part of a developing trend towards a particular stylistic that has its roots far back in 80s HK action cinema. Hollywood action films in the form they are today would be nowhere without the principles of HK direction and editing. Bourne is a more recent example of that development but in no ways is it the originator of fast edits in action sequences, POV and shaky cam.
All of these ideas came from HK cinema in the 1980s and have been growing in popularity in mainstream Hollywood over the last 10 or more years along with the rapidly reducing lengths of edits (which stand at an average of 3 seconds in most movies today). I really can't help it if if you don't know these things...
I have no problem at all with Bond being part of a long evolving trend in action movies and just because Bond hasn't done it before doesn't invalidate it. And note I use the word "trend" in its sense of the way in which something is developing or changing NOT in the terms of "fashionable" that you seemingly interpret it as.

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 April 2009 - 10:27 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

You're not bored with Bond, mate; if anything, I think you're the most pro-Fleming advocate of a Bond fan out there! Don't get discouraged...

Besides the fact that QOS isn't an adaptation of any Fleming story... How someone who praise so high a movie which is direct sequel of a filmic faithful adaptation of a Fleming's novel that didn't have any kind of direct story continuation in the next book (Live And Let Die) could be the "most pro-Fleming advocate of a Bond fan out there"??!!!

How can you be a strong defender of the work of a writer, when you admire so much a movie which makes a straight sequel of a story, that Fleming never thought that really needed a direct continuation, or a 'closure' as some fans like to say??!!!.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 April 2009 - 05:28 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that, at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, there's plenty of trend-following in CASINO ROYALE, much of it drawn from the Bourne franchise, but also a bit from Batman as well. I seem to recall an article posted on the main page of this site a few years ago concerning the producers speaking out about Batman's influence on the film. I could be wrong about such an article existing, although I do seem to remember reading one, and I'll post it here if I can find it. But, for me, there's plenty of Bourne influence in both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but it's obvious that many others don't see it, so I'll just agree to disagree.

I'm fine with "just agree to disagree". However, I think I have exposed several facts that can prove that CR isn't a trend follower, and you only have quoted one article, from which I have never heard of it (excuse me, for the distrust, but I can't count it until you can show that article). I mean, where's the distinctive Bourne style- which is pretty recognizable in the action scenes of QOS with the similar work of the same editor and second unit director- in CR, for instance???

[tdalton]

You're wrong, again...

You're right.

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

I wasn't the one who argued that you're bored with the Bond franchise. When I said that you're wrong again, I was only referring about your insistence about CR being a trend follower- I thought that was very clear-. So, I would appreciate that you could exclusively dedicate to respond the points of my post (unless you don't have nothing to say to refute them, and I wouldn't want to think that you're simply avoiding them for that reason).

When you said that you agreed with the post that stated that I was bored with the franchise because I liked QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I assumed that you also agreed with that point as well. Obviously my mistake, as that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think that, at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, there's plenty of trend-following in CASINO ROYALE, much of it drawn from the Bourne franchise, but also a bit from Batman as well. I seem to recall an article posted on the main page of this site a few years ago concerning the producers speaking out about Batman's influence on the film. I could be wrong about such an article existing, although I do seem to remember reading one, and I'll post it here if I can find it. But, for me, there's plenty of Bourne influence in both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but it's obvious that many others don't see it, so I'll just agree to disagree.

I'm fine with "just agree to disagree". However, I think I have exposed several facts that can prove that CR isn't a trend follower, and you only have quoted one article, from which I have never heard of it (excuse me, for the distrust, but I can't count it until you can show that article). I mean, where's the distinctive Bourne style- which is pretty recognizable in the action scenes of QOS with the similar work of the same editor and second unit director- in CR, for instance???

I didn't say that the action in CASINO ROYALE was a direct Bourne ripoff like that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is. All I said that it was influenced by the style of the Bourne films, in that instead of over-the-top action and CGI-filled sequences, there's more hand-to-hand combat and more stunts that are done for real, which is a direct response to the Bourne franchise as Bourne made those types of films popular again. No, there's no shaky-cam, but that's not the only thing the Bourne franchise is known for.

Also, EON acquired the rights to CASINO ROYALE in 1999, but didn't make the film for another seven years, waiting for the reboot/remake trend in Hollywood to begin before doing so. Instead, they stayed the course in 2002 with DIE ANOTHER DAY (and brought back Brosnan, which they weren't contractually obligated to do), which was a continuation of the over-the-top, CGI-filled action films that they had been making, because those had proven popular. It wasn't until Bourne came along in that same year that it was proven that a more serious, gritty, and more realistic spy film could gain popularity at the box office. After that, negotiations with Brosnan for a fifth film more or less ended, and the idea of rebooting the series with CASINO ROYALE became a way of moving the series in the direction of what Bourne had just made popular again at the box office.

Edited by tdalton, 23 April 2009 - 06:02 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You're wrong, again...

You're right.

It's been proven as a fact that I'm bored with Bond (hence my enjoyment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE), which means that everything posted in this thread has been a veiled attempt to disprove a proven fact that I'm bored with Bond.

I wasn't the one who argued that you're bored with the Bond franchise. When I said that you're wrong again, I was only referring about your insistence about CR being a trend follower- I thought that was very clear-. So, I would appreciate that you could exclusively dedicate to respond the points of my post (unless you don't have nothing to say to refute them, and I wouldn't want to think that you're simply avoiding them for that reason).

When you said that you agreed with the post that stated that I was bored with the franchise because I liked QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I assumed that you also agreed with that point as well. Obviously my mistake, as that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think that, at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, there's plenty of trend-following in CASINO ROYALE, much of it drawn from the Bourne franchise, but also a bit from Batman as well. I seem to recall an article posted on the main page of this site a few years ago concerning the producers speaking out about Batman's influence on the film. I could be wrong about such an article existing, although I do seem to remember reading one, and I'll post it here if I can find it. But, for me, there's plenty of Bourne influence in both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but it's obvious that many others don't see it, so I'll just agree to disagree.

I'm fine with "just agree to disagree". However, I think I have exposed several facts that can prove that CR isn't a trend follower, and you only have quoted one article, from which I have never heard of it (excuse me, for the distrust, but I can't count it until you can show that article). I mean, where's the distinctive Bourne style- which is pretty recognizable in the action scenes of QOS with the similar work of the same editor and second unit director- in CR, for instance???

If you recall what I said in my post, I wasn't even sure if the article even existed.

Secondly, I didn't say that the action in CASINO ROYALE was a direct Bourne ripoff like that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is. All I said that it was influenced by the style of the Bourne films, in that instead of over-the-top action and CGI-filled sequences, there's more hand-to-hand combat and more stunts that are done for real, which is a direct response to the Bourne franchise as Bourne made those types of films popular again. No, there's no shaky-cam, but that's not the only thing the Bourne franchise is known for.

One thing that's being forgotten here is that EON acquired the rights to CASINO ROYALE in 1999, but didn't make the film for another seven years, waiting for the reboot/remake trend in Hollywood to begin before doing so. Instead, they stayed the course in 2002 with DIE ANOTHER DAY (and brought back Brosnan, which they weren't contractually obligated to do), which was a continuation of the over-the-top, CGI-filled action films that they had been making, because those had proven popular. It wasn't until Bourne came along in that same year that it was proven that a more serious, gritty, and more realistic spy film could gain popularity at the box office. After that, negotiations with Brosnan for a fifth film more or less ended, and the idea of rebooting the series with CASINO ROYALE became a way of moving the series in the direction of what Bourne had just made popular again at the box office.

Well, that's an interesting point. Nonetheless, as you accurately pointed early, stating that you don't see "nothing wrong with copying Bourne, if that's even what the Bond franchise currently is doing (which I don't think they necessarily are, as they had made serious, gritty Bond films long before Jason Bourne ever made it to the big screen)"; the one thing- grittyness- that CR could have in common with Bourne is something more related with the same EON series, than with Bourne movies. Because CR do has some good amount of humor that Bourne or Nolan's Batman if you like doesn't have- among other things-, so I don't see a real trend following in that, either.

I mean, CR is gritty in comparison with something like DAD, but similar in this aspect to the first Bond movies, and not as gritty as the current fad dictates, unlike QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 April 2009 - 06:31 AM.

[Eddie Burns]

This point was beautifully refuted above, so I'll leave it be. Just to say I disagree.

If Bond was turned would he really go back to M and tell her they have to see this through? Would he make an effort to tell her about Fields? If you can't see that then you're the one who is kidding.

What? Just because Craig shows a slight movement in his facial muscles here and there constitutes a multi-faceted performance? He was basically the same throughout the movie...pissed off. Little moments that really were rushed to accommodate the next action scene don't mean much in the large scheme of things. Craig was pissed off at the beginning...pissed off in the middle...pissed off at the end. Period. Seagal (or any other limited action-actor) would have made little to no difference to the overall effect of the movie. Which was that Bond was pissed off. Craig was far far far far far superior in CR, it was definitely a more challenging script for him.

So wait, M thought Bond had turned? To what exactly? To where? To whom? Quantum? I thought she was bringing him in because she had doubts over his methods as well as his mental state. And wasn't it so blatantly obvious as soon as he walked in the door of his hotel room that he hadn't turned? She was bringing him in because she thought he was blinded by inconsolable rage...how does knocking out your bodyguards and mentioning a dead office clerk change all that? Stop saying it was because she thought he had turned...because that was not the reason. It was a large hole in the writing and your desperately trying to defend it. Why are people so defensive about something so obvious?

An arthouse director cannot do action

A ludicrous generalization.

Well if you would please point me in the direction of a director that has a stellar catalogue in both genres (not experiments), it'd be very appreciated. A generalization maybe, but not as ludicrous as you think.

That's why the franchise has continually succeeded whereas other franchises that don't adapt eventually come to an end.

I recall GE not really following any trends, TND, TWINE didn't follow any trends and if they did, they were minimal. Still poor films by the way.. I remember Mission Impossible coming out and being a lot more successful than GE but I don't recall Eon trying to copy Tom Cruise. TLD is a movie largely with its own identity. The only reason the franchise has succeeded is not because of trend following, but by adapting and incorporating but still maintaining it's own identity. Other franchise's don't last as long because you sense they strive for originality and put in a lot of creative energy and effort in their movies. They respect their original material and don't go out of their way to imitate what the next man is doing. If it ever came to that, they usually decide enough is enough.

Bond is a different animal. I personally thought he was creatively dead a decade ago. CR and the whole reboot idea changed that for me. QoS brought the feeling back. I just feel that in their (Eon) desperation to copy Bourne and appease audiences, they lost sight of the character. So the Bond movies now are dictated by trends rather than the character in order to survive? If that's the case, I want no part of it then.

I think i'm alone in these forums in thinking that Bond CAN stand on his own two and doesn't need flashy camera tricks or Bourne people to make him relevant. People who advocate this copying of Bourne are basically saying the character himself IS irrelevant and needs all these smoke and mirrors to distract away from that. Hence why I say you are bored with the character tDalton. As a fan, I'd be expecting more encouragement towards Eon to be trendsetters instead of followers. But just because it's a dark film (like LTK) and is different from the others (like LTK) you still like it despite it being a blatantly average movie (like LTK). Please, don't take my attacks personally, you have every right to like whatever you like. And you rate QoS very highly for reasons I don't agree with. I'm just disappointed that there isn't any middle ground here because the QoS has a lot of dissenters, but most just don't want to hear it.

[Dekard77]

The film works on every level. Mostly cos of the villains and the lead Bond girl. They actually try to contribute to the story rather than make a point. I love the idea of the villains being totally sly and it comes across very effectively.

The film also has a lot of style and music score which I hated at first is really growing on me. There are certain moments in this movie that make you think a lot of effort has been put in. I did hate the boat/plane chase. felt that we can do without it easily.

finally I think the more we bash this movie the less we are likely to see serious Bond films and will eventually end up with the gadget laden formula pics. Most of my friends said that they needed to watch this film several times to understand the story and I believe thats a good thing rather than having a straight forward approach.

The visuals are amazing to look at, even the gun barrel scene is more lively for some odd reason . The scene where Bond and Dominic confronts each other at Opera is simply awesome!!!!!!! I can almost imagine Connery at that point and the trouble Bond endures for the sake of his Country only to be dismissed like servant when he blunders.

[honeyjes]

I think it's very difficult to find a middle ground when a persons integrity is brought into question for liking QOS.

I also don't think the dissenters are quite as prolific as some would have us believe, as the same posters seem to be shouting the loudest in multiple threads.

[Sniperscope]

An arthouse director cannot do action

A ludicrous generalization.

Well if you would please point me in the direction of a director that has a stellar catalogue in both genres (not experiments), it'd be very appreciated. A generalization maybe, but not as ludicrous as you think.

Eddie, 'Arthouse' is not a genre. It is an extremely broad brush applied to films that are not deemed 'mainstream' by the powers that be.
Arthouse films can be any genre - but they often ironically deconstruct, subvert or even eschew the straight-jacket of genre conventions.
Therefore, "experiments" (by which I'm sure you mean "Experimental") do rightfully count as Arthouse.
Four world-renowned directors that immediately spring to mind to refute your other point are Akira Kurosawa, Roman Polanski, Takeshi Kitano and Luc Besson.
So yes, it is a generalisation and yes it is actually becoming a little ludicrous, Eddie!

Edited by Sniperscope, 25 April 2009 - 06:19 PM.

[jamie00007]

Exactly. Also "arthouse" is where most directors start out, you wont find many action/blockbuster directors who dont have some kind of background in independent film.

[Tybre]

Exactly. Also "arthouse" is where most directors start out, you wont find many action/blockbuster directors who dont have some kind of background in independent film.

And considering EON goes for little-known but still experienced directors over straight up blockbuster people like Michael Bay (God help us if he ever makes a Bond film), one could argue even Martin Campbell was "arthouse".