249 replies to this topic

[blueman]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

[Sniperscope]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Absolutely Blueman - the intent in that scene was 100% clear from the moment I saw it at the cinema.
In fact one old dear near me gasped "Oh no!" when Bond moved his gun up to Camile - which actually somewhat heightened the tension for us at that point!

I still have my doubts about this. Excuse me, if I'm sound dumb, but anyone directly related with the movie- and not from the Bond fandom- has clarify if they really intended to meaning this, in that scene??

Do you really need someone connected with the film to tell you how to interpret it Mr A-B?? There is absolutely no ambiguity in this scene. As Blueman asks - what else could it be?

Edited by Sniperscope, 17 May 2009 - 09:31 AM.

[Bucky]

and the fact that camille was welcoming him killing her as she preferred to die quickly compared to slowly in the fire made the moment even greater

[byline]

and the fact that camille was welcoming him killing her as she preferred to die quickly compared to slowly in the fire made the moment even greater

Yup. How else are we supposed to interpret Camille's paraphrase of Bond's advice to her, "Like you said, take a deep breath, make it count"? When he said, "Close your eyes," there was no question in my mind as to what he intended to do. He was spared that agonizing act when, at the last second, he heard/saw the hydrogen cell about to blow and shot at it instead.

[blueman]

Alternate theory: they were having an entirely academic and random sum-up of a previous conversation, with Bond's added Zen twist of "Close your eyes," obviously a suggestion to try to make the one shot blind. Then the pesky fire gets too hot, Bond shoots the hydrogen cell, and they live happily ever after (but no sex). What a silly movie.

[tdalton]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Seemed very clear to me as well. I remember sitting in the theater, absolutely stunned that a Bond film would take the chance of actually going that far. One of the more effective moments in the entire franchise, partly because it was somewhat shocking that the Bond films would ever become that dark in tone, even if for just a second, but also because of the acting on the parts of Craig and Kurylenko.

[blueman]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Seemed very clear to me as well. I remember sitting in the theater, absolutely stunned that a Bond film would take the chance of actually going that far. One of the more effective moments in the entire franchise, partly because it was somewhat shocking that the Bond films would ever become that dark in tone, even if for just a second, but also because of the acting on the parts of Craig and Kurylenko.

I think those kinda moments in QOS are why I like it a bit more than CR: Campbell captured some awesome moments - the shower scene, torture scene, death of Vesper, "Bond, James Bond"... but Forster created a tapestry woven of excruciating and incredibly unique Bond moments both small and massive - the death of Slate, Tosca, just about all the bits with Fields (those stand out for me more and more over time), Camille's story in the sink hole, the death of Mathis, the aforementioned death pact scene, the coda with Yusef. Forster's "shot from a gun" approach was risky, but the payoffs work for me in a way only topped by Hunt's work in OHMSS.

[tdalton]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Seemed very clear to me as well. I remember sitting in the theater, absolutely stunned that a Bond film would take the chance of actually going that far. One of the more effective moments in the entire franchise, partly because it was somewhat shocking that the Bond films would ever become that dark in tone, even if for just a second, but also because of the acting on the parts of Craig and Kurylenko.

I think those kinda moments in QOS are why I like it a bit more than CR: Campbell captured some awesome moments - the shower scene, torture scene, death of Vesper, "Bond, James Bond"... but Forster created a tapestry woven of excruciating and incredibly unique Bond moments both small and massive - the death of Slate, Tosca, just about all the bits with Fields (those stand out for me more and more over time), Camille's story in the sink hole, the death of Mathis, the aforementioned death pact scene, the coda with Yusef. Forster's "shot from a gun" approach was risky, but the payoffs work for me in a way only topped by Hunt's work in OHMSS.

Agreed. I like Campbell's work on CR, but a lot of the great moments in that film are, in one way or another, taking older Bond conventions and turning them on their head slightly. Granted, we get the best and most dramatic "Bond, James Bond" delivery ever, but it's still something we've heard before. We get the love of Bond's life passing away, and it's done a very heart-wrenching and emotional way, but it's something we've seen before. We get a different take on "Shaken, not stirred," but it's still something we've heard before. (Just to note, if this sounds like I'm criticizing Campbell's work, I'm not. His work on CR is quite good, and perhaps second only to Forster's work on QOS).

As you said, Forster's moments in QOS are, for the most part, quite original and nothing that we've really seen in the franchise before, and that's what makes them very memorable. The scene in question in these past few posts being a perfect example. It's memorable both because it's so different as well as the fact that it's so shocking. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was thoroughly shocked by it when I saw it on screen, and was glad to see that the franchise was taking risks like that. I thought that it really added to the emotional climax of the film, both in terms of the Bond/Camille story arc as well as in terms of the character arc of Bond that had begun back in CR.

Edited by tdalton, 17 May 2009 - 09:16 PM.

[Bucky]

does anybody else love the elvis character more each time they watch the movie?

[DR76]

Something that differentiates CR from QoS. They both involved a certain amount of risk, but one succeeds where the other failed. Why? Because one was thoroughly prepared for while the other wasn't.

One succeeded, while the other failed? CR and QoS? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, both films succeeded.

[blueman]

does anybody else love the elvis character more each time they watch the movie?

Yep. Dunno why, but Elvis rocks.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Absolutely Blueman - the intent in that scene was 100% clear from the moment I saw it at the cinema.
In fact one old dear near me gasped "Oh no!" when Bond moved his gun up to Camile - which actually somewhat heightened the tension for us at that point!

I still have my doubts about this. Excuse me, if I'm sound dumb, but anyone directly related with the movie- and not from the Bond fandom- has clarify if they really intended to meaning this, in that scene??

Do you really need someone connected with the film to tell you how to interpret it Mr A-B?? There is absolutely no ambiguity in this scene. As Blueman asks - what else could it be?

I think the proper question here is: Why should I listen and simply believe- without any sign of distrust- what some hardcore fans of this movie, interpret from a QOS scene??

P.S.: I'm not denying the posibility that this interpretation could be true. I'm just pointing out that being that the case, it wasn't that clear beyond the Bond fandom ( for instance, I don't have read any critic's review commenting this scene with this interpretation).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

and the fact that camille was welcoming him killing her as she preferred to die quickly compared to slowly in the fire made the moment even greater

Yup. How else are we supposed to interpret Camille's paraphrase of Bond's advice to her, "Like you said, take a deep breath, make it count"? When he said, "Close your eyes," there was no question in my mind as to what he intended to do. He was spared that agonizing act when, at the last second, he heard/saw the hydrogen cell about to blow and shot at it instead.

I saw that Camille's phrase as a reflection about her recent and traumatic experience of killing for the first time (in her case, the killing of General Medrano).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Seemed pretty clear to me. What else could it be?

Seemed very clear to me as well. I remember sitting in the theater, absolutely stunned that a Bond film would take the chance of actually going that far. One of the more effective moments in the entire franchise, partly because it was somewhat shocking that the Bond films would ever become that dark in tone, even if for just a second, but also because of the acting on the parts of Craig and Kurylenko.

I think those kinda moments in QOS are why I like it a bit more than CR: Campbell captured some awesome moments - the shower scene, torture scene, death of Vesper, "Bond, James Bond"... but Forster created a tapestry woven of excruciating and incredibly unique Bond moments both small and massive - the death of Slate, Tosca, just about all the bits with Fields (those stand out for me more and more over time), Camille's story in the sink hole, the death of Mathis, the aforementioned death pact scene, the coda with Yusef. Forster's "shot from a gun" approach was risky, but the payoffs work for me in a way only topped by Hunt's work in OHMSS.

Agreed. I like Campbell's work on CR, but a lot of the great moments in that film are, in one way or another, taking older Bond conventions and turning them on their head slightly. Granted, we get the best and most dramatic "Bond, James Bond" delivery ever, but it's still something we've heard before. We get the love of Bond's life passing away, and it's done a very heart-wrenching and emotional way, but it's something we've seen before. We get a different take on "Shaken, not stirred," but it's still something we've heard before. (Just to note, if this sounds like I'm criticizing Campbell's work, I'm not. His work on CR is quite good, and perhaps second only to Forster's work on QOS).

As you said, Forster's moments in QOS are, for the most part, quite original and nothing that we've really seen in the franchise before, and that's what makes them very memorable. The scene in question in these past few posts being a perfect example. It's memorable both because it's so different as well as the fact that it's so shocking. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was thoroughly shocked by it when I saw it on screen, and was glad to see that the franchise was taking risks like that. I thought that it really added to the emotional climax of the film, both in terms of the Bond/Camille story arc as well as in terms of the character arc of Bond that had begun back in CR.

Well, following this line of thought, we could also acclaim DAD, because the invisible car and Bond surfing with the help of CGI, was also something very original and shocking for the EON series, and we could even say the same about the exploiding head scene from LTK.

[blueman]

Odd comments, Mr B.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Odd comments, Mr B.

????

It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Actually, it seem more odd to me, to state that a character that barely appears in a movie, and doesn't have any real importance for the plot, "rocks".

Nonetheless, I would appreciate a direct response to my arguments, instead of a simple adjective like "odd".

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 18 May 2009 - 07:08 AM.

[blueman]

Guess I don't have anything else to say to you about all this, your comments don't make sense to me so not sure how to respond... oh well, tomorrow's another day.

[Judo chop]

Actually, it seem more odd to me, to state that a character that barely appears in a movie, and doesn't have any real importance for the plot, "rocks".

Elvis: Why he "Rocks"

[byline]

and the fact that camille was welcoming him killing her as she preferred to die quickly compared to slowly in the fire made the moment even greater

Yup. How else are we supposed to interpret Camille's paraphrase of Bond's advice to her, "Like you said, take a deep breath, make it count"? When he said, "Close your eyes," there was no question in my mind as to what he intended to do. He was spared that agonizing act when, at the last second, he heard/saw the hydrogen cell about to blow and shot at it instead.

I saw that Camille's phrase as a reflection about her recent and traumatic experience of killing for the first time (in her case, the killing of General Medrano).

Really? Sorry, but I think that's a huge stretch. Think about Camille's reactions to the fire. She's just shot Medrano, which is what she has been waiting to do for years now. Her attention is now free to turn away from Medrano, who is no longer a threat, and to the swiftly growing fire. She has a post-traumatic stress reaction which takes her right back to the terrible burns she suffered as a child (as well as having just lost her entire family before Medrano set the fire), and she is reduced to that lost, whimpering child.

Then Bond bursts into the room, sees her and runs over to comfort her. What does she say to him? "Not this way, not this way." Surely you don't think she's referring to having just shot Medrano. She is, of course, referring to the fact that she cannot die this way. Not after what she went through as a child. Bond sees his only alternative in the gun, which he picks up. Camille knows what he means to do and tries to give him courage by repeating his words to her, knowing full well the irony they represent. He then tells her to close her eyes (why else would he say that?), and she takes a deep breath to prepare herself. Bond moves the gun up, then, at the last second, sees the hydrogen cell and shoots it out, thus averting the terrible choice he was faced with.

Makes a lot more sense to me.

Edited by byline, 18 May 2009 - 08:44 PM.

[blueman]

Interesting that Bond faces a couple such terrible choices in QOS, rare for a Bond film and not easy to watch (maybe why unpopular with some fans?).

You sum it well, Byliner.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Interesting that Bond faces a couple such terrible choices in QOS, rare for a Bond film and not easy to watch (maybe why unpopular with some fans?).

You sum it well, Byliner.

And then again, there are several others scenes in the franchise that are "rare for a Bond film and not easy to watch" (like the ones that I quoted in my earlier post, for instance), but that necessarily means they're good??!!! I don't think so.

P.S. I'm not saying that this scene is terrible, but I just don't consider it that memorable (as it is i.e. Vesper's death in CR), and I think that- beyond hardcore QOS fans- I'm not alone here.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 18 May 2009 - 10:57 PM.

[tdalton]

Interesting that Bond faces a couple such terrible choices in QOS, rare for a Bond film and not easy to watch (maybe why unpopular with some fans?).

You sum it well, Byliner.

Agreed. That's a big part of what I like about the film because Bond actually has some difficult things to deal with through the course of the film rather than simply going through the film like some kind of superhero.

Also, well said Byliner. A very good analysis of the scene.

[byline]

Thanks, blueman and tdalton, that's the only way I've ever been able to interpret the scene. Mr. A.B., nobody's saying that's the only time Bond has faced such a terrible choice; of course it's happened several times, and they're all fairly memorable because they take Bond beyond the lounge-lizard caricature that frequented too many of the Bond films. But certainly, for many of us, this scene was one of the ones that made "Quantum of Solace" so memorable.

I'll admit that I didn't fully warm up to it on first viewing, but it certainly got to me on subsequent viewings. Much of that has to do with how Bond and Camille are together in that scene. Before, Camille seemed nearly indomitable, genuinely toughened and worn out by life. But here (and also in the sinkhole) we see the misery that formed so much of who she is, and why Bond is so gentle with her. In Camille, Bond sees everything he has gone through, and more, and realizes who he could be if he continues on that path. Yet he also empathizes with her because of the losses they have both suffered.

Edited by byline, 19 May 2009 - 12:48 AM.

[Bucky]

Thanks, blueman and tdalton, that's the only way I've ever been able to interpret the scene. Mr. A.B., nobody's saying that's the only time Bond has faced such a terrible choice; of course it's happened several times, and they're all fairly memorable because they take Bond beyond the lounge-lizard caricature that frequented too many of the Bond films. But certainly, for many of us, this scene was one of the ones that made "Quantum of Solace" so memorable.

I'll admit that I didn't fully warm up to it on first viewing, but it certainly got to me on subsequent viewings. Much of that has to do with how Bond and Camille are together in that scene. Before, Camille seemed nearly indomitable, genuinely toughened and worn out by life. But here (and also in the sinkhole) we see the misery that formed so much of who she is, and why Bond is so gentle with her. In Camille, Bond sees everything he has gone through, and more, and realizes who he could be if he continues on that path. Yet he also empathizes with her because of the losses they have both suffered.

Well said. That is pretty much how I feel about the movie. I was not entirely sure what to make of it when i first saw it but after watching it many many more times I have come to appreciate it so much more and now easily consider it one of my favorites. I have easily watched it more than most of the other movies in the series already, including Casino Royale, and I love it more each time and get so caught up in it.

[jamie00007]

Theres something very rewatchable about this movie... Ive already seen it more times than Casino Royale. In fact I kind of feel like watching it now.

[Bucky]

Theres something very rewatchable about this movie... Ive already seen it more times than Casino Royale. In fact I kind of feel like watching it now.

I kind of feel like watching it every night.

[dee-bee-five]

Regarding the debate about Camille and Bond at the climax of QoS, I wonder again why some people have to have everything spoonfed to them... The joy for me about QoS is that it treats me as an adult and lets me interpret what I've seen. How rare that is in an action film. And how welcome. But I'm not going there again...

As for the question in the thread... I watched QoS again on Blu-Ray on Monday. And it's extraordinary how the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it. It's the sheer eloquence with which Forster uses the language of film to tell his story that is so impressive. My first impression of the film was that it's the best directed of the series. Every time I see it merely reinforces my belief.

[byline]

It's interesting that the last few posters have mentioned "Quantum"'s rewatchability, especially when compared with "Casino Royale" (which I also love). But it is strangely true that I find myself drawn to watch "Quantum" more than "Casino" . . . and I think it's exactly what you describe, dee-bee-five. For me, "Casino" is the more compelling story, but "Quantum" is given to us in such a sumptuous, richly textured tapestry that I find myself wanting to return to that experience again and again. Thinking back on it, I was drawn to "Casino" because of the questions it left unanswered. I am drawn to "Quantum" because of the subtle way in which it gives us those answers.

Edited by byline, 20 May 2009 - 03:33 PM.

[double o ego]

One of QoS' strengths is that it uses the time i has to tell i's story very well. However, in that sense the film feels very structured but it's not realy an issue. CR on the other hand could have been made shorter and been a much more willing film to sit through over and over again. I think the Miami airport scenes realy took the cake, it was just too long.
That being said, I still prefer CR over QoS but QoS is the film I watch more out of the 2. I've also realised that, I now love, "another way to die" and the title sequence and feel that both are ridiculously perfect for the film.
I loe the opening car chase and I just love watching craig walking around in his beautifully tailored suit. I still hate the bike/boat chase and that spider-manesque jump Bond does when tying to evade the CIA at that bar where he met felix. As for the parachute jump...I actually like it. It retains that sort of trademark silliness and over the top spectacle that is a staple in the series.

[blueman]

Yup yup and yup. Awesome comments and observations, very much same-page with them. For me, Forster crafted an old fashioned Bond film but filtered through a very modern sensibility: all the stuff you'd want is there, just better delivered than the series has seen in a looooong time. "Not spoon-fed" is right, and obviously not what a fan or two want from their Bond.

After the incredibly missed opportunities that were TWINE and DAD (also LTK), awesome to see EON get it right and follow up a strong new Bond with a film that expands the franchise instead of contracting it down to cartoonish cliches. Kudos and very excited for 23.