249 replies to this topic

[Bucky]

It has been tough for me to pick a favorite lately because i really love casino royale but i have never been drawn to watching it as many times as i have quantum of solace.

[blueman]

Yeah, QOS has a real "watch me again NOW" quality to it, just wants to pick you up and take you along for the ride. Pretty awesome.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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...

Why??!!! Because, as you said, it's nothing more than an action film. The term "Spoonfed" it's an exaggeration (in fact, I think the excess in that vein, was one of the biggest mistake of the Brosnan era), but it is after all just a Bond movie, hence pure entertainment, not something deep and complex; if you want something like you should look in the works on directors like Bergman or Fellini, not in the EON series.

However, I'm not saying that QOS really is complex and deep, but it does try- and very hard- to look like that.

[byline]

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...

Why??!!! Because, as you said, it's nothing more than an action film. The term "Spoonfed" it's an exaggeration (in fact, I think the excess in that vein, was one of the biggest mistake of the Brosnan era), but it is after all just a Bond movie, hence pure entertainment, not something deep and complex; if you want something like you should look in the works on directors like Bergman or Fellini, not in the EON series.

However, I'm not saying that QOS really is complex and deep, but it does try- and very hard- to look like that.

Well, there is a middle ground here. You can have an action film with a brain and a heart, and I think "Quantum of Solace" and also "Casino Royale" have both. In both films, we have a lot of the old Bond iconography, but seen through a modern lens. And neither film insults the audience's intelligence . . . which, frankly, I enjoy. In watching Dalton's two films (especially "The Living Daylights"), I realized that was what I was looking for. I didn't want the women to be so stupid as be barely believable, and I wanted some reason to believe Bond's behavior. I realize this is highly subjective, but I got that with Dalton, and now again with Craig. Both films give me the context to interpret his character's reactions and behaviors. Up until that time, I found much of that lacking, and for that reason I wasn't a fan of at least half of the Bond films.

[Robinson]

For me, the newest Bond film always gets more attention on my DVD player than the previous one.

As much as I enjoyed CR (and continue to do so), QOS becomes more memorable every time I watch it. This isn't Bond does Bourne, it's a more streamlined approach to this series. This is arguably the first Bond outing that doesn't hold your hand throughout the film. I appreciate Marc Foster's direction and appreciate the droll approach to humour in this outing.

The Tosca scene is still the high point of the film IMO. A very clever and enjoyable piece of filmmaking. David Arnold gives us one of his best music cues as a Bond composer.

I thought the final scene between Bond and M was exceptional. It's almost a shame that there won't be a direct sequel to QOS.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

As I said earlier "spoon-fed" is an exaggeration, but obviously we aren't just a fan or two the ones who prefer the more direct style of CR over QOS. That should explain the result of the polls, that even in this site, show Campbell's work for Craig debut being more popular than Forster's.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 May 2009 - 08:47 PM.

[Robinson]

As I said earlier "spoon-fed" is an exaggeration, but obviously we aren't just a fan or two the ones who prefer the more direct style of CR over QOS. That should explain the result of the polls, that even in this site, show Campbell's work for Craig debut being more popular that Forster's.

CR is a superior film and has the burden of re-working a character that's all-too familiar with the public. However, I think QOS will not only stand the test of time but will grow in stature amongst Bond fans over the coming years.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

As I said earlier "spoon-fed" is an exaggeration, but obviously we aren't just a fan or two the ones who prefer the more direct style of CR over QOS. That should explain the result of the polls, that even in this site, show Campbell's work for Craig debut being more popular that Forster's.

CR is a superior film and has the burden of re-working a character that's all-too familiar with the public. However, I think QOS will not only stand the test of time but will grow in stature amongst Bond fans over the coming years.

'Maybe, maybe not'.

Nonetheless, I don't think it will grow in stature with the general public; they already made their verdict and the word-of-mouth certainly wasn't that great as it was with CR, that's why after the big opening weeks at the BO (prompted mainly by the success of its predecessor) QOS, unlike Craig's debut, didn't keep such a good numbers.

[blueman]

While simpler films are always more popular at the box office, I generally prefer more complex fare. QOS may have turned off a fan or two, but $575 mil makes me think they're in a very small minority, hardly a drop in the ocean.

[dee-bee-five]

While simpler films are always more popular at the box office, I generally prefer more complex fare. QOS may have turned off a fan or two, but $575 mil makes me think they're in a very small minority, hardly a drop in the ocean.

No, you're wrong. Wrong! QoS didn't make five trillion dollars in its second week. How can it be regarded as being anything other than an artistic and financial disaster...?!?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

While simpler films are always more popular at the box office, I generally prefer more complex fare. QOS may have turned off a fan or two, but $575 mil makes me think they're in a very small minority, hardly a drop in the ocean.

No, you're wrong. Wrong! QoS didn't make five trillion dollars in its second week. How can it be regarded as being anything other than an artistic and financial disaster...?!?

I didn't say that. But again it seems that for some hardcore QOS fans, all the things should be black & white, either love it or hate it, or in this particular case, or you considere QOS a tremendous success or "an artistic and financial disaster". Whereas the reality for the public reception of this Forster's work it's pretty much middle ground, or to be more accurate, the average reception for a Bond movie.

I mean, let's be a little realistic in our expectations for our favorite movies and let's keep on eye on the public outside the Bond fandom. For instance, I really like OHMSS, and I think is one of the best Bond movies; but the true is that after forty years is still the weirdo from the EON series, in the mind of the general moviegoer.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

While simpler films are always more popular at the box office, I generally prefer more complex fare.

And then again... What's wrong with "simpler films", if they're well done and are truly entertaining like CR, TSWLM or even TLD, for instance (and for the record, I wouldn't put as an example of that to any Brosnan movie). Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 21 May 2009 - 08:35 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

Isn't it possible to enjoy both? And why shouldn't "just" a Bond movie attempt to deliver something more complex? That was what the makers of QoS clearly set out to do. And, I would submit, they did it splendidly, althoughof course, one understands and accepts that wrongfoots - and possibly alienates - some sections of fandom.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

Isn't it possible to enjoy both? And why shouldn't "just" a Bond movie attempt to deliver something more complex? That was what the makers of QoS clearly set out to do. And, I would submit, they did it splendidly, althoughof course, one understands and accepts that wrongfoots - and possibly alienates - some sections of fandom.

I (also) enjoy both!! But first of all, I don't believe they accomplished the "complex fare" in QOS, I think that they only aspire to make a movie that just appeared to be that; and the time they spent pursuing this snobbery, imo, could have been used in making a more entertaining movie, which they didn't- i.e. they should have used a more traditional editing for the action scenes, that everyone could have enjoyed-. And second, I still don't know if it's really possible to do both types of films in a Bond movie, without loosing the characteristics that have distinguished to the EON series for more than four decades.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 21 May 2009 - 09:29 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

Isn't it possible to enjoy both? And why shouldn't "just" a Bond movie attempt to deliver something more complex? That was what the makers of QoS clearly set out to do. And, I would submit, they did it splendidly, althoughof course, one understands and accepts that wrongfoots - and possibly alienates - some sections of fandom.

I (also) enjoy both!! But first of all, I don't believe they accomplished the "complex fare" in QOS, I think that they only aspire to make a movie that just appeared to be that; and the time they spent pursuing this snobbery, imo, could have been used in making a more entertaining movie, which they didn't- i.e. they should have used a more traditional editing for the action scenes, that everyone could have enjoyed-. And second, I still don't know if it's really possible to do both types of films in a Bond movie, without loosing the characteristics that have distinguished to the EON series for more than four decades.

Well, it worked for me. Spectacularly.

[Sniperscope]

And then again... What's wrong with "simpler films", if they're well done and are truly entertaining like CR, TSWLM or even TLD, for instance (and for the record, I wouldn't put as an example of that to any Brosnan movie). Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

This has to be one of the most depressing phrases I could read on a dedicated Bond site:

"Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here"

I just can't accept such a notion, Mr A-B!
"Just"?? So because it's Bond it shouldn't (nay, it mustn't) aspire to anything other than a tried (and tired) formula? Because it's "just" Bond the audience should never be asked to think or be shocked, surprised or even challenged? What a mediocre view.
I for one am tired of the notion that Bond films need to adhere to a particular formula or solely cater to the trendy whims of the general public, until, apparently, doomsday beckons.
I couldn't care less if the non-fans (the same people presumably that made both MAMMA MIA and TWILIGHT smash hits) didn't like QoS all that much- in fact i'm glad, because the day Bond is only aimed at them is the day the franchise goes belly-up.

Let me ask you this, Mr A-B. You are quite a fan of OHMSS aren't you? Well - who decided that was a superb Bond film?
It wasn't the 1960s public - who disliked Lazenby and it most certainly wasn't the critics who generally panned it and no non-fan has ever heard of the movie!
No - it was FANDOM that decided OHMSS was a work of genius. By the same token it looks like fandom has embraced QoS in the same manner. So don't hate on it.

Lastly, you "don't believe they accomplished the "complex fare" in QoS" - well, really?
Interpreting the mercy killing scene seems to have provided a little complexity for you, hmm?

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 May 2009 - 02:15 PM.

[DR76]

One, does the future reputation of QUANTUM OF SOLACE really matter? Each Bond fan will either love it, hate it, or simply like it. Each of us has his or her own opinion of the movie and whether that opinion changes or remains the same should only matter to us . . . individually.

The same goes with this comparison between CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Some prefer the 2006 movie over the 2008 movie. Some have different preferences. In the end, does it really matter? Both movies made a lot of money and have guaranteed that the Bond franchise "might" have a future.

No - it was FANDOM that decided OHMSS was a work of genius. By the same token it looks like fandom has embraced QoS in the same manner. So don't hate on it.

I don't think that any of us have the right to tell Mr. A-B that he should not hate QoS. If he does . . . he does. It is as simple as that.

Edited by DR76, 21 May 2009 - 04:29 PM.

[I never miss]

QOS divides opinion in a way that CR doesn't – does that make CR the better film? Yes and no. Poll the people who have seen both and, I imagine, the majority will say they enjoyed CR more. It is certainly a more accessible movie. However much the term ‘reboot’ was branded about at the time, compared to QOS, CR is only a small step away from a ‘traditional’ Bond movie. Why compare these two films – obvious reason is they have so much in common. Main difference is that one is already almost regarded as a ‘classic’ Bond movie by the general public, and is certain to become staple fare for ITV to show regularly on bank holidays and Christmases in the future, whilst the other is regarded as edgier, darker and as a ‘not-quite-successful-experiment’.

So, to try to answer the question that the thread poses, will QOS come to be held in higher regard in the future? Well, possibly, but I certainly think in years to come (if not now) the public will hold QOS in higher regard than both OHMSS and LTK. Why? I think they (friends of mine at least) view OHMSS as an anomaly, largely due to the perceived weakness of the leading man. Many of the people that have negative feelings towards this film have never actually seen it. And to LTK – well, whilst the public tolerated Dalton in a traditional-style Bond film (TLD), as soon as things got darker they just didn’t want to know. Not that the public weren’t interested in a darker portrayal of Bond back in ’89 (I think they were), they just weren’t interested in Dalton’s interpretation of this darker Bond. An actor with more of the, dare I say it, X factor, could have pulled it off. I simply don’t buy the idea that Dalton was ahead of his time in 1989 – he was simply an excellent actor that lacked leading man charisma.

Anyway, my ramblings may have taken me off topic. I apologise. To sum up, I think that QOS will always remain in it’s elder brother’s shadow, but will still prove popular enough to never become ‘a lesser Bond film’. I believe QOS’s box office takings and DVD sales will back me up on this. No doubt Daniel Craig's huge popularity with many sections of the general public will also help.

Edited by I never miss, 21 May 2009 - 04:50 PM.

[blueman]

I don't think that any of us have the right to tell Mr. A-B that he should not hate QoS. If he does . . . he does. It is as simple as that.

Totally agree. And It would be just that simple, except for Mr B's efforts to convince others they should hate it like he does.

[Dekard77]

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.

Yes your right. Still with this film we have to come to terms with Bond not yet the smooth operator (credit Roger Moore's Bond). Craig plays the character very relevant to younger generation and how they see 007.
That final scene where Bond rescues Camille and deserts Dominic is done quite well. I believe the editing almost a sense of narrative to moving on to the next episode. Whatever reason it is Bond only comes to terms with himself at the end of the film. He knows it's not about him being right it's about doing what is professional so that he can be taken seriously.

[Robinson]

Touché! I'm not going to denounce that review because that is exactly what I felt at that time after watching it. I still think it's the younger rebellious brother to CR's older mature responsible one. And yes the film is for the open minded people and Forster has opened a new door stylistically. All that I agree with wholeheartedly.

But...after watching and studying it numerous times since, I've come to realize it's the younger rebellious brother that won't really amount to anything in life. It acts rebellious to cover up it's flaws. Forster does make a stylish film, but that really isn't hard to do with over $200m budget, plus there are many stylish films that outweigh the substance, QoS is one of them. I still believe that it's a movie for the open-minded...but so are a lot of bad movies.

You know what's tired and repetitive? Eon fanboys that give the producers a pass on anything and everything, resulting in films such as DAD and the whole crappy Brosnan era (honestly, why do you think it took twenty movies to finally get a film like CR? Eon puppies masquerading as Bond fans, that's what). Fans that swallow everything Eon feed them and create any number of excuses for Eon. E.g. QoS had a way larger budget than CR but still made less money...create any number of excuses you want, but if I was a businessman, i'd be very disappointed no matter how you look at it. Wilson doesn't even attempt to defend the movie's editing...putting it down to what the audiences wanted to see (boy, was he wrong). He even thought CR was a better film...

The heavy support for this film comes from Eon fanboys, hardly from anyone involved in the movie at all. BB, doing the rounds after CR was widely praised, has all but disappeared. Nobody knows what she thinks of the film, which for a producer is rather laughable after she took in the applause last time round. Forster got his excuses in early about time to edit, and has hardly defended the movie, rather just accepted it's averageness. Craig can't stop harping on about MP/Q returning as well as submarine bases etc. Looks to me that they all cannot wait to move on and forget this monstrosity of a film.

And I don't think it's illogical at all to say that they have no idea of the direction they are headed in. Sure the next film will be lighter in tone, but I was hoping for at least 4 serious movies with Craig that just concentrated on 007 the character. I get the sense that that journey of developing him has ended. Now Eon are switching directions again. Bond has nothing left to learn is what they are pretty much saying.

QoS is a poor film, but my hate for it extends to more than just that. We are slowly descending into DAD territory as a result of this film, slowly but surely. I believe if the reaction to QoS was positive, they would have continued trying to explore the character. But because the film was such shambles, we're going back to the old stuff with less emphasis on character. If anything positive I could take from this is that finally Eon have been called out for their blatant Bourne rip-off, and will actually have to exercise the creative part of their brains next time around.

Not for nothing but The Empire Strikes Back cost more to make than the original Star Wars and grossed less during its 1980 release. QOS grossed $16 million dollars less than CR worldwide while making $1 million more than CR domestically. Hardly a disappointment.

I still believe the Bond films are a producer's medium and not a director's medium & an auteur will only have so much creative control, despite what's stated by the producers. You think anyone can make a stylish movie at $200 million? "Wolverine" cost $150 million and looked rather pedestrian as did "X3" at $200 million.

As for Bond and Bourne being joined at the hip due to QOS, I have a newsflash for you. Bond tapped into certain trends/cultural movements in the past (LALD-"Blaxploitation" films, MR-"Star Wars", TLD-The AIDS Crisis). This is no different. The difference being, the series has been able to re-adjust itself time and time again to keep from being passe.

Regardless. You don't like QOS, I do and I'm not a EON fanboy. I think the film has its flaws (namely, you have to have watched CR before seeing QOS). As far as the editing goes, it works in some scenes (the pre-credits car chase) and doesn't in others (namely the fight between Bond and Greene). I still think this is the one series where you should still let the camera linger on the scenery. QOS had a slew of great locations but you couldn't soak them in because the filmmakers were always cutting to something else.

Anyway, going to your larger concern: that the "failure" of QOS means a return to the likes of less character-driven Bond films. It could happen and probably will happen in time but I doubt we're going to jump from QOS to the likes of Moonraker for Craig's next go-round. Sure EON doesn't know what to do next, Brosnan said that after DAD, when his status was in limbo. It holds true because, there is no workable Fleming material (so EON states) that they could adapt. EON is now working with the proverbial clean slate (sorta like Paramount with their "Star Trek" reboot).

This clean slate and the inevitablilty of an Aston Martin with gadgets doesn't mean that Bond won't be making "the hero's journey" in the next outing and he won't breeze through his mission with aplomb whithout having any sort of self-discovery along the way.

I don't think the future for Craig and Bond isn't as bleak as you think it is. It will take a concerted effort to make the next one better, which is how they should operate for every film and not just "have all the cliches in place." As polarizing as QOS may be (and will be) It won't sink the series. John Glen's slide whistle didn't do it, Roger Moore in a clown costume didn't do it, Wayne Newton didn't do it, Brosnan parasailing in a tsunami didn't do it and Marc Foster's outing won't either.

[Sniperscope]

No - it was FANDOM that decided OHMSS was a work of genius. By the same token it looks like fandom has embraced QoS in the same manner. So don't hate on it.

I don't think that any of us have the right to tell Mr. A-B that he should not hate QoS. If he does . . . he does. It is as simple as that.

Maybe my wording was a little oblique but in all fairness I was asking Mr A-B not to hate on fandom's views (the "it" being the process of fandom acclaiming films that the mainstream have dismissed as my preceding sentences indicated).
Anyone is perfectly entitled to dislike anything, including QoS.
It's just that if you read back over many posts those people in the anti-QoS camp are quite dismissive of the opinions of fandom (or "fanboys" as they sneer) in contrast to the mainstream audience or critics. I was making the point that fandom has made OHMSS what it is and fandom is doing the same with QoS.
Anyway...

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 May 2009 - 07:40 AM.

[blueman]

You know what's tired and repetitive? Eon fanboys that give the producers a pass on anything and everything, resulting in films such as DAD and the whole crappy Brosnan era (honestly, why do you think it took twenty movies to finally get a film like CR? Eon puppies masquerading as Bond fans, that's what). Fans that swallow everything Eon feed them and create any number of excuses for Eon. E.g. QoS had a way larger budget than CR but still made less money...create any number of excuses you want, but if I was a businessman, i'd be very disappointed no matter how you look at it. Wilson doesn't even attempt to defend the movie's editing...putting it down to what the audiences wanted to see (boy, was he wrong). He even thought CR was a better film...

The heavy support for this film comes from Eon fanboys, hardly from anyone involved in the movie at all. BB, doing the rounds after CR was widely praised, has all but disappeared. Nobody knows what she thinks of the film, which for a producer is rather laughable after she took in the applause last time round. Forster got his excuses in early about time to edit, and has hardly defended the movie, rather just accepted it's averageness. Craig can't stop harping on about MP/Q returning as well as submarine bases etc. Looks to me that they all cannot wait to move on and forget this monstrosity of a film.

Just as tiring are fanboys who hate on a Bond film cuz it doesn't match their all-hallowed idea of what a Bond film should be. And to clarify, I've been quietly off the EON bandwagon since MR, and only jumped back on with the casting of Craig - best move since hiring Hunt to direct OHMSS - so hardly the EON-besotted fanboy you describe even if I do fall into the heavy supporter of QOS column (which is best Bond film since OMHSS). Luckily, there's enough Bond to satisfy all sorts of tastes.

[Sniperscope]

Just as tiring are fanboys who hate on a Bond film cuz it doesn't match their all-hallowed idea of what a Bond film should be.

Yep.
Surely that must be the essence of "fanboyism" - imagining that the content and direction of an entire franchise revolves around the ideas and desires of ME ME ME!!!

[dee-bee-five]

I don't think that any of us have the right to tell Mr. A-B that he should not hate QoS. If he does . . . he does. It is as simple as that.

Indeed. So perhaps he could afford those of us who do love the film the same courtesy. As for the notion that anyone who likes QoS is an Eon lackey... personally, I don't think I've ever read such arrant nonsense in my life.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And then again... What's wrong with "simpler films", if they're well done and are truly entertaining like CR, TSWLM or even TLD, for instance (and for the record, I wouldn't put as an example of that to any Brosnan movie). Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here, if you want some more complex fare, why don't you go and see other types of films.

This has to be one of the most depressing phrases I could read on a dedicated Bond site:

It's just realistic

"Don't forget that we're talking about just Bond movies here"

I just can't accept such a notion, Mr A-B!
"Just"?? So because it's Bond it shouldn't (nay, it mustn't) aspire to anything other than a tried (and tired) formula? Because it's "just" Bond the audience should never be asked to think or be shocked, surprised or even challenged? What a mediocre view.
I for one am tired of the notion that Bond films need to adhere to a particular formula or solely cater to the trendy whims of the general public, until, apparently, doomsday beckons.
I couldn't care less if the non-fans (the same people presumably that made both MAMMA MIA and TWILIGHT smash hits) didn't like QoS all that much- in fact i'm glad, because the day Bond is only aimed at them is the day the franchise goes belly-up.

Now... why it's important the recognition outside the fandom, because this franchise is not some kind of cult series, these movies laways were ment to appeal to the broedeste audience, and there shouldn't be any shame one that. And this doesn't translate in just repeat the formula in Brosnan era style, but in keep the formula always with a different twist, like in Craig's debut.

Let me ask you this, Mr A-B. You are quite a fan of OHMSS aren't you? Well - who decided that was a superb Bond film?
It wasn't the 1960s public - who disliked Lazenby and it most certainly wasn't the critics who generally panned it and no non-fan has ever heard of the movie!
No - it was FANDOM that decided OHMSS was a work of genius. By the same token it looks like fandom has embraced QoS in the same manner. So don't hate on it.

I would say that it's just part of the fandom, not all of it, whom has embraced QoS, otherwise the polls in this same site would put QOS over CR in popularity. And as I said earlier, I do like very much OHMSS, but I don't have problems to accept that for the general public isn't precisely a "work of genuis" (and why it should be such a masterpiece, OHMSS it just very fun to watch and classy, I don't need more than that to considere it a great 007 film).

Lastly, you "don't believe they accomplished the "complex fare" in QoS" - well, really?
Interpreting the mercy killing scene seems to have provided a little complexity for you, hmm?

Of course, because when I'm in the mood for a Bond movie, I'm not exactly in the search of profundity...is that a sin to you??

And when I said that I don't believe they accomplished the "complex fare" in QoS, I was pointing out about the snobbery of try to insert complexity in what is meant to be a blockbuster movie.

I don't think that any of us have the right to tell Mr. A-B that he should not hate QoS. If he does . . . he does. It is as simple as that.

Totally agree. And It would be just that simple, except for Mr B's efforts to convince others they should hate it like he does.

The point is that I don't hate QOS, what I do hate is the overpraising, that IMO has received in this site, by some hardcore fans of this movie that seem that they're not very in touch with the reality outside the fandom- and I believe that only here has happened this-.

In my consideration, QOS is just an average Bond movie far from the worst, and far from the best either, so I have a hard time to understand how some people put this Forster's work in the same league of Bond classics or even above of them, when almost nobody, outside this forum, really care about this movie, unlike CR or TSWLM, just to quote very popular Bond movies after the Bondmania-.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 May 2009 - 05:05 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

In my consideration, QOS is just an average Bond movie far from the worst, and far from the best either, so I have a hard time to understand how some people put this Forster's work in the same league of Bond classics or even above of them

Fair enough if you don't understand it. But if I do rate the film in the top three, alongside CR and OHMSS (and very possibly topping both), a view I hold not because of blinkered loyalty to Eon productions or whatever other nonsense one is accused of but because I genuinely rate it thus, do you afford me that right? Yes or no?

[Loomis]

But if I do rate the film in the top three, alongside CR and OHMSS (and very possibly topping both), a view I hold not because of blinkered loyalty to Eon productions or whatever other nonsense one is accused of but because I genuinely rate it thus, do you afford me that right? Yes or no?

Hmmm.... that may be asking too much. I'll get back to you on that one. I don't mind your putting QUANTUM OF SOLACE somewhere in the lower reaches of your top ten, but top three.... nah, that's overstepping the mark, I'm afraid.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

In my consideration, QOS is just an average Bond movie far from the worst, and far from the best either, so I have a hard time to understand how some people put this Forster's work in the same league of Bond classics or even above of them

Fair enough if you don't understand it. But if I do rate the film in the top three, alongside CR and OHMSS (and very possibly topping both), a view I hold not because of blinkered loyalty to Eon productions or whatever other nonsense one is accused of but because I genuinely rate it thus, do you afford me that right? Yes or no?

NO

... Just kidding.

[dee-bee-five]

But if I do rate the film in the top three, alongside CR and OHMSS (and very possibly topping both), a view I hold not because of blinkered loyalty to Eon productions or whatever other nonsense one is accused of but because I genuinely rate it thus, do you afford me that right? Yes or no?

Hmmm.... that may be asking too much. I'll get back to you on that one. I don't mind your putting QUANTUM OF SOLACE somewhere in the lower reaches of your top ten, but top three.... nah, that's overstepping the mark, I'm afraid.

Coming from someone who rates TMWTGG so highly, I'd say you're on a very sticky wicket...