49 replies to this topic

[Martini]

First of all: 1) There are many people who dislike QOS, 2) QOS is the first Bond movie whith a serious kind of continuity. That makes QOS kind of a sequel. Since sequels are mostly perceived as second-rate ware (a cliché films like Scream 2 play with), my question is: Could 1) and 2) relate each other?

Sequels have to struggle several problems: to be not original by definition, to destroy the end of the first film, to use characters, that are already inroduced, etc. To understand QOS completely you must have seen CR, what characterizes a sequel. So the question is: Was it a mistake to leave the proven concept of very loose continuity?

[dee-bee-five]

First of all: 1) There are many people who dislike QOS, 2) QOS is the first Bond movie whith a serious kind of continuity. That makes QOS kind of a sequel. Since sequels are mostly perceived as second-rate ware (a cliché films like Scream 2 play with), my question is: Could 1) and 2) relate each other?

But given that there are also many people who like QoS (more than CR in my case), might it not also be argued - if we follow your line of thinking - that it works for them because it's a "kind of sequel"?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Maybe I should not be replying here because I'm not sold on the idea that many disliked QOS. Lots of CBN forum members seem to have issues with the film, and thats fair enough. Some critics did not like it either, but as Cubby Broccoli said you can't fill cinemas with critics, its the public's reaction that counts. Box Office figures were good for QOS as far as I know.
I don't see the sequel as a mistake because I don't think QOS fell into the trap of not living up to its predecessor. Very fine Bond film IMO. What might be a mistake would be to continue with Quantum for the entire duration of the Craig era and make his tenure a complete sequel if you like.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 15 April 2009 - 10:28 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

Maybe I should not be replying here because I'm not sold on the idea that many disliked QOS. Lots of CBN forum members seem to have issues with the film, and thats fair enough. Some critics did not like it either, but as Cubby Broccoli said you can't fill cinemas with critics, its the public's reaction that counts.
I don't see the sequel as a mistake because I don't think QOS fell into the trap of not living up to its predecessor. Very fine Bond film IMO. What might be a mistake would be to continue with Quantum for the entire duration of the Craig era and make his tenure a complete sequel if you like.

Indeed. Of course, given that Kronsteen alluded to the fact that luring Bond into the honeytrap in FRWL might be revenge for Bond killing Dr. No, it can be argued that QoS isn't the series' first direct sequel anyway...

[Frimmel]

To me there are two kinds of sequels. Those that continue the story started in the first film and those that use elements of the first film as a hook for a new story that isn't really a continuation.

The choice to make the former furthered my enjoyment of QOS and was not a mistake on the part of the film's makers. They grabbed my attention with starting in the middle of a chase and full on hooked me when White was in the boot. From that point on it all felt fresh to me.

I didn't feel like I was watching a film I'd seen 20 versions of 20 times each already.

[tdalton]

To me there are two kinds of sequels. Those that continue the story started in the first film and those that use elements of the first film as a hook for a new story that isn't really a continuation.

The choice to make the former furthered my enjoyment of QOS and was not a mistake on the part of the film's makers. They grabbed my attention with starting in the middle of a chase and full on hooked me when White was in the boot. From that point on it all felt fresh to me.

I didn't feel like I was watching a film I'd seen 20 versions of 20 times each already.

Agreed. Having them continue telling the same story was great, and it really brought something to the franchise that we hadn't seen since the continuation of the SPECTRE storyline from DR. NO into FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I would love for EON to continue the current storyline into BOND 23 and other subsequent films because carrying on the same storyline across the Bond films has made the films much more interesting than having a series of self-contained storylines.

[Frimmel]

I really hope they have the courage to continue on the path they've started upon. To me they are in a position to write a next film that is both continuation for the dedicated yet independent of the previous films for the unintiated.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

First of all: 1) There are many people who dislike QOS, 2) QOS is the first Bond movie whith a serious kind of continuity. That makes QOS kind of a sequel. Since sequels are mostly perceived as second-rate ware (a cliché films like Scream 2 play with), my question is: Could 1) and 2) relate each other?

Sequels have to struggle several problems: to be not original by definition, to destroy the end of the first film, to use characters, that are already inroduced, etc. To understand QOS completely you must have seen CR, what characterizes a sequel. So the question is: Was it a mistake to leave the proven concept of very loose continuity?

To answer your last question, no. I think that it was essential to finish off the "Vesper" storyline. That way, we could get a definitive answer (I think that the producers/director did it the wrong way, but that is not the point). I'm certainly not a fan of QoS, but I was glad to see that Vesper and Bond were redeemed by the end of the film.

On the topic of sequels, I disagree. I think that the SECOND Bond films (with the exception of From Russia With Love) are really bad. They're all action and little substance.

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

[byline]

I really hope they have the courage to continue on the path they've started upon. To me they are in a position to write a next film that is both continuation for the dedicated yet independent of the previous films for the unintiated.

I agree with this. That was pretty much the observation my husband made after seeing "Casino Royale" and then seeing "Quantum of Solace" a second time (like me, he wasn't crazy about "Quantum" on first viewing, but on second viewing his opinion did a 180 and he loved it).

As for the initial question, I disagree that the fact the movie was a sequel is what "cursed" it. For me, the fact that "Quantum" was a direct follow-up to "Casino" was a huge part of its appeal . . . especially since, as others have pointed out, it resolved the questions Bond (and we) had about Vesper, and also Mathis.

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Thanks ! (Whitout "e" at the end. I'm not a casino... )
Yeah you're right, the fight scene in the kitchen was awful ! And the boat chase ridiculous !Ok the PTS was perfect but it's not enough.

[MattofSteel]

Agreed. Having them continue telling the same story was great, and it really brought something to the franchise that we hadn't seen since the continuation of the SPECTRE storyline from DR. NO into FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I would love for EON to continue the current storyline into BOND 23 and other subsequent films because carrying on the same storyline across the Bond films has made the films much more interesting than having a series of self-contained storylines.

Definitely agree. It's exactly the kind of move the franchise needed. To me, the label "direct sequel" has been far overused to the point where calling the film that, isn't really making a point anymore. The actual QUANTUM plot barely connects to CR aside from a brief Le Chiffre reference. The only true aspect of sequel here is the Vesper story and Bond's character, which is succinctly resolved. Now on to something new. It never bothered me, not for a second.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Thanks ! (Whitout "e" at the end. I'm not a casino... )
Yeah you're right, the fight scene in the kitchen was awful ! And the boat chase ridiculous !Ok the PTS was perfect but it's not enough.

Sorry. My cold must be affecting my spelling.
I would agree about the fight scene (I assume that you mean with Slate). It's too shaky and edited so quickly that I literally can't see what's going on. Same with the boat chase, and the fact that the chase completely doesn't work for me. The pretitle sequence could have been AMAZING, but again: the editing and shaky camera just ruined that car chase for me...

[MattofSteel]

Not trying to offend you, but how can you not see what's going on with the Slate fight? It's the best action scene in the film, IMO.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

First of all: 1) There are many people who dislike QOS, 2) QOS is the first Bond movie whith a serious kind of continuity. That makes QOS kind of a sequel. Since sequels are mostly perceived as second-rate ware (a cliché films like Scream 2 play with), my question is: Could 1) and 2) relate each other?

Sequels have to struggle several problems: to be not original by definition, to destroy the end of the first film, to use characters, that are already inroduced, etc. To understand QOS completely you must have seen CR, what characterizes a sequel. So the question is: Was it a mistake to leave the proven concept of very loose continuity?

Yes, at least for me. Particularly, because it tries to destroy the 'closure' (in agreement with to the one from the book) of CR, with a Bond who already was the beautiful machine that we all know and love in the last scene of Craig's debut.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 16 April 2009 - 09:22 PM.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Not trying to offend you, but how can you not see what's going on with the Slate fight? It's the best action scene in the film, IMO.

Agreed.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Not trying to offend you, but how can you not see what's going on with the Slate fight? It's the best action scene in the film, IMO.

Agreed.

Not trying to offend either of you, either. But do you not mind the shaky camera? I don't know about you, but everything became a giant blur, and I couldn't see what was going on...

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Not trying to offend you, but how can you not see what's going on with the Slate fight? It's the best action scene in the film, IMO.

Agreed.

Not trying to offend either of you, either. But do you not mind the shaky camera? I don't know about you, but everything became a giant blur, and I couldn't see what was going on...

For me, during the Slate fight, the shaky-cam didn't get to me. In the car chase, Siena chase, boat chase and plane chase, it's a different matter!

[byline]

Not trying to offend you, but how can you not see what's going on with the Slate fight? It's the best action scene in the film, IMO.

I can see how, after only one viewing, people might not have caught everything that happened in Bond's knife fight with Slate. I didn't catch it all, and neither did my husband, who's a pretty sharp fellow.

However, I was able to put it all together on second viewing. And like you, I consider it to be the best action scene in the film. Incredibly believable, and choreographed and performed in such a way that it didn't feel choreographed and performed; it felt like I was watching a real fight to the death.

[MattofSteel]

Again, not trying to offend anyone - I'm just genuinely surprised to hear this! Part of the reason I love the Slate fight is because it's considerably more visible and well choreographed than the remainder of the film's action.

The allure for me was that it maintains the pace of the rest of the film's action but actually manages to sustain a narrative. I just never thought it to be that incoherent. I registered every punch, every move...there's not actually that much shaky cam, if any at all. And the camera stays back, for the most part. I remember thinking to myself almost immediately, how cool it was - and hoping the rest of the film would follow suit. Not quite But it left on the Perla des las Dunas note, which was more than satisfactory.

[001carus]

Well, naturally, direct sequels are usually never as well received as their predecessors. There are very few exceptions like The Empire Strikes Back, Godfather Part II, and the Dark Knight that are generally considered as good, if not better than their already well received predecessors. Now I'm not necessarily a follower of this rule (I'm a fan of the Matrix sequels for example), but generally, there is a level of negativity towards direct sequels of, well, most things.

This isn't even a curse - it's quite understandable and realistic. A film that's successful enough to warrant a sequel means it has an audience that has latched onto the film and characters and created their own interpretation of what that world entails and how the characters would act. Therefore, we all suddenly have our own ideas of what a sequel should be like (Something that doesn't happen with the original film because we're not expecting anything). The sequel, therefore, needs to replicate the emotion and character traits of the first film, all the while creating a very different experience.

Some films fall into the trap of being too similar to their predecessors (Men in Black II), and while recreating the emotion and character traits of the first film, hang on too tightly to their predecessor. I think this is somewhat relevant to the whole Bond franchise. Each Bond film (until now probably) tries to recreate the emotions of the previous entries but instead of creating a different experience each time, we get almost the same storyline. Through the one liners, the exotic locations, the bond girls, the villains, we get a very similar experience that most definitely evokes the same emotions each time, so it's enjoyable, but because it sticks so closely to its source, it becomes stale.

Anyway, I've gone on a bit of a tangent. Let's look at QOS. I truly believe QOS was constructed in the right way. This is a sequel that doesn't try to be its predecessor, so we're already off to a good start. In my opinion, it also generates similar emotions as the previous film, with Daniel Craig at the helm, and we're once again in warm locations recreating the atmosphere. Whether or not they pulled it off is up for interpretation.

So, the reasons QOS wasn't received as well as it could have been are for a few reasons. 1. A lot instantly compared it to CR (who wouldn't?) and decided it didn't recreate the emotion they expected from that film. 2. A lot compared it to old Bond films and decided it was TOO different from the fun quirky Bonds. So yes, a lot of the problem with QOS's reception was because of its sequel status, IMO.

[Martini]

First of all: 1) There are many people who dislike QOS, 2) QOS is the first Bond movie whith a serious kind of continuity. That makes QOS kind of a sequel. Since sequels are mostly perceived as second-rate ware (a cliché films like Scream 2 play with), my question is: Could 1) and 2) relate each other?

But given that there are also many people who like QoS (more than CR in my case), might it not also be argued - if we follow your line of thinking - that it works for them because it's a "kind of sequel"?

I love QOS, too, and think it has moments of pure brilliance. And I also know many people who like it. But my impression now is that the majority was disappointed. And I wonder if there are other underlying reasons than the obvious and often indicated ones (absence of Moneypenny, staccato-editing, etc.)

BTW: I should have put the word "curse" in quotation marks.

Edited by Martini, 17 April 2009 - 08:59 AM.

[DAN LIGHTER]

QOS was a great film and there was no curse on it. Its not like it was Rush Hour 2.

[byline]

But my impression now is that the majority was disappointed. And I wonder if there are other underlying reasons than the obvious and often indicated ones (absence of Moneypenny, staccato-editing, etc.)

A lot of people complained about the absence of Q and Moneypenny in "Casino Royale" too, but that didn't seem to hurt the overall positive response to the film. So I tend to think it's more the latter than the former. My husband is a longtime Bond fan, and on first viewing he didn't like the way most of the action scenes were shot and edited (the knife fight with Slate and the hotel fire being two exceptions). However, he picked up a lot more on second viewing and found himself enjoying "Quantum" in a way that he hadn't on first viewing. So I think that for many people, it really is as simple as that. Subsequent viewings will enable them to catch more, thus enhancing their enjoyment of the film.

Edited by byline, 17 April 2009 - 02:25 PM.

[Judo chop]

To repeat what’s already been said, the sequel aspect of QOS is a significant part of what makes it both a very good Bond film and a very special Bond film for the series. In fact, I’m of the mind that, if anything, the ‘sequelness’ of QOS might have been underplayed.

I wanted to see QOS tackle Mathis’ story head-on. I wanted Mathis’ innocence to be much more ambiguous, and something that was revealed over the course of QOS, rather than the:

<knock, knock>
Bond: “Hi Mathis. I’m sorry. Come with me.”
Mathis: “It’s ok. Sure.”

that we got.

I was hoping that QOS would put us in Bond’s perspective as it played with his attitude towards Mathis. That it would really be a tangled, messy thriller that unwound before our eyes.

I had hoped that it was to be the case that Mathis was partially guilty of aiding LeChiffre and/or Quantum, but unknowingly. That he was guilty in deed, but not in intent. And that Bond had to come to grips with a double-dose of complicated betrayals by two people he loves in Mathis and Vesper.

Then, by the end, he really earns his Quantum of Solace. He’s calloused, but his trust has been tested to the limits and he’s passed. Thus, the man we all know and love; wary of everyone, cruelly desensitized, but loyal to the death for those he chooses to trust. Namely, Felix, for one. Perhaps M as well.

I’m really happy with the little Felix/Bond substory in QOS. And I’m happy with the manner in which Mathis was handled; perhaps it is not my preference, but it certainly isn’t a complaint.

In short: QOS ‘sequelness’ approved.

[Zorin Industries]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Remember though that not everyone thinks that. In fact, Marc Forster is one of the best directors Bond has been fortunate enough to hire. Campbell is not even in the same league.

[Judo chop]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Remember though that not everyone thinks that. In fact, Marc Forster is one of the best directors Bond has been fortunate enough to hire. Campbell is not even in the same league.

Or to put it another way: Remember that your opinion is merely an opinion, and is, in fact, not correct.

How do you do it, Zorin?

[Loomis]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Remember though that not everyone thinks that. In fact, Marc Forster is one of the best directors Bond has been fortunate enough to hire. Campbell is not even in the same league.

He is when it comes to Bond, which is what matters. In fact, he's in a higher league.

[Zorin Industries]

The "curse" is Mark Forster. What a pity Campbell didn't want to do it !

Welcome to CBn, HMS Ark Royale!
Agreed. Forster CAN'T direct action at ALL. It would have been amazing had Campbell come back.

Remember though that not everyone thinks that. In fact, Marc Forster is one of the best directors Bond has been fortunate enough to hire. Campbell is not even in the same league.

He is when it comes to Bond, which is what matters. In fact, he's in a higher league.

I wouldn't agree. I personally find Martin Campbell's direction to be dull, easy and devoid of any emotional or physical palette. His best film is indeed CASINO ROYALE but Forster would have given that the necessary nuances and crafted a much better film.

GOLDENEYE is one of the worst directed Bond films. It looks like it's been shot for television, there is no scope to the visuals and everything looks like it was shot in a car park.