166 replies to this topic

[bondrules]

Who was the one obsessed member with Quantums "glooming" B.O Performance? Those posts were really funny!

[Publius]

If these things were ORIGINAL to QoS, I would have enjoyed it much more, instead of constantly being reminded I saw this is in the distinguished competition only mere months earlier.

Then maybe time will ease the pain. After all, I remember when Bourne 3 came out how many people (around here, at least) were pointing out obvious similarities to Bond films such as CR and TLD - which would mean QOS is Bond ripping off Bond, albeit in roundabout fashion.

Personally, I don't look at easy comparisons as an automatic negative. If one work can improve on a previous one, or tweak what the other did to suit its own purposes (obvious enough to me that QOS did as much), or even present the approach to a different audience (if nothing else, I'm sure QOS did so, especially internationally), or basically anything along the lines of being creative despite superficial similarities, then I don't see a reason to mark it down right off the bat.

Anyway, I continue to enjoy both the Bourne series and Craig's Bond movies, because partially aside from the first one I find the Bournes to be grayed-out, thematically redundant (dare I say identical?) action vehicles with little substance, whereas both of the last two Bonds give me plenty to chew on not only visually but in terms of getting a little brain exercise as well. One series gives me cheap excitement while the latter gives me genuine thrills.

[jamie00007]

I really dont see any similarities between the Craig films and the Bourne movies aside from some shared film-making techniques. The characters and stories couldnt be more different. That said, after seeing The Bourne Identity shortly before Die Another Day was released I felt embarrassed for Bond. I remember sitting in the cinema loving the film thinking to myself "Why cant this be how Bond movies are made?" So frankly if there are similarities with the Bourne films, I do not consider that a bad thing. They are fantastic action thrillers with top notch production values. Better a Bond movie like them than a Bond movie like DAD.

[blueman]

Guys, if you want to see bad editing go back to FRWL on the train with Red Grant, and TB during the final fight on the boat.

The editing is done to trick the eye into beliving what is happening, watch it again.

Watch it in slowmotion, Craig's actions are teriffic.

They're terrific yes, but they remind me to much of things I saw in Bourne.

QoS starts right after the events of Casino Royale. In much the same way that The Bourne Ultimatum started almost instantaneously after The Bourne Supremacy.

QoS focuses on a highly trained spy/assassin breaking free from his leash and going rogue on a personal mission of revenge. Just like in The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum.

It has motorcycle stunt work in exotic locations - like The Bourne Ultimatum.

It has roof-top chases, quickly-edited fight sequences, scenes in which the hero walks into apartments and gets set on by a dude with a knife and have to go brutally hand-to-hand with one another. You know, just like… You get the point, right?

If these things were ORIGINAL to QoS, I would have enjoyed it much more, instead of constantly being reminded I saw this is in the distinguished competition only mere months earlier.

This is where QoS lost a lost of marks for me...and I'm hoping Bond 23 puts some originality on the plate.

Stop watching Bourne films, they aren't that good anyway. Problem solved!

Films steal from films, Bond steals from Bond all the time. I thought the second and third Bourne films sucked, so the very superior QOS covering kinda similar territory was like, great, somebody doing this right, and it's Bond, win-win! TSWLM being a virtual remake of YOLT doesn't mark it down in my book at all, but if I was looking for an excuse to buttress an opinion, I could sure use that, eh?

[Publius]

Actually I thought the Bourne trilogy was quite good

I felt it could have really done with some originality in the second and third. They both come across as inferior (if still enjoyable) rehashes of the first. If someone is watching QOS and you walk in the room, you can't really get it confused with CR, or any other Bond movie, whereas "which one is this again?" is a fairly common question even among casual Bourne fans when they see a Bourne movie is on.

[Dr.Fell]

Actually I thought the Bourne trilogy was quite good

I felt it could have really done with some originality in the second and third. They both come across as inferior (if still enjoyable) rehashes of the first. If someone is watching QOS and you walk in the room, you can't really get it confused with CR, or any other Bond movie, whereas "which one is this again?" is a fairly common question even among casual Bourne fans when they see a Bourne movie is on.

That is true about the Bourne films. Always the same dreary look.


Still for Bond 23, I would like to something like THUNDERBALL. That is the only Bond film which successfully pulled off a world threat and it's also the one with most class.

[Publius]

Still for Bond 23, I would like to something like THUNDERBALL. That is the only Bond film which successfully pulled off a world threat and it's also the one with most class.

I agree, and I think the closing of the Vesper chapter and opening of the Quantum chapter as seen in QOS set up Bond 23 to have that as the most natural plot. From the PTS of CR, we've seen Bond's world increasingly expand, and it's only logical that so would the dangers he battles.

[00Twelve]

Still for Bond 23, I would like to something like THUNDERBALL. That is the only Bond film which successfully pulled off a world threat and it's also the one with most class.

I agree, and I think the closing of the Vesper chapter and opening of the Quantum chapter as seen in QOS set up Bond 23 to have that as the most natural plot. From the PTS of CR, we've seen Bond's world increasingly expand, and it's only logical that so would the dangers he battles.

But where do the stakes go from THUNDERBALL? Seems like they'd have to keep ramping it back up to WWIII yet again.

[Dr.Fell]

Still for Bond 23, I would like to something like THUNDERBALL. That is the only Bond film which successfully pulled off a world threat and it's also the one with most class.

I agree, and I think the closing of the Vesper chapter and opening of the Quantum chapter as seen in QOS set up Bond 23 to have that as the most natural plot. From the PTS of CR, we've seen Bond's world increasingly expand, and it's only logical that so would the dangers he battles.

But where do the stakes go from THUNDERBALL? Seems like they'd have to keep ramping it back up to WWIII yet again.

Not really. There is no need to exceed the threat in THUNDERBALL, that's where the producers made the mistake with YOLT. The threat that seems plausiable has the scare the world and not nessecarily WWIII.

Edited by Dr.Fell, 11 January 2010 - 07:22 AM.

[00Twelve]

Still for Bond 23, I would like to something like THUNDERBALL. That is the only Bond film which successfully pulled off a world threat and it's also the one with most class.

I agree, and I think the closing of the Vesper chapter and opening of the Quantum chapter as seen in QOS set up Bond 23 to have that as the most natural plot. From the PTS of CR, we've seen Bond's world increasingly expand, and it's only logical that so would the dangers he battles.

But where do the stakes go from THUNDERBALL? Seems like they'd have to keep ramping it back up to WWIII yet again.

Not really. There is no need to exceed the threat in THUNDERBALL, that's where the producers made the mistake with YOLT.

But that's proven itself to be what both Fleming and EON felt was the next step. In Fleming's case, he bombed with TSWLM, then came back with the only thing that could come next: OHMSS and YOLT. Both epics. Then a dud again with the scaled down TMWTGG.

In EON's case, yes: the ultimate missed opportunity that was the gigantic YOLT (which was then followed by two more "world for ransom" stories featuring Blofeld). I'm just saying that it's a little much for being just the third story in the rebooted Bond franchise. It's not easy to follow a "world for ransom" story with something a lot more down to earth. Thus we got FYEO, which ended up being rather tedious after the extragaganza that was MR.

[Dr.Fell]

But that's proven itself to be what both Fleming and EON felt was the next step. In Fleming's case, he bombed with TSWLM, then came back with the only thing that could come next: OHMSS and YOLT. Both epics. Then a dud again with the scaled down TMWTGG.

I think SPY was just suppose to be an interlude between the Blofeld saga. As for YOLT, it's an epic but in the sense that it's atmospheric. Blofeld's scheme only threatened the nation of Japan. Golden Gun was definetly a dud though.

In EON's case, yes: the ultimate missed opportunity that was the gigantic YOLT (which was then followed by two more "world for ransom" stories featuring Blofeld). I'm just saying that it's a little much for being just the third story in the rebooted Bond franchise. It's not easy to follow a "world for ransom" story with something a lot more down to earth. Thus we got FYEO, which ended up being rather tedious after the extragaganza that was MR.

I think Craig's era is ready for some kind of threat to the world that could be well written. Like I said THUNDERBALL was more like scaring the world instead of any threat of destroying the population and in this day and age, it shouldn't be too hard to believe.

[JimmyBond]

I'd be all up for another "world in ransom" plotline. But it doesnt seem like something Quantum would do, they're more of a shadowy organization SPECTRE was.

[00Twelve]

I keep saying it; the treasure smuggling idea from LALD is ripe for the picking while we have Quantum around.

[Goodnight]

QOS - just as bad as when i first saw it

i hate to be horrible, but i am the only one who thinks it is a very confusing film?


You get new characters appearing randomly in the film, without knowing who they are or why they are there, im not stupid , i dont need it spelt out for me. But it would be nice to where bond is sometimes in the film and who half of the characters are :/

[elizabeth]

i hate to be horrible, but i am the only one who thinks it is a very confusing film?

well, i didn't find it confusing, per se. i just felt that everything went by so quickly.

[jamie00007]

You get new characters appearing randomly in the film, without knowing who they are or why they are there, im not stupid , i dont need it spelt out for me. But it would be nice to where bond is sometimes in the film and who half of the characters are :/

What specifically didnt make sense for you?

imo, its one of the tightest Bonds scripts with the least amount of plotholes. Most Bond films have very convoluted plots with gaping holes everywhere. QoS's story seems stripped back and easy to follow compared to most.

[Dr.Fell]

You get new characters appearing randomly in the film, without knowing who they are or why they are there, im not stupid , i dont need it spelt out for me. But it would be nice to where bond is sometimes in the film and who half of the characters are :/

What specifically didnt make sense for you?

imo, its one of the tightest Bonds scripts with the least amount of plotholes. Most Bond films have very convoluted plots with gaping holes everywhere. QoS's story seems stripped back and easy to follow compared to most.

Well Quantum of Solace felt liked chopped up bit of a complete film. Nobody has time for anything and everything is rushed. The film took only one moment to observe Bond and Camille's relationship but most of the time they are caught up in the action. Greene seems to share little personal conflict with Bond, yeah Greene rags on Bond for his Mi6 dossier and Vesper's death but that's it. You never feel these two should go head to head. Elvis is useless character who did useless things, why did he yell at that guard again ? Mitchell's betrayal is overlooked completely after a momentary investigation in his apartment. And again going back to the action, it's all just thrown in our faces. Nothing looks complete or coherent. I have heard all the excuses already, face it, QOS is a terrible example of how action should set up. The boast chase ended with faux conclusion that no one could see and can someoone explain to me how Bond killed Slate ?

Then the generally atmosphere of humor seems to pushed way to side. Strawberry Feilds' purpose was clear to the film, to remind us of that classic womanizing 007. However how does Bond seduce her, we don't know because when Feilds ask where the stationary is, we are all of a sudden seeing them in bed.

I think people admire Quantum so much because it only seemed it accomplished something by cutting so many corners but it really didn't.

[Sigma7]

You get new characters appearing randomly in the film, without knowing who they are or why they are there, im not stupid , i dont need it spelt out for me. But it would be nice to where bond is sometimes in the film and who half of the characters are :/

What specifically didnt make sense for you?

imo, its one of the tightest Bonds scripts with the least amount of plotholes. Most Bond films have very convoluted plots with gaping holes everywhere. QoS's story seems stripped back and easy to follow compared to most.

Well Quantum of Solace felt liked chopped up bit of a complete film. Nobody has time for anything and everything is rushed. The film took only one moment to observe Bond and Camille's relationship but most of the time they are caught up in the action. Greene seems to share little personal conflict with Bond, yeah Greene rags on Bond for his Mi6 dossier and Vesper's death but that's it. You never feel these two should go head to head. Elvis is useless character who did useless things, why did he yell at that guard again ? Mitchell's betrayal is overlooked completely after a momentary investigation in his apartment. And again going back to the action, it's all just thrown in our faces. Nothing looks complete or coherent. I have heard all the excuses already, face it, QOS is a terrible example of how action should set up. The boast chase ended with faux conclusion that no one could see and can someoone explain to me how Bond killed Slate ?

Then the generally atmosphere of humor seems to pushed way to side. Strawberry Feilds' purpose was clear to the film, to remind us of that classic womanizing 007. However how does Bond seduce her, we don't know because when Feilds ask where the stationary is, we are all of a sudden seeing them in bed.

I think people admire Quantum so much because it only seemed it accomplished something by cutting so many corners but it really didn't.

Well said, a year on, and QOS really hasnt improved in my eyes either... what a shame to wait so long for a POS... roll on bond 23

[blueman]

Still greatly appreciate the incisive plotting: characters are only introduced to the audience as they are brought into Bond's field of vision, and we only see the plot unfold as Bond digs deeper into Greene's business. Very effective storytelling by Forster IMO.

[blueman]

Stop watching Bourne films, they aren't that good anyway. Problem solved!

Films steal from films, Bond steals from Bond all the time. I thought the second and third Bourne films sucked, so the very superior QOS covering kinda similar territory was like, great, somebody doing this right, and it's Bond, win-win! TSWLM being a virtual remake of YOLT doesn't mark it down in my book at all, but if I was looking for an excuse to buttress an opinion, I could sure use that, eh?

Actually I thought the Bourne trilogy was quite good It set the bar in some ways and it's obvious EON was paying attention with this other spy franchise. The only thing I didn't like was Matt Damon's rather repugnant dismissal of Bond as a character...Craig was far more diplomatic and professional in that respect.

The thing is, the Bourne-Bond comparisons went into overdrive after Casino Royale, and in my opinion, Solace didn't do much to correct that. And while you are correct in saying films steal from other films all the time, when it's the immediate competition, it's a bit of a bummer.

That's why I want some of the traditional elements back, to make Bond really James Bond. It was great seeing Bond become the gadget, instead of having to rely on them all the time, but been there, done that...give him some cool toys for Bond 23.

The Bourne trilogy reminds me of the Matrix trilogy more than Bond: preposterous but excitingly made first film, followed by a couple meh lather-rinse-repeat sequels. If the success of the first Bourne film reminded EON of Bond basics, good on them (Bourne stole from Bond, who stole back, lol).

QOS provided an exciting sequel that expanded on both the plot and characters in CR, something the other trilogy sequels mentioned above failed to do IMO (updating the painfully dated and silly Bourne storyline was, well, painful and silly to watch, and I don't know WTF those Wachowski brothers were thinking with their two sequels beyond $$$).

Don't mind a GF-type caper film for 23, but really rather not see Bond devolve - again! - to gadgets and girls and quips.

[HildebrandRarity]

Had QUANTUM been his debut, I'd have been all over it.

The logic is mind-boggling.



Either a movie is good or it isn't.

Any caveat is irrelevant.

[The Shark]

Still greatly appreciate the incisive plotting: characters are only introduced to the audience as they are brought into Bond's field of vision, and we only see the plot unfold as Bond digs deeper into Greene's business. Very effective storytelling by Forster IMO.

Whatever you may think, that style of story-telling is completely at odds with Fleming.

[blueman]

Still greatly appreciate the incisive plotting: characters are only introduced to the audience as they are brought into Bond's field of vision, and we only see the plot unfold as Bond digs deeper into Greene's business. Very effective storytelling by Forster IMO.

Whatever you may think, that style of story-telling is completely at odds with Fleming.

Great chunks of Fleming rely on this effective way to tell a thriller: set up the mission, and off goes Bond. QOS benefitted from being a direct sequel to CR, so a lot of the setup already happened in that film - but Fleming did the same thing OHMSS-to-YOLT, refresh a bit then off goes Bond. Notable exceptions are FRWL and TB, but the rule seems pretty clear. Even TSWLM uses it, only in reverse.

[MrKidd]

Not looking for a fight - just replying to the topic! QoS - completely wasted opportunity to exploit the best Bond and best Bond movie in years. One year (and the rest) on and it hasn't improved. Painfully disappointing experience. What a shame. Can't wait to see what's next though.

[The Shark]

Still greatly appreciate the incisive plotting: characters are only introduced to the audience as they are brought into Bond's field of vision, and we only see the plot unfold as Bond digs deeper into Greene's business. Very effective storytelling by Forster IMO.

Whatever you may think, that style of story-telling is completely at odds with Fleming.

Great chunks of Fleming rely on this effective way to tell a thriller: set up the mission, and off goes Bond. QOS benefitted from being a direct sequel to CR, so a lot of the setup already happened in that film - but Fleming did the same thing OHMSS-to-YOLT, refresh a bit then off goes Bond. Notable exceptions are FRWL and TB, but the rule seems pretty clear. Even TSWLM uses it, only in reverse.

That's what I was saying. Very few Fleming novels take place entirely entirely from Bond's perspective. Indeed a large portion of FRWL and MR doesn't involve Bond.

[blueman]

Still greatly appreciate the incisive plotting: characters are only introduced to the audience as they are brought into Bond's field of vision, and we only see the plot unfold as Bond digs deeper into Greene's business. Very effective storytelling by Forster IMO.

Whatever you may think, that style of story-telling is completely at odds with Fleming.

Great chunks of Fleming rely on this effective way to tell a thriller: set up the mission, and off goes Bond. QOS benefitted from being a direct sequel to CR, so a lot of the setup already happened in that film - but Fleming did the same thing OHMSS-to-YOLT, refresh a bit then off goes Bond. Notable exceptions are FRWL and TB, but the rule seems pretty clear. Even TSWLM uses it, only in reverse.

That's what I was saying. Very few Fleming novels take place entirely entirely from Bond's perspective. Indeed a large portion of FRWL and MR doesn't involve Bond.

But unlike most Bond films, Fleming doesn't cut away to show us what the villain is doing/going to do next during the main course of the story. Once he sets things in motion - whether a meeting with M or multiple chapters of Russian perfidy - he makes Bond the reader's eyes and ears. Standard thriller writing, if not first-person then damn close to it.

[Johnboy007]

*shrug*

I still like it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Unlike most Bond films, Fleming doesn't cut away to show us what the villain is doing/going to do next during the main course of the story. Once he sets things in motion - whether a meeting with M or multiple chapters of Russian perfidy - he makes Bond the reader's eyes and ears. Standard thriller writing, if not first-person then damn close to it.

Great description, blueman.

[Eddie Burns]

Saw it the first time...thought it was ok, spent most of my time afterwards defending it to my friends who'd seen it with me.

Watched it the second time...absolutely hated it. So, one year on, I still do. The action scenes are fairly dull, filled with characters that we have no interest in. Greene really had no point. Camille had no point. Mathis had no point. The character that mattered...Mr. White....well, he had no point either. None of these characters enhance the movie at all. They are just padding for a really paper thin plot.

This was just Forster experimenting on a genre he had no clue about. As it is still fresh, I don't think it will be remembered fondly at all further down the line. Why? It lacks personality, imagination and has absolutely nothing pleasantly memorable to raise when discussing movies with friends.

Fleming's Bond? Funny, I've always thought Fleming had imagination.

A shallow sequel. B23 will show it up.

Hey you're back...and repeating the same old drivel that you were spouting before you left. Should have stayed away.

Ha! Missed this...

Let me guess, are you one of those guys that spends most of his waking life on messageboards because no one listens to you in real life? Or did your parents build you a swing right next to a wall? Only someone like that can take offense to an OPINION

Why so serious? You don't work for EON do you? You don't suck Forster off in your free time do you (if so...I apologize)? If you love the movie...then love it!! And ignore those that hate it. You can't make everybody like a very crap movie

I'm a fan...I'll say what I like. If you dont like it Jimmy....


OFF!

p.s. - Jimmy, one more thing...

QOS is the a craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap movie.

Live with it.

ADIOS

[DamnCoffee]

Isn't that a bit extreme...