151 replies to this topic

[Publius]

there is such a relentless and overbearing reliance on brute force and superhuman survival that nothing and noone comes accross as a threat,

...

I agree that your alternate take of M's reaction could be the case, however given the stage in development we are led to believe the character is at, and the length of relevent service, its really only our knowledge of the franchise that gives any credence or credibility to such an assertion.

I understand why you say that, and I respect that you and others might want Bond to seem in greater personal danger, but I think the constant threat being presented is of a system and mentality that pervades Bond's profession worldwide. If those are the good guys, then what chance does Bond really have?

It's the irony of being borderline superhuman yet extremely weak in actuality because society as established, the inertia of its institutions and traditions and expectations, cannot be beaten by mere physical means, or even by persuasion or cunning. Perseverance and survival, fueled by his strong sense of loyalty and black-and-white worldview, are what enable this Bond to stand victorious after his battles.

What's more, the belief that Bond is never in any real danger is itself largely a result of our familiarity with the character and the franchise. If someone had no idea who James Bond was and sat down to watch these two movies, he might still think Bond wasn't in serious jeopardy given how he's presented as such a clear hero... but there would inevitably be much more tension not knowing that James Bond always comes through okay.

I think it's amazing Campbell and Forster were able to deliver as many thrills as they did considering we know so many of these characters aren't going to be killed or ultimately fail.

So I can see why this film leaves such distinctly different impressions on people; either you pick up those additional details and take them away with you, or you don't. Failing to pick up on them isn't a failure; it's more, I think, based in what we expect of the Bond character. And that's going to differ from one individual to the next.

Exactly. I think this applies to all movies, and really all art forms. There aren't objective interpretations, you can't watch movies in a vacuum, you enjoy them (or not) largely based on your own life experiences and mental/emotional state at the time and how well you can relate to or appreciate what's being presented to you.

[tdalton]

I think it's amazing Campbell and Forster were able to deliver as many thrills as they did considering we know so many of these characters aren't going to be killed or ultimately fail.

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

[Publius]

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

I'm all for that. Imagine Bond inadvertently causing the deaths of innocent civilians as the villain gets away. It would make a future confrontation with said enemy that much more tense. The audience would certainly be shocked and on edge from then on. It's hard to top CR and QOS in terms of shaking up the formula and getting bold and original, but that would definitely do it.

[tdalton]

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

I'm all for that. Imagine Bond inadvertently causing the deaths of innocent civilians as the villain gets away. It would make a future confrontation with said enemy that much more tense. The audience would certainly be shocked and on edge from then on. It's hard to top CR and QOS in terms of shaking up the formula and getting bold and original, but that would definitely do it.

I think that your idea for such an ending would be brilliant. I can only imagine a follow up to that, with Bond having to face the villain who would no doubt taunt him for what he mistakenly did. The possibilities that such an ending would open up for the writers would be endless, and it would just be a great creative move for the franchise.

[Guy Haines]

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

I'm all for that. Imagine Bond inadvertently causing the deaths of innocent civilians as the villain gets away. It would make a future confrontation with said enemy that much more tense. The audience would certainly be shocked and on edge from then on. It's hard to top CR and QOS in terms of shaking up the formula and getting bold and original, but that would definitely do it.

I think that your idea for such an ending would be brilliant. I can only imagine a follow up to that, with Bond having to face the villain who would no doubt taunt him for what he mistakenly did. The possibilities that such an ending would open up for the writers would be endless, and it would just be a great creative move for the franchise.

Good idea but it wouldn't be the first time Bond has failed on a mission. Casino Royale is a great James Bond story and the 2006 version is a great film. But the mission Bond undertakes ends in failure. The money (Le Chiffre's and ours) is lost, Le Chiffre is executed by his own side and is therefore unavailable to comment about his involvement with "the organisation" soon to be known as Quantum, and on a personal level Bond loses the woman he loves, and has been betrayed by her.

Were it not for Vesper's text message the mission would have been a total failure - but even allowing for that, the mission objectives were mostly unsuccessful.

[The Shark]

That's my point, I never said implied that it was first. Bond films are cyclic, and this "dark" point on the polarity has peaked, and subsequently ended.

But how do we know that? Could it have just been execution that made QOS less popular than CR? After all, "darkness" has been very popular for a few years now, from Bourne to Batman.

There's no way to know for sure, since one can empirically measure these of kind of things. All I can say is that from the reviews of read of various recent franchise instalments, not just Bond, I can faithfully say that audiences are getting fed up of this "dark" fetish, mainstream blockbusters have right now. It's becoming an unoriginal, monotonous, cash cow, for film execs.

Remember, there is the "light-dark" axis and then there's the separate "realistic-outlandish" axis, in addition to "emotional-unemotional" and many others. Do audiences like the relative darkness (and really, it's not all that dark) but just want Bond to get more epic again, and/or get over his broken heart, and/or something else entirely?

You bring up a good point, though I'm using "dark" as more of a umbrella term for several factors. They want a return to the relatively strings-free, hard-knuckled, pulp-inspired, down-to-earth, brutal, yet fantastical mould of DN, FRWL, TB and OHMSS. Politically incorrect, thoroughly British, traditional, old-fashioned, sex saturated, adventure-thrillers.

Even within each axis there is nuance. Moonraker was often "light" (not entirely, though, as has been discussed before) but in a family-friendly way, especially by the end, whereas Goldfinger and Thunderball were light in a more adult way (despite being a lot more "realistic" than we remember). And while generally not light, CR and QOS had plenty of humor, just usually subtle or very dry.

I would generally say QOS and TWINE, are dark, but not in an adult way, to add to your descriptions.

I'm thinking of something more like From Russia With Love and Thunderball. While one is a taut small-scale Cold War thriller, and one is a large-scale adventure extravaganza, they are tonally very similar, unlike say Goldfinger, which is much lighter fair.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is a lot more complicated than just turning some dial up or down every few years.

I'm with you there.

[JimmyBond]

I would generally say QOS and TWINE, are dark, but not in an adult way, to add to your descriptions.

If you view QoS the same way I view TWINE than perhaps I can see things from your point of view and understand your feelings towards the film in general.

For me TWINE tries to be dark without remembering to at least make things interesting. The end result for me is a film that's dark without any sense of fun. And the film's attempts at "fun" (namely the silly humor) does not work for me.

[The Shark]

I would generally say QOS and TWINE, are dark, but not in an adult way, to add to your descriptions.

If you view QoS the same way I view TWINE than perhaps I can see things from your point of view and understand your feelings towards the film in general.

For me TWINE tries to be dark without remembering to at least make things interesting. The end result for me is a film that's dark without any sense of fun. And the film's attempts at "fun" (namely the silly humor) does not work for me.

I would say the same thing with my feelings for QoS. It tries to be weighty, and dark, lots of portentous pseudo-arty farty gravitas, but doesn't realise how stupid, stilted, and often silly it is.

It's like everybody's laughing it, but the film doesn't have the self awareness or intelligence to realise it.

[JimmyBond]

Fair enough, we'll just agree to disagree about QoS, but it's nice to finally understand your feelings towards it.

[RazorBlade]

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

I'm all for that. Imagine Bond inadvertently causing the deaths of innocent civilians as the villain gets away. It would make a future confrontation with said enemy that much more tense. The audience would certainly be shocked and on edge from then on. It's hard to top CR and QOS in terms of shaking up the formula and getting bold and original, but that would definitely do it.

I think that your idea for such an ending would be brilliant. I can only imagine a follow up to that, with Bond having to face the villain who would no doubt taunt him for what he mistakenly did. The possibilities that such an ending would open up for the writers would be endless, and it would just be a great creative move for the franchise.

It sounds good but actually having Bond fail or cause deaths at the end of a film would be a huge mistake. Now if you were to fail at the beginning of a film, or get outsmarted or whatever and have him fail all through the film only to have him pull the same sort of trick on the enemy at the end- would be very suspenceful and you could keep the audience on their seats without tons of screen violence too. That would make an ending where Bond wins much more satisfying than he had some Q branch gagdet or a laser hair dryer he stole from the villains gf.

But to have Bond lose or cause deaths at the climax of the film would be a disaster. Either the audience will hate him or he will totally lose audience sympathy.

[tdalton]

I think that this is why EON could get a lot of mileage out of a film in which Bond ultimately fails his mission. It would not only make the film itself feel a bit more original, as it wouldn't follow the same basic structure that the Bond films have from Dr. No on (Bond gets mission, goes on missions, saves the day), but it would also add some tension to future entries because, at that point, Bond's success is no longer something that is an absolute certainty.

One way that this could be done would be to have something of a twist ending, where Bond has seemingly saved the day, only for it to turn out that he'd been tricked by the film's villain or villainous organization and that he'd actually either failed or walked into some kind of a trap.

I'm all for that. Imagine Bond inadvertently causing the deaths of innocent civilians as the villain gets away. It would make a future confrontation with said enemy that much more tense. The audience would certainly be shocked and on edge from then on. It's hard to top CR and QOS in terms of shaking up the formula and getting bold and original, but that would definitely do it.

I think that your idea for such an ending would be brilliant. I can only imagine a follow up to that, with Bond having to face the villain who would no doubt taunt him for what he mistakenly did. The possibilities that such an ending would open up for the writers would be endless, and it would just be a great creative move for the franchise.

It sounds good but actually having Bond fail or cause deaths at the end of a film would be a huge mistake. Now if you were to fail at the beginning of a film, or get outsmarted or whatever and have him fail all through the film only to have him pull the same sort of trick on the enemy at the end- would be very suspenceful and you could keep the audience on their seats without tons of screen violence too. That would make an ending where Bond wins much more satisfying than he had some Q branch gagdet or a laser hair dryer he stole from the villains gf.

But to have Bond lose or cause deaths at the climax of the film would be a disaster. Either the audience will hate him or he will totally lose audience sympathy.

Not necessarily. If it's done as having Bond clearly think that he's doing the right thing, and clearly he thinks that what he's doing is going to save a lot of innocent lives, and it turns out to have been some sort of genius trap by the villain, then you don't lose that audience support. Having Bond fail in such a way would set the villain in question up as the greatest threat that Bond has ever faced, as well as, IMO, turn audience sympathy towards Bond. I can't imagine what kind of guilt Bond would have to shoulder knowing that a mistake on his part, no matter how good his intentions were, ultimately led to the loss of innocent lives, and I think that the audience would be right there alongside him when he went on his quest for revenge against that villain.

Also, as far as the mission in Casino Royale being an absolute failure, it wasn't. Bond was assigned to defeat Le Chiffre in poker. Granted, while he didn't get the chance to bring him in, he did significant damage to his ability to fund terror, and ultimately led Mr. White and Quantum to poke their heads up from underground and, even if only for a split second, reveal themselves, which allowed him to pick up the trail from there and begin his pursuit of their organization.

[Lachesis]

It's the irony of being borderline superhuman yet extremely weak in actuality because society as established, the inertia of its institutions and traditions and expectations, cannot be beaten by mere physical means, or even by persuasion or cunning. Perseverance and survival, fueled by his strong sense of loyalty and black-and-white worldview, are what enable this Bond to stand victorious after his battles.

What's more, the belief that Bond is never in any real danger is itself largely a result of our familiarity with the character and the franchise. If someone had no idea who James Bond was and sat down to watch these two movies, he might still think Bond wasn't in serious jeopardy given how he's presented as such a clear hero... but there would inevitably be much more tension not knowing that James Bond always comes through okay.

I think it's amazing Campbell and Forster were able to deliver as many thrills as they did considering we know so many of these characters aren't going to be killed or ultimately fail.

This is perhaps the most significant aspect of divergence that affects our differing regard for the film. Certainly I dont feel presenting a mission that fails will elevate our sense of excitement for the central character, that is down to the skill of the filmaker and where I find greatest problem with QoS.

Ultimately I feel CR did delivered tension, excitement and danger on a level I can appreciate and enjoy, even in the face of some contrived sequences (would anyone really try and escape 'up a giant crane' ^^). By a combination of Mr Craig's acting, Cambells direction and the portrayal of enemies as if they were credible threats, the film manages to give me an illusion of danger, even in the face of my knowing 'he will return in ....' As per the best adventure movies (I'd consider Bond more adventure than pure action tbh) the action sequences are thrilling for central character and viewer alike. However I cannot find the same level of empathy or involvement for QoS, in that film i am just watching a series fo images that don't convince or involve me, hence I dont feel thrilled or excited.

It may be that QoS justifies Bond's superhuman performance by his careless disregard for his own saftey in the shadow of preceeding events, but suddenly I see myself watching someone who can charge in with far too little regard or forethought, his confidence in his own fists abnormally assured, so much so that any other approach becomes unnescessary, any threat insignificant...its like he knows he's the star of a movie - To my mind there is a difference in bias of the archetype American hero and the archetype British hero, the former being physically dominant to their advesaries while the latter tends to be physically more vulnerable, but more apt to compensate with his wits and his guile. Contributing to this impression is a bland parade of one shot antagonists and targets, even including members of his own organisation, that simply aren't delivered with enough conviction to convey any threat. Its a far cry from some of the encounters of old when it is the henchmen that had this indestructible aura and the viewer could look forward to the ingenious way Bond was going to have to despatch them. Personally the the denoument is soured as I struggle to shake the impression its Bond Vs Roman Polanski, sissy screams and all ^^ In the end I almost feel sorry for the little guy as he is so extrodinarily outmatched.

Going back to an earlier post of yours I guess my own problems with QoS could be down to the execution, or at least the bias placed on the character. On the one hand we have an attempt to portray a gritty, realistic and dark take on the character, but his adrenalin fuelled physicality is less grounded and convincing, for me at least, than ever before....much like Derek Flint sans humour!

My worry is in the precedents that might be set and its not going to be until we see the next film that we can determine how history will judge QoS.

Edited by Lachesis, 08 February 2010 - 02:24 PM.

[broadshoulder]

I think it will be seen by the general public as a Craig film. And since Craig is in their affections as a great James Bond it probably wont be remembered but it will be watched. Everybody states LTK but when it is on TV the mags call it "unappreciated" or "one of the best" and my non-Bond friends say "I like this one" once we get to the end of the tanker chase. And so wit Quantum of Solace.

With posters then you will still get rearguard action by those Brosnan podders who are resentful of the abuse their man has suffered over the years and think QoS dropped a clanger. They will continue to bash it for Forsters editing and no Q or Miss Moneypenny.

It will win plaudits for other things. Craigs performance will always be appreciated and will probably climb. The art direction the mix of black and whites for town and the warm brown hues of the desert is sumptuous. Haggis' effortless dialogue will be appreciated and the much damned action scenes will have lost their impact seen on the small screen over the years.

I love QoS. Its a Bond film which treats 007 and the viewer like an adult and has so many rich layers.

Shame others cant see this.

[Ambler]

They'll say "that's the one with the awsome Aston Martin chase and the riveting Opera scene and the cool building in the desert...the one without the corny dialogue...the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

But should beavis and butt-head be Bond's target audience?

[DominicGreene]

I think allot of people judged this films based on the dark knight was so great and qos was not as great as cr. I think after time passes people will like this film was very good. It will be like tld got a mixed reviews but after time people will like the film later on than now.

A FIXED VERSION OF WHAT HE SAID FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND,

I think a lot of people judged this film based on the Dark Knight. It was so great and QoS; not as great as CR. I think after time passes, people will think this film was very good. It was like TLD, which got mixed reviews.

After time, people will like the film.

[The Shark]

They'll say "that's ... the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

You mean Casino Royale?

[JimmyBond]

They'll say "that's the one with the awsome Aston Martin chase and the riveting Opera scene and the cool building in the desert...the one without the corny dialogue...the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

But should beavis and butt-head be Bond's target audience?

Irrelevant, since Beavis and Butt-Head are fictional characters. I doubt they'd get much out of the film anyways.

All joking aside, QoS was a film much like LTK, one that tried to play to the strength's of other action films at the time. In Licence To Kill's case it was the insurgence of action movies that were being made at the time (I doubt it was a coincidence Michael Kamen was hired to do the score). Like that film though, Quantum of Solace might appear dated in ten years time, I just can't see this "shakey-cam" trend lasting much longer. Though I feel the film will get a pass by Bond fans because of Craig, much like LTK has it's fans because of Dalton.

[Guy Haines]

In ten years time, QoS, and CR, and the other Craig films we hope will follow, will be judged against the first or second film starring whoever is "Bond 7".

I hope they will be compared favourably - CR certainly will, I think, - but I'm willing to bet that amongst certain film critics the whole Craig era will be trashed.

It has happened before. Remember how Timothy Dalton was considered a "breath of fresh air" after the "silly, stale" Roger Moore era? Then, in 1995, the critics were supposedly bowled over by Pierce Brosnan, another "breath of fresh air" after the "dull, dour" Dalton era?

And then, once the media had overcome their idiotic prejudice against Daniel Craig, and actually watched CR, suddenly he was the best thing since sliced bread. Another "breath of fresh air" after the "flash, flippant" era of Pierce Brosnan.

So far as some critics are concerned, there is nothing as "ex" as an ex-James Bond. It isn't the case on this site, because for all our frequent disagreements we geniunely appreciate these films, even if we think that some of them could have been better then they were. But I'm sure that we will see some critics out there comparing the Craig era unfavourably, and unfairly, with whoever is the new kid on the block in 2018 or 2020.

Unless, of course, the Bond film released in ten years time still stars "Bond 6".

[B. Brown]

Looking at the current state of cinema today, I think that in 10 years, people will look back at QUANTUM OF SOLACE and say, "That flick was awesome."

They'll say "that's ... the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

You mean Casino Royale?

I thought he was referring to A VIEW TO A KILL.

Edited by B. Brown, 29 March 2010 - 02:10 AM.

[The Shark]

Looking at the current state of cinema today, I think that in 10 years, people will look back at QUANTUM OF SOLACE and say, "That flick was awesome."

They'll say "that's ... the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

You mean Casino Royale?

I thought he was referring to A VIEW TO A KILL.

MAY DAY?

[JimmyBond]

MAY DAY?

No. It's still March.

[B. Brown]

Looking at the current state of cinema today, I think that in 10 years, people will look back at QUANTUM OF SOLACE and say, "That flick was awesome."

They'll say "that's ... the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

You mean Casino Royale?

I thought he was referring to A VIEW TO A KILL.

MAY DAY?

Roger Moore wheezing on his way up the Eiffel Tower is enough to make anyone want to stay in shape.

[Lachesis]

I suspect like most movies if you really like it now some of that appreciation will wane as the 'freshness' wears off, conversely if you dislike it atm time will probably reveal its nuggets of gold to allow you to approciate it more.....there is yet to be a real Bond dud, they always have areas of merit once you see beyond the personal or temporal disapointment.

[double o ego]

They'll say "that's the one with the awsome Aston Martin chase and the riveting Opera scene and the cool building in the desert...the one without the corny dialogue...the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

But should beavis and butt-head be Bond's target audience?

Irrelevant, since Beavis and Butt-Head are fictional characters. I doubt they'd get much out of the film anyways.

All joking aside, QoS was a film much like LTK, one that tried to play to the strength's of other action films at the time. In Licence To Kill's case it was the insurgence of action movies that were being made at the time (I doubt it was a coincidence Michael Kamen was hired to do the score). Like that film though, Quantum of Solace might appear dated in ten years time, I just can't see this "shakey-cam" trend lasting much longer. Though I feel the film will get a pass by Bond fans because of Craig, much like LTK has it's fans because of Dalton.

LTK and QoS do have glaring similarities but I think many people would agree that the former is more recognisable as a "Bond film". QoS is an odd film because sometimes I feel as though it's great and then othe times I just want to weep at all the missed opportunities that could have made it an all the more better and enjoyable Bond film. Imho, I don't think the shakey cam is really the problem, it's the shakey cam coupled with the horrible quick-cut edits that tarnish this romp.

I think that in years to come, from a plot perspective, it'll yield a lot more respect and appreciation but from a echnical stand point, I on't think it's a routine that should be revisited ever again in a Bond film.

[Salomé]

I think allot of people judged this films based on the dark knight was so great and qos was not as great as cr. I think after time passes people will like this film was very good. It will be like tld got a mixed reviews but after time people will like the film later on than now.

I very much doubt that.

QoS sums up all that is wrong with the Bond series since the 1970s. Instead of blazing the trail for spy thrillers, EON is content to just take whatever is the flavor du jour and apply it to their own franchise. For CR and QoS, that was gritty spy thrillers à la Bourne.

Lets face it, the cinematic Bond died along with his Tracy back in 1969. What we have "enjoyed" since then has been whatever EON thought would make them the most amount of money. A few times this has - seemingly by accident - recaptured some of the early magic, but for the most part it has lead to frustration for those of us who fell in love with the early Connery Bonds.

If you're still a fan of the big screen Bond in the 21st century, the best approach is to go into the theater expecting to be disappointed.

[Ambler]

If you're still a fan of the big screen Bond in the 21st century, the best approach is to go into the theater expecting to be disappointed.

Certainly best to be prepared. I'd recommend taking a pair of tits or an iPhone.

[Salomé]

If you're still a fan of the big screen Bond in the 21st century, the best approach is to go into the theater expecting to be disappointed.

Certainly best to be prepared. I'd recommend taking a pair of tits or an iPhone.

I always take the former and I have not found it to improve my enjoyment.

[volante]

If you're still a fan of the big screen Bond in the 21st century, the best approach is to go into the theater expecting to be disappointed.

Certainly best to be prepared. I'd recommend taking a pair of tits or an iPhone.

I always take the former and I have not found it to improve my enjoyment.

I can see we'll have to go to the Bond 23 together

[JimmyBond]

They'll say "that's the one with the awsome Aston Martin chase and the riveting Opera scene and the cool building in the desert...the one without the corny dialogue...the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

But should beavis and butt-head be Bond's target audience?

Irrelevant, since Beavis and Butt-Head are fictional characters. I doubt they'd get much out of the film anyways.

All joking aside, QoS was a film much like LTK, one that tried to play to the strength's of other action films at the time. In Licence To Kill's case it was the insurgence of action movies that were being made at the time (I doubt it was a coincidence Michael Kamen was hired to do the score). Like that film though, Quantum of Solace might appear dated in ten years time, I just can't see this "shakey-cam" trend lasting much longer. Though I feel the film will get a pass by Bond fans because of Craig, much like LTK has it's fans because of Dalton.

LTK and QoS do have glaring similarities but I think many people would agree that the former is more recognisable as a "Bond film". QoS is an odd film because sometimes I feel as though it's great and then othe times I just want to weep at all the missed opportunities that could have made it an all the more better and enjoyable Bond film.

You make a good point. However I recall a lot of people saying the same thing about LTK when it came out: "Not enough like a Bond film" etc. In fact I also remember Dalton receiving a lot of similar criticisms that Craig received upon being cast in the role: "Doesn't look like a Bond, but could definitely be a villain."

[DR76]

I rather doubt that anyone has an idea on how QUANTUM OF SOLACE will be judged 5 years from now, let alone 10 years from now. The public opinion is always fickle. Look at OHMSS. Most people considered it a travesty when it was released in 1969. The movie's reputation has improved a great deal over the past 40 1/2 years or so. Yes, there are still those who considered it crap, but their numbers are not as large as it used to be.


How will QUANTUM OF SOLACE be judged in a decade from now? I don't know. And to be honest, I don't see the point in making an assumption or guess on how it will be judged in the future. Unless this whole argument is an excuse to rant against or praise it some more.

I think that in years to come, from a plot perspective, it'll yield a lot more respect and appreciation but from a echnical stand point, I on't think it's a routine that should be revisited ever again in a Bond film.

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.