153 replies to this topic

[Miles Miservy]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

[Loomis]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

Because it's a lousy movie.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Why is it so many fans are incapable of criticising their hobby? Back in 1967, the Beatles released the infamous Magical Mystery Tour and for the first time, the world didn't go gaga over them because, well, the show kinda sucked. Fans in these fora seem to find everything new to be absolutely awesome, perfect, wonderful, etc. How old are you guys, five? Of course, if you have no standards, you're going to find everything great. If you just watch dumb American action movies, QoS is bound to look pretty good. If you just read trashy bestsellers, you're not likely to realise how bad Benson's novels are. Being a fan is more than just consuming every product that happens to be "official". Being a fan shouldn't lower your standards, it should raise them, it should encourage you to compare to better films and novels, otherwise you risk become a Star Wars fan or a scientologist.

[Messervy]

Why is it so many fans are incapable of criticising their hobby? Back in 1967, the Beatles released the infamous Magical Mystery Tour and for the first time, the world didn't go gaga over them because, well, the show kinda sucked. Fans in these fora seem to find everything new to be absolutely awesome, perfect, wonderful, etc. How old are you guys, five? Of course, if you have no standards, you're going to find everything great. If you just watch dumb American action movies, QoS is bound to look pretty good. If you just read trashy bestsellers, you're not likely to realise how bad Benson's novels are. Being a fan is more than just consuming every product that happens to be "official". Being a fan shouldn't lower your standards, it should raise them, it should encourage you to compare to better films and novels, otherwise you risk become a Star Wars fan or a scientologist.

Has it ever occured to you that one may actually like QoS for what it is, find it great and truly enjoy it as such?
You're basically saying that all who like QoS only like it out of Bond Fandom, and your point is that everyone should dismiss QoS as a lame movie if they were honest with themselves.
You may not like it, but I trust you might at least allow other people to like it.

Your post is so pointless that I won't even care to explain to you why I actually highly enjoy watching QoS. You wouldn't want to listen anyway.

[Zorin Industries]

Why is it so many fans are incapable of criticising their hobby? Back in 1967, the Beatles released the infamous Magical Mystery Tour and for the first time, the world didn't go gaga over them because, well, the show kinda sucked. Fans in these fora seem to find everything new to be absolutely awesome, perfect, wonderful, etc. How old are you guys, five? Of course, if you have no standards, you're going to find everything great. If you just watch dumb American action movies, QoS is bound to look pretty good. If you just read trashy bestsellers, you're not likely to realise how bad Benson's novels are. Being a fan is more than just consuming every product that happens to be "official". Being a fan shouldn't lower your standards, it should raise them, it should encourage you to compare to better films and novels, otherwise you risk become a Star Wars fan or a scientologist.

So no-one is allowed to like the film for fear of jeopardising some fan-administered sense of standards?

For the record, I do not watch dumbass American movies nor am I a Scientologist...nor do I find "everything" great...

http://debrief.comma...lace-my-review/

[blueman]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

Zencat recently said he tried to give it another go, but it was the editing turned him off from it. Go figure.

[Jump James]

Each to their own but I liked it and still like it. It was different, no harm in that. I also like DAD and AVTAK which I used to hate. I made these decisions on my own without my Mummy telling me what to do. Opinions change over time. Doesn't make me any less of a fan than anyone else or more.

[Lachesis]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

I don't think there is any evidence they do, what there is are a small but vocal subset of extremists who see every film in either love or hate and its their response, when anyone else pitches a thought in between, that gets exagerated. IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and pretty muche every consensus score out there pitches QoS in very decent mid to good Bond territory, its unreasonable expectations that it be considered in the same breath as CR (in reality the true critique exception in recent Bond terms) that is really the issue. If you like the film yourself or if you hate it why does its 'position' in anyone else's mind really bother you?

Edited by Lachesis, 05 July 2011 - 09:36 PM.

[DR76]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

If many of these fans think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is lousy, then that is their opinion. Just because they feel this way about the movie, doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. I certainly don't. If you really enjoyed the movie and felt that it was a proper follow-up to CASINO ROYALE, then don't sweat it. Just enjoy it every time you watch the movie and not get into a sweat over how some other Bond fan might feel.

Everyone has their own opinion. But remember this . . . an opinion is not a fact, no matter how many people might or might not share it.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

The first Bond film I saw in a theatre was Tomorrow Never Dies.
I wish I could have seen all the previous films from Dr. No to GoldenEye on the theatre.

I've enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies,The World is not Enough,Die Another Day, and Casino Royale on a theatre.
Quantum of Solace, well... I wouldn't say I've enjoyed watching it on a theatre, but, well, I sat very close to the screen and I felt really dizzy

Hence, Quantum of Solace is the only film I prefer to watch on a DVD/BR.

[Onyx2626]

I will make my thoughts brief before someone bursts in and starts shooting up the place again:

QoS represents a Radical departure from the conventional Bond style.

(A Bond movie that's l06 min.?)

I did not "see" this movie at the Dome in Hollywood, no. I felt it. When it was over my eyes opened wide and I said, "I know kung-fu!"


The only departure as radical as this one that I remember is OHMSS in places. Or maybe the no-tux Bond in Moore's debut (which I am still trying to get over).

And a friend of mine walked out of LTK after the shark attack.

QoS is now the one I've seen the most because it moves so fast it's hard to see. Conversely CR and OHMSS are the ones I've seen the least (except for one I won't mention) because they are the longest.

[Napoleon Solo]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

Now that's an opinion. But the specific continuity problems are factual. Quantum fans may enjoy the film anyway. To each their own.

[DocSibyllin]

Qos is not a bad movie. It's a great spy movie. But, the screenplay is so much close to “Bourne Ultimatum” that it makes it a bad Bond movie. We've been gratified with so much original stuff screenplaywise that Qos seems a bad copy of a very good film. This is not Bond. In fact, the Bond franchise gave birth to the genre, so to copy a movie that copies a genre that the Bond franchise created in the first place is absurd and quite ludicrous. That's why it's not a bad movie, it' just a bad idea for a Bond movie.Email me

Edited by DocSibyllin, 06 July 2011 - 03:09 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008.

My personal explanation for the time lag is this:

We don't know how long it took MI6 to track down Mr. White from the clue Vesper left. Presumably it was enough time to sweat Mathis, clear him and set him up in a villa in Italy. Presumably it was long enough for Bond to grow a little objectivity (which he abandons the minute he delivers White to the safe house). So I say the last scene in CR takes place a good 18 months after Bond returned from Venice.

As for going from a 3-piece suit to a 2-piece, so he took off his vest - so what? (Let's just forget that the remaining ensemble went from being Brioni to Tom Ford in the blink of an eye, 'kay?)

Howzat?

[blueman]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

And many didn't feel that way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

Now that's an opinion. But the specific continuity problems are factual. Quantum fans may enjoy the film anyway. To each their own.

Eh. There's worse continuity gaffs within most Bonds not even trying to followup from the last one, CR inclusive (my fav: just wtf is Bond doing in the middle of the poker game tracking Le Chiffre to his room - he couldn't ask at the desk? - with Vesper and a gun? he's gonna kill him?? really?? not complaining too much cuz that scene ends with the awesome stairwell fight, but jeez the writers/director must've been asleep scratching their balls coming up with that silly "spy" bit of business to get Bond and Vesper up to Le Chiffre's room, just dumb, feels like there must be a scene missing to explain it all but oh well, it's a movie even if there's slop it's pretty slop).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I will make my thoughts brief before someone bursts in and starts shooting up the place again:

QoS represents a Radical departure from the conventional Bond style.

(A Bond movie that's l06 min.?)

I did not "see" this movie at the Dome in Hollywood, no. I felt it. When it was over my eyes opened wide and I said, "I know kung-fu!"


The only departure as radical as this one that I remember is OHMSS in places. Or maybe the no-tux Bond in Moore's debut (which I am still trying to get over).

And a friend of mine walked out of LTK after the shark attack.

QoS is now the one I've seen the most because it moves so fast it's hard to see. Conversely CR and OHMSS are the ones I've seen the least (except for one I won't mention) because they are the longest.

OHMSS wasn't a real departure from the EON series, it's only different because the novel, that closely follows, is different. Unlike, QOS that tries way too hard to be different- just for the sake of it- following an arty style with Bourne oriented action scenes.

[David_M]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

You could just as easily argue the reverse: why are some fans so intent on defending it as the greatest Bond ever? The film inspires strong feelings on both sides. That's better than being relegated to the "meh" pile, I reckon.

I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

I think it purported to be a lot more than that. Would you have been satisfied with two hours of Bond sipping tea and playing pinochle as long as he said stuff like, "Boy I miss Vesper" and "Do you mind if I stand for a while, it still hurts to sit down."?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

And a sort of disrespect for the previuos work on CR, I would say. And I could add even more to the former, if we have in mind the almost forgotten aim of Campbell of showing the Bond that we all know and love at the last scene of his movie ("Discover how James... became Bond" even the tagline said), remarked for the pretentious decision of put the gunbarrel at the end of QOS and not playing the already earned James Bond theme at its full until the finale- again-.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

And many didn't feel that way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

Now that's an opinion. But the specific continuity problems are factual. Quantum fans may enjoy the film anyway. To each their own.

Eh. There's worse continuity gaffs within most Bonds not even trying to followup from the last one, CR inclusive (my fav: just wtf is Bond doing in the middle of the poker game tracking Le Chiffre to his room - he couldn't ask at the desk? - with Vesper and a gun? he's gonna kill him?? really?? not complaining too much cuz that scene ends with the awesome stairwell fight, but jeez the writers/director must've been asleep scratching their balls coming up with that silly "spy" bit of business to get Bond and Vesper up to Le Chiffre's room, just dumb, feels like there must be a scene missing to explain it all but oh well, it's a movie even if there's slop it's pretty slop).

He isn't just "tracking" Le Chiffre, he's spying his conversation, that's why Bond put the bug (in case that you don't remember it or didn't notice).

[doublenoughtspy]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

A single line of dialog hardly makes FRWL a sequel to DN. As Eon spokespeople have said, the Bond films are a series, not a single film with 22 sequels.

Your subhead to this thread, "Hindsight & 20/20 vision" imply to me, and I've seen some other people complaining about this, that QOS criticism is recent.

A segment of Bond fandom hasn't liked QOS from the beginning. They didn't just wake up a few years later and decide they didn't like it. And the people I've talked to on this forum have tried to give it a chance. They've watched it multiple times, and wanted to like it, but for a whole host of reasons, don't.

Bond films either speak to us or they don't. A huge portion of Bond fandom likes one Dalton film but not the other. Why is it so hard for QOS fans to grasp that people can like CR but not QOS?

The person, who, in a sense, authored CR the film, the director Martin Campbell, has deemed QOS "lousy." That tells me that he doesn't consider it a worthy sequel to his work. Why is it so surprising when fans feel the same way?

[Simon]

We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combined suggests a bit of sloppiness.

... or, exercising of film licence.

While you are probably technically correct, we are still watching a ~40 year old man being James Bond over a 50 year period. Some things just don't warrant inspection. In this sense, continuity is one of them.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

A single line of dialog hardly makes FRWL a sequel to DN. As Eon spokespeople have said, the Bond films are a series, not a single film with 22 sequels.

Your subhead to this thread, "Hindsight & 20/20 vision" imply to me, and I've seen some other people complaining about this, that QOS criticism is recent.

A segment of Bond fandom hasn't liked QOS from the beginning. They didn't just wake up a few years later and decide they didn't like it. And the people I've talked to on this forum have tried to give it a chance. They've watched it multiple times, and wanted to like it, but for a whole host of reasons, don't.

Bond films either speak to us or they don't. A huge portion of Bond fandom likes one Dalton film but not the other. Why is it so hard for QOS fans to grasp that people can like CR but not QOS?

The person, who, in a sense, authored CR the film, the director Martin Campbell, has deemed QOS "lousy." That tells me that he doesn't consider it a worthy sequel to his work. Why is it so surprising when fans feel the same way?

Especially, taking to account that this is also the opinion of most general moviegoers and critics. Put it in simple words: CR is great, QOS not as good- to avoid saying, average among the series-.

I think the only possible answer, is that many (and I'm not saying all) QOS fans took Forster arty direction as something very deep.

[Miles Miservy]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

You could just as easily argue the reverse: why are some fans so intent on defending it as the greatest Bond ever? The film inspires strong feelings on both sides. That's better than being relegated to the "meh" pile, I reckon.

I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

I think it purported to be a lot more than that. Would you have been satisfied with two hours of Bond sipping tea and playing pinochle as long as he said stuff like, "Boy I miss Vesper" and "Do you mind if I stand for a while, it still hurts to sit down."?

I certainly didn't say it was the best film ever. Just trying to understand why so many fans suposedly hated it in the face of being such a financial success.

[jamie00007]

My problem with is more with the childish behaviour of those who dont like it. Hard to go a single thread on here these days without reading oh-so-clever terms like "Quantum of Suckage".

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

You could just as easily argue the reverse: why are some fans so intent on defending it as the greatest Bond ever? The film inspires strong feelings on both sides. That's better than being relegated to the "meh" pile, I reckon.

I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

I think it purported to be a lot more than that. Would you have been satisfied with two hours of Bond sipping tea and playing pinochle as long as he said stuff like, "Boy I miss Vesper" and "Do you mind if I stand for a while, it still hurts to sit down."?

I certainly didn't say it was the best film ever. Just trying to understand why so many fans suposedly hated it in the face of being such a financial success.

Most people didn't hate it, but were dissappointed with QOS, particularly, after the high expectations left with CR. And the good- but not great- result at the BO, had a lot to do with being promoted as a direct sequel of the really successful CR, that's why QOS didn't have big legs at the BO (unlike CR) after the first weeks.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 July 2011 - 02:28 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

I certainly didn't say it was the best film ever. Just trying to understand why so many fans suposedly hated it in the face of being such a financial success.

You say "supposedly" like they really don't hate it.

What on earth does financial success have to do with it? Moonraker was the most successful Bond film box-office wise for a long, long time. I'm not going out on a limb by saying most fans wouldn't consider it the best Bond film.

[blueman]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

You could just as easily argue the reverse: why are some fans so intent on defending it as the greatest Bond ever? The film inspires strong feelings on both sides. That's better than being relegated to the "meh" pile, I reckon.

I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

I think it purported to be a lot more than that. Would you have been satisfied with two hours of Bond sipping tea and playing pinochle as long as he said stuff like, "Boy I miss Vesper" and "Do you mind if I stand for a while, it still hurts to sit down."?

I certainly didn't say it was the best film ever. Just trying to understand why so many fans suposedly hated it in the face of being such a financial success.

Most people didn't hate it, but were dissappointed with QOS, particularly, after the high expectations left with CR. And the good- but not great- result at the BO, had a lot to do with being promoted as a direct sequel of the really successful CR, that's why QOS didn't have big legs at the BO (unlike CR) after the first weeks.

Most people liked it about as much as they did CR, hardly much difference in the amount of money each made. If QOS did good but not great BO, then CR did too I guess. One could also say, QOS had about the same draw as CR, just audiences went to see it sooner instead of trickling in.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My problem with is more with the childish behaviour of those who dont like it. Hard to go a single thread on here these days without reading oh-so-clever terms like "Quantum of Suckage".

Indeed; how would any of they like it if we gave one of their favorites a pejorative title, like "Moonraper", or "Tomorrow's Always Dumb"?

It runs two ways, you know...

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Why is it so many fans are incapable of criticising their hobby? Back in 1967, the Beatles released the infamous Magical Mystery Tour and for the first time, the world didn't go gaga over them because, well, the show kinda sucked. Fans in these fora seem to find everything new to be absolutely awesome, perfect, wonderful, etc. How old are you guys, five? Of course, if you have no standards, you're going to find everything great. If you just watch dumb American action movies, QoS is bound to look pretty good. If you just read trashy bestsellers, you're not likely to realise how bad Benson's novels are. Being a fan is more than just consuming every product that happens to be "official". Being a fan shouldn't lower your standards, it should raise them, it should encourage you to compare to better films and novels, otherwise you risk become a Star Wars fan or a scientologist.

Has it ever occured to you that one may actually like QoS for what it is, find it great and truly enjoy it as such?
You're basically saying that all who like QoS only like it out of Bond Fandom, and your point is that everyone should dismiss QoS as a lame movie if they were honest with themselves.
You may not like it, but I trust you might at least allow other people to like it.

Your post is so pointless that I won't even care to explain to you why I actually highly enjoy watching QoS. You wouldn't want to listen anyway.

I don't live surrounded by Bond fans. People I meet on a regular basis are "normal" people. All the feedback I've got from normal people is that they were disappointed at QoS, especially after CR being "more than just a mere Bond movie".
I don't know ANYBODY outside the Bond fan community who thinks the film is great. Do you?
I don't hate it, I just think it was a missed opportunity. What bothers me is how low the standards of Bond "fans" are.
If you had any arguments, I'm sure you'd used them, even if I'm not supposed to get them. You don't have any. You're just another troll who can't stand criticism. You guys start these threads but don't want anybody to express an opinion. That's called fascism, you're not happy just with liking something (you're entitled, you could do MUCH worse than QoS), you want everybody to either agree or shut the fork up.

[DR76]

Qos is not a bad movie. It's a great spy movie. But, the screenplay is so much close to “Bourne Ultimatum” that it makes it a bad Bond movie.

Perhaps in your opinion, but not in mine. For me, a bad Bond movie is one that I harbor great contempt toward . . . like GOLDFINGER, MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN or TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Why? Because I have contempt toward these stories. And the screenplay for QoS does not resemble "BOURNE ULTIMATUM" . . . at least not to me.