Lieutenant
Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:43 PM
It has nothing to do with enhancing the story, that's not why the Ford Ka is in the movie, it's just product placement at its worst.
That you like it is fine for you, but the reason of being in the movie is nothing else than advertising for this new car.
Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 10:49 PM.
Commander
Posted 26 May 2014 - 02:25 AM
What is worse? Seeing a beautifull Bond car like the Aston Martin clear in one scene, or seeing half of the movie a Ford Ka, because they pay a lot to have their newest car in this movie?
It's just a couple of scenes, but i think it enhances the story - he's out of his element, improvising. I've no problem with the products so long as they enhance the story or subtext. The Ka does both - i found it witty. The A.M is cliche.
It absolutely adds to the story. The car he's driving around the desert in QOS is a more realistic option for him than cruising the desert in a brand new Aston Martin. it would be completely distracting to have Bond driving around Bolivia in that car. Plus, being stripped of his status by M, he'd have no way of getting an Aston Martin in Bolivia anyway.
Lt. Commander
Posted 26 May 2014 - 11:36 AM
It has nothing to do with enhancing the story, that's not why the Ford Ka is in the movie, it's just product placement at its worst.
That you like it is fine for you, but the reason of being in the movie is nothing else than advertising for this new car.
Do you think that he should've turned up in Bolivia to track Slate, undercover (low-profile) in a fancy sports car?
Edited by Odd Jobbies, 26 May 2014 - 11:37 AM.
Commander
Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:53 PM
What about the make of motorcycle Bond commandeers? I have no idea and I don't care. It's a motorcycle. Same with the Ford Ka. It's a car.
The only times that jump to mind when product placement was blatantly distracting was MR when signs for 7Up and British Airways figured into the action. Oh and the inserted BMW in GE which we learn all the things it can do only to watch it drive down an airstrip.
Otherwise, product placement is fine with me. I used to watch a sitcom when I was a kid and what was really distracting was one of the characters would drink a can of Budweiser and it was obviously cover and just said BEER.
Lieutenant
Posted 26 May 2014 - 04:13 PM
No Odd Jobbies, I don't think Bond must drive a fancy sportscar in Bolivia, but also not in a brand new Ford Ka. Let him drive than in some old cool second hand car, which is not shouting: PRODUCT PLACEMENT! I don't want to see Bond in an average car, which I can see every day on the street.
...But.... what I meant was (and I know my English is not super) that when you'r saying you don't have to see the Aston in the teaser that very well, than why do you want to see an average car half of the movie?
When I was a kid and saw Roger Moore driving a Lotus Esprit, I thought that was the coolest car I had ever seen. The world of Bond is not average. That's the whole thing: Bond does things and has cars, women and stuff, you don't have in your own normal life.
If they are using that kind of cars for a Bondmovie the whole magic is gone.
PS: The car in the dessert was ofcourse not a Ford Ka and using a car like that is conventional in that kind of place, so nothing wrong with that.
Edited by Grard Bond, 26 May 2014 - 05:14 PM.
Commander
Posted 26 May 2014 - 11:34 PM
Product placement and Bond have been together from the start. It's just that whereas in the films it's to promote a car, or an airline, or even a drink in return for use in the movie, in the books - where it started - it was the author trying to lend authenticity to the character, and a bit of snobbery I dare say. Bond didn't just drink a cocktail, it was a Vodka Martini. He didn't just smoke a cigarette, it was a Morlands specially made for him. Even at breakfast, it wasn't just marmalade, it was Coopers Vintage. The books came out as wartime food rationing in the UK was slowly being phased out, and Bond's lifestyle showed ordinary Britons what they were missing out on. One more reason to explain their popularity, perhaps?
Lt. Commander
Posted 10 June 2014 - 03:46 AM
Said it when it came out, still feel the same: best Bond film since OHMSS. Booyah.
Midshipman
Posted 13 June 2014 - 03:39 PM
Camille makes a comment to Bond - something like "there's something brutally efficient about you."
For me, this perfectly describes the film as well.
Bond's reply: "Is that a compliment?"
In this case, YES.
Lt. Commander
Posted 13 June 2014 - 03:44 PM
Quite true. It's a raw and rough movie, but with some splendid efficient directorial shots.
Lt. Commander
Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:02 PM
Camille makes a comment to Bond - something like "there's something brutally efficient about you."
For me, this perfectly describes the film as well.
Bond's reply: "Is that a compliment?"
In this case, YES.
Bang on!
Lieutenant
Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:01 AM
QOS is imho a VERY flawed masterpiece of a Bond film, a film in which the very good parts are constantly compromised by the bad:
-The interesting premise of stealing water is let down by the half-baked script
-As is the acting, particularly by Craig
-The photography, set design, costumes, and stunt choreography are simply amazing. To think how much work went into crafting the look of this film. Unfortunately, we can barely perceive it due to the hyperactive editing, which I thought was mostly horrible.
-Even the theme song, which features a great instrumental track by Jack White, is let down by the tuneless warbling of the vocals (Having him and Alicia Keys do a duet was an awkward idea best left on the drawing board).
I love the good parts, but the bad bits keep it out of the top 5 for me. Oddly enough though,I do find myself reaching for the Blu Ray these days - maybe because it's short and I, like the movie, have the attention span of a "gnat's gnat".
Midshipman
Posted 02 September 2014 - 07:01 AM
It’s my least favorite Bond film for plenty of reasons. Which is made a little more annoying because Casino Royale is my favorite. It’s the least enjoyable Bond film to watch. Possibly by a large margin. It’s devoid of humor and is easily the least comprehensible. I want to learn to like it but it’s hard. It’s poorly written and poorly edited.
Some people like certain things in it. But I really don’t like much about it. I don’t even like the conception of it being a direct sequel to Casino Royale. I think that was the first problem and that was the foundation that they couldn’t shake.
The villain seems like he’s an afterthought. I think he’s the least memorable in the series. I don’t mind the actor who plays Green but he has nothing to do because the writers didn’t figure it out. I’m not crazy about baddies who continuously talk about the organization they represent instead of being characters themselves.
I also don’t like the revenge film that has no payoffs. The three guys Bond is after (Mr. White, Green and Vesper’s boyfriend) all exit the film completely off screen. It just doesn’t gel with the rest of the movie which is a madhouse of action. It makes all of them feel less impactful and they can’t even be bothered to give them a proper sendoff.
Personally, I think all of the action scenes are boring. I have a fascination with the bell tower scene but it becomes just a bit too cartoony for me to take it seriously. It starts to look like an animated scene toward the end. I just like the shot of him shooting to end it.
The Felix stuff only hurts. I barely even understand it. And the final building blowing up in the middle of nowhere doesn’t do it for me.
And I’m sorry, I see no reason to place Mathis in a garbage dumpster. Inexcusable. 
I take solace in the opera house scene. And the scene with Bond and Camille in the cave. And I actually don’t mind the titles or song (although I can totally understand someone not liking the song).
Do we really need his license to be revoked in yet another film? Can’t M just be an ally to Bond? Is even that too much to ask?
Honestly, it’s the only Bond film I complain about so one-sidedly. I just saw it again and I needed a rant.
Lt. Commander
Posted 02 September 2014 - 02:25 PM
I really enjoyed QOS when I first saw it at the midnight premier. My firend and I left the theater thinking that the film worked very nicely... then we went back and watched CR again and discovered we were so, so wrong. The contrast between the two is massive.
It is a Bond film, and is always worth a watch for me - but it could have been much, much better.
Commander
Posted 02 September 2014 - 03:27 PM
I don't find much to complain about with Quantum of Solace. Is it a bit rough around the edges? Yes, but it's so good in just about all areas that it makes up for its few shortcomings. First, with regards to the complaint about it being a revenge film, it really isn't, and that's one of the main points of the film. Everyone else thinks that Bond is out for revenge, but he really isn't. That's why M strips him of his passports after Bregenz, because she thinks that he's being reckless and jeopardizing the mission for his own personal vendetta, but it just isn't the case. We see at almost every step that Bond is acting professionally, trying to get to the bottom of what Greene is trying to do as well as uncover more information about Quantum. This isn't a mission that he ever really jeopardizes at any point, and any revenge motive that he may have is strictly in the background. He dismantles Greene's operation and, along with Camille, eliminates the leader of the coup in Bolivia, before ever turning his attention to finding out who was behind Vesper's downfall. Is it at the forefront of his thoughts at times during the film? Yes, it is (the Mathis scenes, the quarry scene), but it never gets in the way of the mission, and that's why I don't see this as a revenge film. It's only after he's stopped Greene and has him cornered that he turns his attention towards Yusef, and even then its clear he gets as much intelligence out of Greene that could help MI6 as he's able to before he leaves him to die in the desert.
As far as complaints about the deaths of the villains in Quantum of Solace, I think that they're quite brilliant, to be honest. The idea of leaving Greene in the middle of the desert is much more horrific than anything that they could have showed Bond doing to him on screen. We know what's going to happen to him when Bond throws the can of motor oil at his feet. It only adds a bit of mystery later when we learn that Quantum did manage to catch up with him in the desert, like Bond implied that they would. Also the resolution with Yusef is handled well also. We don't need to see him rough up Yusef to know that he probably did, but he kept him alive for the sake of the mission, showing that the lessons that M had been trying to teach him over the course of the two films had begun to sink in.
Midshipman
Posted 02 September 2014 - 04:07 PM
Lt. Commander
Posted 02 September 2014 - 07:19 PM
-Even the theme song, which features a great instrumental track by Jack White, is let down by the tuneless warbling of the vocals (Having him and Alicia Keys do a duet was an awkward idea best left on the drawing board).
Funny, i was just replying in another thread that i like the song, but you're absolutely right, the warbling ruins it. I don't remember Shirley ever having to warble! What a horrible fashion it's become.
Lieutenant
Posted 03 September 2014 - 02:19 AM
I used to call it my least-liked Bond film. I don't call it that anymore.
It is easy to dislike something that is new and under the finest of microscopes. Us Bond fans have quite the expectations, you know! But, after getting some years behind it and having a few good watches, I've found a new found appreciation for the film. Besides, it is beautifully shot, in my opinion.
This film earned and still sometimes earns a lot of undeserved flack. It is just one of those things.
It is back in my good graces though, I'll own up to that.
Edited by Trevelyan 006, 03 September 2014 - 02:19 AM.
Commander
Posted 03 September 2014 - 01:40 PM
tdalton, my compliments on an excellent evaluation of QoS and the many misconceptions fans have of it. I agree with your assessment of Bond's actions throughout. People also need to keep in mind this is still not the fully-formed 007 but one still coming into his own in a dirty business that isn't all about the glamour and pretty girls.
I seem to like the first part of what are essentially two-part stories more often than not. I look at something like Kill Bill and found the second film a let-down compared to the excitement of the first. I guess I like the journey of getting there more so than the resolution. I feel that way in general about Bond films anyway.
It makes one also wonder about the many fans who pine for the supposed revenge film DAF MAY have been following OHMSS. I can't help but think it too would have been a letdown.