1026 replies to this topic

[blueman]

I think one can make some basic assumptions based on writer, director, star, etc.: Glen was always crap, Moore was Moore, Dalton was Dalton, Brosnan was Brosnan. Do we know exactly what this new film will be like? No. But we will make predictions/talk about it/guess away. You don't like it, fine, no one's forcing you to read any of it.

I don't think the teaser will tell us much about what the final product will be like. But it will be fun to see it.

Edited by blueman, 16 June 2008 - 12:58 PM.

[YOLT]

Guess I'm in the minority: I expect QOS to easily eclipse CR. Better director, same character arc w/Haggis.

Well, we have a better director (but better director does not necessarily equal better direction). And the same character arc? Well, it continues from CASINO ROYALE, but from what I've heard of it, it doesn't seem to be as interesting as what we got in CASINO ROYALE. More of an afterthought (I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that front).

In truth, QUANTUM OF SOLACE does feel like a rather "standard" Bond adventure, with great style and Craig front and center. This is certainly worth anticipating. But the trailer will really have to show me something impressive to make me believe that it will be as distinctive and memorable as CASINO ROYALE was.

I really don't know why so many people out there are assuming anything about this film in terms of pace, narrative and style. That's like guessing how many instruments will be used on each track of an awaited album. None of you have the proverbial faintest and eagerness is beginning to make way for desperation.

None of us have read the screenplay, worked 14 hour days on set for eight months, attended the read-throughs and been there in the editing room. Let's not allow fan impatience and - dare I say it - boredom start clouding what is firstly a TEASER trailer (a soupcon of what is coming later) and, secondly, the final film.

Bond films are 'standard'. That's how they work. I don't use the phrase in any derogatory fashion. CASINO ROYALE was an exception to the rule. It could be a one-off or the start of things to come. Right now, we don't know. But judging QUANTUM OF SOLACE on the length of its potential teaser trailer (which some people are doing) or by how long they have had to wait compared to previous years is frankly ridiculous.

Just be glad we have another Bond film to await. It won't always be so...

Dont worry, it will always be so In our lifetime anyway.

[Zorin Industries]

I think one can make some basic assumptions based on writer, director, star, etc.: Glen was always crap, Moore was Moore, Dalton was Dalton, Brosnan was Brosnan. Do we know exactly what this new film will be like? No. But we will make predictions/talk about it/guess away. You don't like it, fine, no one's forcing you to read any of it.

I don't think the teaser will tell us much about what the final product will be like. But it will be fun to see it.

I'm just wary and tired of some people's sweeping generalisations and assumptions over a film they haven't seen a moving image from, let alone a teaser trailer. For example, I don't think you can say "Glen was crap". Was he? Eon Productions and Cubby Broccoli didn't seem to think so. He co-edited OHMSS - a film that is held up as one of the few benchmarks of Bond (well I do...). He also saw Bond through the 1980's, a decade that could have killed the franchise stone dead. He also enabled the films to have a continuity they sometimes suffered from not having through the Brosnan years.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY....THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS....LICENCE TO KILL... a lot of people will argue against you that they can be seen as "crap".

Of course no-one is forcing me to read some of the comments I don't agree with. But when frustrated fans start damning a film - a film we all want to be brilliant - without having seen it, I can't help but respond as I actually think such armchair movie mogulling is detrimental to cinema full stop.

[dee-bee-five]

I think one can make some basic assumptions based on writer, director, star, etc.: Glen was always crap, Moore was Moore, Dalton was Dalton, Brosnan was Brosnan. Do we know exactly what this new film will be like? No. But we will make predictions/talk about it/guess away. You don't like it, fine, no one's forcing you to read any of it.

I don't think the teaser will tell us much about what the final product will be like. But it will be fun to see it.

I'm just wary and tired of some people's sweeping generalisations and assumptions over a film they haven't seen a moving image from, let alone a teaser trailer. For example, I don't think you can say "Glen was crap". Was he? Eon Productions and Cubby Broccoli didn't seem to think so. He co-edited OHMSS - a film that is held up as one of the few benchmarks of Bond (well I do...). He also saw Bond through the 1980's, a decade that could have killed the franchise stone dead. He also enabled the films to have a continuity they sometimes suffered from not having through the Brosnan years.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY....THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS....LICENCE TO KILL... a lot of people will argue against you that they can be seen as "crap".

Of course no-one is forcing me to read some of the comments I don't agree with. But when frustrated fans start damning a film - a film we all want to be brilliant - without having seen it, I can't help but respond as I actually think such armchair movie mogulling is detrimental to cinema full stop.

I so agree with you. And when the hell did John Glen become demonised? I mean, he worked on some real turkeys, didn't he? OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO,OP,TLD, LTK etc. I bet the producers of the awful NSNA wished they'd had such a "rubbish" Bond director when they viewed the mess Irvin Kershner presented them with.

[blueman]

Fair enough, we all have opinions. This is where they'll get expressed. I don't care for some but I try not to get my dander up about them, life's too short.

[stamper]

Keshner is not responsible for NSNA mess, it's the way it was produced (ie the producers) & the awful music that made it what it was, even Glen or Peter Hunt or T. Young couldn't have done better at the time.

[dee-bee-five]

Keshner is not responsible for NSNA mess, it's the way it was produced (ie the producers) & the awful music that made it what it was, even Glen or Peter Hunt or T. Young couldn't have done better at the time.

Oh, I believe they would.

[Quantumofsolace007]

still the clips from Never say Mclory again are cool.


shouldn't the teaser have been leaked by now? For Quantum of solace not Never say Never again.

[Zorin Industries]

Fair enough, we all have opinions. This is where they'll get expressed. I don't care for some but I try not to get my dander up about them, life's too short.

Fair enough.

[Zorin Industries]

Keshner is not responsible for NSNA mess, it's the way it was produced (ie the producers) & the awful music that made it what it was, even Glen or Peter Hunt or T. Young couldn't have done better at the time.

There was a hell of a lot more wrong with the film than that....

It feels like a bank holiday special for some 1980's UK cop show like DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE. There is nothing cinematic about it at all.

Visually, the film looks like a bad 1980's TV movie. It's degraded really badly. Or it had last time I saw it briefly on TV.

The script's dialogue and characterisation's postmodern leanings failed miserably in the face of a vehicle that wanted to be light and pee on Roger Moore from a great height.

And worst of all....its intent - which was clearly nothing more than an attempt to make money from Sean Connery's wish to make money (which he is completely entitled to...don't get me wrong...he's a jobbing actor along with everyone else...but to so publically hate a franchise for the bother it gave you is one thing, but to then take the money in 1983 and a view years back for EA Games' FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE speaks volumes about Connery's association with James Bond 007....).

Anyway, I've drifted...

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, he got them in the FRWL game, certainly, as he sounds as bored there as he did in YOLT.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Speaking of getting off topic.


Why didn't EA continue with OHMSS you know doing different games based on the best film of each actor?

Edited by Quantumofsolace007, 16 June 2008 - 04:07 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

EA* lost the rights.

[Quantumofsolace007]

EA* lost the rights.

will activision do any of the older films? any thoughts.

[DamnCoffee]

I dont know. It seems unlikey at this moment in time, with QoS and The Driving Game.

[Harmsway]

Just be glad we have another Bond film to await. It won't always be so...

Well, given that I've been calling for the EON franchise to end after Craig, I'm not in the school of thought where "just another Bond film around the bend" brings much excitement.

Of course no-one is forcing me to read some of the comments I don't agree with. But when frustrated fans start damning a film - a film we all want to be brilliant - without having seen it, I can't help but respond as I actually think such armchair movie mogulling is detrimental to cinema full stop.

I haven't seen many folks damning QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Just speculating about what it might or might not be based on what we have in front of us.

[DamnCoffee]

Hancock premieres tonight at the Moscow film festival...

http://www.hollywood...rds_festivals/n ews/e3i36ba53a2d13a6bd75c11ba21656ab04b

... They show trailers, right.

[Scamp]

Sorry to disappoint but Festival website lists Hancock as the opening film scheduled for 18:00 local time on the 19th June!

Edited by Scamp, 16 June 2008 - 09:13 PM.

[Matt_13]

Do they show trailers?

[Qwerty]

EA* lost the rights.

will activision do any of the older films? any thoughts.

There hasn't been any mention of that so far.

[Ry]

I am not sure how it is in foreign markets, but in US premieres there are no trailers shown with the print of the film. The premiere is to showcase the specific film, not the studios other releases.

[dinovelvet]

EA* lost the rights.

will activision do any of the older films? any thoughts.

No. The FRWL game didn't sell. So if Connery can't get kids to pick up a game, I don't think it would be a wise idea to invest millions into making a game based on a George Lazenby film.

[Matt_13]

I am not sure how it is in foreign markets, but in US premieres there are no trailers shown with the print of the film. The premiere is to showcase the specific film, not the studios other releases.

Alright, thanks Ry. Looks like we still have some time to wait then.

[DamnCoffee]

Damn....

[Mister E]

For example, I don't think you can say "Glen was crap". Was he? Eon Productions and Cubby Broccoli didn't seem to think so. He co-edited OHMSS - a film that is held up as one of the few benchmarks of Bond (well I do...). He also saw Bond through the 1980's, a decade that could have killed the franchise stone dead. He also enabled the films to have a continuity they sometimes suffered from not having through the Brosnan years.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY....THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS....LICENCE TO KILL... a lot of people will argue against you that they can be seen as "crap".

Of course no-one is forcing me to read some of the comments I don't agree with. But when frustrated fans start damning a film - a film we all want to be brilliant - without having seen it, I can't help but respond as I actually think such armchair movie mogulling is detrimental to cinema full stop.

John Glen wasn't crap but it's just that he was boring. He was a workman-like director with no real vision, his tired 80's work shows this. That was by far the most un-interesting decade in the series history, those films had no flavour. The only reason why he stayed so long was because he a business man more then an artist, he'll shoot the stuff on time and on budget and that is a producer's dream.

Edited by Mister E, 16 June 2008 - 10:59 PM.

[blueman]

For example, I don't think you can say "Glen was crap". Was he? Eon Productions and Cubby Broccoli didn't seem to think so. He co-edited OHMSS - a film that is held up as one of the few benchmarks of Bond (well I do...). He also saw Bond through the 1980's, a decade that could have killed the franchise stone dead. He also enabled the films to have a continuity they sometimes suffered from not having through the Brosnan years.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY....THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS....LICENCE TO KILL... a lot of people will argue against you that they can be seen as "crap".

Of course no-one is forcing me to read some of the comments I don't agree with. But when frustrated fans start damning a film - a film we all want to be brilliant - without having seen it, I can't help but respond as I actually think such armchair movie mogulling is detrimental to cinema full stop.

John Glen wasn't crap but it's just that he was a boring. He was a workman like director with no real vision, his tired 80's work shows this. That was by far the most un-interesting decade in the series history, those films had no flavour. The only reason why he stayed so long was because he a business man more then an artist, he'll shoot the stuff on time and on budget and that is a producer's dream.

Bingo. Except in context of Bond, all that does indeed equal crap direction: boring = antithesis of Bond (by Fleming's definition, a thriller), yes? That decade of Bond left me pissed off to no end, still don't think the series has quite crawled out from under it, really hope Forster puts the final nail in that coffin. I think the trailer will reveal a taste of what QOS will be re all that... or not, trailers are such odd things. At any rate it'll be fun to see a few snippets of it, for whatever value they ultimately hold.

[Royal Dalton]

I'll take Glen over any of the Bond directors that have come along since (save Forster, possibly).

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Quantum of Solace trailer none of us have seen yet?

[Harmsway]

I'll take Glen over any of the Bond directors that have come along since (save Forster, possibly).

Really? I think Campbell runs circles around Glen.

[Royal Dalton]

Yes, really.

[Mister E]

Really? I think Campbell runs circles around Glen.

So do I. Campbell wasn't exactly an auteur but he brings alot of energy to his work.