87 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

I know that I have been perpetually positive about QoS. And this thread is not intended to be a stomping ground for negativity. But there is something that has not been discussed fully as a topic on its own and it’s not exactly complimentary to the creativity in evidence so far.

I know I’m going to regret this but here goes.

From what we know, it’s all quite generic as far as a Bond film goes, certainly compared to the content of Casino Royale.

Let’s have a look

Firstly, it seems as if it opens with the typical big chase PTS.

The plot has an MI6 traitor, we have had a number of them over the last decade.

We have two Bond girls, one being the sacrificial lamb that comes to a sticky end having had sex with Bond early in the film.

The other Bond girl is the main one who is his “equal” she stays with Bond right through to the end and has her own agenda, revenge against the main villain.

We have a multimillionaire villain posing as a philanthropist.

A plot that concerns making a killing in cornering the world market of a valuable natural resource by evil means.

We have a villain in league with a reneged general.

We have a futuristic villain’s hideout for the last act that gets blown up in the end.

Go off to Italy and Latin America, throw in a speed boats chase, skydiving stunts and a fight amongst the exhibits in a gallery and Moonraker… umm sorry Quantum of Solace sounds like pure by the numbers James Bond, am I missing something here?

[Captain Tightpants]

Are you missing something?

Yeah: Daniel Craig.

[Leon]

It's down to the way they do it really.

[Shrublands]

Are you missing something?

Yeah: Daniel Craig.

I am one of Dan’s biggest champions and have been from the word go.

It's down to the way they do it really.

I dont think that is enough.

Where is the testicular torture?

Were is the suicidal Bond girl?

I don’t see a plot that hinges on a game of cards.

The PTS is not a close-quarters fist fight and a conversation sharply intercut and shot in black and white.

It all looks lovely and bigger and better than we have had before but…

A lot of the people who I have spoken to, people who are not the hardcore Bond fans, who like Casino Royale always talk about being surprised by its content. They find it fresh and interesting that a Bond film can be like that, they mention the things listed above. The tragic love affair, the brutality of the torture, the cards as the centrepiece…

They are not people who are waiting to see the latest way they do a speed boat chase or if the first girl will be killed by being painted or eaten by dogs this time, if the futuristic base will be up a mountain or underground, in the desert with a dome or on a frozen lake with a dome.

[sharpshooter]

It's all in the execution really. When we see a trailer we can all judge just how fresh and exciting it all looks. If the bones of the story is looking like the standard fare, who knows - they may have some hidden twists, plots or scenes in there that we don't know about yet.

[Jackanaples]

A lot of the people who I have spoken to, people who are not the hardcore Bond fans, who like Casino Royale always talk about being surprised by its content. They find it fresh and interesting that a Bond film can be like that, they mention the things listed above. The tragic love affair, the brutality of the torture, the cards as the centrepiece

Edited by Jackanaples, 29 March 2008 - 03:03 AM.

[Shrublands]

I very much agree and I am playing devils advocate here a bit.

I believe that there is a lot more to it than they are letting on.

But they are going to have to be careful, they are in danger of making it sound like just the latest bigger-better-Bond and that could have a lot of the new audience losing interest.

If fanatics like me are starting to think it sound just like any other Bond film

[Jackanaples]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='854812' date='28 March 2008 - 19:58']I very much agree and I am playing devils advocate here a bit.

I believe that there is a lot more to it than they are letting on.

But they are going to have to be careful, they are in danger of making it sound like just the latest bigger-better-Bond and that could have a lot of the new audience losing interest.

If fanatics like me are starting to think it sound just like any other Bond film

[Shrublands]

Comparative profiles as forwarded by the makers:-

The web site for CR had that dreamy music from Thunderball playing, mysterious and quite sinister.

QoS web site, has a jazzed up version of the James Bond theme; does what it says on the tin.

[6Joker9]

But they are going to have to be careful, they are in danger of making it sound like just the latest bigger-better-Bond and that could have a lot of the new audience losing interest.

- Bond fans will go to see it due to fandom of the character, no matter what type of anticipation is upon the film.

- Non-Bond fans will wait for the trailer, and if there's enough buzz around the film upon release, they will be there. This is a point that is more about the marketing than the production's current coverage, and I don't think what's happening right now around the film is that relevant for the general public.

- New Bond fans that were introduced by Casino Royale will go to see the sequel by the simple fact that they will be eager to follow the continuation of the story.

And that's pretty much it.

Edited by 6Joker9, 29 March 2008 - 03:22 AM.

[tdalton]

I can very much see where the concern about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is coming from. I know that, for probably quite a while now, I haven't been the most upbeat person in regards to the direction that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is headed, and it is true that this is based off a fairly limited amount of information that we have about the film. With that said, I think that the reason, at least for me, for the concern is that there is quite a lot at stake with this Bond film in comparison to other recent films, including CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE went over well with the public, but that really wasn't much of a surprise, at least to me. It had several things going for it that a lot of other Bond films didn't have going for them. First of all, there was the curiosity factor of having a new leading actor in the role of Bond. Couple that with the fact that the new actor was a radical departure from the type of actor that EON had previously cast in the role, and the usual curiosity factor that happens when there is a new actor in the role is increased even more. Also, the fact that it was the first Bond film in 4 years (twice the usual length in between Bond films), audiences were ready to see Bond, regardless of what approach they were taking with the franchise.

This means that, with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, we'll find out just how well this new direction with the franchise has gone over with audiences. If QUANTUM OF SOLACE turns out to be yet another massive critical and financial success, then the new direction is most likely here to stay. If things don't turn out so well, then we could be right back where we started in 2005, without a clear direction as to where to go with the franchise and what kind of Bond film we should expect when Bond returns in 2010, 2011, or whenever he may return. One possible, and most likely, direction to take the franchise in this occurrence would be to go back to what made EON so much money during the 1990s and early 2000s, and take the all out action approach to making the Bond films. That's not the kind of Bond film that I want to see, as the second half of CASINO ROYALE was the first time that EON had broken away from that approach to filmmaking in quite a while.

I hope that this post didn't come off as the usual negative post regarding the outlook for QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I didn't intend it to be, as I was looking to try to explain where, at least for me, the apprehension about certain aspects of the film are coming from. Do I want the film to be a major success. Yes, I really do. With one more film, Daniel Craig will most likely pass Timothy Dalton as my favorite James Bond, and I really want Craig and EON to be successful. Of course, the track record for EON in the last few films hasn't been that great, that's why when there is talk about certain elements of this film mirroring elements of films such as THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY which were, IMO, awful films made by much of the same creative team that currently is working on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, it is enough to cause some concern. If QUANTUM OF SOLACE turns out to be a great film, then those concerns probably won't exist for BOND 23 because there will be reason to believe that EON can move beyond the types of things that we've seen in the entries prior to CASINO ROYALE and that new and more exciting things may be around the corner in BOND 23 and other future films in the franchise.

[Royal Dalton]

It does sound quite generic. But Bond films are pretty formulaic by nature. So, it doesn't really bother me if this one is too. I just want it to be a good film.

[Shrublands]

I hope that this post didn't come off as the usual negative post regarding the outlook for QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Absolutely not, I think it’s a very positive post, that at least suggests that QoS has an ambition to be a quality Bond movie and that the subsequent films will either follow in that spirit or revert to the Brosnan action-blockbuster mould depending on how it goes financially.

I think it shows that you at least suspect that they have a noble ambition for the film. It had sounded to me, judging by many of your other posts, that that reverting to vacuous action popcorn was happening already and was not what would happen if the QoS gamble on quality failed

[tdalton]

I think it shows that you at least suspect that they have a noble ambition for the film. It had sounded to me, judging by many of your other posts, that that reverting to vacuous action popcorn was happening already and was not what would happen if the QoS gamble on quality failed

Well, I do feel as though some of the sequences that we've been hearing about do suggest some movement towards that kind of a film, very much in the same way that the free-running sequence and the Miami sequence in CASINO ROYALE were in the style of the Brosnan films as well. But, I think that the main thing that has me worried that it just seems as though all we're hearing about the film is that there's action, action, action. That's what we've heard almost exclusively from the producers since the press conference. IMO, the more interesting thing about this film is the actors that they've got on board for the film.

Another reason for concern, I think, is that sometimes too much talent can turn out to be bad for the film. I can't think of how many films that are loaded with talent turn out to be bad, or at the very least, disappointing. Take films such as the remake of ALL THE KING'S MEN. If I just listed the talent involved there (Writer/Director Steven Zaillian, Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, James Gandolfini, Anthony Hopkins, Patricia Clarkson, and Mark Ruffalo), one would expect that it would have been the best film of the year. While I personally enjoyed the film, it was pretty much forgotten by the general audiences and critics alike. Other such films would be OCEAN'S TWELVE and OCEAN'S THIRTEEN, which, despite Oscar winners and other major Hollywood talent (Steven Soderbergh, George Clooney, Brad PItt, Julia Roberts, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Al Pacino, etc.) both turned out poorly. Granted, these are only three examples, but there are countless other ones out there as well. Basically, I think that too much name talent, which we have in QUANTUM OF SOLACE could either be a good or a bad thing, depending on how well it all works together. Of course, they're going to all be praising each other while the movie is being filmed, but that really doesn't mean all that much to me as an indicator of how well the film is progressing.

My other major concern going into this film is the script. Unlike virtually the rest of the population of this site, I wasn't particularly impressed with the script for CASINO ROYALE. I found a lot of the dialogue, which was supposedly the aspect of the script that received the most work, to be surprisingly poor. Lines like the whole "You've stripped it from me...", on paper, is not amongst the best dialogue in the franchise. Amazingly (and this is a testament to just how brilliant of actors Eva Green and Daniel Craig are), Green and Craig not only make these lines sound less awful than they really are, but they do manage to make them sound somewhat natural, qualities which the lines really do not have on their own. Other scenes such as the train scene (another scene which is almost universally lauded as being great) is also an example of poor dialogue. I can't imagine witnessing a conversation like that in real life, or even in the heightened reality of the Bond universe. Bond makes a long speech, and then Vesper gives one, and then it's back to Bond, and so on, without any real interplay between the two. Also, apart from the dialogue, I'm wary about what we're going to get from a script that is mostly from Paul Haggis rather than being first developed by Purvis & Wade. I know that this is not a very popular view, but I actually liked a lot of what we have since found out were P&W's ideas that were taken from the script in favor of something that Haggis had come up with (i.e., the ending of the film. P&W supposedly had something that was very much faithful to the novel while Haggis completely changed the entire finale of the film which really ruined the dynamic between Vesper and Bond, IMO).

Anyway, I think that I've started to ramble a bit here, but I think that the concerns for QUANTUM OF SOLACE come down to a couple of main points. First of all, how does EON handle the success that they've had with CASINO ROYALE. The success is similar to what they had with GOLDENEYE, in that the series was successfully restarted after a long layoff, and the new actor is loved, for the time being, by the critics and the public alike. After GOLDENEYE, they went with the action extravaganza that was TOMORROW NEVER DIES. With QUANTUM OF SOLACE, we don't know exactly where they're going, but what little information we have does have the appearance that it wouldn't be out of the question that they're headed back in the TOMORROW NEVER DIES direction again. I think that the real question is how is the success of CASINO ROYALE handled. Do they go back to the comfort zone of a film like TOMORROW NEVER DIES, where the Bond brand is relied on to make the money, or do they push the boundaries yet again and deliver a truly unique film that we'll be talking about as a milestone in the franchise. With the type of talent that they've assembled, I would hope that it would be towards the second option of the franchise milestone, but if either the basic concept behind the film or if the script are not solid, then it could very well go the other way.

Edited by tdalton, 29 March 2008 - 04:28 AM.

[sark]

It seems to me that it's a bit too early for anyone to be doing any chicken little impersonations.
Don't worry about it. Have some faith and Craig and co.
I'm sure they are well aware of the pitfalls and mistakes that have been made in the past, and will try to avoid them.
The trailer will give us some idea of what to expect, but I'm sure some people will see it and question the direction of the film (I'm sure there was people who did it with CR).
I, for one, am going to reserve judgement on the film until a) rottentomatoes give it an official rating (I believe they wait until they compile 40 reviews) and B. my is in the seat and I'm watching it myself.

could have a lot of the new audience losing interest.

With very little exaggeration I believe that the official blurb could say that the main plot centered around Craig doing paperwork and the film would still make over $300m worldwide.

Edited by sark, 29 March 2008 - 04:31 AM.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='854801' date='29 March 2008 - 02:06']Firstly, it seems as if it opens with the typical big chase PTS.

The plot has an MI6 traitor, we have had a number of them over the last decade.

We have two Bond girls, one being the sacrificial lamb that comes to a sticky end having had sex with Bond early in the film.

The other Bond girl is the main one who is his

[DamnCoffee]

I've always liked the Typical Bond Plot, thats what makes Bond, Bond = Sexy Girls, Great Locations, mad villain, secret bases.... I don't care how much action they have in this, only if its a dark movie, showing character development.

[Mr_Wint]

I'm worried about the "climate"-plot. Its not exactly what I want to see in a spy/Bond-movie. I'm also (again) concerned about the lack of a good villain. Mathieu Amalric seems more like the Le Chiffre-Graves-006 type of villain who no one cares about.

But really, its too early to say anything about the film or even make a good guess.

[iexpectu2die]

I'm really holding onto the fact that Bond supposedly has a broken heart throughout this film. I need them push this psychological element forward. Otherwise, yes, I'm just as worried, the signs just aren't looking particularly good, and the revelation of Greene's 'lair' has only made things worse for me

[dee-bee-five]

Even if Daniel Craig, Paul Haggis et al were merely content to trot out a generic Bond film, which I don't believe, I can't believe they'd call it Quantum of Solace in a million years.

For that reason alone, I'm not in least concerned.

[tdalton]

Indeed. I was channel-surfing a few months ago with a friend who knows zip about Bond and probably thinks CASINO ROYALE was originally filmed with Roger Moore, but who nonetheless counts as an average Joe Public movie-watcher (in other words, precisely the sort of person Eon must target), and GOLDENEYE was on, and we watched a bit of it, and my friend said "You know, it's amazing how much better CASINO ROYALE was than the average Bond film". He didn't need a degree in Ian Fleming or to know who Peter Hunt was to realise that Eon had pulled out all the stops in 2006 and served up something extraordinary.

I think that there have been quite a lot of reactions like this to CASINO ROYALE from those who wouldn't normally have even the slightest of interest in seeing a Bond film. I remember hearing reactions to the TV spots for CASINO ROYALE in the weeks leading up to its release to the effect of "It's great to finally see them taking things seriously" or "It finally looks as though they've tried to make a decent film" and other comments to that affect. What I think should be the great part about the casting of Daniel Craig and the hiring of talent like Marc Forster and Paul Haggis is that people like this should be able to bring a high enough quality product to the franchise that would make the franchise more flexible in terms of the directions that it can go when these people depart the franchise and it's time to find new talent. With the presence of someone like Daniel Craig, when EON goes to cast future James Bond actors, actors that might otherwise have felt that they wouldn't want to waste their time with Bond might then be interested because of what Craig has been able to do with the franchise. The same could be said for Marc Forster and Paul Haggis as well. Both are considered to be amongst the very best in terms of directing and writing in the industry, and their presence should open things up to other writers and directors who might not have thought of doing a Bond film.

I would also think that the inclusion of such talent should mean that the overall quality of the films should increase significantly. EON has made its name off of making mostly action films for the past half a century or so. My question would be, why keep on making the same type of film that has been made before when there is, for really the first time, such great talent both in front of and behind the camera. I would like to see EON take a chance and to make a somewhat experimental film (at least in terms it being somewhat different to the other Bond films that have come before) and take some bigger risks with the franchise. If it doesn't work, then we'll know that it would probably never work with a Bond film because if the talent that is present in the franchise now couldn't pull off something different, then it probably can't be done. But I think that EON should at least give it a chance. Maybe they are doing this, we don't know yet, but it seems as though there's going to be a little too much action for it to happen this time around with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But, still, I think that with the talent they have assembled this time around, that some chances should be taken because I think that the general audience has proven that they're ready for a different Bond, judging from the nearly universal praise for CASINO ROYALE, which was a step in that direction. If it didn't work out, then it wouldn't be a huge deal for the franchise, because the audiences will always come back to the Bond franchise. They came back after OHMSS didn't match the success of Connery's entries and they came back after LTK disappointed at the box office and the franchise went through years of legal trouble. If EON took a chance trying to make a different kind of Bond movie, and it failed, then they would just need to pull in the reigns from where things went wrong and put the franchise back on course and the audiences would come back. But, if it succeeded, then there would be a lot of new and exciting opportunities that would be available for future Bond films that may not have been there otherwise in terms of where they could take the story and what kind of tone they could set for future films.

[Loomis]

Even if Daniel Craig, Paul Haggis et al were merely content to trot out a generic Bond film, which I don't believe, I can't believe they'd call it Quantum of Solace in a million years.

For that reason alone, I'm not in least concerned.

Well, I suspect that neither Craig nor Haggis (or even Forster) had any role in choosing QUANTUM OF SOLACE as the title. And for the moment it looks as though this title (for a script that has nothing at all to do with the short story) is the only scrap of Fleming attached to this film.

[Skudor]

I agree that it appears Quantum of Solace will be closer to the normal Bond films than Casino Royale, but I don't think that's something to worry about. The difference will be in how well the film hangs together, the quality of the acting as well as the action and so on. I'll be optimistic until I see it.

[tdalton]

Even if Daniel Craig, Paul Haggis et al were merely content to trot out a generic Bond film, which I don't believe, I can't believe they'd call it Quantum of Solace in a million years.

For that reason alone, I'm not in least concerned.

Well, I suspect that neither Craig nor Haggis (or even Forster) had any role in choosing QUANTUM OF SOLACE as the title. And for the moment it looks as though this title (for a script that has nothing at all to do with the short story) is the only scrap of Fleming attached to this film.

Agreed. I also wouldn't be surprised if the title going into the beginning of production was actually the rumored "007" and was changed to QUANTUM OF SOLACE at the last minute. Obviously, there's no evidence of this, but it's just a guess on my part. It is interesting, though, that the teaser poster only features the 007 logo and not QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which could lend some support to the theory that "007" was the original title of the film, although neither GOLDENEYE or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH featured titles on the teaser posters for those films.

But, I do think that you're correct in saying that Craig, Haggis, and perhaps even Forster probably didn't have anything to do with calling the film QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I wouldn't be surprised if it was either untitled (or called "007") going into the final days before the press conference, and they then decided to go with QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it may have something to do with a certain aspect of the film as well as a desire to have a Fleming title during the Fleming Centenary year.

[Loomis]

tdalton,

I have reason to strongly suspect that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was chosen as the title even before Forster and Haggis were hired. It may be that it was subsequently "un-chosen" (and then, erm, chosen again), and I'm sure that alternative titles were seriously considered, but in spite of what may have been claimed I do not believe that The Powers That Be first thought of using it only a few weeks ago. ("Hey, folks, guess what? I've just remembered an old Fleming short story title that we've got the rights to: QUANTUM OF SOLACE! Let's use it for this new one!" "Great idea, Barbara/Michael!") It was earmarked for BOND 22 a long way back, and presumably (given all the junked story ideas and rewrites we've been hearing about) the BOND 22 storyline was rather different when it was originally chosen.

[tdalton]

tdalton,

I have reason to strongly suspect that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was chosen as the title even before Forster and Haggis were hired. It may be that it was subsequently "un-chosen" (and then, erm, chosen again), and I'm sure that alternative titles were seriously considered, but in spite of what may have been claimed I do not believe that The Powers That Be first thought using of it only a few weeks ago. ("Hey, folks, guess what? I've just remembered an old Fleming short story title that we've got the rights to: QUANTUM OF SOLACE! Let's use it for this new one!" "Great idea, Barbara/Michael!") It was earmarked for BOND 22 a long way back.

Interesting. As you say, I'm sure that it was under consideration for a while along with other titles. It is interesting, though, because, at least to me, the press conference gave off the impression that they were undecided for a while leading up to the press conference and had only decided on a title shortly before. Hopefully some more insight into this will be revealed as the film gets closer to a release (and perhaps maybe in a making of feature on the DVD), especially since I'm curious as to how this title was selected because I always figured that it would have been the least likely Fleming title to be used, aside from 007 IN NEW YORK.

[Loomis]

tdalton,

I have reason to strongly suspect that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was chosen as the title even before Forster and Haggis were hired. It may be that it was subsequently "un-chosen" (and then, erm, chosen again), and I'm sure that alternative titles were seriously considered, but in spite of what may have been claimed I do not believe that The Powers That Be first thought using of it only a few weeks ago. ("Hey, folks, guess what? I've just remembered an old Fleming short story title that we've got the rights to: QUANTUM OF SOLACE! Let's use it for this new one!" "Great idea, Barbara/Michael!") It was earmarked for BOND 22 a long way back.

Interesting. As you say, I'm sure that it was under consideration for a while along with other titles. It is interesting, though, because, at least to me, the press conference gave off the impression that they were undecided for a while leading up to the press conference and had only decided on a title shortly before. Hopefully some more insight into this will be revealed as the film gets closer to a release (and perhaps maybe in a making of feature on the DVD), especially since I'm curious as to how this title was selected because I always figured that it would have been the least likely Fleming title to be used, aside from 007 IN NEW YORK.

Well, I don't move in Eon or showbiz circles ("You don't?" I hear you cry ), but it was info that came to me a while ago via the grapevine, so to speak. I was told of an interesting reason why QUANTUM OF SOLACE had been chosen (and it hasn't been made public yet, and I'm not going to say what it is), so I'll be interested to see whether it turns out to be true.

[Royal Dalton]

How long ago did you hear that, Loomis? Before Craig appeared on Jonathan Ross last November?

[Loomis]

Before that. Months before that. Probably round about this time last year.

[marktmurphy]

Very interesting. Is the reason it was chosen a plot-based one or something else?