87 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

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.

Yeah.

I'll pass judgement on Q0S in early November. Until then, i'm assuming Wilson + Broccoli, DC, MF and PH know what they're doing and are more interested in delivering an "adventure film which engages the audience" as opposed to an "action movie which is disconnected from it's audience". I can see the difference.

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

Would it not be "plot-based" in either case? I.e. as in Bond searching for a "state of mind" following the events of CR...or...as a measure of something quantifiable and physical? Wouldn't either of the two be 'plot-based'?

[Leon]

They have already said that the title has something to do with the plot, as well as a reference to 007 searching for his own QoS after the last films events.

[Loomis]

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

The reason I was given falls into "something else" rather than "plot-based", although there may well also be a plot-based reason. As Leon's just pointed out, they have already said that the title has something to do with the plot, as well as a reference to 007 searching for his own QoS after the last films events.

I don't want to say any more, though (yes, I know how annoying that sounds!), in case what I heard turns out not to be true (which is why I haven't detailed it on CBn over the past few months), and I don't want to be responsible for spreading a false rumour in fandom that could probably turn into a Contact Music story without too much effort. And I'm kind of sworn to secrecy.

It's not a huge thing, though, just a little detail that's a further explanation of why QoS was chosen as the title, and it adds absolutely nothing to what little we all know at this point about the plot. (Also, it may be bollocks, or something just relating to an earlier, abandoned draft script.) It's not as though I'm sitting on a major story spoiler or twist. My main point is that I think QoS has been earmarked as the BOND 22 title for quite some time. I don't know any more than the next man about the screenplay of QoS or how the film is going to turn out.

Not that that stops me fanboyishly griping about how it's all so very generic, un-risktaking and un-Flemingian, and a lacklustre followup to CASINO ROYALE, of course!

[hilly]

[quote name='HildebrandRarity' date='30 March 2008 - 15:55' post='855184']
[quote name='dee-bee-five' post='854891' date='29 March 2008 - 13:41']

"I'll pass judgement on Q0S in early November. Until then, i'm assuming Wilson + Broccoli, DC, MF and PH know what they're doing"

How generous!

Of course there will be generic elements. The series has been going for the best part of 50 years.... I remember seeing an interview with Roger Moore (possibly one of he dvd documentarys) in which he said that making Bond films was basically like telling children a bedtime story. It's pretty much the same story told 20+ slightly different ways and if you mess with the proven formula too much (rather like deviating too wildly from a child's favourite story) you're in trouble...

[dodge]

I'll take relatively generic in plot with a refreshing twist of style over overwhelmingly artistic in style with a teensy twist of the Bond-style action we love.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

The fact alone that it continues right after the events in CR makes it less generic. Fleming's LALD was itself a largely plotless, generic novel and didn't mean a real improvement on CR: a series of set pieces without a main theme (so was DAF, for that matter).

[Leon]

I'll take relatively generic in plot with a refreshing twist of style over overwhelmingly artistic in style with a teensy twist of the Bond-style action we love.

From what I've seen I think we are getting both the style and the Bond action and vibe in spades...

Take a Bond film like License to Kill, remove all the crummyness (especially of the 80's style) and load it with 60's retro, better sets and a deeper plot...then throw a Fleming title, Daniel Craig and Paul Haggis into the mix.

That's what I'm feeling at the moment.

Edited by Leon, 30 March 2008 - 06:00 PM.

[SPOTTER]

If you look at all the Bond films, they all have the same type of formula. Bond goes after the bad guy, gets caught, escapes, kills the bad guy and gets the girl.

What makes some better than others is all to do with how they are approached.

With Casino Royale the formula was turned on it's head slightly and i think that Quantum of Solace will be following on in a simuliar way. Yes there's probably going to be a lot more action but that doesn't mean that the plot and characters are going to suffer. We've all got to just wait and see and try not to get carried away with the hype of it all.

[Skudor]

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

The reason I was given falls into "something else" rather than "plot-based", although there may well also be a plot-based reason. As Leon's just pointed out, they have already said that the title has something to do with the plot, as well as a reference to 007 searching for his own QoS after the last films events.

I don't want to say any more, though (yes, I know how annoying that sounds!), in case what I heard turns out not to be true (which is why I haven't detailed it on CBn over the past few months), and I don't want to be responsible for spreading a false rumour in fandom that could probably turn into a Contact Music story without too much effort. And I'm kind of sworn to secrecy.

It's not a huge thing, though, just a little detail that's a further explanation of why QoS was chosen as the title, and it adds absolutely nothing to what little we all know at this point about the plot. (Also, it may be bollocks, or something just relating to an earlier, abandoned draft script.) It's not as though I'm sitting on a major story spoiler or twist. My main point is that I think QoS has been earmarked as the BOND 22 title for quite some time. I don't know any more than the next man about the screenplay of QoS or how the film is going to turn out.

Not that that stops me fanboyishly griping about how it's all so very generic, un-risktaking and un-Flemingian, and a lacklustre followup to CASINO ROYALE, of course!

This is hilarious Loomis. May I remind you of your very own first post on this forum (which was dredged up recently)! No matter how insignificant your secret may be, it won't stop us fan boys from wanting to know it.

Still, gotta respect your need to keep confindence where confidence has been requested.

[Jack Spang]

"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."

It sounds like Eon has taken the all out action approach to QOS just like the down right disgraceful rubbish they churned out in the Brosnan era. I am confident however that QOS will easily surpass the Brosnan garbage in every other area. The abundance of action wil hinder my enjoyment. There is no question that the Brosnan movies easily had more action than the pre GE films. I really believe that Eon are just to scared to give us a thriller with a healthy amount of action like in Dr No and FRWL. Their action segment of the market is just to important to them. For me, CR had one to many big action scenes. I will always go and see the Bond films in the cinema because I love the character but I'm really being serious when I say that based on the news we have heard about the numerous action scenes in QOS that I won't bother following the progress of the films anymore as I will no longer be a die hard fan. I put up with all the Brosnan entries in the hope we would finally get something decent. I was fairly happy with Royale but if QOS has even more screen time spent on action than Royale then I will have finally given up on the films.

Also, I don't think the trailer gives us any real indication of how good the film will be.

Edited by Jack Spang, 31 March 2008 - 02:30 PM.

[sharpshooter]

If we do get the action overload, which it looks like we will, I strongly feel it will approached in the gritty manner of CR. A lot of hard hitting action can be a good thing if done correctly. I am just hoping the storyline is appropriate, as they had many ways they could have gone narratively after the potential of CR.

[Jack Spang]

I am also confident the action will be up to a good standard but to much of it will just almost ruin the film for me. I have never been a James Bond fan for the action, even when I was a kid. I can live with the amount they had in CR, even though I wish there had have been one less action scene, but anymore is just to much for my liking.

Edited by Jack Spang, 31 March 2008 - 02:42 PM.

[sharpshooter]

For me, Bond was and mostly still is, about the action. I do like character development and layering and so forth, and hope we get some in QoS. That said, there is nothing quite like seeing Bond do what he does best - fight for his life with 'Bond moments'.

[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.

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.

I included BB and MW in my "et al".

That said, they may yet wrong-foot us yet again and give us a generic Bond to ring the changes from last time. As someone else said, then it would all be down to the execution.

[Leon]

For me, Bond was and mostly still is, about the action. I do like character development and layering and so forth, and hope we get some in QoS. That said, there is nothing quite like seeing Bond do what he does best - fight for his life with 'Bond moments'.

The espionage and intruigue in the stories is just as important, and without these the action becomes pretty dull. There's nothing like a good suspenseful build up to an action piece involving Bond covertly escaping somewhere or what have you.

But then what makes it further different to any other action/espionage film is the manner in which Bond escapes using his superb and varying skills and with a triumphant brass and guitar fanfare of the Bond theme seeing him off home and dry.

Edited by Leon, 31 March 2008 - 03:51 PM.

[sharpshooter]

The espionage and intruigue in the stories is just as important, and without these the actipon becomes pretty dull. There's nothing like a good suspenseful build up to an action piece involving Bond covertly escaping somewhere or what have you.

No doubt about it. I wish spying played a larger role in the films than it does.

[Leon]

Damn you, you caught my post with it's spelling mistake "actipon"

[MarcAngeDraco]

Damn you, you caught my post with it's spelling mistake "actipon"

And "intruigue" to boot...

I'm not too concerned with things sounding sort of generic at this point. All we know are generalities, so it's not too surprising that the generalities are generic... And IMO it will really come down to execution...

[Eddie Burns]

I'll take relatively generic in plot with a refreshing twist of style over overwhelmingly artistic in style with a teensy twist of the Bond-style action we love.

From what I've seen I think we are getting both the style and the Bond action and vibe in spades...

Take a Bond film like License to Kill, remove all the crummyness (especially of the 80's style) and load it with 60's retro, better sets and a deeper plot...then throw a Fleming title, Daniel Craig and Paul Haggis into the mix.

That's what I'm feeling at the moment.

That would be IDEAL Leon.

I sometimes wish they'd have different synopsis of the movie for us hardcore fans, explained in the manner above. If it turns out like that, then our worries would have been for nothing. I'm still expecting a better movie than CR and i'm sure the public is as well.

[Harmsway]

There is no question that the Brosnan movies easily had more action than the pre GE films.

I think there is, honestly. I can argue for quite a few of the pre-GE films being close to all-out actioners. There's a difference in the kind of action, but amount? Maybe not so much.

I really believe that Eon are just to scared to give us a thriller with a healthy amount of action like in Dr No and FRWL.

Well, for good reason, I think. I doubt that audiences would be too happy if they got a film as low-key as DR. NO (which I personally find to be one of the dull cinematic Bond adventures, heresy though that may be). EON is running a business, after all. But as I've said before, and I'll say again, I think the push for action in QoS was very much on Forster's part moreso than on EON's.

[stamper]

Action is not the problem, they can make it True Lies like action for two hours and I'll applaud... as long as it's FLEMINGIAN in spirit. And until now (and I'm sure someone from EON will print this thread and make them read it so I hope they notice), apart from the title, they haven't hinted anything Flemingian yet. Just trow in there the garden of death, of the YOLT ending, and I'll be happy. But don't forget it's IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND.

[Leon]

Damn you, you caught my post with it's spelling mistake "actipon"

And "intruigue" to boot...

I'm not too concerned with things sounding sort of generic at this point. All we know are generalities, so it's not too surprising that the generalities are generic... And IMO it will really come down to execution...

Damn, what a bad day for typos.

I can't really see what is generic or not anyway, any information we have is very vague at this point. Deciding that anything in the film is particularly generic is guessing at the moment. Sure there are various major James Bond elements, but that's because it's a James Bond film...surely.

[Major Tallon]

As I've said in other posts, I think we ought to remain optimistic.

I've been a Bond fan for many, many years, and the producers have always hyped the action in the films. It may or may not reflect what actually is going to appear on the screen. In fact, I remember publicity for one Bond film which claimed that the new entry would have the most action of any film in the history of the franchise.

Next time you watch "Live and Let Die," ask yourself if it lived up to its billing.

[tdalton]

I really believe that Eon are just to scared to give us a thriller with a healthy amount of action like in Dr No and FRWL.

Well, for good reason, I think. I doubt that audiences would be too happy if they got a film as low-key as DR. NO (which I personally find to be one of the dull cinematic Bond adventures, heresy though that may be). EON is running a business, after all. But as I've said before, and I'll say again, I think the push for action in QoS was very much on Forster's part moreso than on EON's.

While I doubt that the audiences would be overly thrilled with such a film, I think that, at this point in the franchise, its the perfect time to take a risk and find out if such a film would work for the audience. They've got such considerable talent involved with this film that, if they went out and made a serious dramatic film, there's a good chance that it would become a success. Now, had they tried that during the 1990s, I doubt it would have worked because action films were what audiences really wanted in the 1990s, but a lot of serious, less "commercial" films are doing better because of DVD and how cheap in price that format is becoming, which allows for people to take more chances on films that they might not otherwise watch. If EON took a chance on a more dramatic style of Bond film (or a more low key Bond film), and it worked, then that would provide a great deal of flexibility as to what kind of Bond film they could make moving forward in the franchise. And, if such a film absolutely failed at the box office, they could turn around and sell the next film to the public as being an action extravaganza, and the audience would most likely come back. My feeling is that the series has survived unpopular Bond films and actors before, it can survive another misstep if that's what a dramatic, serious type of Bond film turned out to be. But, IMO, such a film would be worth the risk to see if it would go over well with audiences.

[Mr. Blofeld]

True enough; it's what they did with OHMSS, isn't it?

[HH007]

Hey folks, let's wait until this movie comes out, and then decide if it's good/bad, generic/unique, exciting/dull, too over-the-top/too-under-the-top, too atsy/too mainstream, too fat/too thin... etc, ect. Huh? How does that sound?


(Why should people be so worried after Casino Royale?)

[Leon]

As I've said in other posts, I think we ought to remain optimistic.

I've been a Bond fan for many, many years, and the producers have always hyped the action in the films. It may or may not reflect what actually is going to appear on the screen. In fact, I remember publicity for one Bond film which claimed that the new entry would have the most action of any film in the history of the franchise.

Next time you watch "Live and Let Die," ask yourself if it lived up to its billing.

Well MGW said more than double the action to Casino Royale and Daniel Craig said at least as much as, if not more than, Casino Royale.

God knows. From what we've seen I'm guessing there is more, but I doubt over double, or even double.

[Blonde Bond]

Sure. It sounds very generic at this point. I have no problem with that. I've always loved Bond films, action oriented or not.

But I must point out that Die Another Day missed almost all the notes, and I was happy we got Casino Royale after that, which was a nice surprise. Hit all the right notes. Good action and better story. Though I like all the Brosnan films (minus DAD) and that type of action in the first hour of the movie, the 2nd hour of the movie was really the better part in CR and I wouldn't mind getting more low-key action like that.

So far QoS does not sound very original. But I will see it whether it'll be generic action flick or not.

[BoogieBond]

I'm still in the "Wait and See" camp. Because of Forster, Haggis and Craig.

It's gonna have more action. As long as it's like the Crane sequence and not the Miami airport sequence great! More exciting action is fine with me.

But I want Chef's Haggis and Forster to mix the ingredients well. To bring to the boil with some tasty character development and a large portion of a good coherent plot. Et Voila, Hopefully, QoS will be great.

I am not expecting another CR, but I would like a film with the same serious tone, similar high quality performances, good plot and hopefully a bit of Ian Fleming thrown in for good measure.

Edited by BoogieBond, 01 April 2008 - 11:57 AM.

[baerrtt]

True enough; it's what they did with OHMSS, isn't it?

It's funny imho OHMSS had the most exciting action scenes until CR. Bond movies (and the novels) have always been firmly in the action genre. EON aren't going to change genres all of a sudden (neither did Fleming unless he was writing a Bond short story) because what amounts ultimately to a minority of the Bond watching public (us hardcore fans) don't want action in an ACTION film

The action in CR was what it (for those who found it OTT) was because unlike some fans the producers realise Bond means alot more than supposedly 'gritty' and 'down to earth'. DAD or not I wish certain fans would get some perspective, these films for the last 45 years have been made for everyone (the franchise wouldn't have survived if it wasn't regardless what some people want to believe), EVERYONE, not just Fleming purists.

Tdalton, I'm addressing you specifically because as intelligent as your opinions are you seem to have an issue with the above fact. You don't COMPLETELY change a format that has worked (financially) for over 40 years. That's what fan fiction is for.

Edited by baerrtt, 01 April 2008 - 12:11 PM.