87 replies to this topic

[AngryPolarBear]

For me, action is an important part of the Bond films. I want to see Bond fighting his way through the most breathtaking situations, using his physique and brains to survive. But this must off course blend in perfectly with the other elements, and it's important to not over use action on the cost of story and character development.

I would also gladly welcome more spying elements into the Bond franchise.

[united1878]

I too am looking forward to seeing some actual SPY work. It's what made FRWL and TLD so great.

[Royal Dalton]

It would be nice to see him doing a bit more spying. What with him being a spy and that.

[Leon]

As long as it's like the Crane sequence and not the Miami airport sequence great!

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. The Miami sequence I have skipped a couple of times now watching Casino Royale on DVD...

[BoogieBond]

As long as it's like the Crane sequence and not the Miami airport sequence great!

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. The Miami sequence I have skipped a couple of times now watching Casino Royale on DVD...

Agreed.
I like the Miami Airport sequence. But compared to the Crane sequence, its not in that league. The Crane sequence is the best sequence for me since the TLD PTS, its that good IMO
(Honourable mention to Pierce's Bungee in GE, and TD's snow chase in TLD)

The stairwell fight is great as well. If we get that sort of action, I will be happy.

Edited by BoogieBond, 01 April 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[Publius]

I completely share your concerns, Shrublands, but if it's any consolation to you (it somewhat is to me), you have to admit the tidbits we got about CR early on had many around here worried it was going to be a generic movie. Aside from the black & white and the Aston rollover, the trailers were pointing to a fairly run-of-the-mill Bond movie. For a lot of people, it was the faithfulness to the novel (at least in spirit, and often also in letter) that made it so great and unique in Bond canon.

Then again, most of my favorite parts in CR (surprisingly to me) were basically original, whether it was the PTS, the titles themselves, the Madagascar sequence, Bond in the Bahamas, and even the Venice action scenes (which have really grown on me). And what set it apart from a paint-by-numbers Brosnan flick is the combination of Daniel Craig's intense but casual performance and the crispest writing I've seen in years, especially in terms of dialogue and natural-sounding humor.

Although I'd love QoS (and every Bond film from now on) to keep me on my toes and throw me for a few loops the way CR did, I'm okay with an otherwise generic product that is kept from being mediocre thanks to a fantastic lead actor and a top-notch script. And looking back, that's the way a lot of the other classics were for me, with Connery or Dalton elevating something they were in and a few select factors (like a John Barry score) helping gloss over weaknesses elsewhere.

Yes, I'd prefer near-perfection, and the powers that be should definitely always try, but if they can't do it and "just" give us something good, I'll still be a happy little Bond fan. I'm lucky enough to be a fan of a franchise with a catalog of 20-plus films, all of them better than most movies in my opinion, that shows no signs of letting up. Don't interpret that as me chiding you to be thankful for what you already have , I'm just explaining why I'm personally not too worried, and partly to remind myself that the Broccoli family has exercised mostly good judgment so far, which is saying a lot for a 40-plus year history.

[stamper]

I don't think there was any other good judgement than commercial vs creative one from 1973 to 1985 and from 1995 to 2002. It's good the series survived, but it was a mess, really. I hope they are not heading back into that territory. Craig Bond movies must leave a deep groove, the uped the ante too much with CR, whatever it's flaws were. I mean it's simple, either you get ALIENS, or Alien Resurection, one classic that will age gracefully and is a fun, honest, enjoyable romp, and one product by the numbers only die hards care about but is really exploitation at heart.

[kneelbeforezod]

It's good the series survived, but it was a mess, really. I hope they are not heading back into that territory.

Thank goodness there really is no evidence that they are heading back into that territory. The likes of Forster and Haggis simply do not deliver films like that, and their very hiring is evidence that the producers want to continue the good work that was done in CR.

[Leon]

It's good the series survived, but it was a mess, really. I hope they are not heading back into that territory.

Thank goodness there really is no evidence that they are heading back into that territory. The likes of Forster and Haggis simply do not deliver films like that, and their very hiring is evidence that the producers want to continue the good work that was done in CR.

Indeed, I don't think that is really anything to worry about.

[dee-bee-five]

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?)

Quite right. One of the downsides of the internet age is that films, TV series, books etc are now reviewed months before they come out... before they're even made, in fact.

[Jim]

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?)

Quite right. One of the downsides of the internet age is that films, TV series, books etc are now reviewed months before they come out... before they're even made, in fact.

There will come a point, if it hasn't already happened, when someone with the wherewithall to do it will create an entirely false film and claim it is in production, disseminate a fake script and fake "production photographs", and watch as internet "experts" analyse it and tear it apart and complain, in a mash of adventurous spelling, that it won't be as good as the last one. Can't wait for that to happen, frankly.

[Skudor]

Actually, the new Bond film isn't called Quantum of Solace at all. Daniel Craig is not Bond, he's just being used as a stand in for all the fake shots we're seeing. In reality Lars Von Trier is directing the new Bond film in an old, disused theather in Swansea.

[Loomis]

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).

I know that you admit that it's heresy, but I'm very surprised that you find DR. NO dull (I agree, though, that such a "low-key" flick wouldn't go over well with audiences nowadays.... then again, it might, if made to the same standard as the second half of CASINO ROYALE, which Everyone I Know™ found riveting).

Sure, DR. NO has its dated elements, and certainly creaks a bit, but what I find amazing is just how much it doesn't creak. I think it's still one of the very best Bond films (I'd rank it just below CR in quality, putting it ahead of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE), packed with plenty of Fellmingggg™ and acres of classic, iconic Movie Bond moments.

Connery does much of his best Bond work, the look of the film (low-budget though it was) is often dazzling, and DR. NO's impact on the movies as a whole was every bit as great as that of, say, PSYCHO. I'm actually rather stunned that a Bond fan could dislike it.

[Harmsway]

I agree, though, that such a "low-key" flick wouldn't go over well with audiences nowadays.... then again, it might, if made to the same standard as the second half of CASINO ROYALE, which Everyone I Know™ found riveting.

But the second half of CASINO ROYALE had so much more interesting things going on than DR. NO ever manages. As well as some pretty kick- action, which DR. NO, for my money, has none of.

I think it's still one of the very best Bond films (I'd rank it just below CR in quality, putting it ahead of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE), packed with plenty of Fellmingggg™ and acres of classic, iconic Movie Bond moments.

Yeah, it has its share of "classic" moments. But somehow the classic moments never add up to something great for me. They're good individually, but brought into the tapestry of the film, they feels uneven. We'll have one really terrific moment, and then it will be followed by one where I'm looking at my watch.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, I think, is the much better Connery film. A much better sense of tension and excitement throughout, with more interesting characters, and a more interesting setting.

Connery does much of his best Bond work,

Granted. Though I prefer him in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

the look of the film (low-budget though it was) is often dazzling,

It's so-so. I've never been a fan of DR. NO's aesthetic.

and DR. NO's impact on the movies as a whole was every bit as great as that of, say, PSYCHO.

But impact and innate quality are two separate things.

I'm actually rather stunned that a Bond fan could dislike it.

I don't dislike it. It's a 3/5 for me. Not terrible, just not one that I'm eager to pull off the shelf.

[Loomis]

Yeah, it has its share of "classic" moments. But somehow the classic moments never add up to something great for me. They're good individually, but brought into the tapestry of the film, they feels uneven. We'll have one really terrific moment, and then it will be followed by one where I'm looking at my watch.

I can't think of many points in DR. NO at which I'd be looking at my watch, but that's just me. Funnily enough, though, that is a criticism I have of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, which I guess is also heresy!

Now, don't get me wrong, they're all excellent films, on the whole, but both FRWL and GOLDFINGER strike me as having a little spare flab and an occasional sense of a meandering pace that, for me, the lean, mean DR. NO doesn't suffer from.

[bond 16.05.72]

FRWL leaves DN standing, like harmsway says it's a collection of good scenes but as a whole it isn't all that and their's that Monty Norman score, it's awful.

I think FRWL is SC's best Bond performance he's more confident he hit his peak and it downhill from there on.

I don't see QOS being generic and yes Bond films aren't made for Fan Boys craving authentic Fleming, they are made for mass audiences and Bond's always been synonymous with action. I don't want an action fest I want a good story and plot with great acting and plenty of suspence and spying but I also want some action. This isn't a deep character study it's Bond for gods sake.

[Leon]

I agree on FRWL, and I think QoS has the potential to be a notably better film than CR.

[Harmsway]

I can't think of many points in DR. NO at which I'd be looking at my watch, but that's just me.

I find most of the scenes after Bond in arrives in Jamaica but before Bond seduces Miss Taro rather uninteresting.

And the "car chase" on the way to Miss Taro's house is awful. As is that "climactic duel" between Dr. No and Bond at the end.

[Loomis]

And the "car chase" on the way to Miss Taro's house is awful. As is that "climactic duel" between Dr. No and Bond at the end.

Hmmm.... I wouldn't go as far as "awful". And don't forget that the James Bond films hadn't at that point been established as all-conquering guaranteed superblockbusters, so they didn't have the budget for largesse and awesome spectacle. Also, it was 1962! (Or, to be pedantic, was it 1961 when they shot it?)

But it's not that I watch DR. NO with sympathy and give it props for being Pretty Good Under The Circumstances™ - I genuinely think it's (by and large) a more or less perfect Bond film with just about all of the classic 007 elements already in place and firing on all cylinders. And for pure entertainment (as opposed to historical film buff research or something) I'd always watch it over most of the Bonds made since 1969.

I know you're not trying to roast DR. NO, but I do think it's underrated. I pontificate more about it here:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=15238

[Leon]

I can't think of many points in DR. NO at which I'd be looking at my watch, but that's just me.

I find most of the scenes after Bond in arrives in Jamaica but before Bond seduces Miss Taro rather uninteresting.

And the "car chase" on the way to Miss Taro's house is awful. As is that "climactic duel" between Dr. No and Bond at the end.

I wouldn't say awful, it wasn't great but I always thought it was a good first go at making a Bond film. There are some cracking scenes in that film like Bond's introduction at the Chemin de Fer table, M's office, seducing Taro and killing Dent and some of the stuff on the island.

It also introduced a belter of a movie theme to the world. Still the finest bit of music of any kind to come from any Bond film IMO.

The titles were pretty bad though, save for the inspired gunbarrel opening. It's always going to be one of my top Bond films.

Edited by Leon, 02 April 2008 - 09:18 PM.

[Colossus]

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.

I remember hearing somewhere how Craig's villains are shaping up to be members of the Addams Family. lol

[Leon]

I remember hearing somewhere how Craig's villains are shaping up to be members of the Addams Family. lol

What's Addams family-ish about Amalric as Dominic Greene?

[Colossus]

I suppose they mean his villains appear darkly complected is all.

[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!

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.

Well, you know it now. What I'd heard was that the organisation was called Quantum.

[Von Hammerstein]

In case you haven't been watching closely, just about all Bond films are the same. It's called a formula movie. You have your dashing secret agent, gorgeous women, evil henchmen, a cool car, a villain with an improbable but possible plot. Add car chase, sex scene, explosion of villains lair, chill til cold and serve.

It's what makes Bond 007. Many people have imitated it and even spoofed it, but none of them get it right. And even though I love Daniel Craig's tough/real 007, changing him into a pale copy of Jason Bourne isn't going to work. I'm glad to see they're not going in that direction.

[Shrublands]

In case you haven't been watching closely, just about all Bond films are the same...

[Jack Spang]

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.

Absolutely. More spying please!

[yolt13]

Here it is, from the USA Today interview (and in Craig's own words):

[quote]Summing up the storyline, Craig said: