229 replies to this topic

[HH007]

If his opinion really means nothing to you why have you posted in this thread more than once?

That goes for similar posts too; announcing indifference is boardering on oxymoronic.

I think a lot of people are being more effected by these negative reviews than they like to let on.

Okay, if you say so. Maybe I'm just trying to understand all the negativity towards this film on here, especially since this is supposed to be a Bond fan site. And I really am wondering why people are putting so much stock in Graham Rye's opinion?

By the way, wise one, it's affected, not effected.

[Judo chop]

And I really am wondering why people are putting so much stock in Graham Rye's opinion?

You have always seemed like a nice fella, HH. Let's not get too upset, huh?

Who is putting stock Mr. Rye's review? I think most of us are just laughing at the ridiculousness of such an obviously reactionary rating.

And if people are putting stock in it... well, why do you worry about it?

[Dangerous Liaison]

I feel like I placed QoS on such a high pedestal before even watching it, now that we have lukewarm reviews and a couple negative ones, I don't know what to think anymore. I find myself preparing to watch it and be completely let down. I highly doubt QoS is a 1/10 film, but I feel like I got my hopes up much too high. I'll wait till I see it to make any serious judgments. I’ve disagreed with several reviews in the past, and I hope this happens to be the case.

[deth]

Rye.... isn't he the editor of 007 Magazine?

[Santa]

I'll wait till I see it to make any serious judgments.

It's a novel idea.

[HH007]

And I really am wondering why people are putting so much stock in Graham Rye's opinion?

You have always seemed like a nice fella, HH. Let's not get too upset, huh?

Who is putting stock Mr. Rye's review? I think most of us are just laughing at the ridiculousness of such an obviously reactionary rating.

And if people are putting stock in it... well, why do you worry about it?

Well, I did see some members were discouraged after reading the review. There were a few faces.

But anyway, sorry, I had rough day at work, I got off an hour ago, and I'm already on my third drink. Sometimes I pop off when I shouldn't. After all, it is just a movie. And I apoligize to Safari Suit.

I just get the sense that a lot of people have judged this flick without even giving it a chance. Like what Moriarty said on AintItCool, people seem to be assuming the worst about this movie. It just seems like the negative build up to CASINO ROYALE all over again. It's that in general that just kind of bums me out. But, whatever. Maybe Qos is great. Maybe it's not. I shall see for myself.

[Safari Suit]

Okay, if you say so. Maybe I'm just trying to understand all the negativity towards this film on here, especially since this is supposed to be a Bond fan site.

Well, by that token no one should be allowed to criticise DAD/AVTAK/DAF etc. I would agree that people have gone overboard with negativity at times (the whole gunbarrel debacle), but then there were definitely times when I feel people went over the top with their enthusiasm too (the exciting announcement that Bond wasn't going to refer to himself in the third person this time). But I think believing QOS is going to be one of the best in the series, and thinking it wont be are both legitimate points of view, and on the whole the former school of thought has been dominant.

[HH007]

Okay, if you say so. Maybe I'm just trying to understand all the negativity towards this film on here, especially since this is supposed to be a Bond fan site.

Well, by that token no one should be allowed to criticise DAD/AVTAK/DAF etc. I would agree that people have gone overboard with negativity at times (the whole gunbarrel debacle), but then there were definitely times when I feel people went over the top with their enthusiasm too (the exciting announcement that Bond wasn't going to refer to himself in the third person this time). But I think believing QOS is going to be one of the best in the series, and thinking it wont be are both legitimate points of view, and on the whole the former school of thought has been dominant.

Again, I'm talking about the negativity leading up to the film. I went into DAD wanting to like it, but when I saw it, I just didn't. And if QoS sucks, then I'll write a review just as scathing as Rye's. After you see the movie, say what you will. I just don't get a lot of the pessimism that people who haven't seen it seem to have.

The point of my first two posts were that some people seemed to give Rye's review a lot of weight, and I just don't see why. As far as I can tell, his two cents is worth as much as anyone's two cents... two cents. That was the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter if I post once, twice, or fifty times on this thread... his opinion means nothing to me.

[HildebrandRarity]

And I really am wondering why people are putting so much stock in Graham Rye's opinion?

You have always seemed like a nice fella, HH. Let's not get too upset, huh?

Who is putting stock Mr. Rye's review? I think most of us are just laughing at the ridiculousness of such an obviously reactionary rating.

And if people are putting stock in it... well, why do you worry about it?

Well, I did see some members were discouraged after reading the review. There were a few faces.

That's because the old codger hates Eon and want's everyone to hate this movie. He imagines he has some pull with the fans and feels he can influence their thinking subconsciously so they go "A ha! He was right!" when in fact they would have been fine with it (the movie) without such a tabloidy post. It's called having an agenda.

Now...where's my copy of James Bond Girls? If Honey Ryder wasn't on the cover, i'd be tossing the tosser's book in the bin!

[stamper]

Hmmm, why did he gave 10/10 on CR then ? Especially as when the casting of Craig was announced, like many others (including me), he had doubts.

[Jim]

You haven't read Rye's review because he dared to say something bad about the banal Young Bond series!!! What kind of prick are you? Wake up man, sorry - wake up little boy! In the real world we adults debate every opinion offered. Seldom have a I read such an ignorant and petulant post.

You only just registered for these forums 4 days ago. How many posts could you have possibly read that weren't petulant and ignorant?

From todays THE TIMES : "Rye, in his late fifties, edits 007 Magazine, and very cheerfully appears to hate almost everybody".

If I recall correctly, Rye was in and out of favor with EON since the early 80's because of his support for Kevin McClory's right to remake Thunderball. Rye's dealings with others in Bond fandom, including the fans, was always somewhat touchy. For every two or three stories I've been told about what an a-hole Rye is, I'd hear a positive story about what a nice, charitable, friendly person he was. Having never met him personally, but having knowledgeable, well-respected friends in the community who had, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then he went and did something in 1999 or 2000 that totally sealed my opinion of the matter. I copied it off his website and have it stored somewhere, but basically what happened was that he closed down the British fan club and to make matters worse, the way he handled it was grossly unprofessional. He basically told all the members, no matter whether they had subscribed to a 3-issue membership, or had put down $500 dollars to be lifetime members, that the club had folded, and not to waste their time emailing him or phoning him asking for any sort of refunds, because he wouldn't bother to respond to them. They were screwed and they were just going to have to deal with it. EVEN SANCHEZ SHOWED A BIT MORE LOYALTY TO HIS FRIENDS AND EMPLOYEES.

If I were dragging my across the Sahara desert and Graham Rye was out there selling ice cold bottles of water or Pepsi-Cola I would not buy them from him. I'd rather starve or die of dehydration than ever have anything to do with Rye. I had always been a bit on the fence about whether or not to believe the stories about Rye, and when he posted that horrible message on his website telling upset fans to shove it, he removed all doubts I ever had. His club, nor his website, will ever see a penny of mine.

ENOUGH.

Bitter old men, leave your bitter old arguments out of this place.

We have no desire to be dragged down to this level. Repetition of this stuff - whether or not it's libel, it's really unpleasant - leads to only one outcome.

This is meant to be a site for entertainment, not private agendas and reanimating spats better left dead.

Stop it, or piss off.

I can always make this choice for you should you prove incapable.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I don't buy negative review just beacuse they're more "critical" (accept it, most critics are a bunch of studio kissers these days, repeating excatly what they're instructed to by the press kits and truly afarid of expressing their own opinions and I'm not talking about Bond, I'm talking films in general) but if you read bad reviews intelligently you're most likely to have a guided opinion of what films are going to be. After all, unless you're the kind of person who shows at the cineplex and chooses what to see based solely on what time the next show starts, you should have an idea of what you're seeing beforehand. I personally don't enjoy wasting money on crap so I'm rather rigurous in learning about what I'm about to watch.
Several things about not only Rye's but other lukewarm reviews to QOS seem to address issues I'd already thought of:
-Forster always struck me as a wrong choice to direct a Bond and that's because I've seen two of his films and have so far been very unimpressed. His choice always smelled to me as Sony's decision (it'd be the first time the studio chose the director and we're not even talking about MGM, who at least have ben with Bond for two and a half decades but a new partner which strikes me as incredibly meddlesome: hey, if the sixties Bonds were so good it was because UA let Eon do as the pleased). Hollywood has this very stupid perspective that filmmakers should be able to tackle any project regardless of genre. Personally, I distrust filmmakers who switch genres just because. They smack of employee material. Good directors do not necessarily restrict to one genre but at least follow a line in their work.
-The only other director that hadn't done action before Bond was Apted and it shows. Throughout TWINE there's a visible split between dialogue and action scenes. They seem to belong to different films. Spottiswoode, by all accounts a mediocre director (although an extremely good editor) at least knew action and was capable to control Armstrong. So did Tamahori. Dan Bradley's style is so obtrussive (Bourne 2 and 3, Indy 4) that escapes control from the director. I didn't like Bourne 2's shaky cameras and reviews point towards the fact that there's more of that in QOS.
-Most of the "talent" in QOS is American. Can anybody name Mr Forster's Swiss films? He doesn't have any. He studied in the States (Matter of fact, he's the first director who has studied cinema rather than learnt through the ranks). Both editors are American and last time that happened was Wagner on DAD. DP is American. 2nd unit director is American. Title designers are American and the designer is Canadian. So far, what's made Bond special is that is not American and has a slightly different approach to action. Hollywood makes everything in a production line fashion and I fear if they let them continue interfering two or three films down the road these films will be undistinguishable from your average US disposable crap: short, cut-to-the-chase affairs. A lot of posters in this forums seem not not be especially concerned by that possibility, far from it, they'd rather go for it. To them I ask what is it they like about Bond at all? Any dumb movie can have a car chase and I'm sure when the cycle goes into a downward curve and Bond movies start looking like cheap Steven Seagall knockoffs instead of expensive Bourne lookalikes, you'll be equally fast in jumping off ship as you were in boarding.

[MarkA]

-Most of the "talent" in QOS is American. Can anybody name Mr Forster's Swiss films? He doesn't have any. He studied in the States (Matter of fact, he's the first director who has studied cinema rather than learnt through the ranks). Both editors are American and last time that happened was Wagner on DAD. DP is American. 2nd unit director is American. Title designers are American and the designer is Canadian. So far, what's made Bond special is that is not American and has a slightly different approach to action. Hollywood makes everything in a production line fashion and I fear if they let them continue interfering two or three films down the road these films will be undistinguishable from your average US disposable crap: short, cut-to-the-chase affairs. A lot of posters in this forums seem not not be especially concerned by that possibility, far from it, they'd rather go for it. To them I ask what is it they like about Bond at all? Any dumb movie can have a car chase and I'm sure when the cycle goes into a downward curve and Bond movies start looking like cheap Steven Seagall knockoffs instead of expensive Bourne lookalikes, you'll be equally fast in jumping off ship as you were in boarding.

I have seen the film and the above paragraph is exactly what is wrong with the film in spades. For all those people who are slagging Rye, though I don't condone putting a full synopsis in a review essentially what he says is (sadly) on the money.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't buy negative review just beacuse they're more "critical" (accept it, most critics are a bunch of studio kissers these days, repeating excatly what they're instructed to by the press kits and truly afarid of expressing their own opinions and I'm not talking about Bond, I'm talking films in general) but if you read bad reviews intelligently you're most likely to have a guided opinion of what films are going to be. After all, unless you're the kind of person who shows at the cineplex and chooses what to see based solely on what time the next show starts, you should have an idea of what you're seeing beforehand. I personally don't enjoy wasting money on crap so I'm rather rigurous in learning about what I'm about to watch.
Several things about not only Rye's but other lukewarm reviews to QOS seem to address issues I'd already thought of:
-Forster always struck me as a wrong choice to direct a Bond and that's because I've seen two of his films and have so far been very unimpressed. His choice always smelled to me as Sony's decision (it'd be the first time the studio chose the director and we're not even talking about MGM, who at least have ben with Bond for two and a half decades but a new partner which strikes me as incredibly meddlesome: hey, if the sixties Bonds were so good it was because UA let Eon do as the pleased). Hollywood has this very stupid perspective that filmmakers should be able to tackle any project regardless of genre. Personally, I distrust filmmakers who switch genres just because. They smack of employee material. Good directors do not necessarily restrict to one genre but at least follow a line in their work.
-The only other director that hadn't done action before Bond was Apted and it shows. Throughout TWINE there's a visible split between dialogue and action scenes. They seem to belong to different films. Spottiswoode, by all accounts a mediocre director (although an extremely good editor) at least knew action and was capable to control Armstrong. So did Tamahori. Dan Bradley's style is so obtrussive (Bourne 2 and 3, Indy 4) that escapes control from the director. I didn't like Bourne 2's shaky cameras and reviews point towards the fact that there's more of that in QOS.
-Most of the "talent" in QOS is American. Can anybody name Mr Forster's Swiss films? He doesn't have any. He studied in the States (Matter of fact, he's the first director who has studied cinema rather than learnt through the ranks). Both editors are American and last time that happened was Wagner on DAD. DP is American. 2nd unit director is American. Title designers are American and the designer is Canadian. So far, what's made Bond special is that is not American and has a slightly different approach to action. Hollywood makes everything in a production line fashion and I fear if they let them continue interfering two or three films down the road these films will be undistinguishable from your average US disposable crap: short, cut-to-the-chase affairs. A lot of posters in this forums seem not not be especially concerned by that possibility, far from it, they'd rather go for it. To them I ask what is it they like about Bond at all? Any dumb movie can have a car chase and I'm sure when the cycle goes into a downward curve and Bond movies start looking like cheap Steven Seagall knockoffs instead of expensive Bourne lookalikes, you'll be equally fast in jumping off ship as you were in boarding.

What an utterly ludicrous argument.

Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, John Picker, Maurice Binder, Barbara Broccoli, Marvin Hamlisch, Bill Conti, Dana Broccoli, Michael G Wilson, Nancy Sinatra, Carly Simon, Gladys Knight, Rita Coolidge, Tina Turner, Richard Maibaum, Joanna Harwood, Bruce Feirstein, Michael France, Roger Spottiswoode, Charles Juroe.. they are all American are they not?

[DLibrasnow]

What an utterly ludicrous argument.

Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, John Picker, Maurice Binder, Barbara Broccoli, Marvin Hamlisch, Bill Conti, Dana Broccoli, Michael G Wilson, Nancy Sinatra, Carly Simon, Gladys Knight, Rita Coolidge, Tina Turner, Richard Maibaum, Joanna Harwood, Bruce Feirstein, Michael France, Roger Spottiswoode, Charles Juroe.. they are all American are they not?

NOT

Saltzman - Canadian
Roger Spottiswoode - Canadian

[Royal Dalton]

And even though Spottiswoode's Canadian-born, he grew up in Britain.

Saltzman and Broccoli were quite clearly Anglophiles. You can't really compare them to guns-for-hire like Dan Bradley and co.

[Zorin Industries]

And even though Spottiswoode's Canadian-born, he grew up in Britain.

Saltzman and Broccoli were quite clearly Anglophiles. You can't really compare them to guns-for-hire like Dan Bradley and co.

Blame Canada then.

With all respect this is a futile line of argument - as short sighted as the original notion itself.

[bondrules]

I would have never thought that Sony would impose Forster on the Broccoli's. I don't buy that.

Edited by bondrules, 30 October 2008 - 04:19 PM.

[MattofSteel]

I refuse to let anyone blame Canada! Harry was as much a part of the earlier films as Cubby was.

Also, Paul Haggis is Canadian. From my hometown, actually. Which provides a conundrum for me, because my initial response to his hiring on CR was "Wow, a kid from around London CAN grown up to become a successful screenwriter and work on Bond," and then I kind of went, "Oh, god, what are the odds of it happening twice??"

[stamper]

Who care's, where they are from, what's clear is that Foster came in with his american crew, and took over. EOn bended and got raped. Apart from Arnold and a couple others, there's almost no english people left in the crew. He has made a MOR action american movie starring an english spy who spent about 1m30 in the UK in the movie, and as Donovan said, it's already starting to be undistinguishable from a Steven Seagal movie the budget being the only difference.

007 legacy was back on the right track with CR, it's now in serious trouble. I can't wait to see the numbers coming in past the first three weeks, it's going to be painful for both Sony and EON. People like Rye or me may be prone to overreacting because we are concerned. You can't deny that most reviews including CHUD confirms what Rye warned you about. The Bond legacy will be in serious trouble soon, once no one go see this movie because regular joe can't understand anything in it. It's not like a Bergman movie you have to watch several times. It's just that way because it's messy, and that is unforgivable.

I would have much prefered a movie better than CR, using the YOLT/MWTGG storyline, rather than this piece of forgetable action fest. If Craig wasn't in there, the movie would be unwatchable. The reviewer who says it feels like a tacked on climax to CR is right. They tried to do Bourne Ultimatum, ie a movie made just for the studio to have a big budget flick out there for the season, rushed with lots of money spent due to continuous rewrites, that don't add a lot to the legacy other than hopefully selling tickets. Only at least Bourne 3 feels like a real movie, watchable even if you don't know what happened before.

[bondrules]

there's almost no english people left in the crew.

Sorry there, but most of the crew ARE English.

Toby Hefferman, James Munro, with the exception of Lerner, all of the AD's are English, makeup, wardrobe, sound, DP's, ALL English...I was there, it was 99% UK rounded

Edited by bondrules, 30 October 2008 - 04:24 PM.

[00Twelve]

Who care's, where they are from, what's clear is that Forster came in with his American crew, and took over. EON bended and got raped.

Oh, for crying out loud. Lighten up.

[Royal Dalton]

He has made a MOR action american movie starring an english spy who spent about 1m30 in the UK in the movie

To be fair, he didn't spend that much time in Britain (literally, or in the plot) in Casino Royale, either.

At least the studio stuff and some of the location work for this film was actually shot here.

[Jim]

EOn bended and got raped.

I can't wait to see the numbers coming in past the first three weeks, it's going to be painful for both Sony and EON.

It's just that way because it's messy, and that is unforgivable.

Don't you think that this is all becoming a bit silly now?

It's only a film.

[Zorin Industries]

Who care's, where they are from, what's clear is that Foster came in with his american crew, and took over. EOn bended and got raped. Apart from Arnold and a couple others, there's almost no english people left in the crew. He has made a MOR action american movie starring an english spy who spent about 1m30 in the UK in the movie, and as Donovan said, it's already starting to be undistinguishable from a Steven Seagal movie the budget being the only difference.

007 legacy was back on the right track with CR, it's now in serious trouble. I can't wait to see the numbers coming in past the first three weeks, it's going to be painful for both Sony and EON. People like Rye or me may be prone to overreacting because we are concerned. You can't deny that most reviews including CHUD confirms what Rye warned you about. The Bond legacy will be in serious trouble soon, once no one go see this movie because regular joe can't understand anything in it.

What a lot of old tosh. This comes from a man that thought the film was doomed because the trailer didn't come out at exactly the same time as the ROYALE one did (the fact his own fanorak impatience for a two minute taster was getting the better of him seemed to not come into it though). The legacy was not back on track in 2006. It was put on a DIFFERENT track and SOLACE continues down that line. It is ludicrous that ROYALE is being hailed as the second coming when SOLACE is its natural companion film.

"EON bended and got raped"....? WHAT SORT OF COMMENT IS THAT TO MAKE?!! That is bordering on deeply insulting. Or it would if the musings of a die hard nostalgic cannot see the wood for the trees. Fine - don't get QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Feel like you have been "bended" over and your childhood molested via a film. But just don't expect other people who have a wider awareness of cinema, audience-ship and James Bond films to agree with you.

So people remember : if you don't like QUANTUM OF SOLACE you only need to convince people that by comparing it to any other action film that's out there rather than come up with a better discourse as to why you think it doesn't work. It's extremely lazy and completely missing the point to compare SOLACE to any of the BOURNE trilogy. Watch OHMSS. Watch FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. THEY are the forefathers of the BOURNE trilogy. To say Bond is like the Damon franchise is like saying The Beatles stole from Oasis.

In my review (other reviews are available) I have said why it works. No-one has actually said why it doesn't. Saying "the crew are not English" and its like a Steven Seagal movie is deeply flawed and limits any faith I have right now in the naysayers.

And for the record, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is NOT confusing. It just needs its audience to work for their supper. Bond fans are not used to that as evidenced this week.

[Jim]

"EON bended and got raped"....? WHAT SORT OF COMMENT IS THAT TO MAKE?!! That is bordering on deeply insulting. Or it would if the musings of a die hard nostalgic cannot see the wood for the trees. Fine - don't get QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Feel like you have been "bended" over and your childhood molested via a film. But just don't expect other people who have a wider awareness of cinema, audience-ship and James Bond films to agree with you.

Or people with a wider awareness of what is acceptable as criticism of some film some people did, and what is not.

stamper - anything more like this and you can leave.

[Mister E]

stamper is yet again on his own planet. Talk to him again when he breifly visits Earth.

[Jet Set Willy]

Stamper, have you ever thought of joining the DCINB forum. You'd get on just fine there with the negative opinions you have.....

[Bondian]

All the unnecessary moans and groans in this thread reminds me of this.



Graham could be spot on with his review. But, we're not going to know until we've seen it ourselves.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Stamper, have you ever thought of joining the DCINB forum. You'd get on just fine there with the negative opinions you have.....

To all Craignotbonders:

1)We're in 2008. Daniel Craig has firmishly stablished as a new James Bond.
2)Daniel Craig IS a GREAT James Bond
3) ...
*speaking thru headset* "I think you people should find a better place to meet"