176 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Even the HALO jump from TOMORROW NEVER DIES was more convincing.

Dude, c'mon. Of course it's more convincing. Someone was doing the jump. Every time I see it, I automatically think "wow, that stunt guy's awesome."

Sure. And QUANTUM OF SOLACE's scene would have been greatly improved if they did have somebody doing a jump for real, and then intercut it with the wind tunnel footage of Craig and Kurylenko, and if they had better effects people.

I personally thought the actors' faces from the wind tunnel looked remarkable. I'd be impressed to see another FX house make it look even more convincing.

Well, it's a shame they couldn't do as decent a job on the background, 'cause that's what really kills the scene. The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

[HildebrandRarity]

The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

In the end, it *is* a JAMES BOND MOVIE. There's no such thing as a 007 film being "real". The idea that Bolivia has sink hole upon sink hole of manipulated fresh water supplies that's being hidden from their government and population is not based in reality. No way! No James Bond film is grounded fully in reality. Not one.

[tim partridge]

I personally thought the actors' faces from the wind tunnel looked remarkable. I'd be impressed to see another FX house make it look even more convincing.

Well, it's a shame they couldn't do as decent a job on the background, 'cause that's what really kills the scene. The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

To think they spent all that money bringing in those DALSA cameras for that scene too. It's amazing to think the similar aerial backgrounds from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS were accomplished by having the actors literally perform in front of a rolling plaster mold doubling for the desert!

[00Twelve]

Even the HALO jump from TOMORROW NEVER DIES was more convincing.

Dude, c'mon. Of course it's more convincing. Someone was doing the jump. Every time I see it, I automatically think "wow, that stunt guy's awesome."

Sure. And QUANTUM OF SOLACE's scene would have been greatly improved if they did have somebody doing a jump for real, and then intercut it with the wind tunnel footage of Craig and Kurylenko, and if they had better effects people.

I personally thought the actors' faces from the wind tunnel looked remarkable. I'd be impressed to see another FX house make it look even more convincing.

Well, it's a shame they couldn't do as decent a job on the background, 'cause that's what really kills the scene. The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

Admittedly, I haven't looked at the background in any of the viewings I've had. I've been too caught up in trying to see if the actors' faces didn't fit well in the composite. As far as that portion goes, I've failed to notice any significant flaw. I'll see what the background looks like next time. Still, it can't be reasonably compared to DAD. I just can't imagine.

[Harmsway]

The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

In the end, it *is* a JAMES BOND MOVIE. There's no such thing as a 007 film being "real". The idea that Bolivia has sink hole upon sink hole of manipulated fresh water supplies that's being hidden from their government and population is not based in reality. No way! No James Bond film is grounded fully in reality. Not one.

I'm not asking for a Bond flick to be real. I'm asking for its effects work to be convincing.

[HildebrandRarity]

The faces can look as real as ever, but if the overall thing seems like it was made in a computer - and it does - then it really just doesn't work, especially in a film that's been more or less convincingly "real" for the rest of its running time.

In the end, it *is* a JAMES BOND MOVIE. There's no such thing as a 007 film being "real". The idea that Bolivia has sink hole upon sink hole of manipulated fresh water supplies that's being hidden from their government and population is not based in reality. No way! No James Bond film is grounded fully in reality. Not one.

I'm not asking for a Bond flick to be real. I'm asking for its effects work to be convincing.

I think the effects work was relatively convincing for a highly unlikely scenario. The only thing I would have preferred would have been for the 'chute's rip cord to have been pulled 2 seconds earlier.

I can go on about other effects flaws in Bond movies and even rail on OHMSS, but what would be the point. At least Quantum has it's action in broad daylight. Look at The Dark Knight. It has most of its sceenes at night (for obvious reasons given the character) except for the Lambo scene and the hospital going up. It's much easier to mask effects flaws at 'night' or in 'darkness' or 'torrential rain' than it is in bright daylight. Let's give the film it's credit. In the end it's only a matter of opinion.

It's funny how people analyse five seconds of film to death and forget about a lot of other good things about the movie.

Life's too short.

[Joe Bond]

I think the effects work was relatively convincing for a highly unlikely scenario. The only thing I would have preferred would have been for the 'chute's rip cord to have been pulled 2 seconds earlier.

I can go on about other effects flaws in Bond movies and even rail on OHMSS, but what would be the point. At least Quantum has it's action in broad daylight. Look at The Dark Knight. It has most of its sceenes at night (for obvious reasons given the character) except for the Lambo scene and the hospital going up. It's much easier to mask effects flaws at 'night' or in 'darkness' or 'torrential rain' than it is in bright daylight. Let's give the film it's credit. In the end it's only a matter of opinion.

It's funny how people analyse five seconds of film to death and forget about a lot of other good things about the movie.

Life's too short.

I agree and a good example of this is the Miami airport scene in CR where I found through the directors commentary that when every you see a plane landing or taking off in the background of the action taking place (Bond running or fighting in the tanker) were CGI planes which look real since its a night scene and are easier to hide so if this sequence happened during the day I wouldn't be surprised if the CGI would be more noticeable. I do think having stuntmen doing the free fall could of helped like it did in the movie Get Smart but I still like this sequence. I think that some of the visual effects in QoS were more noticeable but this was mainly due to the use of them during daylight situations but some of the visual effects were done really well like I read an interview with the Visual Effects Director and I was surprised to find this out about the car chase "So we had to find a way to shoot all of those interiors without him being there on location. It was a bummer for him but the schedule just wouldn't allow it. So what happened is Dan Bradley would setup a rig that would put the camera where he would want to put it in the car. and very carefully mapped out all those angles and shot them as backgrounds with the camera where it needed to be and later matched that on set at Pinewood with Daniel in an Aston Martin that was being flung around on a big steel floor in a bluescreen set, bashing into cars and doing all that stuff but in a controlled environment. The plates were shot on location and then we did all the foregrounds later on stage. We had to add windscreens in with reflections in a lot of case." and this about the finale at the eco-hotel "Its an observatory and they wouldn't let us do anything on location, we couldn't do smoke, we couldn't use lights at night. We shot plates but all of the exterior explosions were shot on the backlot at Pinewood. I don't think there's a single bit of CG fire and smoke."

[Harmsway]

I think the effects work was relatively convincing for a highly unlikely scenario. The only thing I would have preferred would have been for the 'chute's rip cord to have been pulled 2 seconds earlier.

I'd agree, if only EON hadn't done more convincing freefall sequences in the past. I mean, sure, MOONRAKER had those awkward close-ups of Roger Moore with the background projection, but the use of actual freefall footage was thrilling and compelling in a way that the freefall in QUANTUM OF SOLACE never manages.

But part of my issue with it is just the concept. This scene is so absurd, that the only way I would find it acceptable in a Craig Bond film is if it was handled absolutely convincingly. As it stands, it isn't handled that way, and feels tonally inconsistent with the Bond presented to us in the rest of the film (and CASINO ROYALE previous). It's too... cartoonish.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE, on the whole, is terrific stuff, but in this moment, it really jumps the shark.

[Loomis]

I think the effects work was relatively convincing for a highly unlikely scenario. The only thing I would have preferred would have been for the 'chute's rip cord to have been pulled 2 seconds earlier.

I'd agree, if only EON hadn't done more convincing freefall sequences in the past. I mean, sure, MOONRAKER had those awkward close-ups of Roger Moore with the background projection, but the use of actual freefall footage was thrilling and compelling in a way that the freefall in QUANTUM OF SOLACE never manages.

But part of my issue with it is just the concept. This scene is so absurd, that the only way I would find it acceptable in a Craig Bond film is if it was handled absolutely convincingly. As it stands, it isn't handled that way, and feels tonally inconsistent with the Bond presented to us in the rest of the film (and CASINO ROYALE previous). It's too... cartoonish.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE, on the whole, is terrific stuff, but in this moment, it really jumps the shark.

Agreed, Harmsway. And, Hilly, it matters because QUANTUM OF SOLACE is otherwise (well, apart from one or two other small gripes) so wonderful and terrific and amazing that its flaws really do hurt it.

For instance, no one cares that much about the glacier surfing in DIE ANOTHER DAY, because it's not as though apart from that DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film (well, it is in my opinion, but I digress ) - it's just another blunder to add to the pile.

That we're coming down so hard on the freefall is actually a compliment to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[byline]

Well, I guess this is one of those "different strokes for different folks" moments, but other than the landing, I find the freefall sequence very believable. The background looks right to me the entire way down; if they'd just tagged on a few more seconds before touchdown, I could have bought it completely (contrary to anything "MythBusters" might have to say about it).

[HildebrandRarity]

I think the effects work was relatively convincing for a highly unlikely scenario. The only thing I would have preferred would have been for the 'chute's rip cord to have been pulled 2 seconds earlier.

I'd agree, if only EON hadn't done more convincing freefall sequences in the past. I mean, sure, MOONRAKER had those awkward close-ups of Roger Moore with the background projection, but the use of actual freefall footage was thrilling and compelling in a way that the freefall in QUANTUM OF SOLACE never manages.

But part of my issue with it is just the concept. This scene is so absurd, that the only way I would find it acceptable in a Craig Bond film is if it was handled absolutely convincingly. As it stands, it isn't handled that way, and feels tonally inconsistent with the Bond presented to us in the rest of the film (and CASINO ROYALE previous). It's too... cartoonish.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE, on the whole, is terrific stuff, but in this moment, it really jumps the shark.

Agreed, Harmsway. And, Hilly, it matters because QUANTUM OF SOLACE is otherwise (well, apart from one or two other small gripes) so wonderful and terrific and amazing that its flaws really do hurt it.

For instance, no one cares that much about the glacier surfing in DIE ANOTHER DAY, because it's not as though apart from that DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film (well, it is in my opinion, but I digress ) - it's just another blunder to add to the pile.

That we're coming down so hard on the freefall is actually a compliment to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

It's a back-handed compliment.

I could start a thread on the flaws of each of the sacred cows of the canon. FRWL and OHMSS, for example.

You know, in this part of the world there is a lot of skiing that goes on for about four months of the year. Avalances happen. Skiers get killed in avalances every month. But look at OHMSS. Tracy and Bond survive a MASSIVE avalance. OHMSS is a 'realistic' Bond, but there's absolutely NO WAY that avalance sequence is realistic. It's a joke. It doesn't come off well. Rigg is on a sleigh and you can tell. Lazenby couldn't put skis to snow and was useless. But no one talks about that sequence. Why? I have no idea. I could go on and on about how childish some of the stuff that happens in OHMSS is, but all i'd get is grief.

I just don't understand the mind set of some people here. I just don't.

As far as the free fall, I have seen the movie five times and every time I was focused on the ripples and contortions on the two faces moreso than the surrounding. The hunt of the silver DC3 by the black attacking jet and helicopter against the background of beiges was a visual treat and the conversation that occurs between Bond and Camille in the sinkhole is outstanding. These are the things to focus on. These are the things that make Q0S among the best of them.

PS

The GoldenEye freefall is not exactly superior. Moonraker's is MESMERIC, of course. I saw the movie in 1979 and was completely blown away by it. But Eon decided to go slightly different this time. It's a Bond movie in the end.

[Loomis]

Wait, I've said repeatedly that QoS is, on the whole, an excellent film.

Does that mean I can't pick up on its flaws? If I say that it even has flaws am I crossing the line? If not, why do you say that you can't understand the "mind set" of some people here?

Must QoS be received as 100% perfect or we all have to just shut up?

And, yes, the flaws of OHMSS have been covered in great depth for many years by many Bond fans and writers, including Harmsway, who has pointed out his problems with it.

[00Twelve]

In Harms' defense, I can tell you that he'll be the first to agree that OHMSS is flawed, not that he needs my defense.

[HildebrandRarity]

I actually wouldn't mind a link to Harms' OHMSS's flaws piece.

Must QoS be received as 100% perfect or we all have to just shut up?

No no, of course not. I humbly apologise.

Another notable difference between the free fall sequence in QOS and the one in Moonraker (which I think has the number one PTS of all time) is that the free fall in Moonraker occurs from a much higher altitude. It's out a jet plane that is nearly in the stratosphere. This element gives those in the free fall lot's of time to glide and actually 'free fall' before any pulling of the rip cord is required.

The free fall in QOS, however, is occurring out of an airplane that is deliberatly sent upwards by Bond in order to gain enough altitude to be able to parachute out of it in enough time. You can clearly see the DC3 is too close to the terrain when the helicopter machine guns it. Therefore Bond lifts it skywards to provide altitude - and thus time - to survive. Once he notes that there's no parachute for him under his seat, then everything happens very fast. The ground is a lot nearer than it is in Moonraker.

I think altitude needs to be taken into account for the rapid nature of the sequence in relation to the great one from Moonraker.

[Judo chop]

I think altitude needs to be taken into account for the rapid nature of the sequence in relation to the great one from Moonraker.

Absolutely, Hilde. I picked up on the need for the quick gain in altitude this last time I saw it (the 3rd) and you're quite right: Bond had to pull up hoping for as much altitude as the plane would give him. The scene in QOS is definitely meant to be about the rush, not about what essentially amounts to a chase sequence through the stratosphere (or whatever sphere) as was the case in Moonraker.

I looked extra closely for bad - or rather badly distracting - CGI or greenscreen effects and the harder I looked, the more I loved the scene.

The moment at the height of the plane's ascent is even more effective once realizing what Bond was trying to do. In his mind he's got to be thinking "God, I hope we're high enough.", but I'll thank the writers for not permitting Bond to actually say it, as likely would have been done in the previous eras:

<Bond pulls back hard on the stick>
Camille: "What are you DOING, James?!"
Bond: "I've got to get us higher, or we'll both be crushed on the rocks below before the parachute even opens!!"
<Cut to Camille, looking sheepish and dumb, now put in her place of your typical Not Your Typical Bond Girl™>
<Cut to 1st propeller crapping out>
Camille: "JAAAAAMES! THE ENGIIIINE!!!"
Bond: "I KNOW!"
Then cut to close up on Bond's furrowed, perspiring brow as the controls shake in his hands and he mutters to himself: "C'mon, dammit!"



I love every part of the scene just the way it is. CGI is fine. The wind tunnel effect is grand. The fall, especially as they enter the sinkhole with plane explosion just behind them, is thrilling. The parachute opens in time and we see them come to a breakneck deceleration. Bond and Camille's recovery is not necessarily instantaneous, even if it is unbelievably complete. My disbelief only requires a touch of suspension. The scene is, in all ways, at the least good enough.

I hereby declare the sequence absolved of all accusations and incrimination.

[Harmsway]

Wait, I've said repeatedly that QoS is, on the whole, an excellent film.

Does that mean I can't pick up on its flaws? If I say that it even has flaws am I crossing the line? If not, why do you say that you can't understand the "mind set" of some people here?

Must QoS be received as 100% perfect or we all have to just shut up?

Quite.

And, yes, the flaws of OHMSS have been covered in great depth for many years by many Bond fans and writers, including Harmsway, who has pointed out his problems with it.

In Harms' defense, I can tell you that he'll be the first to agree that OHMSS is flawed, not that he needs my defense.

Thanks, gentlemen. I believe I've commented on the flaws of all the Bond films at one point or another. None of 'em are perfect in my book.

I actually wouldn't mind a link to Harms' OHMSS's flaws piece.

It wasn't a piece, but there have been a number of conversations I've had regarding the numerous flaws I feel ON HER MAJESTY SECRET SERVICE has. I do think it's one of the best Bond flicks, but it's got a lot of warts. The highlights:

• A Bond actor who's rather wooden, despite a few good moments.
• A Bond villain who's ultimately somewhat forgettable.
• A rather terrible sense of humor in places. "He had lots of guts!"
• Editing that is sometimes less than stellar, to put it politely.
• A villain's plot that ranks among the silliest of all Bond storylines (moreso in execution than in concept).
• An underdeveloped relationship between Bond and his future wife, further undermined by Bond's IN LIKE FLINT-esque shagathon in Piz Gloria.
• An overabundance of action in the final sections, and some drawn-out sections towards the beginning. In other words, the film's overlong.
• A quiet, tragic ending that's bizarrely concluded with a swingin' 60's version of the Bond theme.

[HildebrandRarity]

...yes, the flaws of OHMSS have been covered in great depth for many years by many Bond fans and writers, including Harmsway, who has pointed out his problems with it.

In Harms' defense, I can tell you that he'll be the first to agree that OHMSS is flawed, not that he needs my defense.

Thanks, gentlemen. I believe I've commented on the flaws of all the Bond films at one point or another. None of 'em are perfect in my book.

I actually wouldn't mind a link to Harms' OHMSS's flaws piece.

It wasn't a piece, but there have been a number of conversations I've had regarding the numerous flaws I feel ON HER MAJESTY SECRET SERVICE has. I do think it's one of the best Bond flicks, but it's got a lot of warts. The highlights:

• A Bond actor who's rather wooden, despite a few good moments.
• A Bond villain who's ultimately somewhat forgettable.
• A rather terrible sense of humor in places. "He had lots of guts!"
• Editing that is sometimes less than stellar, to put it politely.
• A villain's plot that ranks among the silliest of all Bond storylines (moreso in execution than in concept).
• An underdeveloped relationship between Bond and his future wife, further undermined by Bond's IN LIKE FLINT-esque shagathon in Piz Gloria.
• An overabundance of action in the final sections, and some drawn-out sections towards the beginning. In other words, the film's overlong.
• A quiet, tragic ending that's bizarrely concluded with a swingin' 60's version of the Bond theme.

I think i'm going to have to start a thread called "Reevaluating O.H.M.S.S. in Light of The Craig Era"...unless someone beats me to the punch.

For such a serious movie, OHMSS starts of with a ludicrous "in" joke: This Never Happened To The Other Fella.

Defenders, such as doublenoughtspy, argue that Blofeld not recognizing Bond is not a flaw because Peter Hunt disregards YOLT (the previous movie in which Bond is caught out by Blofeld in his volcano rocket base) and think OHMSS is more a one off.

Yet, we get that final PTS line from Lazenby referencing the "other" fellow who played Bond before visuals from YOLT flow through the hour glass during the Main Titles. Further, Bond tells M that "Sir, Blofeld is a must with me" to which M retorts "you've had two years" to track him down. Why, may I ask, would Blofeld be a "must" for Bond if YOLT was disregarded and Thunderball was viewed by Hunt as preceeding OHMSS. Bond went up against Largo in Thunderball and had no idea who Blofeld was.

So how to reconcile such a glaring flaw?

Then there are lines and lines of dialoge where Bond says something but Lazenby's lips dont move or his head and back is turned. Note how he says "Royal Beluga, north of the Caspian" off screen precisely one second after he's had a big mouthful of caviar on toast. How does one speak so clearly when one has stuffed their face with bread and fish eggs only milli seconds earlier. I could go on and on about the horrible dialogue attribution errors.

And what about the stock car race thing? What was that for? To bore us to death (after we've already been bored to death with a trip to Sir Hillary Bray, Baronet's office at the Royal College of Arms)?

Harmsway is totally correct about the horrible pacing and editing in OHMSS.

I think OHMSS is just a totally over-rated Bond film whose shortcomings become appearent as soon as two more "realistic" Bond films come along with an outstanding actor leading the way, namely Q0S and CR.

I digressed.

[Harmsway]

I think OHMSS is just a totally over-rated Bond film whose shortcomings become appearent as soon as two more "realistic" Bond films come along with an outstanding actor leading the way, namely Q0S and CR.

I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's flaws have always been visible. I, and others, have been commenting on the flick's flaws long before Craig ever showed up.

That said, I do think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is by and large great entertainment, and definitely one of the best Bond films. Maybe in time I'll change my mind, but I do think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is still - warts and all - a better Bond flick than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think OHMSS is just a totally over-rated Bond film whose shortcomings become appearent as soon as two more "realistic" Bond films come along with an outstanding actor leading the way, namely Q0S and CR.

I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's flaws have always been visible. I, and others, have been commenting on the flick's flaws long before Craig ever showed up.

That said, ...

...I do think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is still - warts and all - a better Bond flick than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I just think OHMSS's lop-sided pacing, other flaws, downer of an ending, not-very-believable 'love' angle and the lead's inability to act as well as the other 5 Bonds make it impossible for me to rank it higher than Q0S.

If i'm to be objecive, how could I?

I like OHMSS but it's simply not as good as Quantum.

[Harmsway]

I just think OHMSS's lop-sided pacing, other flaws, downer of an ending, not-very-believable 'love' angle and the lead's inability to act as well as the other 5 Bonds make it impossible for me to rank it higher than Q0S.

If i'm to be objecive, how could I?

Well, I'll cede that I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has a greater quantity of flaws when I list them out on paper, but I think the flaws QUANTUM OF SOLACE has are more detrimental to the overall viewing experience. It also stands that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has more great moments than QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which merely has an abundance of very, very good moments.

But seeing as you've mentioned ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's ending as a problem, I fail to see how that's a flaw. I don't really think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's downer ending is a problem, in and of itself. It's a terrific, Fleming-faithful ending (even with the awkward Bond theme interruption). One of the best, really, and it's the one moment where the usually wooden Lazenby actually gives a grand performance. I daresay even Craig himself couldn't do any better.

[Judo chop]

My own little pea-sized thought re: OHMSS vs. QOS.

In my estimation, the Bond actor carries the majority of the weight. The person playing Bond matters more than the story, the budget, the use of the budget, the co-stars, the locations the music and everything else. Of course all of those other things matter significantly, but none so much as the actor. I have very few complaints about OHMSS. Even some of those cited just recently - that the ending is downer, or that it's unreasonable for a Bond nearly in love to be participating in an orgy just a few hours earlier - I don't necessarily find to be flaws. But the actor is a statue, and is carried by the strength of the film around him. And for that OHMSS has never been a top-five film.

[Harmsway]

But the actor is a statue, and is carried by the strength of the film around him. And for that OHMSS has never been a top-five film.

I'd say that a great performance can help carry a weak film, and that a great film can help carry a weak performance. I don't necessarily give priority to one over the other, because it's the overall experience that matters. And, in this case, I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a strong enough experience that it eclipses most of what the franchise has to offer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mean to overstate OHMSS' quality... it's just that at least 50% of the Bond franchise is worthless dreck, and most of the remaining "good" films don't have the same sparkle that OHMSS manages.

[Blonde Bond]

In fact, Broz wouldn't have landed uninjured. He'd have grunted and gasped at the pain in his collar bones, then quickly forgetting the crippling damage, run to a panicked Camille, and while holding her by the ears, shouted "CAMILLE! LISTEN TO ME!!! LOOK IN MY EYES!!!! IT'S OKAAAAAY!!!!"

That's it! Bring back Brosnan! Now, before it's too late!

[HildebrandRarity]

I just think OHMSS's lop-sided pacing, other flaws, downer of an ending, not-very-believable 'love' angle and the lead's inability to act as well as the other 5 Bonds make it impossible for me to rank it higher than Q0S.

If i'm to be objecive, how could I?

Well, I'll cede that I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has a greater quantity of flaws when I list them out on paper, but I think the flaws QUANTUM OF SOLACE has are more detrimental to the overall viewing experience. It also stands that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has more great moments than QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which merely has an abundance of very, very good moments.

But seeing as you've mentioned ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's ending as a problem, I fail to see how that's a flaw. I don't really think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's downer ending is a problem, in and of itself. It's a terrific, Fleming-faithful ending (even with the awkward Bond theme interruption). One of the best, really, and it's the one moment where the usually wooden Lazenby actually gives a grand performance. I daresay even Craig himself couldn't do any better.

I disagree. The viewing experience has to be on release and you were not there when OHMSS came out. People went to see James Bond not because it was "Fleming-faithful" but because of the Eonizing of the character to the screen through the mid 60s.

I don't think you could appreciate the dissapointment people felt at the end of OHMSS. Not many CBners were there at the time to tell.

You can watch OHMSS now and then 2 seconds after it's finished slide in your DAF UE dvd and say "wow...kool ending" because you have another Bond right in your dvd player ready to go.

Imagine what it was like for those who saw the debacle in 1969 and having to wait 2 years to see what happened.

Also, it's your opinion that Craig couldn't have done better than Lazenby. There's every chance a guy like Craig would have discussed alternative iterations of that final scene and even filmed them...with the end result being more "emotional". Even the earlier parts would have been fleshed out better so that the final pay-off was "better".

As an example, as is, Bond tries to line up some more sex (with Ruby) before he's caught by Bunt, only two hours pass before he asks Tracy to marry him. Well, that's just not good enough story telling. Any woman watching that movie - whether 1969 or 2009 - wouldn't buy it for a second. And guess what? The critics in 1969 didn't buy it either.

Only a 13 to 18 year old male would buy it.

So, since the earlier parts weren't fleshed out properly, the pay-off at the end is weakened.

I hope you understand the point i'm trying to make.

[Harmsway]

The viewing experience has to be on release and you were not there when OHMSS came out.

Nonsense. A film does not have to be within its initial context to be judged properly. In fact, the mark of a truly great film is the film's ability to survive and thrive beyond its immediate context. A film can certainly be an unrecognized masterpiece at the time of its release (see, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO, which received a mediocre response and is now widely acclaimed as one of Hitchcock's best).

I don't think you could appreciate the dissapointment people felt at the end of OHMSS.

Oh, I can. Easily. I entirely understand why my father went in to see ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and hated it. But that doesn't mean the ending was bad, per se... just that the context didn't allow for the majority of the audience to appreciate it.

Even the earlier parts would have been fleshed out better so that the final pay-off was "better".

This is probably true (in fact, I'll wager very true - one of my complaints in OHMSS is that the ending is perhaps too good for the majority of the film that precedes it), but I'm skeptical that Craig could make that final scene any better than it is, in and of itself. Lazenby's performance - and the way the scene is handled, in general - is about as perfect as I can imagine.

[Jet Set Willy]

Back on topic....

I saw it again the other night, and the scene isn't as bad as I first thought it was, but I still would liked to have seen a momentary limp from Bond or Camille afterwards, or a few more cuts and bruises off either of them.

It is what made CR so spectacular as a film. We felt Bond was in danger during CR, we felt his pain. Bond passes out after the car crash, drinks large mouthfulls of whisky to dumb the pain after a horrific fight while staring at himself in the mirror, ends up bed-ridden in hospital after a torture scene, is poisoned and almost dies. For me, this is what turned the Bond franchise on its head. It was the first Bond film that attempted a decent shot at realism, mainly in the second half of the movie.

Many here will scoff at CR having an attempt at being realistic, with the Madagascar scene and the Miami airport scene, yet even then, we saw Bond nervous before jumping off the crane. There was a sense of `will he, won't he' throughout CR. We were rooting for the new rookie Bond because of it.

I think QoS has lost some of that edge, by making Bond borderline super hero again in many parts of the film. I never once felt as though he was in danger, and I want to feel that when watching a Bond film, as this echoes the Fleming books perfectly.

I've never felt that sense of danger in hardly any of the Bond flicks, which is why CR is unique, and is ranked no.1 on my all-time favourite Bond flicks, by a long way, and no. 2 in my rankings is quite a way behind it.

Edited by Jet Set Willy, 30 November 2008 - 09:17 AM.

[quantumofsolace]

After the freefall scene Bond and Cam should at least hurt a litle. It's a Bond film, so okay, but it still feels out of place. Just let it open a few seconds earlier and it wouldn't be a problem.
But I can still go with it . Seeing it the second time I didn't mind it so much.

[Loomis]

Back on topic....

I saw it again the other night, and the scene isn't as bad as I first thought it was, but I still would liked to have seen a momentary limp from Bond or Camille afterwards, or a few more cuts and bruises off either of them.

It is what made CR so spectacular as a film. We felt Bond was in danger during CR, we felt his pain. Bond passes out after the car crash, drinks large mouthfulls of whisky to dumb the pain after a horrific fight while staring at himself in the mirror, ends up bed-ridden in hospital after a torture scene, is poisoned and almost dies. For me, this is what turned the Bond franchise on its head. It was the first Bond film that attempted a decent shot at realism, mainly in the second half of the movie.

Many here will scoff at CR having an attempt at being realistic, with the Madagascar scene and the Miami airport scene, yet even then, we saw Bond nervous before jumping off the crane. There was a sense of `will he, won't he' throughout CR. We were rooting for the new rookie Bond because of it.

I think QoS has lost some of that edge, by making Bond borderline super hero again in many parts of the film. I never once felt as though he was in danger, and I want to feel that when watching a Bond film, as this echoes the Fleming books perfectly.

I've never felt that sense of danger in hardly any of the Bond flicks, which is why CR is unique, and is ranked no.1 on my all-time favourite Bond flicks, by a long way, and no. 2 in my rankings is quite a way behind it.

Chief, I totally agree. I mean, there is that nice bit where Bond cleans himself up in the mirror after fighting Slate and it looks as though our hero is dabbing with a hankie at a slight nosebleed. But, yeah, there could and should have been more vulnerability for 007 in QUANTUM.

Still, as Tony Soprano would say, whatya gonna do?

[Mr_Wint]

But the actor is a statue, and is carried by the strength of the film around him. And for that OHMSS has never been a top-five film.

I'd say that a great performance can help carry a weak film, and that a great film can help carry a weak performance. I don't necessarily give priority to one over the other, because it's the overall experience that matters. And, in this case, I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a strong enough experience that it eclipses most of what the franchise has to offer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mean to overstate OHMSS' quality... it's just that at least 50% of the Bond franchise is worthless dreck, and most of the remaining "good" films don't have the same sparkle that OHMSS manages.

"worthless dreck" is a bit harsh. Not sure if I dislike any Bondfilm that much... not even LTK, DAD or QOS.

[HildebrandRarity]

Back on topic....

I saw it again the other night, and the scene isn't as bad as I first thought it was, but I still would liked to have seen a momentary limp from Bond or Camille afterwards, or a few more cuts and bruises off either of them.

A long time passes between the moment they hit the ground and when they have their conversation.

As soon as they hit the sinkhole floor the next scene is M going in to see the Foreign Seretary. He tells her to reign him in.

M takes her team to Bolivia to get Bond. It's not exactly a trip across the Channel into Normandy. It' across the ocean on the other hemisphere. I'd say it's a 15 hour plane ride.