176 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

"worthless dreck" is a bit harsh.

I don't think so.

[Loomis]

"worthless dreck" is a bit harsh.

I don't think so.

I'm afraid I agree with Mr_Wint. No Bond film is "worthless dreck" save for TWINE - and even then TWINE does have its moments (e.g. the PTS is always a great watch).

The Moore era was the most fun era of Bondage, and as the years pass it seems to be becoming every bit as iconic as the Connery era. Many of the series' most memorable moments and characters come from Moore, so it's not as though the Moore era merely sat there doing nothing and marked time between Connery and Dalton (although many, many Bond fans will, sadly, tell you that that's precisely what the Moore era did). Look at LOST IN TRANSLATION. Look at the very title of AUSTIN POWERS 2.

My favourite Bond is a Moore (TMWTGG), and I also love MOONRAKER and the first half of TSWLM. The rest of them - well, I'm not especially wild about any of them as films, but I do find that all of them have their highlights. And the main thing is that Moore is always - yes, always - very entertaining to watch. This is true whether he's doing a pretty close, underrated approximation of Fleming's Bond (some parts of TMWTGG), or whether he's being a million miles from Fleming's Bond (e.g. the cardigan-wearing kindly uncle of FYEO). He's never, ever dull, and you certainly can't say that about all the Bond actors.

But then again perhaps I'm in a minority of fans in that I do like all of the Bond flicks (except TWINE, but, like I say, even then....). I'm lucky to be in that minority.

[Harmsway]

I'm afraid I agree with Mr_Wint. No Bond film is "worthless dreck" save for TWINE - and even then TWINE does have its moments (e.g. the PTS is always a great watch).

"Worthless dreck," IMO, can always have some watchable moments. And heck, I'll still watch, and even enjoy, some of this junk just because they feature a guy named James Bond and there are a few moments that have appeal just because of my general appreciation for the character. But I still think the quality of a lot of the films - in and of themselves - is dire, and I'm not going to try and pretend they're actually good by any legitimate standard.

The Moore era was the most fun era of Bondage, and as the years pass it seems to be becoming every bit as iconic as the Connery era.

Well, I don't wholesale toss out the Moore era. MOONRAKER, for me, makes it into the grouping of Bond films that is genuinely good, shocking though that may be.

Indeed, one of the films I do toss out is FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, that supposed return to Fleming-style form for Moore. I think it's an utter bore with practically nothing to commend it whatsoever (even Moore, who's at least fun in all his other flicks), and is in the bottom four or five as far as the franchise is concerned.

[Mr_Wint]

I'm afraid I agree with Mr_Wint. No Bond film is "worthless dreck" save for TWINE - and even then TWINE does have its moments (e.g. the PTS is always a great watch).

"Worthless dreck," IMO, can always have some watchable moments. And heck, I'll still watch, and even enjoy, some of this junk just because they feature a guy named James Bond and there are a few moments that have appeal just because of my general appreciation for the character. But I still think the quality of a lot of the films - in and of themselves - is dire, and I'm not going to try and pretend they're actually good by any legitimate standard.

The Moore era was the most fun era of Bondage, and as the years pass it seems to be becoming every bit as iconic as the Connery era.

Well, I don't wholesale toss out the Moore era. MOONRAKER, for me, makes it into the grouping of Bond films that is genuinely good, shocking though that may be.

Indeed, one of the films I do toss out is FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, that supposed return to Fleming-style form for Moore. I think it's an utter bore with practically nothing to commend it whatsoever (even Moore, who's at least fun in all his other flicks), and is in the bottom four or five as far as the franchise is concerned.

So you think FYEO is worthless dreck? Interesting...

What are the other 10 films? Is QOS among them?

[HildebrandRarity]

The Moore era was the most fun era of Bondage, and as the years pass it seems to be becoming every bit as iconic as the Connery era.

Well, I don't wholesale toss out the Moore era. MOONRAKER, for me, makes it into the grouping of Bond films that is genuinely good, shocking though that may be.

Indeed, one of the films I do toss out is FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, that supposed return to Fleming-style form for Moore. I think it's an utter bore with practically nothing to commend it whatsoever (even Moore, who's at least fun in all his other flicks), and is in the bottom four or five as far as the franchise is concerned.

I saw both Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only at the theatre during opening weekends. I was about on the cusp becoming a teenager. These movies straddled the age of 13 for me.

You can imagine how awsome I thought Moonraker was. It was the first Bond movie I saw without my parents coming along. FYEO was a total let down 2 years later.

I haven't changed my mind as an adult. FYEO is near the bottom three and Moonraker is in the upper 11 somewhere. And I don't care what the likes of Graham Rye, et al think. I was there then, and i'm here still.

Moore has some iconic Bonds to his name, namely his first four. After that his age was showing and so was the lack of any spark by Cubby and Co. until the Dalton re-boot came along during the Brosnan-almost-Bond moments of 1986.

[Mister E]

Indeed, one of the films I do toss out is FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, that supposed return to Fleming-style form for Moore. I think it's an utter bore with practically nothing to commend it whatsoever (even Moore, who's at least fun in all his other flicks), and is in the bottom four or five as far as the franchise is concerned.

Yep. I used to like FYEO but now I find it a yawner, every single non-regular character in that film is boring and it had the worst PTS in Bond history. I think OCTOPUSSY was vastly superior, it had the grit of FYEO but it kept the colour and fun. The only problem was the nonsensical Orlov and the wooden Octopussy.

[gkgyver]

"Wooden Octopussy" ... hmm .... that sounds just twisted.

Back to the topic for a split second here; I don't mind the freefall at all. Why would I? It's not like Dark Knight, where Batman and Rachel fall from the top of a skyscraper, land on a car and the only thing slowing their fall is an awning.

The parachute opens, how far from the ground isn't really detectable, and I'd rather have it open a few meters too late than a few meters too early - Bond and Camille gently floating towards the ground isn't exactly the Bond way either, or is it?

[HildebrandRarity]

"Wooden Octopussy" ... hmm .... that sounds just twisted.

How about "Woody and Octopussy"?

[gkgyver]

Pussy Galore I assume?

[Judo chop]

It's not like Dark Knight, where Batman and Rachel fall from the top of a skyscraper, land on a car and the only thing slowing their fall is an awning.

No. It certainly is not as moronically unimaginable as that particular moviemaking brainfart.

What were they thinking??? I mean, who writes that into a script?

I can see where something like the Bond sequence might look fine on paper but get abused in the editing room:
<Mid-fall Bond scrambles to catch Camille. Just before impact the parachute opens and Bond and Camille hit the ground hard, but remain alive>

But who writes this?:
<Batman jumps out of the window after Rachael and catches her mid-fall. His cape flaps wildly for 2 seconds, and their fall is cushioned by a parked Acura>



Seriously.



I’d be curious to know how those complaining about the action in Bond compare it to that of TDK. Personally I think there’s no competition. Despite having some good bone-breaking sound effects, from what I remember the ‘action’ in TDK is frustratingly dull.

[Harmsway]

But who writes this?:
<Batman jumps out of the window after Rachael and catches her mid-fall. His cape flaps wildly for 2 seconds, and their fall is cushioned by a parked Acura>

Nolan's Batman franchise has always been more openly fantastical and reality-bending than Craig's Bond. It's a bit of a different matter. In fact, the only thing I find wrong with that particular sequence in THE DARK KNIGHT is the brief dialogue that follows their landing.

And anyway, it's written like this in THE DARK KNIGHT's script (a bit differently from how it plays out):

EXT. BUILDING -- NIGHT

They DROP- Batman FIRES his grapple, SNAGGING Rachel's ankle-activates one wing of his cape- They SPIN and SLOW- Batman envelopes Rachel- they SLAM into the hood of a passing taxi.

INT. TAXI -- CONTINUOUS

The DRIVER SCREAMS as Batman and Rachel hit the roof- ROLL
down the windshield- onto the pavement. Alive.

I’d be curious to know how those complaining about the action in Bond compare it to that of TDK.

Some of the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a great improvement on what was presented in THE DARK KNIGHT. But while the sequences in QUANTUM OF SOLACE tend to be better-staged (with a few exceptions), the dramatic impulse in the sequences is stronger in THE DARK KNIGHT, which, for me, makes them more watchable. I care more.

[Judo chop]

But who writes this?:
<Batman jumps out of the window after Rachael and catches her mid-fall. His cape flaps wildly for 2 seconds, and their fall is cushioned by a parked Acura>

Nolan's Batman franchise has always been more openly fantastical and reality-bending than Craig's Bond. It's a bit of a different matter. In fact, the only thing I find wrong with that particular sequence in THE DARK KNIGHT is the brief dialogue that follows their landing.

And anyway, it's written like this in THE DARK KNIGHT's script (a bit differently from how it plays out):

EXT. BUILDING -- NIGHT

They DROP- Batman FIRES his grapple, SNAGGING Rachel's ankle-activates one wing of his cape- They SPIN and SLOW- Batman envelopes Rachel- they SLAM into the hood of a passing taxi.

INT. TAXI -- CONTINUOUS

The DRIVER SCREAMS as Batman and Rachel hit the roof- ROLL
down the windshield- onto the pavement. Alive.

I’d be curious to know how those complaining about the action in Bond compare it to that of TDK.

Some of the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a great improvement on what was presented in THE DARK KNIGHT. But while the sequences in QUANTUM OF SOLACE tend to be better-staged (with a few exceptions), the dramatic impulse in the sequences is stronger in THE DARK KNIGHT, which, for me, makes them more watchable. I care more.

Now let this be a lesson to all of you. Don’t bring speculation and wild guesswork to a fight with this guy, ‘cause he’ll bring the ENTIRE SCRIPT!
Raise your thumbs if you love Harmsway!



Your point stands, but I was really only talking about what’s on screen at the time, at-face-value, and not its context in the story. And this is another matter, but I have to contest your point that Batman is more reality-bending than Bond. Maybe he’s supposed to be, but he’s not in TDK. The film’s tone is entirely realistic and allows for only minimal suspensions of disbelief.

In any case, I’m not sure I agree that TDK's action substance beats out QOS's, even after giving TDK the benefit of the doubt. I can’t remember caring too much in TDK. I remember being expected to care, but not really caring. (Though I totally need to give the film another shot.) And what’s more, suddenly I find myself caring a whole lot more in Bond’s fight scenes than I ever had before.

- Bond killing Greene’s man in the hotel room has a very clinical atmosphere to it, which is very telling of Bond’s state of mind at that time.

- Bond dropping the non-Quantum agent off the roof is another look into the character. Bond ‘tried his best’ not to kill him, though we get the sense that his best still ain’t that good. Incidentally, I’d say this is very comparable to the scene in TDK where Batman drops the guy breaking his legs.

- Bond killing the cops during the Mathis set-up is not dwelt upon action-wise, but I find it very emotionally satisfying for Bond.

- Bond fighting Greene while Camille has her revenge has the same effect. I want to ‘cheer on’ Camille while I really want Bond to squash the worm.

- And of course there’s Bond’s release of Greene after he has begun to realize the pointlessness of revenge and ‘passively’ allows the bad guys to destroy themselves.

- I’d even say the opening car chase is filled-out with additional substance in knowing hindsight that White was being pulverized in the trunk during the chase.

So. I agree that context for an action sequence adds a whole ‘nother level of depth, but I still say Quantum beats the TDK in that category as well. If not, it’d be a good fight.

[Loomis]

As films, I'd rank THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE as about as good as each other. Both have wonderful elements and are unusually rich (for franchise flicks) in atmosphere, characterisation and - no doubt - Meaning™, and on a technical level they're both gourmet experiences. However, both have their share of flaws.

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

So I must conclude - with no small amount of reluctance - that, because TDK does not make a fool of itself in the way that QoS does, TDK ends up "pwning" QoS.

I have spoken.

[Joe Bond]

As films, I'd rank THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE as about as good as each other. Both have wonderful elements and are unusually rich (for franchise flicks) in atmosphere, characterisation and - no doubt - Meaning™, and on a technical level they're both gourmet experiences. However, both have their share of flaws.

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

So I must conclude - with no small amount of reluctance - that, because TDK does not make a fool of itself in the way that QoS does, TDK ends up "pwning" QoS.

I have spoken.

And I can understand where you are coming from since it would have been better if they had tried it for real but during my 3rd viewing I payed close attention to this sequence for the backdrops and didn't think it was that bad in fact I didn't have a problem with the backgrounds since I felt it was real but what makes this sequence look a little artificial is the way Bond and Camille are put against the background especially in the lighting which I could tell was artificial and if they had done a skydiving sequence like in Get Smart where they had stunt doubles do it for real and intercut with closeups of the actors then the sequence would look pretty realistic but even so I actually like the sequence and I feel that its a lot better than the way Spider-man is portrayed swinging from building to building in the Spidey films or the DAD surf sequence but thats just my opionion and I respect yours Loomis.

[Daddy Bond]

As films, I'd rank THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE as about as good as each other. Both have wonderful elements and are unusually rich (for franchise flicks) in atmosphere, characterisation and - no doubt - Meaning™, and on a technical level they're both gourmet experiences. However, both have their share of flaws.

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

So I must conclude - with no small amount of reluctance - that, because TDK does not make a fool of itself in the way that QoS does, TDK ends up "pwning" QoS.

I have spoken.

Brosnan's halo jump in TND is far worse because of the height he falls from.

[Judo chop]

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

I have spoken.

And I can't believe what you are saying.

I'll let you off with your belief that Bond's freefall is worse than the glacier surfing, or the octopus vest under the avalanche scene. (To quote LeChiffre... 'but you are SOOOO wrong!')

But how is it a bigger ball dropped than Batman's taxi cushion?

Bond and Camille slow down. Granted, very close to impact, but they do slow down. Considerably. And granted, they'd probably have hit some sharp rocks and been diced to bits, but they didn't. They hit smooth sandstone, or whatever. Could've happened.

Now... Batman has a suit of armor, but Rachael does not. They jump, gravitationally unimpeded, from a high-rise apartment building and hit a moving vehicle. Rachael is DEAD.

You are up against the physical world with this argument. If you win this one, next you should take on Big Tobacco.

[Daddy Bond]

As films, I'd rank THE DARK KNIGHT and QUANTUM OF SOLACE as about as good as each other. Both have wonderful elements and are unusually rich (for franchise flicks) in atmosphere, characterisation and - no doubt - Meaning™, and on a technical level they're both gourmet experiences. However, both have their share of flaws.

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

So I must conclude - with no small amount of reluctance - that, because TDK does not make a fool of itself in the way that QoS does, TDK ends up "pwning" QoS.

I have spoken.

Brosnan's halo jump in TND is far worse because of the height he falls from.

As a note: water isn't soft after you hit it with enough force - it's like hitting rock or concrete. Brosnan should have been DEAD - D.E.A.D.- DEAD in TND.

[Loomis]

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

I have spoken.

And I can't believe what you are saying.

I'll let you off with your belief that Bond's freefall is worse than the glacier surfing, or the octopus vest under the avalanche scene. (To quote LeChiffre... 'but you are SOOOO wrong!')

But how is it a bigger ball dropped than Batman's taxi cushion?

Bond and Camille slow down. Granted, very close to impact, but they do slow down. Considerably. And granted, they'd probably have hit some sharp rocks and been diced to bits, but they didn't. They hit smooth sandstone, or whatever. Could've happened.

Now... Batman has a suit of armor, but Rachael does not. They jump, gravitationally unimpeded, from a high-rise apartment building and hit a moving vehicle. Rachael is DEAD.

You are up against the physical world with this argument. If you win this one, next you should take on Big Tobacco.

Well, I guess they're both scenes that play fast and loose with realism, but at least the fall in TDK isn't a horrendous eyesore like its QoS counterpart. Also, it's considerably shorter.

[byline]

I will, however, say this: *drumroll* there's nothing in TDK that's remotely as shark-jumping or fridge-nuking as that---- that thing involving the "freefall" and "instant recovery". Ugh. It's just too horrid for words. It's wholly possible that nothing in the entire history of Eon Productions has ever dropped the ball so badly.

You seriously find this more eyeroll-inducing than that dreadful tsunami-surfing scene in "Die Another Day"? OK, I can't help you there. Personally, I found this scene kind of typical for what's gone on in most of the Bond films. Not terribly believable, but I was willing to accept it in the context of it being a Bond flick, and there's always going to be some reality-bending fantasy aspect to it, no matter how "realistic" they try to make it. And, in my opinion, that's as it should be. Wouldn't be Bond without it. But, even there, there's going to be a tipping point. The biggest eye-roller for me (especially given the lousy CGI) will always be that God-awful surfing scene. It's just impossible to me that EON could ever top that . . . nor would they want to.

[HildebrandRarity]

I like the scene where Bond chases Nick Nack around with an open suitcase in the Chinese junk. That was cute.

[Harmsway]

Your point stands, but I was really only talking about what’s on screen at the time, at-face-value, and not its context in the story.

Context is everything, though. What works in one film doesn't work in another. Hence Craig's freefall in QUANTUM OF SOLACE being perfectly appropriate for a film like GOLDENEYE or TOMORROW NEVER DIES, but feeling terribly out of place in the very gritty and dark QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

And this is another matter, but I have to contest your point that Batman is more reality-bending than Bond. Maybe he’s supposed to be, but he’s not in TDK. The film’s tone is entirely realistic and allows for only minimal suspensions of disbelief.

But you don't have stuff like memory fabric glider capes in Craig's Bond, and for good reason - it would be jarringly awful in the latter, but perfectly appropriate in the former. Same for tanks that jump and shoot out escape-pod bat-bikes with crazy abilities. Indeed, the whole reason they can get away with the Rachel/Batman free-fall is because they've established that Batman's tech enables him to glide (something, I might add, that is impossible in real life).

(Though I totally need to give the film another shot.)

You do. As I recall, it took BEGINS a while to grow on you. You may never consider THE DARK KNIGHT superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I do think you don't give it anywhere near enough credit.

So. I agree that context for an action sequence adds a whole ‘nother level of depth, but I still say Quantum beats the TDK in that category as well. If not, it’d be a good fight.

I don't think so. And practically all of the examples you fight - save the action-y climax, which, all things considered is pretty brief and more than a little undercut by its very mundane staging - are little moments, but not the big action sequences. I don't consider a lot of what you suggested "action." I'm thinking of stuff like the car chase, rooftop chase, boat chase, plane chase... There's not a whole lot of dramatic impetus behind 'em, partially because they're very personal, really. It's more "Bond outruns bad guys" than specific foes. And no, knowing that Mr. White is in the boot of Bond's car doesn't count, because really, it comes after the fact and plays little to no role in the sequence prior.

THE DARK KNIGHT gets the edge here for having its big action moments deal with characters, first and foremost. Like THE DARK KNIGHT's epic Batman-Joker-Dent car chase through Chicago - oh, oops, I meant Gotham. It might not be entirely impressive (though it's certainly not bad), but it's gripping because of what's at stake between the characters. I never once felt that level of investment in QUANTUM OF SOLACE's big set-pieces.

And I'm guessing that's more than anything a result of the fact that many of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's big set-pieces are somewhat unnecessary. They're not very connected to the concerns of narrative or character, aside from the rather standard finale (how many times have we seen a hero and villain fighting it out in an exploding complex before?). That's partially why I think QUANTUM OF SOLACE would be greatly improved as a film if it lost so much of its bigger action pieces. The narrative wouldn't feel as padded-out.

So I must conclude - with no small amount of reluctance - that, because TDK does not make a fool of itself in the way that QoS does, TDK ends up "pwning" QoS.

I have spoken.

[Judo chop]

And this is another matter, but I have to contest your point that Batman is more reality-bending than Bond. Maybe he’s supposed to be, but he’s not in TDK. The film’s tone is entirely realistic and allows for only minimal suspensions of disbelief.

But you don't have stuff like memory fabric glider capes in Craig's Bond, and for good reason - it would be jarringly awful in the latter, but perfectly appropriate in the former. Same for tanks that jump and shoot out escape-pod bat-bikes with crazy abilities. Indeed, the whole reason they can get away with the Rachel/Batman free-fall is because they've established that Batman's tech enables him to glide (something, I might add, that is impossible in real life).

Hopefully I’m not confusing the issues here, but there was a time when Bond had such unrealistic gadgets too, Harms. And when Jaws falls from the plane and lands in a circus tent, incurring no greater damage than a messed up haircut, our reaction is not:

“Well, he can do that because it’s fantasy.”

Our reaction is:

“I know this is supposed to be fantasy, but for pity’s sake… do you have to go SO far?! It’s just dumb and I wish it away.”

I realize that Batman has gadgetry that cannot exist in our world. But he has to. He’s Batman. There’s no scientific explanation for why yellow sunshine would alter Superman’s genetic code so marvelously, but there it is. You have to have it if you’re going to do a Superman film. So the filmmakers of TDK took what they HAD to have, and made it as plausible as they possibly could, and stuck it in a film that felt as raw and real as they possibly could. Like you said, “Chicago… er, I mean Gotham.”

Most people can buy, that, if there was such a thing as memory cloth, it would allow a man to glide. Men DO hang-glide these days. We see it all the time. It takes special knowledge to prove it wouldn’t work for Batman. Anyone who tries is totally missing the point.

But having said that, that is nowhere near the violation of asking us to believe that a man can hold a 120 lb woman and plummet 20 stories or more onto the hood of a moving car. Or, should Batman be able to wrap his cape around Rachael and protect her if a hand grenade went off just 3 feet away? It’s Jaws all over again. There is a line, and this crosses it.

And no, knowing that Mr. White is in the boot of Bond's car doesn't count, because really, it comes after the fact and plays little to no role in the sequence prior.

But I think it does! Why can't something after the fact generate appreciation for the thing before? The scene of Bond opening the trunk caused gasps in the audience the last time I saw QOS. It creates a reason for, and adds to the impact (literally) of, the car chase.

THE DARK KNIGHT gets the edge here for having its big action moments deal with characters, first and foremost. Like THE DARK KNIGHT's epic Batman-Joker-Dent car chase through Chicago - oh, oops, I meant Gotham. It might not be entirely impressive (though it's certainly not bad), but it's gripping because of what's at stake between the characters. I never once felt that level of investment in QUANTUM OF SOLACE's big set-pieces.

Ok. Remind me. Which are the BIG action sequences in TDK and why should they matter to me? I know the final Batman-joker showdown is one of them, and if you ask me, that was undercut by a horribly confusing infrared visual thingy, and completely castrated by a hacked up ferries sequence on which the whole matter depends.

[Harmsway]

So the filmmakers of TDK took what they HAD to have, and made it as plausible as they possibly could, and stuck it in a film that felt as raw and real as they possibly could. Like you said, “Chicago… er, I mean Gotham.”

Well, I'm not sure I agree that they took only what they HAD to have and that they made it as "plausible as they possibly could." There are far more realistic takes on Batman in the comics than what made it into THE DARK KNIGHT, which is just fantasy with a "realistic" coat of paint.

You know what Nolan compared his take on Batman to in an interview? Donner's SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, STAR WARS, and... THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Nope, I'm not lyin'.

Most people can buy, that, if there was such a thing as memory cloth, it would allow a man to glide. Men DO hang-glide these days. We see it all the time. It takes special knowledge to prove it wouldn’t work for Batman. Anyone who tries is totally missing the point.

But having said that, that is nowhere near the violation of asking us to believe that a man can hold a 120 lb woman and plummet 20 stories or more onto the hood of a moving car.

Well, Nolan's Batman flicks had already previously established Batman's ability to survive great falls via his cape, and that his suit protects from damage. So no, I don't think it's that extreme of a leap to suggest that that in the movieworld of THE DARK KNIGHT his cape would help slow their descent enough to keep 'em alive. I mean, not too long ago a teenager jumped 20 stories off of a building onto an awning - total freefall - and survived. I can suspend disbelief enough to buy into Batman's tech keeping him and Rachel safe.

Now, I'm not fond of the dialogue that follows the scene, or how Gyllenhaal acts after the fall. But the fall itself isn't such a big deal to me.

And no, knowing that Mr. White is in the boot of Bond's car doesn't count, because really, it comes after the fact and plays little to no role in the sequence prior.

But I think it does! Why can't something after the fact generate appreciation for the thing before? The scene of Bond opening the trunk caused gasps in the audience the last time I saw QOS. It creates a reason for, and adds to the impact (literally) of, the car chase.

Sure. But the car chase is still entirely extraneous, and that little gag with Mr. White doesn't really give it any real weight, or drama while you're sitting through it. It's just Bond driving a car. And while there is a narrative reason for it, QUANTUM OF SOLACE could easily have lost it. QUANTUM OF SOLACE might as well have picked up with Bond driving into the bunker and slapping Mr. White into the chair, and had the Sienna foot chase be the PTS. It wouldn't have lost a thing other than a fun opener.

That's not to say that I want to lose the car chase. Bond films have pre-title sequences so that such frivolity can be enjoyed. But I do dispute the claim that there's any particular level of narrative or dramatic weight behind hit, beyond the fact that it's an intense sequence in and of itself.

[Joe Bond]

THE DARK KNIGHT gets the edge here for having its big action moments deal with characters, first and foremost. Like THE DARK KNIGHT's epic Batman-Joker-Dent car chase through Chicago - oh, oops, I meant Gotham. It might not be entirely impressive (though it's certainly not bad), but it's gripping because of what's at stake between the characters. I never once felt that level of investment in QUANTUM OF SOLACE's big set-pieces.

I do agree about the action scenes in TDK being gripping because of whats at stake between the characters but I found the action sequences in QoS to be just as gripping well at least I cared for the characters in the action more than in CR and I thought is was not action for the sake of action that they moved the story forward.

[Loomis]

You know what Nolan compared his take on Batman to in an interview? Donner's SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, STAR WARS, and... THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Nope, I'm not lyin'.

Nolan's being far too modest. THE DARK KNIGHT is a better film than any of those four.

If he can be inspired by SUPES, RAIDERS, ANH and TSWLM and come up with TDK, then I'd love to see what brilliance he'd conjure if he were looking to the sort of flicks that I myself was reminded of when watching TDK: THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, HEAT and so on. He'd probably make the best film ever made!

[Judo chop]

You know what Nolan compared his take on Batman to in an interview? Donner's SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, STAR WARS, and... THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Nope, I'm not lyin'.

I can suspend disbelief enough to buy into Batman's tech keeping him and Rachel safe.

Again, based on distant memory, I have to simply agree to disagree with both you and Mr. Nolan. If Nolan was intending to achieve the fantastical and adventuresome spirit of ANY of the above, he undershot by a mile. The fabric of TDK's reality felt more similar to QOS than it did to those films. As memory serves. (I really should just bail on these conversations since I hardly remember the film anymore. )

But the car chase is still entirely extraneous, and that little gag with Mr. White doesn't really give it any real weight, or drama while you're sitting through it. It's just Bond driving a car. And while there is a narrative reason for it, QUANTUM OF SOLACE could easily have lost it. QUANTUM OF SOLACE might as well have picked up with Bond driving into the bunker and slapping Mr. White into the chair, and had the Sienna foot chase be the PTS. It wouldn't have lost a thing other than a fun opener.

Well, I never meant to suggest that it had DEEEP meaning. It's something to fill out what would normally be a generic car chase in which Bond is casually driving and suddenly ambushed like in so many other Bond films. It's more than we're used to getting.

But I'm still waiting for you to cite TDK's action sequences and their meanings. The other biggy I remember is Batman's infiltration in Hong Kong. Again, beautiful to behold, but wrought with explanation holes, and no 'deep meaning' that I can remember.

You know what Nolan compared his take on Batman to in an interview? Donner's SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, STAR WARS, and... THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Nope, I'm not lyin'.

Nolan's being far too modest. THE DARK KNIGHT is a better film than any of those four.

Heresy.

Wash your mouth out with holy water, Loomis.

[HildebrandRarity]

What's really utterly stunning is how the DC3 starts to buckle and nearly begins to crack at it's high point after Bond takes it up at such a steep angle to give Camille and himself enough height to make a safe jump. The way the DC3 looks as it totally runs out of steam with only the one remaining propellor effectively operational...it's just outstandingly wicked.

I still am amazed by how the team pulled out that trick of near implosion under rapidly decelerating pressure.

It looked wonderful on the big screen, especially with Craig's acting and amid the swirling, whirling, Bondian-brassy cue of Arnold's Target Terminated!

And all in daylight, making it all the more impressive!

[Harmsway]

But I'm still waiting for you to cite TDK's action sequences and their meanings. The other biggy I remember is Batman's infiltration in Hong Kong. Again, beautiful to behold, but wrought with explanation holes, and no 'deep meaning' that I can remember.

Well, the infiltration in Hong Kong was extraneous, and I've said as much before in commentary on THE DARK KNIGHT. It was one area in THE DARK KNIGHT where things should have been streamlined. But it's certainly no more extraneous than QUANTUM OF SOLACE's boat chase or plane chase, and, I'll add, it's far more entertaining than either.

But the two biggies I'm thinking about are the vehicle chase, which is definitely THE DARK KNIGHT's biggest affair, and the finale with the Joker. You've already expressed your distaste for the latter, and I won't bother arguing about it, but I'm sure you remember enough about it to know what's at stake there narratively speaking. But as for the vehicle chase, you have the Joker trying to kill Harvey Dent (who's pretending to be Batman), and Batman trying to protect Dent and get the Joker. So it's really all about the characters, and eventually it boils down to just Batman/Joker in that wonderful showdown.

[HildebrandRarity]

And before that, that shot of a suited Bond approaching the dark, leather-faced old Bolivian in the chocolate bomber jacket with the silver DC3 behind and the back-drop of the beige desert...ing awsome shot.

It could have been something out of a techicolour version of "CASABLANCA".

Beautiful film-making.

[Harmsway]

And before that, that shot of a suited Bond approaching the dark, leather-faced old Bolivian in the chocolate bomber jacket with the silver DC3 behind and the back-drop of the beige desert...ing awsome shot.

It could have been something out of a techicolour version of "CASABLANCA".

Beautiful film-making.

I did rather like that, and I do love the atmosphere of the plane in the desert.

Bond and Camille have the makings of a great conversation before they're rudely interrupted. I wish they'd continued talking for a bit, because it showed a nice side of Camille other than the surly, vengeance-seeking side which she displays for most of the flick.