65 replies to this topic

[Qbranchtech]

The most obvious homage to previous Bond films is definitely the death scene of Fields. Do you think this update of the death scene by gold paint from Goldfinger actually worked in terms of:

1)visual impact to the audience
2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Most people seems to like it but:

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute? and
5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?
6)Do you prefer the original better?

[sharpshooter]

It does not carry the weight of the original scene. To do that would be nigh impossible. I did think the black oil contrasted effectively with the white bed sheets, though. I did like Craig’s initial reaction to the sight, angry and noticeably distressed. It’s a gritty update that didn’t really concern me in the film - but I would rather they moved on from homages.

[00Twelve]

I loved how well Craig played the struggle to contain himself. Not just anger at Quantum, but guilt. It's like I could feel him reflecting that he's not slept with one woman since his promotion that isn't dead. I *could* be reading that into it, but it's certainly not out of the question.

I felt a different vibe from this scene than from the Jill Masterson scene. This didn't have the morbid beauty that the golden body had; it was ugly-- she didn't suffocate in paint, she was drowned in oil. There wasn't a "wow, that's dirty, but it looks cool!" vibe this time. It was a hideous way to die, and unlike Jill, Fields had absolutely nothing to do with either Bond or Quantum's dealings. M's words to Bond hit hard. And that final lingering shot was quite somber.

I can't say which I prefer. The original is more fantastical, but the latter is more disturbing, IMO. Gold or Black Gold? I can't decide yet. Don't know that I want to.

[Harmsway]

1)visual impact to the audience

Goes to GOLDFINGER, easily. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, the presentation isn't as iconic, and it's also a moment that's piggybacking off of an earlier franchise moment. So QUANTUM's scene isn't going to stay with the audience in the same way as GOLDFINGER's did back in 1964.

2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Closely related questions. The impact on the characters definitely goes to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, where it's used to great effect. As far as impact on the story, GOLDFINGER's scene might give the story a bit more impulse, but not by too much more.

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute?

Sure.

5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?

In terms of future generations remembering it? No, not even close.

6)Do you prefer the original better?

I suppose, just because the original is, well, the original. The scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a neat recontextualization and reimagining of the GOLDFINGER scene, but even with the better sense of drama, it just doesn't have the same staying power.

[Double-Oh Agent]

The most obvious homage to previous Bond films is definitely the death scene of Fields. Do you think this update of the death scene by gold paint from Goldfinger actually worked in terms of:

1)visual impact to the audience
2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Most people seems to like it but:

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute? and
5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?
6)Do you prefer the original better?

1. Nowhere near as much as Goldfinger.
2. & 3. Yeah, it worked, but it was better in Goldfinger.
4. It was okay, but I would have preferred a different positioning of the body rather than a straight recreation.
5. Not even close.
6. Definitely. I wasn't wild about the oil girl in QOS because it was virtually identical to Goldfinger. Instead of enjoying the scene for what it was, I immediately thought: "oh, that's the golden girl pose". I'd rather there not be such homages in the Bond films. (Die Another Day being a one-time exception.)

[staveoffzombies]

I had no problem with it. Obviously it's not going to match the iconic scene in Goldfinger, but seeing as it's and homage it doesn't have to.

And it does conjure up some unpleasant imagery when M mentions the oil filling her lungs. I can picture Fields being held down while the oil is forced down her throat; it certinaly makes for one of the most horrible deaths in the franchise.

[DaveBond21]

Does it affect the impact of the original Goldfinger scene?

How many of us are forever going to think of Fields when we see Jill Masterson painted gold when watching Goldfinger?

And is Bond remembering Fields when he sees Jill's body?

[Jim]

I like it as a different thing; it's more brutal. The gold paint turns the girl into an icon, and an object of (presumably) sexual desire for Goldfinger. The indelibility of the image is in its beauty.

The oil version is nasty and the detail of her stomach being full of oil - much, much more savage. In comparison, the gold paint is quite a nice way to go.

[DamnCoffee]

I agree with you Jim about it being more savage.

BUT for some reason, even though the oil is seen as slimy and sticky etc... Forster really made the scene look classy and good. Thats what I loved about Quantum of Solace it oozed sophisitication.

Even though it does not hold a torch to the Goldfinger scene, it's a really, really good way to pay homage to it.

[sharpshooter]

Even though it does not hold a torch to the Goldfinger scene, it's a really, really good way to pay homage to it.

Consider ourselves lucky it does not hold a torch to the oil. And yes, Forster made the oil look slick. So to speak.

[double o ego]

1)visual impact to the audience

Goes to GOLDFINGER, easily. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, the presentation isn't as iconic, and it's also a moment that's piggybacking off of an earlier franchise moment. So QUANTUM's scene isn't going to stay with the audience in the same way as GOLDFINGER's did back in 1964.

2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Closely related questions. The impact on the characters definitely goes to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, where it's used to great effect. As far as impact on the story, GOLDFINGER's scene might give the story a bit more impulse, but not by too much more.

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute?

Sure.

5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?

In terms of future generations remembering it? No, not even close.

6)Do you prefer the original better?

I suppose, just because the original is, well, the original. The scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a neat recontextualization and reimagining of the GOLDFINGER scene, but even with the better sense of drama, it just doesn't have the same staying power.

Agreed. Also, when M is tearing Bond a new one, Field's death was a lot more blatant and predictable, whereas with Jill's it just sprang up on you and that sort of Biblical-esque music playing when Bond sees Jill's golden body is quite eery.

[MkB]

1)visual impact to the audience

Goes to GOLDFINGER, easily. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, the presentation isn't as iconic, and it's also a moment that's piggybacking off of an earlier franchise moment. So QUANTUM's scene isn't going to stay with the audience in the same way as GOLDFINGER's did back in 1964.

2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Closely related questions. The impact on the characters definitely goes to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, where it's used to great effect. As far as impact on the story, GOLDFINGER's scene might give the story a bit more impulse, but not by too much more.

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute?

Sure.

5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?

In terms of future generations remembering it? No, not even close.

6)Do you prefer the original better?

I suppose, just because the original is, well, the original. The scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a neat recontextualization and reimagining of the GOLDFINGER scene, but even with the better sense of drama, it just doesn't have the same staying power.

I agree with almost everything you said, Harmsway, except that, despite the original being the original, I think I prefer the QoS scene, since it makes sense. I mean, generations of people have believed that being painted in gold would cause the death of someone by asphixy, which is utter nonsense (otherwise, one wouldn't be able to, say, swim or even take a bath without choking and dying miserably ), just because of the Goldfinger scene. Being drown in oil is by far a more realistic and considerably grittier fate, yet visually the shiny oil sleek is... well, slick and therefore rather "glamorous".

[Aris007]

No this scene didn't work for me! It's like the producers are saying:"Oh, we can't think of a new way to kill Fields and we're using an old one!". The same thing happened again when Bond dropped the agent of the roof in Tosca in Bregenz(not sure for the spelling). The scene was identical with the one in TSWLM with Roger saying:"What a hellpful chap!". Big mistakes from Forster!

[Mr_Wint]

The most obvious homage to previous Bond films is definitely the death scene of Fields. Do you think this update of the death scene by gold paint from Goldfinger actually worked in terms of:

1)visual impact to the audience
2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story

Most people seems to like it but:

4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute? and
5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?
6)Do you prefer the original better?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.

4. Decent.
5. No.
6. Yes.

[dodge]

As I posted right after seeing the film, I have big-time trouble with the scene. I'm sick of homages, period: DAD was quite enough. Point two: the scene just didn't work for me. I've seen the film twice now. And the first time around I didn't even know who was lying on the bed because the scene had been split up. The second time around, I did know who it was but the emotional context was missing. This time I did spy some actual emotion on Craig's face, but--like everything else in the movie--it was shot/edited too quickly to really register. I don't need to be spoonfed--but at the same time, I don't like to be force-fed: if something's there, I want to see it, I don't want to be told that it's there, only in a more elliptical style, and that I need to watch more closely. I go to Bond films to kick back and enjoy. I'll read T S Eliot or Ezra Pound if I want to crack my noggin on a brute enigma.

[Qbranchtech]

1)visual impact to the audience
2)impact on the characters
3)impact to the story
4)Do you think it was a worthy tribute? and
5)Will it carry the same weight as the original scene?
6)Do you prefer the original better?

I was fascinated by this homage when I first heard about it online. The first time I saw it, I was a little disapointed. I liked it better the scond time around.

1) I also like the black on white treatment as well. The spartan decor of the suite also helped the image popped. They could have gone with a different pose (on her side?) but I like it this way. I like the messier approach to make it more realistic and grittier I guess. I also noticed the changing times of censorship. There is no pillow in the middle of the shot, nor is Gemma Arterton wearing a bottom for this either. (Okay, this is PG-13 and not G)

2)I liked Bond's reaction of anger and guilt. I also enjoy M chastised Bond for his tendency to involve innocent bystanders (romantically) with fatal consequences. However, I don't think it worked for Fields, she was off screen for quite some time before this scene and she wasn't on screen for long or did anything important to her own character or Bond's to begin with. You really don't feel for her character and most of my friends didn't care that she died in such a nasty and painful manner. I also wish they gave her a facial close up just to show that it's really her and not a body double. I wish they didn't leave so many things understated like this when they have plenty of time to develope characters with a running time of 106 mins, I am sure the audience is not going to mind an added 10 mins just for character development for all secondary characters.

3)In GF, the scene was meant for 1 thing only - establish the villain as nasty as hell early in the film. Here, we sort of got that already with the drowned geologist in the Haitian harbor. So, I take this scene as a follow through on Greene's statement on everything Bond touches just wither and die. I like that fact that this is actually more plausible that the scene in GF. Died of skin suffocation? I believe in lungs filled with oil better. It's possibly the most Bondian scene in this Bourne-ish film for me. I agree that while they were not going for glamor here, unlike GF, there is still an erotic element here.

4)I think it is worthy tribute, but I think because the nature of the scene has changed, it has become it own animal.

5)I put this out because I read somewhere that the director and producers hoped the scene will have staying power. I think it will always be a footnote to the GF scene. It will get more famous if Arterton becomes more famous (Prince of Persia in 2010). So the scene may "stick" around for a little while. (pun intended)

6)I actually like both. Maybe the original a little higher. I like the original for its crisp handling and directness. It was unexpected and effective. Here, it is a messier take for a much messier film and Craig's performance made it work on a level different from the original.

[Professor Dent]

Goldfinger was definitely the more iconic image. While visually interesting & an outright disturbing way for Fields to die, this seemed out of place to me (outside of the obvious homage). Everyone knew there was no oil in this section of the desert which is why Medrano gave it up so easily & quickly.

[byline]

I agree with almost everything you said, Harmsway, except that, despite the original being the original, I think I prefer the QoS scene, since it makes sense. I mean, generations of people have believed that being painted in gold would cause the death of someone by asphixy, which is utter nonsense (otherwise, one wouldn't be able to, say, swim or even take a bath without choking and dying miserably ), just because of the Goldfinger scene. Being drown in oil is by far a more realistic and considerably grittier fate, yet visually the shiny oil sleek is... well, slick and therefore rather "glamorous".

There's a good thread discussing the "gold paint" urban legend: Gold Paint Asphyxiation, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger

Just to clarify, "MythBusters" addressed this urban legend both via "Goldfinger" and also the Tin Man character in "The Wizard of Oz": MythBusters Special 7: "Hollywood on Trial"

[Leon]

It didn't have much impact on me, mainly because the tabloid press ruined it by printing photos of the scene everywhere...

I also felt distracted during that whole scene where Bond is being disciplined. There are so many narrative tangents that were going on in my head, plus the fact M was acting like a Bond villain, that I found myself rather lost on the narrative and therefore the impact of the death was lost.

In Goldfinger Bond has only just been having fun with Jill and the narrative is nice and solid. He wakes up to find this bizarre gold-painted corpse of a girl he's only just slept with. Much more impact.

[byline]

It didn't have much impact on me, mainly because the tabloid press ruined it by printing photos of the scene everywhere...

Prior to the film's release, I made a point of not looking at any "Quantum of Solace" media coverage. I've discovered many a time that a "curiosity killed the cat" mentality spoiled what should have been an enjoyable experience. Even taking great pains to avoid this stuff, I still came across potential spoilers, but they weren't enough to spoil my enjoyment of this film. I was fortunate to not come across one of the photos you mentioned, and so that moment wasn't spoiled for me. As such, it had a lot of impact, trying to take in the grisly (yet oddly artistic) crime scene, imagine dying in such a horrible way, etc.

"Goldfinger" would have been more shocking for its time, just given the nudity and the "sacrificial lamb" aspect of Jill's death. Plus the endless speculation on, "How could someone die that way?"

Edited by byline, 23 November 2008 - 07:45 PM.

[tdalton]

I thought that it was effective enough, given that I already knew about it going into the film. I was happy that it wasn't an homage that felt like it was put there for the purpose of being an homage. I also liked the way it tied into the ending of the film.

[Lazenby]

I may do a homage to things like the backround music updated a bit, but to recycle specific scenes really do not work.

[Mister E]

The homage could have been better if it weren't so breif. I wanted Bond to touch Feilds and get the oil all over him.

[MkB]

The homage could have been better if it weren't so breif. I wanted Bond to touch Feilds and get the oil all over him.

That's something I considered too (I must have posted something about that on aother thread). Bond touching Fields body, like Connery did in Godlfinger, and having a sticky oil stain on his hand... It could have played like a nice Hamlet reference!

[Leon]

It didn't have much impact on me, mainly because the tabloid press ruined it by printing photos of the scene everywhere...

Prior to the film's release, I made a point of not looking at any "Quantum of Solace" media coverage. I've discovered many a time that a "curiosity killed the cat" mentality spoiled what should have been an enjoyable experience. Even taking great pains to avoid this stuff, I still came across potential spoilers, but they weren't enough to spoil my enjoyment of this film. I was fortunate to not come across one of the photos you mentioned, and so that moment wasn't spoiled for me.

Yes, but you don't live in the UK. There were newspapers with massive front page photos of this scene before the films release.

I may do a homage to things like the backround music updated a bit, but to recycle specific scenes really do not work.

Good point.

[Publius]

I loved how well Craig played the struggle to contain himself. Not just anger at Quantum, but guilt. It's like I could feel him reflecting that he's not slept with one woman since his promotion that isn't dead. I *could* be reading that into it, but it's certainly not out of the question.

I got the same impression. Which is one of the reasons I think Bond doesn't pursue Camille sexually. Everything he touches does indeed seem to wither and die. Solange and Vesper were both neck-deep in this twisted world Bond calls his job (the latter against her will, though the point remains), but Fields was the first true innocent who was caught in the crossfire, and he was basically responsible.

Everyone knew there was no oil in this section of the desert which is why Medrano gave it up so easily & quickly.

Yes, but Greene obviously knew something Medrano and everyone else didn't. If this really was the secret, sprawling organization Mr. White implied it was, they wouldn't be wasting their time on a wild goose chase.

"Goldfinger" would have been more shocking for its time, just given the nudity and the "sacrificial lamb" aspect of Jill's death. Plus the endless speculation on, "How could someone die that way?"

Agreed. It was, consequently, more iconic. And I still think it's more striking visually. But the QoS homage surprised me in how emotionally powerful it was. Not because I had grown attached to Fields (although she was instantly, adorably endearing), but because I had come to be invested in Bond's internal struggles and grueling, formative journey.

[Leon]

"Goldfinger" would have been more shocking for its time, just given the nudity and the "sacrificial lamb" aspect of Jill's death. Plus the endless speculation on, "How could someone die that way?"

Agreed. It was, consequently, more iconic. And I still think it's more striking visually. But the QoS homage surprised me in how emotionally powerful it was. Not because I had grown attached to Fields (although she was instantly, adorably endearing), but because I had come to be invested in Bond's internal struggles and grueling, formative journey.

I found it less emotionally shocking because of the fact it was just a blatant wink to an age old classic scene from Goldfinger. This immediately removes me as a viewer from the immersion in the film magic they are trying to create as it makes you suddenly think "ah, this is a film referencing another film that was great 44 years ago in the hope that people will therefore think this film is great". It doesn't work that way, not for me anyway.

If they had done something original (and good) it would have been much better. It's all very wel having all these homages to old Bond films but what about creating some new iconic moments at some point?

Yea, it's not easy to create something like that, but that's why the writers etc are being paid huge salaries...

[joshkhenderson]

I'm surprised no one is mentioning how the QoS scene parallels the Solange scene in CR. I don't think you can judge the Oil scene without comparing it to Bond's coldness in the similar scene in CR. A great way to show how Bond is changing as a result of Vesper and maturing.

On the other hand, the Goldfinger scene has already achieved such a cross-culture fame that it is one of THE Bond icons. This one will never do that, won't become iconic and be the source of wonderment for decades. The straightforward nature of the death takes away the mysterious "is that possible" element that stays with you from Goldfinger. The lustre of the gold is missing, replaced with mere shininess. And, as Bond says, the oil is misdirection, not symbolic of Greene in the way the gold paint represented Auric Goldfinger reclaiming Jill from Bond's clutches (also his gold fetish). The symbolism of the Goldfinger scene runs far deeper than in QoS, where Fields in oil serves only to recall a great scene and add spice.

[tdalton]

I'm surprised no one is mentioning how the QoS scene parallels the Solange scene in CR. I don't think you can judge the Oil scene without comparing it to Bond's coldness in the similar scene in CR. A great way to show how Bond is changing as a result of Vesper and maturing.

That's a very good point, and one that I hadn't given much thought to before. It really is a scene where Bond begins to show some maturity and character growth, which is further displayed later when he passes M while trying to escape and tells her to make a note in her report about Fields' service.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I agree with you Jim about it being more savage.

BUT for some reason, even though the oil is seen as slimy and sticky etc... Forster really made the scene look classy and good. Thats what I loved about Quantum of Solace it oozed sophisitication.

You mean like this....