85 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

...and I have no idea to happened to the girl in the desert hotel.

Yeah, Forster takes the time out of a frantic foot chase to show what happened to an innocent bystander who we barely saw get shot during the Palio horse race, but he doesn't show how the Perla de las Dunas receptionist survives/not survives an exploding hotel moments after Camille saves her from a near-rape experience we saw several seconds of?

Until I read these comments today about the hotel girl, never thought about it even after seeing QOS 4 times now. I saw the hotel girl get saved from an evil fate and easily assumed - today, not when I was watching the film - that she got away from the building as easily as Greene and his chopped up foot did.

I don't doubt the girl got out of the building safely either. I just made that earlier point because a number of people were raving about Marc Forster showing the consequences of Bond and Mitchell's actions during the Palio chase when the woman was shot yet those same people didn't rue the fact that Forster failed to do a similar scene with the receptionist at the hotel.

[DR76]

Look, I still enjoy some of those old Bond movies like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE or MOONRAKER that adhere to the Bond formula. Even a bad Bond film is a good action film. But . . . I see no need to slavishly cling to the formula and to the past. Especially in the motion picture industry, one has to continue moving forward.

[blueman]

...and I have no idea to happened to the girl in the desert hotel.

Yeah, Forster takes the time out of a frantic foot chase to show what happened to an innocent bystander who we barely saw get shot during the Palio horse race, but he doesn't show how the Perla de las Dunas receptionist survives/not survives an exploding hotel moments after Camille saves her from a near-rape experience we saw several seconds of?

Until I read these comments today about the hotel girl, never thought about it even after seeing QOS 4 times now. I saw the hotel girl get saved from an evil fate and easily assumed - today, not when I was watching the film - that she got away from the building as easily as Greene and his chopped up foot did.

I don't doubt the girl got out of the building safely either. I just made that earlier point because a number of people were raving about Marc Forster showing the consequences of Bond and Mitchell's actions during the Palio chase when the woman was shot yet those same people didn't rue the fact that Forster failed to do a similar scene with the receptionist at the hotel.

I guess from this viewer's seat, showing a lot of bystander stuff in the earlier scene made sense, whereas not showing what happens to an inconsequentional side character during the finale also made sense. I liked both choices, and don't see why each doesn't work independent of the other. But that's just me.

[Dekard77]

I like QOS and felt it had the right balance. I am beginning to think that the film was edited on purpose to look choppy and gritty.
The formula is full in place with this movie and no point even kidding about it. The only thing missing is Q and Moneypenny with their respective lines but the rest of the cast fills in for them perfectly. Also I feel Forster has a very unique style of directing action films.
All Bond films age and given your mood the film usually becomes appealing. I watched DAD a few days ago and found it to be ok had it been slightly edited. I did love DAF as the dialogue is very sharp and the plot is very interesting. In every sense it works like a detective thriller with Connery. A movie with that tone would not be so bad without trying to be a bit too realistic.
However the next Bond will defientely be more TND and TSWLM.

[Zorin Industries]

Quantum is an allright movie, but it ain't memorable and instantly forgettable. All the finger pointing to the B.O and RT won't change that. It's a run of the mill action movie that copy and pasted action scenes from other films and still managed to do it worse. Those people that are calling for the formula back, want go watch a Bond film...not a bourne/statham hybrid. It's not that they want the silliness to return, they want something that at least screams Bond while being original, memorable, and familiar.

We're Bond fans and we defend the series religiously, but please call a spade a spade. Can the filmmakers be original or is the trend of action movies going to dictate what Bond movie we get? Forster is not a genius...he can't do action and took the easy option and got Bradley. I cringe when Forster gets credit...all camera tricks but no substance.

That is your opinion. I personally cringe when we see nothing but second unit work dominating every piece of pace in a Bond film. But since 2006 that has not been the case.

Why do so many people think SOLACE is a bad film because its artistic sweep and intentions is lost on them?

[Zorin Industries]

And QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an INCREDIBLY Bond formulaic film folks! It's all there. Sorry if you think it isn't...

The tailoring, the evening parties, the gunbarrel, the exploding lair, the car, the girls, the M, the stunts, the vodka martini, the mission statement, the economic editing, the henchmen, the set pieces, the title tune, the title sequence, the swagger and the pace.... SOLACE is NO different.

[Loomis]

Why do so many people think SOLACE is a bad film because its artistic sweep and intentions is lost on them?

Hmmm.... but there are surely also plenty of people who do understand the artistic intentions of Forster and co. but still dislike the film.

In other words, they understand QUANTUM OF SOLACE just fine. Nothing is lost on them. They simply don't think it works very well and/or don't find it particularly interesting or entertaining.

I know some very clever people who love QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I also know some very clever people for whom the flick falls flat. It's obviously not just a case of "If you're smart you'll like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, whereas if you're dumb you won't, and if you don't like it then you probably are dumb, and wouldn't understand art if it came up and kicked you on the backside, etc., etc.

[Eurospy]

Why do so many people think SOLACE is a bad film because its artistic sweep and intentions is lost on them?

Hmmm.... but there are surely also plenty of people who do understand the artistic intentions of Forster and co. but still dislike the film.

In other words, they understand QUANTUM OF SOLACE just fine. Nothing is lost on them. They simply don't think it works very well and/or don't find it particularly interesting or entertaining.

I know some very clever people who love QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I also know some very clever people for whom the flick falls flat. It's obviously not just a case of "If you're smart you'll like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, whereas if you're dumb you won't, and if you don't like it then you probably are dumb, and wouldn't understand art if it came up and kicked you on the backside, etc., etc.

For my part, I completely agree with you (I liked QOS though). But distinguishing one's intelligence from others due to the dislike of said movie is not correct.

The same goes for any other Bond movie (DAD included).

[erniecureo]

Hmmm.... but there are surely also plenty of people who do understand the artistic intentions of Forster and co. but still dislike the film.

Agreed. Good response to a faulty premise.

Why do so many people think SOLACE is a bad film because its artistic sweep and intentions is lost on them?

Silly question. Setting up a false premise (people don't like QoS because the don't "get" it) and "answering" your own question, all in one. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps a better question would be, "Why are the artistic sweep and intentions of QoS lost on so many people?"

Answer: Poor execution.

[DamnCoffee]

And QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an INCREDIBLY Bond formulaic film folks! It's all there. Sorry if you think it isn't...

The tailoring, the evening parties, the gunbarrel, the exploding lair, the car, the girls, the M, the stunts, the vodka martini, the mission statement, the economic editing, the henchmen, the set pieces, the title tune, the title sequence, the swagger and the pace.... SOLACE is NO different.

I completely, 100% agree with that. It's a James Bond film, one of the best. Infact, It's more than a James Bond film, it's a brilliant modern, classy, film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an INCREDIBLY Bond formulaic film folks! It's all there. Sorry if you think it isn't...

The tailoring, the evening parties, the gunbarrel, the exploding lair, the car, the girls, the M, the stunts, the vodka martini, the mission statement, the economic editing, the henchmen, the set pieces, the title tune, the title sequence, the swagger and the pace.... SOLACE is NO different.

I completely, 100% agree with that. It's a James Bond film, one of the best. Infact, It's more than a James Bond film, it's a brilliant modern, classy, film.

I don't hate nor love QOS (why always have to be a question of black & white), I just have the serenity to see and recognize the flaws of the movie, instead of having a juvenile behaviour, pretending is perfect and deserves a treatment of a masterpiece of cinema. Some fans seems to think that QOS is a sort of Citizen Kane or Fellini's 8 1/2.

That's when I feel that QOS is being overrated by many of its supporters. Anyway, I'm glad that some posters took the job to make clear to people like Zorin Industries, that being a fan of QOS, doesn't automatically translate in the supporter having a superior intelligence or otherwise.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 December 2008 - 12:02 AM.

[byline]

That's when I feel that QOS is being overrated by many of its supporters. Anyway, I'm glad that some posters took the job to make clear to people like Zorin Industries, that being a fan of QOS, doesn't automatically translate in the supporter having a superior intelligence or otherwise.

But how can "overrated" be a valid description of someone else's opinion? Perhaps it's overrated to you, but obviously it isn't to them. Their opinion is their own. And so if some folks feel that "Quantum of Solace" ranks right up there with the second coming, that's their opinion. As are feelings of the opposite stripe. It means nothing more or less than people have different subjective opinions about the same film.

Yes, it can be frustrating to love something that others hate, or see flaws that others have no problem with, but that's what individual perception is all about. In the end, a film like "Quantum" is entertainment. We either enjoy it or we don't, and beyond that we get whatever we want out of it. I'm not sure I understand why some seem so intent on trying to strip that enjoyment from others, or at least knock it down a few pegs. And, conversely, why some want to lord their superior taste over others, as if that's the only reason why they like "Quantum" when others don't. It's all just opinion.

The common thread between the two sides is that they both strive to point out things they think others of opposing opinions missed. And I think that's valid enough. But when it reaches a point of trying to proselytize, then I think that's a losing battle on both sides.

Edited by byline, 09 December 2008 - 03:00 AM.

[erniecureo]

But when it reaches a point of trying to proselytize, then I think that's a losing battle on both sides.

Exactly right, and well put. But it seems to be human nature.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

That's when I feel that QOS is being overrated by many of its supporters. Anyway, I'm glad that some posters took the job to make clear to people like Zorin Industries, that being a fan of QOS, doesn't automatically translate in the supporter having a superior intelligence or otherwise.

But how can "overrated" be a valid description of someone else's opinion? Perhaps it's overrated to you, but obviously it isn't to them. Their opinion is their own. And so if some folks feel that "Quantum of Solace" ranks right up there with the second coming, that's their opinion. As are feelings of the opposite stripe. It means nothing more or less than people have different subjective opinions about the same film.

Yes, it can be frustrating to love something that others hate, or see flaws that others have no problem with, but that's what individual perception is all about. In the end, a film like "Quantum" is entertainment. We either enjoy it or we don't, and beyond that we get whatever we want out of it. I'm not sure I understand why some seem so intent on trying to strip that enjoyment from others, or at least knock it down a few pegs. And, conversely, why some want to lord their superior taste over others, as if that's the only reason why they like "Quantum" when others don't. It's all just opinion.

The common thread between the two sides is that they both strive to point out things they think others of opposing opinions missed. And I think that's valid enough. But when it reaches a point of trying to proselytize, then I think that's a losing battle on both sides.

Well said!

[FlemingIanFleming]

This is a really good discussion, and as a big fan of CR/QoS (I find it impossible to separate the two, they're almost a single film in my mind) I think it's quite possible for intelligent Bond fans to dislike QoS for a variety of very valid reasons. And I've read some very sound criticism of the film here and elsewhere that, while I might disagree with it, is perfectly legitimate.

That said, I do take some umbrage at those who criticize it solely for veering from the "Bond Formula." While it worked beautifully in the early years, the "Formula" degenerated into dated camp to the point where it was difficult to distinguish from the official Bond films and the Austin Powers parodies (if anything, some of the latter Bond films were far more hilarious than Austin Powers, though unintentionally so).

Love or hate the Craig films, I think a strong break from the "Formula" and a return to Fleming's basics were long overdue.

[Christopher006]

Why do people just want Bond to be "a fun night out" instead of a thinking man's film which gives its audience respect.

Quantum of Solace is hardly for thinking people. It is nothing but a superficial action movie like any other. If you want to think, I suggest popping in an Ingmar Bergman film into your DVD player. I recommend Winter Light. Or at least read Fleming.

Second of all, few people watch Bond movies hoping to be depressed. If you want to be depressed, than check out any upcoming list of Oscar nominated films. Most people watch Bond movies hoping to have a fun time.

The one liners are the second "Bondism" that has been "discarded" in QOS. Once again, these were NEVER in the novels.

It is hardly likely that the one-liners would have crossed the mind of someone from the 1950s. Nevertheless, Fleming's Bond did have a sense of humor. Craig has absolutely no sense of humor.

In any real life situation Brosnan Bond would just lose friends and women if he was spurting the lame crap he utters in his films.

Bond films are not supposed to be about real life. If you want something closer to real life than I recommend a good Meryl Streep drama.

Here we are, blessed with arguably the best Bond ever in Daniel Craig, FINALLY a more serious tone we haven't seen in full flight since the 60s, and in all seriousness, Fleming's Bond alive on the screen.

Daniel Craig is hardly Fleming's Bond. He is just a big screen action hero like Arnold in the Terminator, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and Mel in Lethal Weapon.

The 60s Bonds were hardly serious. There is nothing serious about Dr. No's dragon on diesel engines and wanting to crash a rocket into the moon, Bond's exploding briefcase, Bowler hats that can chop people's heads off, rockets swallowing up space capsules, and a group of sexy women that are brain washed to spread some biological virus in order to kill plant and animal life.

Oh, and Connery will always be the best.

[001carus]

Quantum of Solace is hardly for thinking people. It is nothing but a superficial action movie like any other. If you want to think, I suggest popping in an Ingmar Bergman film into your DVD player. I recommend Winter Light. Or at least read Fleming.

Second of all, few people watch Bond movies hoping to be depressed. If you want to be depressed, than check out any upcoming list of Oscar nominated films. Most people watch Bond movies hoping to have a fun time.

Quantum of Solace is hardly depressing. We're simply seeing an interesting look at how Bond grows into the hardened secret agent through the ups and downs. And this forces the audience to use their brains far more than they did during the Brosnan era.

And, okay, QOS may not be the smartest film or the biggest thinking-man's film, but why should we scorn anything that heads in that direction? Why have the Bond films been condemned to "Just good light fun - anything else shouldn't be there" when, even as you said, the Fleming novels WERE to think about, but if the films ever try going in this direction, they're wasting their time?

It is hardly likely that the one-liners would have crossed the mind of someone from the 1950s. Nevertheless, Fleming's Bond did have a sense of humor. Craig has absolutely no sense of humor.

So because one-liners didn't exist in the 50s it's fine to add them in today, as if Fleming would have featured them if they existed then? And yes, you're right, Fleming's Bond did have a sense of humour. And no, Craig most definitely has a sense of humour. And I'd consider it closer to Fleming's Bond than any incarnation before him.

Bond films are not supposed to be about real life. If you want something closer to real life than I recommend a good Meryl Streep drama.

That's what I'm saying. Bond films have been mutated into something that everyone believes "aren't about real life. They're meant to be silly." No, the Fleming novels were always grounded in real life and had very realistic characters (despite the somewhat fantasy villains every now and then). And because of this, it's a very valid move for the Bond films to be realistic, because that's what was presented in the books.

Daniel Craig is hardly Fleming's Bond. He is just a big screen action hero like Arnold in the Terminator, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and Mel in Lethal Weapon.

These characters have more in tune with Brosnan (sans the quips). Daniel Craig brings a vulnerable and brilliantly performed job to Bond. In between action, one can see the raw emotion spewing from Craig's Bond IMO. He is so much more than simply an action hero taking down baddies. Craig kills with purpose and reason. Brosnan kills to make big explosions and "witty" lines.

Oh, and Connery will always be the best.

Well if you have a mind as closed as this than it's no wonder you haven't enjoyed the Craig era. Your mind must have surely been made up even before you saw Craig on the big screen.

[Mr. Blofeld]

This Christopher fellow is a craignotbonder, methinks...

[Christopher006]

And, okay, QOS may not be the smartest film or the biggest thinking-man's film, but why should we scorn anything that heads in that direction? Why have the Bond films been condemned to "Just good light fun - anything else shouldn't be there" when, even as you said, the Fleming novels WERE to think about, but if the films ever try going in this direction, they're wasting their time?

When the Bond films were "just good light fun" like The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldfinger, and Live and Let Die, they were also unique and not like any other action films. Bond was different from all other action film heroes. As the series becomes more serious and "realistic," Bond is losing his uniqueness at the same time. He is looking and acting more like Jason Bourne or Martin Riggs, and the new films of Daniel Craig do not feel any different from other action pictures.

What made Bond popular for so long is that he was different from people in the real world. He ate foods that nobody could have, he did things nobody could do, he drove cars that nobody could ever have, and basically lived in a world that nobody did.

Daniel Craig is too much like us. He drives cars that any schmuck in the real world can purchase, he acts like our local police officers and garbage men, and basically lives in our world. We see our own world every day, and are too familiar with it. It bores us to see Bond living our lives. If Bond is doing something we do all the time, we will forget what he did.

Casino Royale got people's attention only because Craig was the new Bond. CR is an ok film, but now that QOS has proven to be ineffective, people are now thinking of past Bonds that gave them a good time. They are thinking, "now wait, this new approach is not working after all. It really is not right for the series. Give us back our old Bond, and allow us to have fun again. If we want to think about something serious, we will read a political article, grab a novel by Fleming or Steinbeck, or watch The Godfather. But the screen version of Bond is not supposed to be the intellectual that Fleming wrote about. We don't want to see Bond hunched over eggs and bacon in a hotel and contemplating his life and its meaning as he did in Fleming's novels. We want to see him crawl into strange and exotic underground lairs and stop madmen from destroying the world. The cinema James Bond is supposed to give us a thrill ride and make us feel good."

You are obviously part of this "internet fanboy who believes everything has to be somber and realistic trend." It is only a trend. Like all trends, it will pass. I know critics and many other people that do not subscribe to fanboy trends are screaming for Bond to ACTUALLY COME BACK. One critic stated that the audience they watched QOS with were yawning. I have faith that Eon will not ignore such reports and James Bond will indeed return.

[001carus]

When the Bond films were "just good light fun" like The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldfinger, and Live and Let Die, they were also unique and not like any other action films. Bond was different from all other action film heroes. As the series becomes more serious and "realistic," Bond is losing his uniqueness at the same time. He is looking and acting more like Jason Bourne or Martin Riggs, and the new films of Daniel Craig do not feel any different from other action pictures.

So at that time the Bond franchise was unique. Okay... unfortunately EVERY single Bond film in that era followed the exact same formula, so "unique" isn't really a valid term. While the Bond franchise itself may have been unique compared to other movies, within the franchise itself, each film is pretty much the same movie with a different coating.

Daniel Craig is too much like us. He drives cars that any schmuck in the real world can purchase, he acts like our local police officers and garbage men, and basically lives in our world. We see our own world every day, and are too familiar with it. It bores us to see Bond living our lives. If Bond is doing something we do all the time, we will forget what he did.

You say this as though Craig's Bond is a man on a standard salary going to work in an office every day and come home every night to his wife and three loving children. No, Craig's Bond is not like us. Yes, he does have feelings, emotions, and he's vulnerable. This allows us to RELATE to him more, and it deepens the story being told. However, Craig's Bond in nature is very different to "us."

Since when can any shmuck ride an Aston Martin DBS? Craig's Bond still eats fine foods and eats at fine restaurants. And I don't know about you, but I don't work for a Secret Agency, and I don't stop terrorists and drive fast cars and kill people and spy around. So from my point of view, what Craig's Bond does on screen is very entertaining.

Casino Royale got people's attention only because Craig was the new Bond.

No. CR got people's attention because it was a fresh take on the series that harked back to Fleming's days, we had an amazing performer in Craig, the story wasn't ridiculous like it was in DAD, and all that groan inducing quippage was gone.

CR is an ok film, but now that QOS has proven to be ineffective, people are now thinking of past Bonds that gave them a good time. They are thinking, "now wait, this new approach is not working after all. It really is not right for the series. Give us back our old Bond, and allow us to have fun again. If we want to think about something serious, we will read a political article, grab a novel by Fleming or Steinbeck, or watch The Godfather. But the screen version of Bond is not supposed to be the intellectual that Fleming wrote about. We don't want to see Bond hunched over eggs and bacon in a hotel and contemplating his life and its meaning as he did in Fleming's novels. We want to see him crawl into strange and exotic underground lairs and stop madmen from destroying the world. The cinema James Bond is supposed to give us a thrill ride and make us feel good."

What? Why isn't the cinema Bond meant to be the same as Fleming's Bond? Where's this Bond rulebook you're reading from? For what possible reason is there to restrict the cinema Bond to going back to his original roots ala Fleming? Okay, good, there have been fun Bond movies in the past that are easy to watch, but enough is enough. From Live and Let Die onwards, every Bond movie is almost identical. Surely after a while watching a completely predictable film can get boring and repetitive. It seems to make perfect sense to go back to Fleming's days and create something similar to the original interpretation.

You are obviously part of this "internet fanboy who believes everything has to be somber and realistic trend."

No, I'm part of the "if the film is based on something else, it should try its best to represent and respect the original literature" crowd. No, I don't think everything needs to be sad or depressing. I just don't want Bond riding an invisible car or walking around in a poncho which is utterly NOTHING to do with the original novels.

It is only a trend. Like all trends, it will pass. I know critics and many other people that do not subscribe to fanboy trends are screaming for Bond to ACTUALLY COME BACK. One critic stated that the audience they watched QOS with were yawning. I have faith that Eon will not ignore such reports and James Bond will indeed return.

Yawning? Well at least the film was unpredictable. At least audiences didn't know EXACTLY how the film was going to play out as they would the last seventeen Bond films.

If EON decides to go back to the original camp and fun ways, I'll be quite rightfully angry at those who scowled at QOS for these reasons. If this actually happens, EON would have ruined the best roll they've been on in 44 years.

[Willowhugger]

I think that the Craig Bond is extremely good and I want to say that I believe Casino Royale was the best James Bond film in my mind (Goldfinger comes up right behind him). However, I believe there's genuine merit to the idea that they could go alittle further in restoring James Bond to what he is. Casino Royale is very similiar to Batman Begins and that's why it works very well. It's a very serious take on what is ostensibly supposed to be a comic book character/Pulp Reading novel hero.

Instead, Quantum of Solace is a very good Bond movie but I don't honestly think it's all that great by comparison to Casino Royale and fails as a follow up to the themes of it. Which is, of course, the continuing becoming of James Bond. We've got an updated SPECTRE, which is a step in the right direction but I think we could see more of the elements that make James Bond into the unique literary icon/film that he is.

What is QoS lacking in my mind?

1. The Suaveness

Part of what makes James Bond so appealing is that he's fundamentally an ingratiating figure. There's moments of QoS that remind me of the old Bond. His seduction of the Beta Bond Girl and the instant attraction of the Alpha Bond Girl work wonders. However, those moments are few and far between.

There's nothing romantic about this Bond and that severely hurts the character. People should want to be James Bond even as they understand he's got the world resting on his shoulders.

2. The Comraderie

Timothy Dalton's biggest screw up is the fact that he attempts to make James Bond into a lonely figure. Daniel Craig verges on this a few times and it's really mistake. Fleming's James Bond is a cynical jerkass, Daniel Craig has that down pat, but he's not a man that's alone in the world. He has Felix, his secretaries, M, and a few others (Mathis is now quite dead) that allow him to live like a decent human being even without his lovers.

Q's absence is rather glaring as well, not because of the gizmos. The first appearance of Q just had him give him a new gun. It's the loss of the idea James is capable of living with his job because he's got associates there. Ditto the loss of Moneypenny.

3. The Softer Moments

QoS had a number of these but they're drowned out in the action sequences. The movie could have been thirty minutes longer with the rest filled out with James Bond talking with his various contacts and better establishing his situation. We don't need James Bond invited to eat with Mister Green or gamble with him like has been overdone os many times but the scenes were too often merely a collection of strung together excuses for the shakey cam action sequences.

I don't need James Bond to have gadgets. I wouldn't mind James Bond going down to Q Division and just getting an Uzi, a couple of clips, and a couple of grenades to stick in a briefcase with a false bottom; it would just be an excuse to talk to Major Boothroyd.

Really, James Bond needs what the Man From Uncle excelled at in providing context for the world of espionage that they dwelled in.

Just my .02.

[Eurospy]

I couldn't disagree more with those who have this idea of a fun Bond. That is, when by "fun Bond" you mean funny Bond, I presume.

They tried that approach with DAD, and for all the money they made with that one, the franchise had just shot itself in the foot. Invisible car, CGI Bond...

And no, Bond doesn't need to be like the Man from UNCLE. Bond needs to be like Bond and the Man from UNCLE needs to be like the Man from UNCLE. I just wish they took the Man from UNCLE off the ground and start that franchise once and for all. That way everybody gets what they want.

And the reason that CR had such success was due to the same reasons that many now shoot down QOS.

Bond was a parody of itself by the time of DAD, and if I want parody I'll watch Austin Powers. Or MR or OP, for example. Back in those days it was following a certain trend. And now (fortunately) that trend has changed.

Bond is indeed pulp, but solid and serious pulp (in spite of a certain humour). To say that Bond should be completely light-hearted because it is pulp is very close to saying that all comic book adaptations are supposed to be funny. Yes, A History of Violence is a full barrel of laughter. For example.

This more down-to-earth tone to Bond has broadened the audience scope, and immensely so. When it comes to the critics, well they have a great tendency to contradict themselves too many times.

And I think that the yawning is because, as it appears, the action sequences are what kept some people awake, since many seem to have forgotten most of the film, as if they kept falling asleep when there were no action sequences. And then those same people complain about there being only action and little more.

Edited by Eurospy, 14 December 2008 - 11:44 AM.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

When the Bond films were "just good light fun" like The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldfinger, and Live and Let Die, they were also unique and not like any other action films. Bond was different from all other action film heroes. As the series becomes more serious and "realistic," Bond is losing his uniqueness at the same time. He is looking and acting more like Jason Bourne or Martin Riggs, and the new films of Daniel Craig do not feel any different from other action pictures.

So at that time the Bond franchise was unique. Okay... unfortunately EVERY single Bond film in that era followed the exact same formula, so "unique" isn't really a valid term. While the Bond franchise itself may have been unique compared to other movies, within the franchise itself, each film is pretty much the same movie with a different coating.


As much as I love LALD, and I do it's in my top 5, and Moore's best IMO, it was like other action movies of the time, as they borrowed from the increasingly popular blaxplotation movies. That's not a bad thing because I think it's the only way they could have gone with it.

It is only a trend. Like all trends, it will pass. I know critics and many other people that do not subscribe to fanboy trends are screaming for Bond to ACTUALLY COME BACK. One critic stated that the audience they watched QOS with were yawning. I have faith that Eon will not ignore such reports and James Bond will indeed return.

Yawning? Well at least the film was unpredictable. At least audiences didn't know EXACTLY how the film was going to play out as they would the last seventeen Bond films.


If EON decides to go back to the original camp and fun ways, I'll be quite rightfully angry at those who scowled at QOS for these reasons. If this actually happens, EON would have ruined the best roll they've been on in 44 years.

There was no yawning at any of the viewings I went to. The last one I was at, after the movie was over and the lights came on, a woman who had been sitting in front of me, turned around as she was standing and looked at my sister and I smiling. She exhaled as if she hadn't breathed at all since the movie started.

And yes, I'd be disappointed if EOn went backwards now as well!

[ImTheMoneypenny]

What is QoS lacking in my mind?

1. The Suaveness

Part of what makes James Bond so appealing is that he's fundamentally an ingratiating figure. There's moments of QoS that remind me of the old Bond. His seduction of the Beta Bond Girl and the instant attraction of the Alpha Bond Girl work wonders. However, those moments are few and far between.

There's nothing romantic about this Bond and that severely hurts the character. People should want to be James Bond even as they understand he's got the world resting on his shoulders.

Willowhugger I have to respectfully disagree here. I found CraigBond quite suave and romantic. He sweet talks the Ocean Sky receptionist for instance. And his scenes with Fields, as I've said before a girl should be so lucky. That's romantic enough for me! Bond's interaction with Camille was too good to spoil with romance.

Bond was suave and romantic enough he did have work to do!

[byline]

What is QoS lacking in my mind?

1. The Suaveness

Part of what makes James Bond so appealing is that he's fundamentally an ingratiating figure. There's moments of QoS that remind me of the old Bond. His seduction of the Beta Bond Girl and the instant attraction of the Alpha Bond Girl work wonders. However, those moments are few and far between.

There's nothing romantic about this Bond and that severely hurts the character. People should want to be James Bond even as they understand he's got the world resting on his shoulders.

Willowhugger I have to respectfully disagree here. I found CraigBond quite suave and romantic. He sweet talks the Ocean Sky receptionist for instance. And his scenes with Fields, as I've said before a girl should be so lucky. That's romantic enough for me! Bond's interaction with Camille was too good to spoil with romance.

Bond was suave and romantic enough he did have work to do!

I'm in agreement with you there, ImTheMoneypenny. The only thing I would add is that I found Craig's "Casino Royale" Bond to be incredibly romantic and charismatic. But in "Quantum" he's still struggling with the emotional fallout from what happened with Vesper, so his romantic side is muted. When he turns on the charm, he's role-playing, but it's such a significant part of his natural charisma that it works even if he doesn't really feel it. That's the beauty of Craig's acting, that he can convey so much with so few words.

[krypt]

"You are obviously part of this "internet fanboy who believes everything has to be somber and realistic trend."

...

Really? I thought Internet Fanboys were wailing and gnashing their teeth about Hugh Jackman's Wolverine not wearing yellow spandex.

As far as this topic goes, I enjoyed QoS just fine, thank you.

For the future:

Would be cool to see Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn, Danny Boyle or Neil Marshall direct the next film.

Hopefully, the new Moneypenny will be her hotness Rhona Mitra.

And Q should simply be called Boothroyd - and played by Simon Pegg!