887 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

It seems we're not destined to be friends on this Mr A-B but if you back track a way you will see that I described the film as naturalistic but it also had abundant colourful cinematography. Cinematography has perhaps a different notion for you but for me it encompasses the essential elements of mise en scene. It is in effect the overall art of shooting a film. You really do like lifting isolated comments and making a fuss over them. The scenes that I listed are, for me, colourful. I do not mean oversaturated, which I think you'll agree is unrealistic and plastic. Realism can be colourful! Do you only live in a monochrome world because it's "real"?
In my more recent post I suggest that these scenes form strong juxtapositions to the darker ones which are, granted, more prevalent. I don't see this as being a very controversial assertion.
At this point, amigo, both you and I are sounding repetitive ("crushing" bores perhaps?) and there is really little need to prolong this circular debate!

I agree that seems that we have different perceptions (and tastes) about cinematography and particularly about the meaning of 'colorful'.

Many are qualified CR cinematography as oversatured (and colorful), and I don't see nothing wrong with that as long as that doesn't mean other, than a moderate unrealism or escapism or even a little bit of fantasy, however, the word 'plastic' sounds a little scornful.

I totally agree too, that realism can be colorful, but I just don't see that happening in QOS, I just see muted photography (that can be justified or not for the tone of the plot, but that's another story). Anyway, everyone are entitled to their own opinion, so beyond that, it's pointless to go further with this debate.

Thanks Mr. A-B we were stuck in a bit of a cul de sac, no?> we''ll probably cross swords again in the future! I must admit that as I reflect further on many of your points I think I was a bit OTT in some of my assertions. (I guess I was still on a QoS "high" - I had put off seeing it until last week!!) Your point about colours matching plot tone is very much in accordance with my own, especially when I mentioned about the desert hotel scenes reflecting Bond and Camille's personal agendas.I didn't intend scorn when referring to "plastic" (in fact I was alluding of Andy Warhol's quote regarding being plastic when I was typing it, but I find it difficult to convey these nuances in posts - I'm a bit of a newbie at it ). I genuinely loved the movie; enjoyed Forster's take on it and I hope you found many parts of it to your satisfaction too. A bientot, mon amis.

[Eddie Burns]

Mattofsteel...

Yes. Eon did give us CR. But Eon also gave us DAD along with other poor entries in the Brosnan era. So because they gave us CR, we should praise them to the heavens? Even a broken clock is right two times a day. After the disaster that was DAD, CR was the least we deserved. And I don't agree that their approach of taking it one movie at a time is the correct one especially in this reboot era. It makes sense when taking into account the mechanics of filmmaking, but the creative process should have been thought through thoroughly. They should have mapped out exactly what direction and what areas they wanted to develop in the character and the world around him. Having Forster come in and throw out a script only so he could indulge himself is poor decision making. Very poor decision making and shows exactly how flexible this reboot is, when Eon should have a vision and a direction. Flexibility can be a good thing, but not at the lack of a good story and the whims of a director that really didn't care for the series.

You also say it's only recently Forster's spoken about the action whereas before he spoke at length about the character and his arc. Well, the way I see it, he was saying one thing before the movie was done, and another once people had seen it. Why? Could it be because the action distracts from his intentions on character development? Or was his execution heavily flawed? Now because the action has become the talking point in the general media, we hear that he 'wanted to put in as much action as possible' and that the main reason for even doing a Bond movie was because he was 'curious as to how action was shot' (something he said once he was announced)? Come on! I'm not naive. All the talk during production about character was blown out of proportion. He made it sound like a character piece, when you get the feeling because of a rather thin script, he thought that there wasn't that much of an arc. So padding it with action only made sense to him. Plus I now believe that he was told to emphasize character as a result of the backlash to Wilson's "twice as much action" comment.

My point about the reboot idea being mishandled is a very valid one. You like the direction it's going in and you make a good point about not letting one poorly done movie deter your faith in the direction of the reboot. I wish I was the same. I really do. But until I hear something concrete about where the character is going next, I'm going to worry. I feel Bond is far more dimensional than the one presented in QoS, and there are other facets to his character that interest me and I feel could be developed. The Q/Moneypenny example is not to be taken literally. It's symbolic because I wasn't expecting to hear their names for at least another movie. Quantum itself isn't interesting to me as an organisation. That could be because we don't know much about it yet, but really they could have added a bit more meat to it's bones. The whole thing sounds like A freemason cult gone evil. Ridiculous.

For example, Medrano is disposable, as Greene mentions to him at the hotel. Greene also dares Medrano to kill him as it won't make a difference in the large scale of things. So basically, after Quantum kill Greene they'll just get another one of their members to headhunt another dictator to run Bolivia. The whole cycle starts again. What Bond did was futile in the long run, apart from getting info on Quantum. Surely they could have made Greene's motivation a little more compelling. They could have made Quantum reward success through promotion within it's ranks. With promotion comes more power. I think it would have greatly increased the quality of the movie alone if they had given this kind of angle to Greene.

Eon are slowly decending back to DAD territory, but that's just the way I see it. It'll take a few films to get there, but they are going there. All they really have is Quantum to push them forward, and the fourth Bourne movie to help them with the action. Otherwise, creatively I'm worried. The only thing that would placate that would be them hiring a director who has enthusiasm for Bond, the character, the franchise and its history. But at the same time someone that wants to make new history, take the character forward. An appreciation for Fleming would be a bonus (as much as some say QoS is a Fleming Bond movie, I can't picture Forster reading a Fleming book, apart from the short story). But keep Forster far away...far far far away.

[dee-bee-five]

Mattofsteel...

Yes. Eon did give us CR. But Eon also gave us DAD along with other poor entries in the Brosnan era. So because they gave us CR, we should praise them to the heavens? Even a broken clock is right two times a day. After the disaster that was DAD, CR was the least we deserved. And I don't agree that their approach of taking it one movie at a time is the correct one especially in this reboot era. It makes sense when taking into account the mechanics of filmmaking, but the creative process should have been thought through thoroughly. They should have mapped out exactly what direction and what areas they wanted to develop in the character and the world around him. Having Forster come in and throw out a script only so he could indulge himself is poor decision making. Very poor decision making and shows exactly how flexible this reboot is, when Eon should have a vision and a direction. Flexibility can be a good thing, but not at the lack of a good story and the whims of a director that really didn't care for the series.

You also say it's only recently Forster's spoken about the action whereas before he spoke at length about the character and his arc. Well, the way I see it, he was saying one thing before the movie was done, and another once people had seen it. Why? Could it be because the action distracts from his intentions on character development? Or was his execution heavily flawed? Now because the action has become the talking point in the general media, we hear that he 'wanted to put in as much action as possible' and that the main reason for even doing a Bond movie was because he was 'curious as to how action was shot' (something he said once he was announced)? Come on! I'm not naive. All the talk during production about character was blown out of proportion. He made it sound like a character piece, when you get the feeling because of a rather thin script, he thought that there wasn't that much of an arc. So padding it with action only made sense to him. Plus I now believe that he was told to emphasize character as a result of the backlash to Wilson's "twice as much action" comment.

My point about the reboot idea being mishandled is a very valid one. You like the direction it's going in and you make a good point about not letting one poorly done movie deter your faith in the direction of the reboot. I wish I was the same. I really do. But until I hear something concrete about where the character is going next, I'm going to worry. I feel Bond is far more dimensional than the one presented in QoS, and there are other facets to his character that interest me and I feel could be developed. The Q/Moneypenny example is not to be taken literally. It's symbolic because I wasn't expecting to hear their names for at least another movie. Quantum itself isn't interesting to me as an organisation. That could be because we don't know much about it yet, but really they could have added a bit more meat to it's bones. The whole thing sounds like A freemason cult gone evil. Ridiculous.

For example, Medrano is disposable, as Greene mentions to him at the hotel. Greene also dares Medrano to kill him as it won't make a difference in the large scale of things. So basically, after Quantum kill Greene they'll just get another one of their members to headhunt another dictator to run Bolivia. The whole cycle starts again. What Bond did was futile in the long run, apart from getting info on Quantum. Surely they could have made Greene's motivation a little more compelling. They could have made Quantum reward success through promotion within it's ranks. With promotion comes more power. I think it would have greatly increased the quality of the movie alone if they had given this kind of angle to Greene.

Eon are slowly decending back to DAD territory, but that's just the way I see it. It'll take a few films to get there, but they are going there. All they really have is Quantum to push them forward, and the fourth Bourne movie to help them with the action. Otherwise, creatively I'm worried. The only thing that would placate that would be them hiring a director who has enthusiasm for Bond, the character, the franchise and its history. But at the same time someone that wants to make new history, take the character forward. An appreciation for Fleming would be a bonus (as much as some say QoS is a Fleming Bond movie, I can't picture Forster reading a Fleming book, apart from the short story). But keep Forster far away...far far far away.

Personally, I'd go down on bended knees to ask Forster to return. QoS is easily the best-directed Bond film of the series in my opinion. And the essence of Fleming's Bond is embedded in every frame - at least how I've interpreted Fleming's Bond from nearly four decades of reading and re-reading Fleming.

[Daddy Bond]

Mattofsteel...

Yes. Eon did give us CR. But Eon also gave us DAD along with other poor entries in the Brosnan era. So because they gave us CR, we should praise them to the heavens? Even a broken clock is right two times a day. After the disaster that was DAD, CR was the least we deserved. And I don't agree that their approach of taking it one movie at a time is the correct one especially in this reboot era. It makes sense when taking into account the mechanics of filmmaking, but the creative process should have been thought through thoroughly. They should have mapped out exactly what direction and what areas they wanted to develop in the character and the world around him. Having Forster come in and throw out a script only so he could indulge himself is poor decision making. Very poor decision making and shows exactly how flexible this reboot is, when Eon should have a vision and a direction. Flexibility can be a good thing, but not at the lack of a good story and the whims of a director that really didn't care for the series.

You also say it's only recently Forster's spoken about the action whereas before he spoke at length about the character and his arc. Well, the way I see it, he was saying one thing before the movie was done, and another once people had seen it. Why? Could it be because the action distracts from his intentions on character development? Or was his execution heavily flawed? Now because the action has become the talking point in the general media, we hear that he 'wanted to put in as much action as possible' and that the main reason for even doing a Bond movie was because he was 'curious as to how action was shot' (something he said once he was announced)? Come on! I'm not naive. All the talk during production about character was blown out of proportion. He made it sound like a character piece, when you get the feeling because of a rather thin script, he thought that there wasn't that much of an arc. So padding it with action only made sense to him. Plus I now believe that he was told to emphasize character as a result of the backlash to Wilson's "twice as much action" comment.

My point about the reboot idea being mishandled is a very valid one. You like the direction it's going in and you make a good point about not letting one poorly done movie deter your faith in the direction of the reboot. I wish I was the same. I really do. But until I hear something concrete about where the character is going next, I'm going to worry. I feel Bond is far more dimensional than the one presented in QoS, and there are other facets to his character that interest me and I feel could be developed. The Q/Moneypenny example is not to be taken literally. It's symbolic because I wasn't expecting to hear their names for at least another movie. Quantum itself isn't interesting to me as an organisation. That could be because we don't know much about it yet, but really they could have added a bit more meat to it's bones. The whole thing sounds like A freemason cult gone evil. Ridiculous.

For example, Medrano is disposable, as Greene mentions to him at the hotel. Greene also dares Medrano to kill him as it won't make a difference in the large scale of things. So basically, after Quantum kill Greene they'll just get another one of their members to headhunt another dictator to run Bolivia. The whole cycle starts again. What Bond did was futile in the long run, apart from getting info on Quantum. Surely they could have made Greene's motivation a little more compelling. They could have made Quantum reward success through promotion within it's ranks. With promotion comes more power. I think it would have greatly increased the quality of the movie alone if they had given this kind of angle to Greene.

Eon are slowly decending back to DAD territory, but that's just the way I see it. It'll take a few films to get there, but they are going there. All they really have is Quantum to push them forward, and the fourth Bourne movie to help them with the action. Otherwise, creatively I'm worried. The only thing that would placate that would be them hiring a director who has enthusiasm for Bond, the character, the franchise and its history. But at the same time someone that wants to make new history, take the character forward. An appreciation for Fleming would be a bonus (as much as some say QoS is a Fleming Bond movie, I can't picture Forster reading a Fleming book, apart from the short story). But keep Forster far away...far far far away.

Personally, I'd go down on bended knees to ask Forster to return. QoS is easily the best-directed Bond film of the series in my opinion. And the essence of Fleming's Bond is embedded in every frame - at least how I've interpreted Fleming's Bond from nearly four decades of reading and re-reading Fleming.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind Forster back one bit.

[Judo chop]

The problem is that it doesn't translate on screen for me. All I see is a thin story, a thin arc, padded with pointless action. That's all I see.

I agree. That is the problem. That was the problem on page 1 of this thread, on pages 2 through 10, and is still the problem on page 11.

If you don't these things despite Matt's heroic attempts to show it to you, there's nothing else for it.

Your attempts to dispell the illusion that we fanboys are under hasn't worked yet... but keep trying. Maybe that 12th page will be the charm.

Seriously. Sorry for the sarcasm, but haven't you had enough yet?

[Daddy Bond]

The problem is that it doesn't translate on screen for me. All I see is a thin story, a thin arc, padded with pointless action. That's all I see.

I agree. That is the problem. That was the problem on page 1 of this thread, on pages 2 through 10, and is still the problem on page 11.

If you don't these things despite Matt's heroic attempts to show it to you, there's nothing else for it.

Your attempts to dispell the illusion that we fanboys are under hasn't worked yet... but keep trying. Maybe that 12th page will be the charm.

Seriously. Sorry for the sarcasm, but haven't you had enough yet?

That's one of the things that puzzles me. Those of us who are very pro-QOS have written a number of excellent and extensive posts outlining and detailing the presence and richness of the very elements that many say are not there, or are lacking (i.e. plot, character arc, humor, drama, Bond elements, etc.). Many of us have argued that these elemens have been done better in QOS than in many a Bond film, and that these elements are being missed by many precisely because they are done so well in QOS.

So, to those who don't like QOS, it's fine if you don't like how they exercised these elements, it's fine if you still don't like QOS, but don't say those elements are not there.

For example, if you didn't like the fast edits, just admit you are old (in body or spirit).

Now folks, don't get in a twist, I'm just playing around and joking. Engaging in a bit of Quantumian humor. REALLY

I just think there is a great divide over this film...

#1 - Those who thought the film was good to fantastic and saw many great things in QOS (even if it is not perfect and has its faults).

#2 - Those who did not like the film much, or even hated it because they did not see the very elements that those of us who like it so much say are done so well and are there in the movie in great abundance.

I think the fact that many (not all) who have re-watched the film and have begun to pick up on these elements demonstrates that the group in #2 is often missing something.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

But that's the problem,I don't WANT to rewatch the film until it's on DVD. This movie left me with a huge sour taste and I don't want to relive the experience. Despite what some may think I love Bond,I care about Bond and I don't like the fact that I loathed a Bond movie. I also don't like the fact also I'm seriously concerned what Eon are going to so next,especially bearing in mind QOS was a hit even though opinion is about 50/50 among the general public [NOT Bond message boards!].

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

[Mr_Wint]

I just think there is a great divide over this film...

#1 - Those who thought the film was good to fantastic and saw many great things in QOS (even if it is not perfect and has its faults).

#2 - Those who did not like the film much, or even hated it because they did not see the very elements that those of us who like it so much say are done so well and are there in the movie in great abundance.

I think the fact that many (not all) who have re-watched the film and have begun to pick up on these elements demonstrates that the group in #2 is often missing something.

Good observation. But the fact that some fans in #1 spend more time analysing #2-fans instead of the actual film is even more interesting.

[Daddy Bond]

I just think there is a great divide over this film...

#1 - Those who thought the film was good to fantastic and saw many great things in QOS (even if it is not perfect and has its faults).

#2 - Those who did not like the film much, or even hated it because they did not see the very elements that those of us who like it so much say are done so well and are there in the movie in great abundance.

I think the fact that many (not all) who have re-watched the film and have begun to pick up on these elements demonstrates that the group in #2 is often missing something.

Good observation. But the fact that some fans in #1 spend more time analysing #2-fans instead of the actual film is even more interesting.

A bit like therapy...

DOCTOR TO PATIENT: So, do you see the humor when Bond tells M the corrupt agent didn't smoke?

PATIENT TO DOCTOR: Well, Doc, at first, I didn't, but now I'm starting to see the light, I actually had a grin on my face.

DOCTOR TO PATIENT: Good, you're making progress. Now, tell me what you see when...

[Judo chop]

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

I've heard that said before and I think it's a ludicrous notion.

The best art requires contemplation. You might say that's even what makes it 'the best'. Say what you will about QOS=ART, but your statement is totally absurd. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to pick up things you missed. And you can't judge a film without all the information.

If you say, "well, a good film shouldn't allow me to miss anything the first time" maybe it's you that needs to speed up, and not the film that needs to slow down? Must everything be handed to us with big shiny lights? What's wrong with exercising a little extra attention and practicing a little contemplation?

I enjoy being challenged by a Bond film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

I've heard that said before and I think it's a ludicrous notion.

The best art requires contemplation. You might say that's even what makes it 'the best'. Say what you will about QOS=ART, but your statement is totally absurd. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to pick up things you missed. And you can't judge a film without all the information.

Your comment remind me a little bit to "The Emperor's New Clothes" fary tale (I will go further on that reference , later).

Bond movies, as far as I know, are aimed to the masses, not to be high art or to the cult status, hence if a lot of points are missed by many people in the first view, something got to be wrong with the flick. That doesn't translate in 'the worst movie ever' title but definitely is not a masterpiece either (and in this forum the only QOS fan willing to admit that, seems to be MattofSteel).

[Daddy Bond]

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

I've heard that said before and I think it's a ludicrous notion.

The best art requires contemplation. You might say that's even what makes it 'the best'. Say what you will about QOS=ART, but your statement is totally absurd. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to pick up things you missed. And you can't judge a film without all the information.

Your comment remind me a little bit to "The Emperor's New Clothes" fary tale (I will go further on that reference , later).

Bond movies, as far as I know, are aimed to the masses, not to be high art or to the cult status, hence if a lot of points are missed by many people in the first view, something got to be wrong with the flick. That doesn't translate in 'the worst movie ever' title but definitely is not a masterpiece either (and in this forum the only QOS fan willing to admit that, seems to be MattofSteel).

Well, in The Emperor's New Clothes he REALLY didn't have any clothes. In the case of QOS, the things that people claim are missing really aren't missing, they really are there, and they are there in abundance. They really aren't hard to see at all, but sometimes the better the quality of a thing, the more the masses miss the quality.

So, yes, if the goal of QOS was mass appeal, then perhaps it failed (if that's the standard for what qualifies as a good Bond movie).

For me, I'm glad that QOS doesn't have mass appeal, because the masses often dislike many of the things I like and like many of the things I don't.

[Mr_Wint]

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

I've heard that said before and I think it's a ludicrous notion.

The best art requires contemplation. You might say that's even what makes it 'the best'. Say what you will about QOS=ART, but your statement is totally absurd. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to pick up things you missed. And you can't judge a film without all the information.

If you say, "well, a good film shouldn't allow me to miss anything the first time" maybe it's you that needs to speed up, and not the film that needs to slow down? Must everything be handed to us with big shiny lights? What's wrong with exercising a little extra attention and practicing a little contemplation?

I enjoy being challenged by a Bond film.

The entertainment value a film has is very easy to judge after the first viewing (especially if you stay completely spoiler-free). When you walk out from the cinema you know exactly how good it is, and if you always stick to that first reaction you will be more honest to yourself. Of course, no one wants to admit that because fans in general tend to change their opinions quite fast.

[Sniperscope]

One thing that occurred to me when I was watching QoS was that of all the Bond films to date this one felt the most European in its sensibilities, look and scripting, especially in regards to its general eschewing of tiresome expository scenes that are deemed necessary in most Hollywood films - I know from an industry insider *sigh* that "you need to explain things." But really isn't part of the beauty of cinema in watching it again and discovering new things with each repeated viewing? Isn't it a fun experience to discuss and share observations about a film with people after seeing it? A good example of this for me was the scene on the plane. Afterwards I said to a friend wasn't that beautiful when Bond is drinking the namesake of the woman he claims he's over? My friend, who enjoyed the character moments in this scene had missed the reference, but she was quite thrilled when she learnt this! That reference to CR was so gracefully made without some kind of line from Mathis like "Oh my poor wounded friend, I see you are drinking the drink that you named after the girl who died for you during our last adventure at Casino Royale. You must remember that? No? Perhaps you're too drunk my sozzled friend, but you are drinking a Vesper. No not the scooter, my glassy eyed hero. Vesper, the woman you loved who betrayed you..." edit: flashback, etc The general plot of QoS seemed pretty apparent (in fact most non-Bond viewers I know thought it was rather basic), but the layers that many of us are commenting on is an added bonus and makes this film the most challenging and artistic of the series. There is no shame in that.

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 December 2008 - 11:38 PM.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

One thing that occurred to me when I was watching QoS was that of all the Bond films to date this one felt the most European in its sensibilities, look and scripting, especially in regards to its general eschewing of tiresome expository scenes that are deemed necessary in most Hollywood films - I know from an industry insider *sigh* that "you need to explain things." But really isn't part of the beauty of cinema in watching it again and discovering new things with each repeated viewing? Isn't it a fun experience to discuss and share observations about a film with people after seeing it? A good example of this for me was the scene on the plane. Afterwards I said to a friend wasn't that beautiful when Bond is drinking the namesake of the woman he claims he's over? My friend, who enjoyed the character moments in this scene had missed the reference, but she was quite thrilled when she learnt this! That reference to CR was so gracefully made without some kind of line from Mathis like "Oh my poor wounded friend, I see you are drinking the drink that you named after the girl who died for you during our last adventure at Casino Royale. You must remember that? No? Perhaps you're too drunk my sozzled friend, but you are drinking a Vesper. No not the scooter, my glassy eyed hero. Vesper, the woman you loved who betrayed you..." edit: flashback, etc The general plot of QoS seemed pretty apparent (in fact most non-Bond viewers I know thought it was rather basic), but the layers that many of us are commenting on is an added bonus and makes this film the most challenging and artistic of the series. There is no shame in that.

I've dragged my poor sister to QOS 6 times (I've seen it 7 times myself). She couldn't really care less about Bond, she goes for the popcorn, but she does enjoy watching QOS. I think she enjoyed it more than the times I dragged her to see CR repeatedly. She doesn't put up an argument to see anything else when we hit the theatres, it's QOS. We're planning on another round again!

She came away the first time saying the movie was like a European thriller as well. Mind you, she's as casual a Bond fan as you can get, she's familiar with the actors (prefers Roger Moore, as he's the guy we grew up with.) and knows some of the films, but beyond that she has no idea. She pulls no punches, she'll tell me the movie was bad, she's very vocal about it if she hates the movies I make see with me, and vice versa. She also thinks I'm pretty dorky when it comes to Bond, and we know she's right .

But anyway, she likes old classic Hollywood films, and European movies (especially if they're period pieces.) so her giving the thumbs up to a 'modern' film, especially a Bond film, that's a rarity, man. She was even suggesting it to friends and co-workers.

And welcome to CBn Sniperscope!

[Sniperscope]

I've dragged my poor sister to QOS 6 times (I've seen it 7 times myself). She couldn't really care less about Bond, she goes for the popcorn, but she does enjoy watching QOS. I think she enjoyed it more than the times I dragged her to see CR repeatedly. She doesn't put up an argument to see anything else when we hit the theatres, it's QOS. We're planning on another round again!

She came away the first time saying the movie was like a European thriller as well. Mind you, she's as casual a Bond fan as you can get, she's familiar with the actors (prefers Roger Moore, as he's the guy we grew up with.) and knows some of the films, but beyond that she has no idea. She pulls no punches, she'll tell me the movie was bad, she's very vocal about it if she hates the movies I make see with me, and vice versa. She also thinks I'm pretty dorky when it comes to Bond, and we know she's right .

But anyway, she likes old classic Hollywood films, and European movies (especially if they're period pieces.) so her giving the thumbs up to a 'modern' film, especially a Bond film, that's a rarity, man. She was even suggesting it to friends and co-workers.

And welcome to CBn Sniperscope!

Thanks for the warm welcome ImTheMoneypenny! That's fantastic to hear you've seen QoS 7 times! You and your sister are single handedly keeping the box office figures ticking along! I've only seen it once *gasp* but I am hoping to see it again before its run ends. What do you think makes this movie so compelling? (or do you always see a Bond movie this many times at the movies?! LOL) As I said above I thinks its the different layers of interpretation that makes QoS fascinating, but it also moves along at such a pace which gives it a lot a repeat viewing potential too

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

One thing that occurred to me when I was watching QoS was that of all the Bond films to date this one felt the most European in its sensibilities, look and scripting, especially in regards to its general eschewing of tiresome expository scenes that are deemed necessary in most Hollywood films - I know from an industry insider *sigh* that "you need to explain things." But really isn't part of the beauty of cinema in watching it again and discovering new things with each repeated viewing? Isn't it a fun experience to discuss and share observations about a film with people after seeing it? A good example of this for me was the scene on the plane. Afterwards I said to a friend wasn't that beautiful when Bond is drinking the namesake of the woman he claims he's over? My friend, who enjoyed the character moments in this scene had missed the reference, but she was quite thrilled when she learnt this! That reference to CR was so gracefully made without some kind of line from Mathis like "Oh my poor wounded friend, I see you are drinking the drink that you named after the girl who died for you during our last adventure at Casino Royale. You must remember that? No? Perhaps you're too drunk my sozzled friend, but you are drinking a Vesper. No not the scooter, my glassy eyed hero. Vesper, the woman you loved who betrayed you..." edit: flashback, etc The general plot of QoS seemed pretty apparent (in fact most non-Bond viewers I know thought it was rather basic), but the layers that many of us are commenting on is an added bonus and makes this film the most challenging and artistic of the series. There is no shame in that.

"European in its sensibilities".... I don't really think so, but classical Hollywood type isn't either. After that Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman started this 'realistic' trend it seems more like an AMERICAN independent film in its aim and style, particularly having to account that unlike the majority of the Bond movies where most of the crew is european/british or at least not american, in QOS many key members are americans.

But the thing is (as it happens with any trend), this already not so new style is becoming part of the establishment, hence in some way it do represent Hollywood in its modern hype front.

Anyway, I have to say that I'm glad, that at least the QOS's cast keeps the sort of tradition, recovered from the sixties and seventies (since CR) of having mostly unknown european/british actors.

P.D.: And I do like too that "Vesper martini " drinking, Mathis saying "¡cállate!" to the taxidriver (I guess that was particulary hilarious here, within the hispanic audience, because is an experience that everybody has to suffer sometime, and I think all of us wanted to use the same words to make shut up talker drivers) and the "maestros en año sábatico" line was also pretty funny. This movie definitely has its good moments, but I don't find it so great as a whole.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 December 2008 - 06:48 AM.

[Sniperscope]

"European in its sensibilities".... I don't really think so, but classical Hollywood type isn't either. After that Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman started this 'realistic' trend it seems more like an AMERICAN independent film in its aim and style, particularly having to account that unlike the majority of the Bond movies where most of the crew is european/british or at least not american, in QOS many key members are americans.

But the thing is (as it happens with any trend), this already not so new style is becoming part of the establishment, hence in some way it do represent Hollywood in its modern hype front.

Anyway, I have to say that I'm glad, that at least the QOS's cast keeps the sort of tradition, recovered from the sixties and seventies (since CR) of having mostly unknown european/british actors.

Mr A-B please quote my whole line! LOL I said "European in its sensibilities, look and scripting." My friend you really should stop taking me out of context, you know. I made no mention of realism in this particular post, I was discussing exposition and plotting. And I was not suggesting "European" was to be taken as some kind of denial of the obvious involvement of Americans in QoS! Without Americans where would the Bond franchise be? And I do believe any attempts at realism has a far older pedigree than Bourne or TDK (French cinema verite of the 60s immediately springs to mind). Have you ever seen any film by Jean-Pierre Melville? La Samourai, Un Flic, La Circle Rouge, perhaps? Or the more recent french thriller "Antony Zimmer"? These films seem very similar in sensibility, look and scripting and in particular in their non-expository nature to Forster's view of QoS. They're all influenced by American thrillers but there is also a uniquely European feel about them (other than they're in French). I even saw elements of Peckinpah's "Getaway" during the early desert sequences (when Camile and Bond are all mussed up) especially in that DC bears more than a passing resemblance to Steve McQueen, do you think?

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2008 - 06:55 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"European in its sensibilities".... I don't really think so, but classical Hollywood type isn't either. After that Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman started this 'realistic' trend it seems more like an AMERICAN independent film in its aim and style, particularly having to account that unlike the majority of the Bond movies where most of the crew is european/british or at least not american, in QOS many key members are americans.

But the thing is (as it happens with any trend), this already not so new style is becoming part of the establishment, hence in some way it do represent Hollywood in its modern hype front.

Anyway, I have to say that I'm glad, that at least the QOS's cast keeps the sort of tradition, recovered from the sixties and seventies (since CR) of having mostly unknown european/british actors.

Mr A-B please quote my whole line! I said "European in its sensibilities, look and scripting." My friend you really should stop taking me out of context, you know. I made no mention of realism in this particular post, I was discussing exposition and plotting. And I was not suggesting "European" was to be taken as some kind of denial of the obvious involvement of Americans in QoS! Without Americans where would the Bond franchise be for goodness sakes! And I do believe any attempts at realism has a far older pedigree than Bourne or TDK (French cinema verite of the 60s immediately springs to mind). Have you ever seen any film by Jean-Pierre Melville? (La Samourai, Un Flic, La Circle Rouge, perhaps? Or the more recent french thriller "Antony Zimmer"? These films seem very similar in sensibility, look and scripting to Forster's view of QoS.

Yes I agree with you regarding that neither Nolan or Greengrass (despite some fans of their movies seems to think) didn't invented realism. However, this directors were the ones who recentely bring this style to Hollywood. And Bond movies belong to this world.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 December 2008 - 07:40 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Yes I agree with you regarding that neither Nolan or Greengrass (despite some fans of their movies seems to think) didn't invented realism. However, this directors were the ones who recentely bring this style to Hollywood and make it popular there in the action genre. And Bond movies belong to this world, so I can have a hard time to believe that Forster, a guy that has never made action films, isn't taking influences from them, but only from something like sixties Cinéma Vérité.

Aye well here's the rub - I think people are too focused on these more contemporary examples and I don't feel Forster has been influenced only by them - only in the area of editing would I give some credibility to this view, but then again his montage (opening chase, horse race for example) is a little more complex in its subtext than most modern thrillers. Forster, like any great director (he is not an auteur despite the claims of some) would have to be student of film! It's not all just point and shoot! His influences are drawn from a wide range of sources. Forster stated he was keen to go back to the 60s for his inspirations (in particular Ken Adams) and there would seem to be many homage to Bond and 60s cinema in QoS (I won't list them all but Fields' appearance at the party was very Hepburnesque, Bond wears a pocket handkerchief in many scenes, the Goldfinger homage, the grandiose intertitles, the boat battle, the Ken Adams inspired desert hotel...)
Don't like that "aspirational" tone, my friend! Forster's body of work so far suggests he is an accomplished and intelligent director. "Arthouse" should never be considered a slur and the "masses" are more diverse in their tastes than I think most people give them credit for... We are talking about "moving pictures" and "montage" afterall!

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2008 - 07:37 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Maybe I'm too suspicious about Forster, but his work for QOS seems pretentious IMO, or "aspirational" like Eddie Burns would say, straining to achieve a sort of cult status, within a film series always aimed to the masses.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

When I'm talk about mass appeal (and I'm not using that term in a pejorative way, because we can all be part of it) I think I'm describing a movie that could be almost totally understand, in the first view, for everyone. And I don't really think that's the case of QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 December 2008 - 07:55 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Maybe I'm too suspicious about Forster, but his work for QOS seems pretentious IMO, or "aspirational" like Eddie Burns would say, straining to achieve a sort of cult status, within a film series always aimed to the masses.

Wasn't it mediocrity that stymied the Bond franchise in the first place? Is it wrong to aspire to something different? I would argue that with QoS dividing opinion so strongly as it has already, then Forster may indeed have already attained a "cult" following within Bond fandom!
BTW - what isn't pretentious about Bond anyway? Come on, Mr A-B! Have you ever really looked at the series as a whole? It's completely pretentious! Isn't that what Fleming created?

When I'm talk about mass appeal (and I'm not using that term in a pejorative way, becaase all we can be part of it) I think I'm describing a movie that could be almost totally understand, in the first view, for everyone. And I don't really think that's the case of QOS.

As I've said before, I don't personally know anyone who didn't understand the film - in fact most people I've spoken to felt the story was a bit too straightforward! (Although I didn't think this myself.) I think as a totality the movie is easily comprehended, but it is in some of the nuances that the general audience may have felt left out on. But you and I are fans of the films rather than a general filmgoer - isn't it nice to see a few extra touches that rewards us for our fandom? Wouldn't we be the first to howl if the film was "dumbed down" in anyway?

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2008 - 08:06 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I don't think that mass appeal is better or that cult status is better. I just think that the EON series always was aimed for mass appeal, I don't see any good reason to try to change that.

And then again, mass appeal doesn't automatically translate in any utter rubbish.

[Sniperscope]

I don't think that mass appeal is better or that cult status is better. I just think that the EON series always was aimed for mass appeal, I don't see any good reason to try to change that.

And then again, mass appeal doesn't automatically translate in any utter rubbish.

(I added something to my previous post btw)
I think you can have a bit of both - mass appeal with some cult touches for those who are interested in those "fanish" aspects...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

As I've said before, I don't personally know anyone who didn't understand the film - in fact most people I've spoken to felt the story was a bit too straightforward! (Although I didn't think this myself.) I think as a totality the movie is easily comprehended, but it is in some of the nuances that the general audience may have felt left out on. But you and I are fans of the films rather than a general filmgoer - isn't it nice to see a few extra touches that rewards us for our fandom? Wouldn't we be the first to howl if the film was "dumbed down" in anyway?

In this forum, there are several people that have stated, that they didn't completely understand all the things from QOS, in the first view.

Furthermore, if you have to account all the elements that people like MattofSteel had enlightening.

Anyhow, I admit that I prefer this to the "dumbed down" Brosnan era. As I said before, I prefer this extreme to the earlier one.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 December 2008 - 08:18 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Anyhow, I admit that I prefer this to the "dumbed down" Brosnan era. As I said before, I prefer this extreme to the earlier one.

Agreed! No argument from me on that point.

[byline]

But that's the problem,I don't WANT to rewatch the film until it's on DVD. This movie left me with a huge sour taste and I don't want to relive the experience. Despite what some may think I love Bond,I care about Bond and I don't like the fact that I loathed a Bond movie. I also don't like the fact also I'm seriously concerned what Eon are going to so next,especially bearing in mind QOS was a hit even though opinion is about 50/50 among the general public [NOT Bond message boards!].

Really,if you need to see a film a second time to like it,it's a poor film. .

I disagree. For example, I had to watch "The Sweet Hereafter" several times before the jumping around in time made sense to me. Just because I had to watch it several times to clear it up in my mind doesn't diminish the film's brilliance; all it means is that, for whatever reason, I just didn't catch on and put everything together on first viewing.

That's not to diminish your opinion of "Quantum of Solace"; if you really don't want to see it again, then of course that's your prerogative. However, there are several of us in the middle camp who disliked it on first viewing, but then found ourselves liking or even loving it on subsequent viewings. That's simply because the questions that had distracted us initially were answered, so we were then able to get deeper into the story and characterizations and enjoy those finer points. We're all entitled to those opinions. The suggestion to go out and see it again is directed at those who probably are not as turned off by this approach as you seem to be.

But really isn't part of the beauty of cinema in watching it again and discovering new things with each repeated viewing? Isn't it a fun experience to discuss and share observations about a film with people after seeing it?

Yes! Even with a Bond film.

Edited by byline, 20 December 2008 - 05:30 PM.

[byline]

I've dragged my poor sister to QOS 6 times (I've seen it 7 times myself). She couldn't really care less about Bond, she goes for the popcorn, but she does enjoy watching QOS. I think she enjoyed it more than the times I dragged her to see CR repeatedly. She doesn't put up an argument to see anything else when we hit the theatres, it's QOS. We're planning on another round again!

She came away the first time saying the movie was like a European thriller as well. Mind you, she's as casual a Bond fan as you can get, she's familiar with the actors (prefers Roger Moore, as he's the guy we grew up with.) and knows some of the films, but beyond that she has no idea. She pulls no punches, she'll tell me the movie was bad, she's very vocal about it if she hates the movies I make see with me, and vice versa. She also thinks I'm pretty dorky when it comes to Bond, and we know she's right .

But anyway, she likes old classic Hollywood films, and European movies (especially if they're period pieces.) so her giving the thumbs up to a 'modern' film, especially a Bond film, that's a rarity, man. She was even suggesting it to friends and co-workers.

Lucky sister! I've seen it eight times; two were with hubby, the real longtime Bond fan in our family (who worries that he's created a monster), and the other six were on my own. I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to drag someone else along to any movie, especially one I love, unless I was pretty sure they'd enjoy it, and Bond doesn't seem to have enough of a "chick flick" factor to appeal to most of the women I know. (And I've never been much of a "chick flick" fan. Only a very few of my favorite films would fall into that category.)

Anyway, I agree with your sister's take on it. "Quantum of Solace" wears little on its sleeve, and there's a lot to figure out. That, to me, is more of a European sensibility, and maybe that's one of the reasons it appeals to me so much. The deeper stuff is there, but I have to work to get at it.

Edited by byline, 20 December 2008 - 05:44 PM.

[byline]

Thanks for the warm welcome ImTheMoneypenny! That's fantastic to hear you've seen QoS 7 times! You and your sister are single handedly keeping the box office figures ticking along! I've only seen it once *gasp* but I am hoping to see it again before its run ends. What do you think makes this movie so compelling? (or do you always see a Bond movie this many times at the movies?! LOL) As I said above I thinks its the different layers of interpretation that makes QoS fascinating, but it also moves along at such a pace which gives it a lot a repeat viewing potential too

I'm not ImTheMoneypenny, but as you can see from my post above, I've seen it a few times too, so I can respond to your question. For me, all I can say is that I really enjoy the experience of this film. I also saw "Casino Royale" repeatedly (probably a dozen times in the cinema, and countless more on DVD), and it was the same thing.

I think part of it is that, for years, I've been wanting to see a Bond I could believe in. In other words, I never warmed up to the Moore or Brosnan fantasy Bonds (the lone exception was "For Your Eyes Only"), and the only other Bond I really enjoyed, besides Connery in his first three films, was Dalton in his two. Finally, there was someone who had that something moving behind his eyes that told me there was something going on beneath the surface. But we got so little of Dalton -- and for me, as much as I love Dalton, "Licence to Kill" had so many flaws that I can't bring myself to love it -- that watching his two films always makes me want more. And, since I can't have that, ultimately it's a disappointing experience.

So to have Craig emerge on the scene and finally bring that character back to someone I can believe in is a highly rewarding experience for me. It's like a dream I'd had -- and my husband, too, for even longer -- but never got to realize until now. And knowing that now Craig's Bond is beloved enough to be allowed to continue on, rather than being shortchanged, means that I can relax in this experience and know that it will likely reach a satisfying conclusion. So that means I can enjoy "Quantum" in a way that it was probably intended; not so much as a standalone film, but as Act II of a play (whose first act was "Casino Royale"). For me, that's a richly rewarding experience, and Craig's portrayal (as well as having a united front behind the camera on how to present Bond) is a big part of my enjoyment.