887 replies to this topic

[blueman]

Same boat. And a very pleasant journey it is so far with Craig's Bond.

[ElFenomeno]

i just saw CR and QoS back to back.one after the other.
QoS doesn't stand a chance in the face of CR imo
but as a whole , a 4 hour movie it works well.

Edited by ElFenomeno, 20 December 2008 - 09:26 PM.

[Sniperscope]

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.

Byline that's the most perfect summation of my own feelings regarding Craig's Bond! My views on all the other actors/films is also exactly as you have said (although I do still quite enjoy many parts of LTK, partly because it was the first Bond I saw at the movies). If you compare Connery in DN to DAF you can just see where the franchise was going leading into Moore's era and the "fantasy" Bond thing never gelled with me either (MR's convertible gondola always makes me wince) and these were the kinds of things that Austin Powers and Johnny English ripped to shreds... Craig has brought a fascinating and subtle complexity to Bond that reminds me so much of the understated look and style of the great Steve McQueen and I think QoS has been the perfect vehicle to continue the character's development. Bond has really gone through a seachange with Craig. Here we are talking about character development in a Bond film! It's remarkable that in only a few years our collective expectations of who OO7 should be has matured so dramatically.
I was thinking Craig's Bond would be the perfect one to do the second half of Fleming's "The Spy Who Loved Me" in a future film. It could be a remarkably tense and old school sequence!

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2008 - 11:12 PM.

[Born_again_Bond]

....... Craig has brought a fascinating and subtle complexity to Bond that reminds me so much of the understated look and style of the great Steve McQueen .........

Yep, that's pretty much how I saw him too. I mentioned Steve McQueen in my opening post when I joined, having been slapped in the face in the cinema by the similarity and how DC had applied it to make a believable and forceful 007 in QoS.

Steve McQueen was the acknowledged master of uber-controlled passion and violence, DC has the same quality, his control on screen is amazing to watch.

I can't see any of Bourne in QoS, but I can see classic McQueen in both QoS and CR.

[Daylights]

I didn't like QoS one bit. I weren't a big fan of CR either. The reason I have for not liking CR is that I don't accept Daniel Craig as James Bond. In my opinion, Bond should be tall and somewhat dark haired (at least not lighter than Roger Moore. I also find it strange that a man smoking 70 cigarettes a day and with a large alcohol comsumption keeps a body like Craig's. I'm not saying that I want a fat Bond, but he sure doesn't have to be as beefy as Craig. And I really can't stand his attitude. My favourite Bond is Timothy Dalton, and many people ask me why I don't like Craig, since he and Dalton play the role "so much like each other".

Well, I don't think they do. Even though Dalton showed us a serious and sometimes gritty Bond, he still had his witty moments. Not too much, like Roger Moore, but definitely more than what we see now. I don't want Bond to be a Jason Bourne-ish killing machine, but a handsome gentleman who kills professionally if he needs to.

QoS is the less Bondian film I have ever seen. Like last time, a title song that sucks. Even the title sequence sucks. The plot is thin, and "Bond" just isn't right. No Q, no Moneypenny, and no f****** gunbarrel (where I want it to be). Where is the Bond signature? And please change that M woman soon!

I really hope EON realizes that they have crapped on the hardcore fans with this thing, that looks just like any other action film. Can't blame them though, mainstreamers want to see this stuff, and they even pay for it. But EON, please don't forget the fans!

[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.

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).

Ok. So, after I've seen the film 2 or 3 times and I find that I now love it (after admittedly having been confused by parts of it the first time)... now what? Are you suggesting that I should refuse my enjoyment of the film? I should pretend to not like what I do now see on the basis that I couldn't see it the first time?

On a business level I can accept your criticism of the film. If a film is so confusing that it shoos away the very audience it's specifically trying to attract, then I would call that a flaw. Not an artistic flaw so much as a business flaw. (The art is THERE, but it's so obscure it gets no credit and the film's primary purpose to make money is never realized.) But obviously QOS is not sufferring at the box office. Whatever risks Forster took in making QOS 'unintelligible' on a first-round viewing have not hindered the film's success.

[byline]

If you compare Connery in DN to DAF you can just see where the franchise was going leading into Moore's era and the "fantasy" Bond thing never gelled with me either (MR's convertible gondola always makes me wince) and these were the kinds of things that Austin Powers and Johnny English ripped to shreds...

Exactly. I see people in a variety of forums complaining that Bond needs to get back to his cinematic roots. But to which "roots" are they referring? "Dr. No"? Hardly any gadgets there. "From Russia With Love"? Ditto. The gadgets didn't start coming to the forefront till "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball" . . . and even there, they were far more sparse than the most over-the-top Moore and Brosnan entries. Both "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" are more along the lines of Connery's early entries in the series . . . which is fine with me. When the gadgets start guiding the story, rather than the other way around, it's time to scale back.

Also, Connery's first two films were far more serious espionage stories than much of what followed . . . which is why I enjoy them. So, in a sense, Craig's two films really have returned to the roots of the cinematic Bond. It's just that people tend to forget them in favor of the excesses which followed.

One other thing: In an age when gadgets are a part of our daily lives, I just can't see people being impressed with them the way we were in the '60s, '70s and, to some extent, the '80s. So what are the alternatives? Keep going more and more over the top with them, just in an effort to impress? That's not a story. I like the way they've stripped it down to a more bare-bones story about the people, not so much the stuff. Yes, there is still all the Bond iconography, but it's more streamlined, with more of a focus on the people. I enjoy that far more.

I really hope EON realizes that they have crapped on the hardcore fans with this thing, that looks just like any other action film. Can't blame them though, mainstreamers want to see this stuff, and they even pay for it. But EON, please don't forget the fans!

That's a pretty broad statement, eh? Because you'll find a number of hardcore fans in this forum who love "Casino Royale" and/or "Quantum of Solace" . . . so just because you don't like the direction the franchise has taken doesn't mean that every hardcore fan feels the same way.

Edited by byline, 21 December 2008 - 05:55 PM.

[Daylights]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe there are a few hardcore fans who like QoS, but why? I can understand that people like it as an action movie, but as a Bond film? I really can't find anything that gives me the feeling of watching a Bond film. No literary references, only a really bad non-working reference to the movie Goldfinger. The only thing that worked for me is the remake of the LTK plot, where the bad guy escapes from custody thanks to a rotten apple in the agency. I love something about every Bond actor there is, from Connery to Brosnan, and I even find something to love in every movie, even the crappy ones. But CR and QoS are just...... Well, what is there to like?

Back to basics!

Edited by Daylights, 21 December 2008 - 06:36 PM.

[byline]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe there are a few hardcore fans who like QoS, but why? I can understand that people like it as an action movie, but as a Bond film? I really can't find anything that gives me the feeling of watching a Bond film.

Oh, gosh, there are so many! But, again, it's a matter of perception and also expectation. My husband is one of those hardcore Bond fans of whom you speak, and Craig is his favorite Bond, Dalton second, Connery third (only by dint of the latter portion of his Bond career, which includes some bored, phoned-in performances and less-than-stellar storylines). There have been several threads in this forum that address the Bondian elements which are quite present in this film. You either see them or you don't. My husband and I both see them, but one of the reasons we see and embrace them is because they're there in the measure we want to see them. Obviously, that's not the case for you, so that's the make-or-break point.

Here are some good posts from another forum that illustrate a few longtime fans' perspectives: http://www.imdb.com/...46060#124746060 and http://www.imdb.com/...24498#125624498 and http://www.imdb.com/...74649#125674649

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Massive shame if it's true, although considering that the editors are on the dailies all the way through the process and Forster still had 6 weeks (a LOT can be done in that time), I'd say the finished film isn't so far off his original intent. But I guess we'll never know unless someone asks him, will we?

And also, QoS had TWO main, credited editors as opposed to CR's one - and while Baird and Campbell would have been operating under a similar (if not identical) timeframe as Forster, Chesse, and Pearson, there's nothing about CR I would consider unrefined as a victim of time restrictions.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

When a movie is about what its title implies...and people don't know what 'quantum' and 'solace' means then it's not "you" who has the problem.

There are a lot of critics that have/had no idea what those two words mean/meant. I suppose anyone can buy a journalism/English degree these days.

So, I'm confused as to which side you're implying (I might be failing to read it). Are you saying it's the producers' fault for picking a name no one knows that obscures the film's intended meaning, or are you saying it's not the producer's fault that the public isn't up to snuff on their definitions?

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just curious.

It's not the producers' fault that there are a number of stupid journalists out there.

That's what I thought. And no, it's not. I wanted to be a journalist about two years ago, and now I just have absolutely no motivation to do so. I apologize to generalize, but I seem to be consistently fed up with the media in all forms lately. Political coverage tends to sour it quickly, as well.

I find that, among those who find QOS to be flawless, perfect, etc, there's a tendency to either excuse or praise Forster for both problems and achievements that all previous Bond helmers have experienced. I found the man to be rather whiny, playing the "artiste" at every possible turn. "I didn't have enough time to edit the film properly, blah, blah". Previous directors when interviewed about the editing process have stated that they worked on a short deadline but they have done so in good nature rather than complaining. Hamilton had to edit half of Goldfinger on his own while Hunt did the first half, probably without even the luxury of an assistant and on a moviola, which meant ACTUALLY cutting the film physically.
Forster has been praised for delivering a stylish, emotional film. I found Royale to be much more satisfying in both areas but then again, they've sold this particular film on that angle and people only notice things when told to do so. Innovative editing? This is probably the LEAST innovative editing in the whole series as it so obviously follows a trend (six years ago people cringed at the Wagner's editing excesses in DAD and by comparison the look like a class act). Editing should never be so ditracting it averts you from noticing important details and there's instances in the film where you have to watch it at least a second time to understand things. That's not good film-making by any definition. Some of Chessé's disolves are embarrassingly bad.

Why is QOS so bad?

Let me try and explain one aspect of its failure.

I'm a novelist and if I wrote a book and my readers said that book I had written was about revenge, and I had to say "well no it is not about revenge, far from it," would it be my fault or my readers fault? Would I have done a good job or a bad job? Would I look rather silly telling my readers what it is about? If I made a movie and had the same problem, would it be any better?

Daniel Craig said:

"The lucky thing is we're doing a very direct sequel and the idea of vengeance that comes into it is really everybody else's idea.

"They think he's gone off, gone off course, and he's not . He's a loose cannon, his emotions have taken over.

"The idea of vengeance is the furthest thing from his mind. He just wants to get his closure and hence the title, Quantum of Solace, which is what it's all about

http://news.sky.com/...Screening_In_UK

When you have to start explaining what a movie is actually about, you must know you have screwn up big time.

Given its unusual title, they should have included a quote from the short story somewhere in the movie. This title is supposed to mean something (as opposed to, say, LALD, which was so irrelevant that the reference in the novel wasn't carried into the film). In the end, they could have named LTK QOS instead and it would have made as much sense.

I agree that his whining at times seemed unprofesional, but I never priased nor excused him for/from anything. Let's avoid putting words in people's mouths. And if you were just using my quote as a basis to make an observation, then I apologize.

I never suggested his restriction wasn't manageable, rather my whole point was that this was no drastically different than what we've seen before, so the idea that the film is woefully unfinished in terms of editing is tough to swallow.

Regarding the name being in the movie, I didn't particularly care. "So you live to die another day" is the most awkwardly forced line from the Brosnan era, Tomorrow Never Dies wasn't even in it, and "The World is Not Enough," "A View to a Kill," and "Living Daylights" were practically throwaways, to name a few.

To the best of my knowledge, and I may need correcting, whenever Fleming used a "phrase" as his title, he rarely referenced it in the text. And people seem to take him as the bible around here.

Yes, I was just using your quote to make a point. No need to apologise. I can no longer keep tabs on who said exactly what. Many posters, however, have fallen for his whining and given him the artist treatment.
Regarding the titles, QOS is similar to AVTAK in that they used a Fleming title on a movie which is not based on said story at any level. Fleming's FAVTAK does not refer to its title at any moment, so why should the film have? QOS is different in that the reason they gave for using the title after all these years was that it was relevant to the film. A quote from the short story would have been a nice touch for the fans if handled properly and it'd have made sense out of the title for general audiences. Here in Chile, the film was released with the title IN ENGLISH (a first).

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

They could have picked half of the Bond movie titles out of a hat and renamed that half.

OHMSS could have been attached to almost any Bond movie, for example. Q0S could have been named OHMSS because there's nothing in that title that makes it unique.

What's your point?

You're being thick. OHMSS got attached to the film that happened to be based on the novel of the same name. QOS is a unique title and deserved better than to be tagged to a film just because. They went through all that PR bull of saying that they picked the title because it was relevant to the film's story not to include any reference. They should have left the film as BOND 22 because there was a lot of people out there who weren't sure they were watching a Bond film anymore.

[Sniperscope]

I really hope EON realizes that they have crapped on the hardcore fans with this thing, that looks just like any other action film. Can't blame them though, mainstreamers want to see this stuff, and they even pay for it. But EON, please don't forget the fans!

Well, I would never presume to speak for the "hardcore fans" but for this fan the Craig era has been outstanding, so far. Perhaps you need to set aside whatever preconceptions you have of how Bond should be (and not the self-parody he had become) and enjoy the films for what they are. The Bondian elements are all there but they're done a lot differently.

I can't see any of Bourne in QoS, but I can see classic McQueen in both QoS and CR.

Agreed! These Bourne comparisons are so overdone and limiting. The influences from classic McQueen are apparent: I was thinking "The Getaway" and "Thomas Crown" in many sequences of the QoS!

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 December 2008 - 10:50 PM.

[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).

Ok. So, after I've seen the film 2 or 3 times and I find that I now love it (after admittedly having been confused by parts of it the first time)... now what? Are you suggesting that I should refuse my enjoyment of the film? I should pretend to not like what I do now see on the basis that I couldn't see it the first time?

On a business level I can accept your criticism of the film. If a film is so confusing that it shoos away the very audience it's specifically trying to attract, then I would call that a flaw. Not an artistic flaw so much as a business flaw. (The art is THERE, but it's so obscure it gets no credit and the film's primary purpose to make money is never realized.) But obviously QOS is not sufferring at the box office. Whatever risks Forster took in making QOS 'unintelligible' on a first-round viewing have not hindered the film's success.

Uhmm, I have my doubts on that, I would wait to see the sales (and even rents) in DVD/BD to declare QOS a total success, then you can really see if the people want to see the movie over and over again, because you have to consider that many of the people that went to the cimena, did it 'cause of their love to CR.

Talking about that, Craig's debut wins a lot of fans only by home video viewing, so I think its number could have been even higher in B.O., and I don't think that could be the case for Forster's work.

You also have to take to account that the cost of making QOS was much more expensive than CR, hence you need (and expect) bigger profits.

[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.

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?

I think your misunderstanding the series.

Yes, the character of Bond is pretentious, and maybe his whole world is full of aspirational tones. But the literary series as long with the EON one aren't like that, in the sense that Fleming himself and now Craig had been very clear to state and recognize the level of depth of the product.

I don't remind the exact words of Fleming, but he always established that his OO7's novels was nothing to take too serious, and Craig had declared about QOS that it doesn't have to be taken as a "deep psychological study".

However, Forster, seems to want to disagree, and some fans with their a little bit forced overstudy and interpretions, of the supposed complexity of the movie, seems to be making big efforts to give the reason to the director.

....Anyway, I have to say again, that I'm not sharing the same opinion of people like Dayligths that are saying that QOS isn't Bondian enough, because I do think Craig second entry is a proper Bond movie, and definitely not the worst from the canon (that IMO have to be LTK). I'm just saying take it for what it is and don't overanalyze it. QOS isn't any "Citizen Kane" or Fellini's "8 1/2"!!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

My favourite Bond is Timothy Dalton, and many people ask me why I don't like Craig, since he and Dalton play the role "so much like each other".

Well, I don't think they do. Even though Dalton showed us a serious and sometimes gritty Bond, he still had his witty moments. Not too much, like Roger Moore, but definitely more than what we see now. I don't want Bond to be a Jason Bourne-ish killing machine, but a handsome gentleman who kills professionally if he needs to.

I really hope EON realizes that they have crapped on the hardcore fans with this thing, that looks just like any other action film. Can't blame them though, mainstreamers want to see this stuff, and they even pay for it. But EON, please don't forget the fans!

The only thing that I can agree with you, is that Dalton and Craig performances are very different from each other. While the welsh seems to play and even overact almost only one kind of emotion: rage, particularly in LTK (I don't know where do you see witty moments in his portrayal, beyond those forced-for him- oneliners that were leftovers from the Moore era), the english had shown a much wider range of acting, even still without an entry that goes forward for the comedy aspect of the filmic version of the character.

You think that CR and QOS looks "just like any other action film", I really think that about the whole Brosnan era, but I definitely think that both Craig entries are pretty much Bondian. And yes, even not being (as many in this forum would know) any big fan of QOS, it's IMO a proper GOOD version of the awful LTK, with much more Fleming's elements than just put some character names like Milton Krest, or doing an eighties gore version of some chapter from the LALD novel.

[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.

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).

Ok. So, after I've seen the film 2 or 3 times and I find that I now love it (after admittedly having been confused by parts of it the first time)... now what? Are you suggesting that I should refuse my enjoyment of the film? I should pretend to not like what I do now see on the basis that I couldn't see it the first time?

On a business level I can accept your criticism of the film. If a film is so confusing that it shoos away the very audience it's specifically trying to attract, then I would call that a flaw. Not an artistic flaw so much as a business flaw. (The art is THERE, but it's so obscure it gets no credit and the film's primary purpose to make money is never realized.) But obviously QOS is not sufferring at the box office. Whatever risks Forster took in making QOS 'unintelligible' on a first-round viewing have not hindered the film's success.

Uhmm, I have my doubts on that, I would wait to see the sales (and even rents) in DVD/BD to declare QOS a total success, then you can really see if the people want to see the movie over and over again, because you have to consider that many of the people that went to the cimena, did it 'cause of their love to CR.

Talking about that, Craig's debut wins a lot of fans only by home video viewing, so I think its number could have been even higher in B.O., and I don't think that could be the case for Forster's work.

You also have to take to account that the cost of making QOS was much more expensive than CR, hence you need (and expect) bigger profits.

Whatever. Bottom line is that QOS is making plenty o' cash. It's successful by any reasonable standard. I want to stay on this particular topic so I'm not going to get into nickel and dime arguments over it.

My point is that even IF QOS wasn't successful, that's a business flaw, not an artistic one. In other words, I'm arguing against the point made earlier (not by you, I realize) that it's necessarily a "poor film" if it alienates its target audience (which it hasn't).

Go back to my first paragraph and tell me what you think I should do with the appreciation that I have for QOS as a piece of art. 'Cause what it sounds like I'm being told is that I am obligated to waive my enjoyment of it, or at least downgrade it in my own standings, simply for the fact that it confuses other Bond fans.

Why on earth should I allow my opinion of the film to be based on the brainspeed of others?

[Born_again_Bond]

I can't see any of Bourne in QoS, but I can see classic McQueen in both QoS and CR.

Agreed! These Bourne comparisons are so overdone and limiting. The influences from classic McQueen are apparent: I was thinking "The Getaway" and "Thomas Crown" in many sequences of the QoS!

Me too. I thought of Bullitt too.

There were some elements of the relationship between M and DC's Bond which I thought were reminiscent of the relationship between Frank Bullitt and his boss Chalmers, played by Robert Vaughn (an actor I thought would have made a pretty decent stab at being Bond, had he been less quintessentially American).

[Eddie Burns]

Ahhh, I see that some on here would like me to take a hike. I think not. At least not yet. There are still some things that need to be said.

Look, I enjoyed QoS the first time I saw it. There is nothing complicated about it at all. It's a very straightforward movie with the intentions of the filmmakers quite clear. I recall defending it when leaving the cinema with my friends (who are fairly clued up on Bond and movies in general) who were so against it. One common argument amongst them was that it wasn't a memorable film at all. Something I agreed with them then and still do so now.

The praise of the film stems from, at least on this board, the intentions of the filmmakers. However my criticism lies in the execution, that's all. I'd go as far as saying no one here including myself has any idea what their intentions were. No one has seen the script, or had a tête à tête with Forster. This movie is not based on a Fleming story and the amount of script changes/additions is unknown to us. But most have gone as far as saying this is the most Flemingian Bond movie. Why? On what basis does one assume that? I heard the same bloody thing was said about LTK and I didn't buy it.

By all means if you think QoS is a masterpiece, then well done! It's great that people see it that way. I on the other hand prefer to wait till I hear Forster's DVD commentary before making grandoise statements. But I have a strange feeling he'll be talking about how much fun it was shooting the action. Because I'd bet my car Forster knows it's not even close to a masterpiece. It's forgettable.

Anyway, Craig is still around, Forster's gone, gunbarrel at the beginning, Kleinmann should return, and hopefully no pointless action, and no Bond in inner turmoil or mentally unstable psycho overanalysis. Bring on B23

[HildebrandRarity]

QoS is the less Bondian film I have ever seen. Like last time, a title song that sucks. Even the title sequence sucks. The plot is thin, and "Bond" just isn't right. No Q, no Moneypenny, and no f****** gunbarrel (where I want it to be). Where is the Bond signature? And please change that M woman soon!

I really hope EON realizes that they have crapped on the hardcore fans with this thing

But EON, please don't forget the fans!

Perhaps they "craped on" some of the 'fans' intentionally.

Perhaps they want to ditch certain types of older fans and cultivate many more new ones to join the intelligent, open-minded fans.

I don't think they care about 20 or 30 fans who want Moneypenny. They count on the 20 or 30 million who want something extraordinary and exciting.

So it's time to move on...

[JimmyBond]

The praise of the film stems from, at least on this board, the intentions of the filmmakers.

My praise of the film stems from the fact that I find it to be a good film. I don't care what the filmakers intentions were, I took away from the film what I wanted to take away: a fairly involving story about Bond on the hunt for those that wronged him. If that wasnt their intention then they screwed up big time.

Anyways, why should you wait to base your judgement on a film until you hear what the filmmakers intented? Isnt art up to the viewers interpretation?

[HildebrandRarity]

It seems Mr Arlington Beech and Eddie Burns are from craignotbond.com as they keep going on and on about the same old thing in this thread.

How about contributing something positive during this Festive Season?

[JimmyBond]

It seems Mr Arlington Beech and Eddie Burns are from craignotbond.com as they keep going on and on about the same old thing in this thread.

How about contributing something positive during this Festive Season?

Come on now, just because they have differing opinions on the film doesnt mean they're from that site. And for the record Mr. Beech is a fan of Craig's...and even QoS, he just has more faults with it then we do.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It seems Mr Arlington Beech and Eddie Burns are from craignotbond.com as they keep going on and on about the same old thing in this thread.

How about contributing something positive during this Festive Season?

Yeah... righ!! I'm from craignotbond.com that's why in my dossier I have Daniel Craig as my favourite actor and CR as my favourite film. For a similar reason, I have praised in this same thread (if you took the time to read it, before to write this, you would know it), the wide range of acting of the current Bond performer.

Don't be such a child, HildebrandRarity! But wait, maybe you're indeed a kid if that's the case I'm so sorry, and I would totally understand your behavior, particularly you juvenile 'battle' about QOS.

And JimmyBond is correct, I do like QOS, only that I don't see it like any 'masterpiece'. In fact, I'm going to wear, proudly, a QOS's T-shirt that I received as a birthday's present.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 December 2008 - 10:04 PM.

[Sniperscope]

The praise of the film stems from, at least on this board, the intentions of the filmmakers.

My praise of the film stems from the fact that I find it to be a good film. I don't care what the filmakers intentions were, I took away from the film what I wanted to take away: a fairly involving story about Bond on the hunt for those that wronged him. If that wasnt their intention then they screwed up big time.

Anyways, why should you wait to base your judgement on a film until you hear what the filmmakers intented? Isnt art up to the viewers interpretation?

Agreed JB- why on earth would anyone care what the director has to say? If I enjoyed a film or interpreted it in a fashion different to the director's intention then that's up to me. I find it unsettling when people like Eddie Burns want others to do the thinking for them. "Oh so Forster says its a film about Bond's inner motivations? Fair enough, I can switch off my brain now. Thanks DVD commentary for saving a couple of thousand brain cells from independent thought."

[Sniperscope]

The praise of the film stems from, at least on this board, the intentions of the filmmakers.

By all means if you think QoS is a masterpiece, then well done! It's great that people see it that way. I on the other hand prefer to wait till I hear Forster's DVD commentary before making grandoise statements. But I have a strange feeling he'll be talking about how much fun it was shooting the action. Because I'd bet my car Forster knows it's not even close to a masterpiece. It's forgettable.

What a dodgy premise. I have never once considered the intentions of the filmmakers. If you think all Forster cared about was having fun with action sequences then I am sorry but clearly you were not watching the same film I was. From the mise en scene down to the editing its pretty clear that Forster was striving for something more artistic than just a forgettable string of fights. What about the opening sequence alone with its dramatic helicopter zoom intercut with moody shots of the Aston? What about the horse racing scene which creates a neat visual corollary between two seemingly unrelated chases? (Did you notice that Forster started this montage while White was speaking, before the actual chase happened? Don't you think Forster was trying to convey something here? I think it was foreshadowing the action to come, but it also makes an interesting point about competition and beating your rivals.) Or how about the fade edits when Bond and Camille walk across the desert, the Tosca scene which juxtaposes the execution of the tenor with Bond's fight against Greene's henchmen or the most remarkable scene of all: Camille walking through a graveyard as she leaves Bond. Are you telling me that this single moment did not signify anything to you? Forster is definitely striving for something different in a Bond film here. I would say he's trying to connect to us both intellectually as well as emotionally through visuals - this is the essence of montage, but what he may have intended is not necessarily what I interpret.

Edited by Sniperscope, 23 December 2008 - 09:47 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Well said Sniperscope...well said

[HildebrandRarity]

I do like QOS, only that I don't see it like any 'masterpiece'. In fact, I'm going to wear, proudly, a QOS's T-shirt that I received as a birthday's present.

I apologise!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What a dodgy premise. I have never once considered the intentions of the filmmakers. If you think all Forster cared about was having fun with action sequences then I am sorry but clearly you were not watching the same film I was. From the mise en scene down to the editing its pretty clear that Forster was striving for something more artistic than just a forgettable string of fights. What about the opening sequence alone with its dramatic helicopter zoom intercut with moody shots of the Aston? What about the horse racing scene which creates a neat visual corollary between two seemingly unrelated chases? (Did you notice that Forster started this montage while White was speaking, before the actual chase happened? Don't you think Forster was trying to convey something here? I think it was foreshadowing the action to come, but it also make an interesting pint about competition and beating your rivals) Or how about the fade edits when Bond and Camille walk across the desert, the Tosca scene which juxtaposes the execution of the tenor with Bond's fight against Greene's henchmen or the most remarkable scene of all: Camille walking through a graveyard as she leaves Bond. Are you telling me that this single moment did not signify anything to you? Forster is definitely striving for something different in a Bond film here. I would say he's trying to connect to us both intellectually as well as emotionally through visuals - this is the essence of montage, but what he may have intended is not necessarily what I interpret.

Of course anybody is free to make their own interpration of a film. And I did notice that Forster's intentions were much more than having fun with the action sequences, but that's exactly the thing that make me have some reservations for my love for QOS (and I have the same problem with the beloved -almost holy for some- FRWL), I think the result for such a great aspirations, within the EON series, it's a pretentious movie.

It's not that I don't enjoy all the kind of visual subtleties that you and MattofSteel had mention in any film, the thing is that it feel it totally out of place in a Bond movie.

And don't get me wrong again, I'm neither want dumb-down flicks (I'm an absolute detractor of the Brosnan era, and QOS is utterly superior to those unproper four Bond movies), I just whish quality action movies, just like CR or GF were, proudly aimed to the masses, and not blockbuster aspiring to be considered arthouse films.

Anyhow, I think Forster isn't alone in this snoberish, Greengrass is another that folllow the same path, that could explain the similarities in the approach to the action.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 December 2008 - 09:24 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Of course anybody is free to make their own interpration of a film. And I did notice that Forster's intentions were much more than having fun with the action sequences, but that's exactly the thing that make me have some reservations for my love for QOS (and I have the same problem with the beloved -almost holy for some- FRWL), I think the result for such a great aspirations, within the EON series, it's a pretentious movie.

It's not that I don't enjoy all the kind of visual subtleties that you mention in any film, the thing is that it feel it totally out of place in a Bond movie.

And don't get me wrong again, I'm neither want dumb-down flicks (I'm an absolute detractor of the Brosnan era, and QOS is utterly superior to those unproper four Bond movies), I just whish quality action movies, just like CR or GF were, proudly aimed to the masses, and not blockbuster aspiring to be considered arthouse films.

Anyhow, I think Forster isn't alone in this snoberish, Greengrass is another that folllow the same path, that could explain the similarities in the approach to the action.

You and I have already traded blows on this point, Mr A-B, but for you "arthouse" seems to be at odds with anything aimed at the "masses". Firstly, I consider the term "arthouse" as used by most people to be largely pejorative and dismissive. I have never held this opinion. Secondly, I do not believe at any time that "arthouse" cannot be for the "masses". As I have said before, the "masses," as you call them, are much more diverse in their tastes than you would seemingly give them credit for (have you noticed the QoS BO figures, despite all the negative press?). Sadly it would seem to me that you would consider any film that demands an adult, thoughtful response to it to be both "arthouse" and "pretentious" and therefore not a proper Bond film. That's a rather sad way to view something like cinema which can, and in my view should, be both artistic and entertaining. For me QoS achieves just that superbly. If you see it differently, then that is your right, my friend, and there is nothing I could ever say that would change your view.

Edited by Sniperscope, 23 December 2008 - 09:51 AM.

[ElFenomeno]

Bald directors make for bad Bond films !