887 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

Isn't there a quality director out there with the experience coupled with a passion for the franchise? No one out there with a vision and courage to define a legendary hero for a new century? To finally have a modern day Terence Young, someone born to direct a Bond movie, and help define it through his sheer personality alone? Or am I still in dreamland thinking and hoping for the impossible?

Probably you are Eddie because those sorts of directors, on the whole, don't exist in modern Hollywood anymore. Very few directors confine themselves to one genre, as they did in the past (a la Hitchcock or Lang) so there aren't many specıalısts with the sufficient gravitas to shape a franchise to their will.
When you see movies that are hyped with phrases like "Brought to you by the director of Madagascar" where the director doesn't even have name recognition then you know that, by and large, most directors operate under very close supervision from the execs.

Yes, a world where spy's motorcycle along a few boats, and open parachutes a couple of feet from the ground. You guys are not advocates of QOS, but defenders of this mediocre movie. To defend your position, you speak in vague terms, use box office numbers and even the recession. The one thing you omit from your defense are the mostly negative reviews compared to CR.

If there were no critics on this site, I doubt you would be posting positive reviews.

That's a little daft Lazenby. You harp on about two implausibles - what about the litany of ridiculous, out of reality moments that every single other Bond film gives us? (CR had them too, btw.) It's a movie. It's fiction.
And as for the negative reviews point, in my view many people were expecting CR2. They didn't get it and their preconceptions were thrown askew.

[Lazenby]

[That's a little daft Lazenby. You harp on about two implausibles - what about the litany of ridiculous, out of reality moments that every single other Bond film gives us? (CR had them too, btw.) It's a movie. It's fiction.
And as for the negative reviews point, in my view many people were expecting CR2. They didn't get it and their preconceptions were thrown askew.
[/quote]



I agree that I was probably expecting CR2 and was subsequently dissapointed. Going into a Brosnan or Moore Bond, I had expectationg of pure entertainment that was not realistic, and no one from EON tried to change that view. The problem with QOS was with Craig, Forster, and EON telling us before the movie how the "story" was better than CR, and that there was more character development than in CR. They helped to build the expectations that were never met.

[blueman]

They exceeded them IMO.

[Sniperscope]

I agree that I was probably expecting CR2 and was subsequently dissapointed. Going into a Brosnan or Moore Bond, I had expectationg of pure entertainment that was not realistic, and no one from EON tried to change that view. The problem with QOS was with Craig, Forster, and EON telling us before the movie how the "story" was better than CR, and that there was more character development than in CR. They helped to build the expectations that were never met.

Well fair play to you Laz that admit you were hoping for CR2. I never had that preconception so I went into QoS more openly and avoided all spoilers and hype from Forster, Craig et al.. In the end I was amazed and very surprised by the daring and artistry of the film. For me it was a tremendous success. I think it all comes down to what do we expect from a Bond film? I'm sure you'll agree that the formula had become stale and self-parodic, so CR took risks and won, People realised that there was some life in the franchise yet. QoS took this development another step forward and achieved something that is beyond what we normally expect from an action thriller. That's not a problem for me because predicability is anathema in my view. In the end the question is will QoS achieve a status akin to FRWL, GF, CR in years to come? My answer is yes. If nothing more it is the most artistic and critically fascinating Bond film I have ever watched.

Edited by Sniperscope, 05 January 2009 - 08:32 AM.

[MattofSteel]

The thing is about plots in Bond movies, they were very silly and at times ridiculous. But, like watching your favorite cartoon, you become invested in the character(s) and go along with the ride. There is none of this in QoS, where Greene is just a stooge, Elvis almost non existant, and a very dull Bond on speed. These take away from the plot rather than enhance it. I mentioned earlier in the thread that they should have given Greene some selfish motivation to complete the deal. An ambition to prove himself to his organization and climb the ladder towards more glory and power. This would have made things more engaging and definitely would have increased the anticipation for what Quantum is really about. Instead Greene and co. are quite expendable because Quantum probably organized another coup while Bond was in Kazan. Makes the whole thing rather pointless.

Forster is a the type of director that are a dime a dozen. Nothing he's done outside Bond will ever be discussed in 10 years. Sure, he's fairly young and has room to grow as a director but I'm not a fan. I find his films torture to get through. Campbell peaked with CR, but that movie showed me that he's capable of doing thrillers well. He nails the movie from Montenegro till the end.

I'd hate to see Forster at the helm of CR or any other Bond movie. He, like many European directors today, lacks soul. Style is there in abundance but soul is missing. I guess I wanted QoS to have heart and it did, but it was all glossed over by the action. The sequel to CR should not have been an action fest, it should have been a character fest. Oh, and Olga has better performances in her. Apart from Craig and Dench, Forster wasted every other actor.

Isn't there a quality director out there with the experience coupled with a passion for the franchise? No one out there with a vision and courage to define a legendary hero for a new century? To finally have a modern day Terence Young, someone born to direct a Bond movie, and help define it through his sheer personality alone? Or am I still in dreamland thinking and hoping for the impossible? Craig's Bond is a largely shallow character only defined by the death of Vesper and how he comes to terms with it. Connery's Bond was also shallow, but you knew there was more than met the eye and on top of it all he was interesting. The current Bond is currently overshadowed by Bourne instead of blazing his own path and defining himself. Furthermore, the whole thing about M being his mother figure needs to stop. Seriously, now. It's embarrasing, he's a bloody double 0! Anyway, I suspect Judi Dench isn't coming back.

You see, this becomes an interesting debate - and honestly, it's a pleasure to talk about it with you. Because you don't exactly raise illogical points.

I completely agree with you, that Quantum's plot could have been expanded to encompass a more broad view of everything going on. Personally, I always felt the point of the film was Bond's own journey toward some kind of emotionaly conclusion, as opposed to Quantum's plot (which, while realistic and somewhat restrained, was clearly enough to carry the film as a whole).

RE: Campbell, yeah - he nails it from "I'm the Money" until the end. Absolutely. Classic, iconic, perfect Bond.

RE: Forster. I can't say what they'll be talking about in 10 years. Personally I think he's overrated, but at the same time, I think QoS has been wholly misunderstood by some. I can appreciate the decisions made for the sake of emotional honesty, for the sake of the film - hell, even for the sake of art - but at the same time, I see why it's rubbed some people the wrong way.

RE: everything else about the modern Bond director, I'm pretty sure I could handle the job. Waiting for the call

But seriously, I don't know. I'm sure there's a thread on this somewhere, but I can't think of a contemporary Terrence Young equivalent. I'd call it a middle ground, somewhere between Campbell and Forster. Which makes one wonder, when considering the two films together, how can one see a deficit in quality?

[stamper]

I'd say most of the wanna be moviemakers and scriptwriters here (ie anyone who as already directed either a short or a documentary, or written a draft of a movie that was eventually made even if it was completely rewritten) could have made a better Bond film than Foster / writing team did this time around.

It's totally true that QOS lack any fair attempt at drama, characters motivations etc. This could have been FRWL to CR's Dr No. Instead, it's more like MWTGG shot in a Bourne like way. As some fan trailers have shown, you could take TWINE and make it as fast as QOS, but that wouldn't make it better.

CR was the "pilot" and should have been respected (and improved) in everyway starting with the basic rule : USE IAN FLEMING ORIGINAL MATERIAL.

Any of the ideas trown online (like Bond finding Quantum's Blofeld and fighting him in his garden of death, or Bond being shot and killed (apparently) at the end, are 600% superior to any scene in QOS and that includes the otherwise interesting Opera scene. When fans are making up better versions of the movies than the filmmakers, it's probably time for the producers to get a reality check. Just my 2 cents. I think the next one will be even worse ie no difference with a Brosnan era flick apart from the ultra fast cutting and and onscreen violence. My guess is, as this one was LTK redone Bourne like, the next will be the unissued Dalton 3 movie (rumored as Property of a Lady) treatment dusted off with a Bourne lifting.

[Sniperscope]

I'd say most of the wanna be moviemakers and scriptwriters here (ie anyone who as already directed either a short or a documentary, or written a draft of a movie that was eventually made even if it was completely rewritten) could have made a better Bond film than Foster / writing team did this time around.

It's totally true that QOS lack any fair attempt at drama, characters motivations etc. This could have been FRWL to CR's Dr No. Instead, it's more like MWTGG shot in a Bourne like way. As some fan trailers have shown, you could take TWINE and make it as fast as QOS, but that wouldn't make it better.

CR was the "pilot" and should have been respected (and improved) in everyway starting with the basic rule : USE IAN FLEMING ORIGINAL MATERIAL.

Any of the ideas trown online (like Bond finding Quantum's Blofeld and fighting him in his garden of death, or Bond being shot and killed (apparently) at the end, are 600% superior to any scene in QOS and that includes the otherwise interesting Opera scene. When fans are making up better versions of the movies than the filmmakers, it's probably time for the producers to get a reality check. Just my 2 cents. I think the next one will be even worse ie no difference with a Brosnan era flick apart from the ultra fast cutting and and onscreen violence. My guess is, as this one was LTK redone Bourne like, the next will be the unissued Dalton 3 movie (rumored as Property of a Lady) treatment dusted off with a Bourne lifting.

Although I can't agree with your first two points, the Bourne references are increasingly tedious and I'm pretty sure EON won't go for such fast edits again, but you're entitled to your opinion Stamper and to argue them further increases the circularity of this thread. But I do think you have got it right when you refer to the need to use Fleming in Bond 23. I found it impossible to believe when Craig said there was nothing left in Fleming, especially coming from an actor who has immersed himself in the literary Bond (or so I thought). Many of the books could be done properly with a new title and any average movie goer would be none the wiser - DAF, TSWLM, MR and even YOLT leap to mind. The shortstories have been mainly mined for titles only, so I'd like to see Octopussy as quite a different PTS for Bond 23, Major Smythe becomes a Quantum member, betraying the Govt. etc.. Could be very moody...
I think your pessimism re. Bond 23 is a little melodramatic though! Come on, Herr Stamper, the franchise is in its best shape in 20 years (or more!). Surely you can see that?

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 January 2009 - 12:41 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Everyone has their own definition of what "Flemingesque" means, and I doubt it will ever become universal. And it's obvious that there's still tidbits of great material in the books that could be used, Craig is simply referring to the fact that all the major plots have been used.

Oooh, I just thought of a new word. To me, the entire trick to an original Bond film is just to emulate the spirit of Fleming (via my definition, anyhow) as closely as possible. The Tosca sequence in QoS is a good exa

mple. It's pure classic Bond, iconically, and is built on enough ironic tension that you almost want to smile while gripping your seat. It's why it's the best set piece in the entire film.

Likewise, I thought the Bahamas stuff in CR was another appropriate example. Felt pretty cinematic Bond Connery-esque at times, but that sense of underlying danger juxtaposed with class, style, and reality was perfectly balanced. That's the trick - the emulation of Fleming.

Flemulation!

Actually, now that I think about it, that just sounds uncomfortable.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'd say most of the wanna be moviemakers and scriptwriters here (ie anyone who as already directed either a short or a documentary, or written a draft of a movie that was eventually made even if it was completely rewritten) could have made a better Bond film than Foster / writing team did this time around.

It's totally true that QOS lack any fair attempt at drama, characters motivations etc. This could have been FRWL to CR's Dr No. Instead, it's more like MWTGG shot in a Bourne like way. As some fan trailers have shown, you could take TWINE and make it as fast as QOS, but that wouldn't make it better.

CR was the "pilot" and should have been respected (and improved) in everyway starting with the basic rule : USE IAN FLEMING ORIGINAL MATERIAL.

Any of the ideas trown online (like Bond finding Quantum's Blofeld and fighting him in his garden of death, or Bond being shot and killed (apparently) at the end, are 600% superior to any scene in QOS and that includes the otherwise interesting Opera scene. When fans are making up better versions of the movies than the filmmakers, it's probably time for the producers to get a reality check. Just my 2 cents. I think the next one will be even worse ie no difference with a Brosnan era flick apart from the ultra fast cutting and and onscreen violence. My guess is, as this one was LTK redone Bourne like, the next will be the unissued Dalton 3 movie (rumored as Property of a Lady) treatment dusted off with a Bourne lifting.

Didn't you say Q0S would "tank at the box office"?

[Eddie Burns]

Hey guys,
After reading all the posts defending QoS, I decided to rewatch it with Mattofsteel's analysis in mind and....

I couldn't finish it.

Yup, stopped right after Bond escapes from the hotel. After M inexplicably decides to trust him...why? I don't know, it just got too ridiculous for me by that point that I can't take the movie seriously. So M decides to trust him then, but still doesn't trust him in Kazan? And for what reason did she change her mind in Bolivia for? Bond didn't really say anything revelatory in the hotel so where did the trust come from all of a sudden.

Anyway
- From the moment Bond shoots Mitchell the movie goes downhill. I skipped the whole Port au Prince segment but watched the start of Tosca and skipped forward once the sound was muted and all I heard was the opera bit. The movie livens up when Mathis and Fields enter the screen and I found myself enjoying it. But once Bond discover's the water my boredom begins and I survive until the hotel sequence. Couldn't be bothered with the rest.

The movie does have its moments, but it's flaws were all the more apparant this time around. For those saying it's a character movie, I beg to differ. Bond doesn't change at all throughout this movie. The Bond at the beginning is still the same Bond at the end. And so he will continue to be in B23. The only difference is he's over Vesper now, which really didn't seem to affect his work anyway.

I don't want to get into details as this thread is detailed enough. But those defending QoS, need to take into account that the script was barely finished, the title came up a day before they announced it, and it was the shortest Bond movie in history. But what I think is most criminal about it, is that it was not memorable. The car chase could have been historic, and even though I enjoyed it, Forster could have left his mark. Instead he just wastes the opportunity. The silence during the opera was just pretentious, and a gimmick. Craig had terrible lines and/or delivered them badly. The locations are forgettable and Tanner is a bland character, much prefer Tanner from PB era, or even Villiers.

Camille - a white version of Jinx with a sympathetic backstory.
M - They dropped the ball here. I love the Dame, but let's stop the whole mommy's boy psychobabble please and go back to the M that threatened Bond to never enter her apartment again. The M in QoS is from the PB era, the M from CR was the original for the reboot era. Major digression.
Greene - pointless
Elvis - pointless
Craig - Lets just leave him to do the acting and keep him away from any scriptwriting. Tell me a Bond movie that Bond doesn't deliver an interesting line. Apart from this one. I love Craig and think he's second to Connery but that's from the strength of his performance in CR, not QoS. Here he doesn't really stretch himself acting wise. His action scenes are slowly overshadowing his acting and he's on his way to be remembered as the all action Bond.

There is plenty more but I think it has all been said. I agree with Stamper that B23 will be tricky. In fact I'd go as far as to say Eon's take on Bond is finished. What I mean is they lack the creativity and energy necessary to take this franchise forward. They really appear out of touch and the jumping on some fads long after their expiry date is disappointing. The very fact they allowed Forster to shoot the oilfinger scene really grates me. Why not re-do the movies if your going to do crap like that? Bond will continue to thrive financially no matter what Eon do, but I think they're reaching the end of their cycle.

As for me, I will always forever be a Bond fan and will check out B23, but until I see some effort in the creativity and vision areas of the franchise, I consider this reboot a failure and find myself less enthusiastic about the Craig era. The whole Brosnan era was filled with promises instead turned out to be an era of missed opportunities. Some of you will beg differ, but I think that's where we're going now.

For those that love QoS, I envy you because I really wish I could, but I can't. I'd love to be proven wrong though and for B23 to blow me away. But until then I'll kindly ignore Marc Forster's...erm...masterpiece.

[Mr. Blofeld]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

(Seriously, you guys: Your hatred for this film is just inexplicable. )

[blueman]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

(Seriously, you guys: Your hatred for this film is just inexplicable. )

Worse than the CR anti-Craigers, even. Oh well.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hey guys,
After reading all the posts defending QoS, I decided to rewatch it with Mattofsteel's analysis in mind and....

I couldn't finish it.

Yup, stopped right after Bond escapes from the hotel. After M inexplicably decides to trust him...why? I don't know, it just got too ridiculous for me by that point that I can't take the movie seriously. So M decides to trust him then, but still doesn't trust him in Kazan? And for what reason did she change her mind in Bolivia for? Bond didn't really say anything revelatory in the hotel so where did the trust come from all of a sudden.

Anyway
- From the moment Bond shoots Mitchell the movie goes downhill. I skipped the whole Port au Prince segment but watched the start of Tosca and skipped forward once the sound was muted and all I heard was the opera bit. The movie livens up when Mathis and Fields enter the screen and I found myself enjoying it. But once Bond discover's the water my boredom begins and I survive until the hotel sequence. Couldn't be bothered with the rest.

The movie does have its moments, but it's flaws were all the more apparant this time around. For those saying it's a character movie, I beg to differ. Bond doesn't change at all throughout this movie. The Bond at the beginning is still the same Bond at the end. And so he will continue to be in B23. The only difference is he's over Vesper now, which really didn't seem to affect his work anyway.

I don't want to get into details as this thread is detailed enough. But those defending QoS, need to take into account that the script was barely finished, the title came up a day before they announced it, and it was the shortest Bond movie in history. But what I think is most criminal about it, is that it was not memorable. The car chase could have been historic, and even though I enjoyed it, Forster could have left his mark. Instead he just wastes the opportunity. The silence during the opera was just pretentious, and a gimmick. Craig had terrible lines and/or delivered them badly. The locations are forgettable and Tanner is a bland character, much prefer Tanner from PB era, or even Villiers.

Camille - a white version of Jinx with a sympathetic backstory.
M - They dropped the ball here. I love the Dame, but let's stop the whole mommy's boy psychobabble please and go back to the M that threatened Bond to never enter her apartment again. The M in QoS is from the PB era, the M from CR was the original for the reboot era. Major digression.
Greene - pointless
Elvis - pointless
Craig - Lets just leave him to do the acting and keep him away from any scriptwriting. Tell me a Bond movie that Bond doesn't deliver an interesting line. Apart from this one. I love Craig and think he's second to Connery but that's from the strength of his performance in CR, not QoS. Here he doesn't really stretch himself acting wise. His action scenes are slowly overshadowing his acting and he's on his way to be remembered as the all action Bond.

There is plenty more but I think it has all been said. I agree with Stamper that B23 will be tricky. In fact I'd go as far as to say Eon's take on Bond is finished. What I mean is they lack the creativity and energy necessary to take this franchise forward. They really appear out of touch and the jumping on some fads long after their expiry date is disappointing. The very fact they allowed Forster to shoot the oilfinger scene really grates me. Why not re-do the movies if your going to do crap like that? Bond will continue to thrive financially no matter what Eon do, but I think they're reaching the end of their cycle.

As for me, I will always forever be a Bond fan and will check out B23, but until I see some effort in the creativity and vision areas of the franchise, I consider this reboot a failure and find myself less enthusiastic about the Craig era. The whole Brosnan era was filled with promises instead turned out to be an era of missed opportunities. Some of you will beg differ, but I think that's where we're going now.

For those that love QoS, I envy you because I really wish I could, but I can't. I'd love to be proven wrong though and for B23 to blow me away. But until then I'll kindly ignore Marc Forster's...erm...masterpiece.

Well, Q0S is better than most James Bond films, if not all of them. It's also the best paced and most intelligently written. Eon have hit a grand slam home run with Quantum.

4 or 5 unhappy fans won't change Eon's path. Q0S has sold nearly 80,000,000 tickets globally so a handful of unhapy CBn-ers mean nothing to Eon.

[jamie00007]

Camille - a white version of Jinx with a sympathetic backstory

I disagree with all of your points, but especially this one. A white Jinx?? I dont see that at all. If Camille had spent the entire movie saying nothing but terrible, unfunny and crude sexual double entendres, Id agree. But she didnt. I cant see a single thing that she has in common with Jinx. Imo, shes one of the most old-school type of Bond girls the series has had in years.

[JimmyBond]

I don't want to get into details as this thread is detailed enough. But those defending QoS, need to take into account that the script was barely finished, the title came up a day before they announced it, and it was the shortest Bond movie in history.

Why do I need to take anything into account? I enjoyed the movie. End of story.

As for me, I will always forever be a Bond fan and will check out B23, but until I see some effort in the creativity and vision areas of the franchise, I consider this reboot a failure and find myself less enthusiastic about the Craig era. The whole Brosnan era was filled with promises instead turned out to be an era of missed opportunities. Some of you will beg differ, but I think that's where we're going now.

That clinches it for me. I can no longer take your posts seriously if you're going to be comparing the Craig films to the Brosnan films.

[byline]

Camille - a white version of Jinx with a sympathetic backstory

I disagree with all of your points, but especially this one. A white Jinx?? I dont see that at all. If Camille had spent the entire movie saying nothing but terrible, unfunny and crude sexual double entendres, Id agree. But she didnt. I cant see a single thing that she has in common with Jinx. Imo, shes one of the most old-school type of Bond girls the series has had in years.

Yup.

[ElFenomeno]

Mr. Kill was a better henchman than Elvis.

Edited by ElFenomeno, 12 January 2009 - 08:05 PM.

[Judo chop]

Mr. Kill was a better henchman than Elvis.

Would be true, if Elvis was supposed to be that kind of a henchman.

[ElFenomeno]

oke. i never wanna see that "kind" of henchman like Elvis.

[Judo chop]

oke. i never wanna see that "kind" of henchman like Elvis.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate him. The good news is... his kind of henchman is a one-time-only kind of henchman. I think it's highly probable that you won't ever be seeing his kind again.

[sharpshooter]

oke. i never wanna see that "kind" of henchman like Elvis.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate him. The good news is... his kind of henchman is a one-time-only kind of henchman. I think it's highly probable that you won't ever be seeing his kind again.

Agreed. The under-appreciation from his colleagues was not only subtly humorous; it was a welcome break from the stone faced professional killer routine. It’s just something different.

[Judo chop]

oke. i never wanna see that "kind" of henchman like Elvis.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate him. The good news is... his kind of henchman is a one-time-only kind of henchman. I think it's highly probable that you won't ever be seeing his kind again.

Agreed. The under-appreciation from his colleagues was not only subtly humorous; it was a welcome break from the stone faced professional killer routine. It’s just something different.

Elvis is not even really part of the film. Elvis is like Lazenby’s 4th wall smashing “other fella” line. He’s there for the audience alone – not for anything going on in the story. He’s beyond useless, and not only is he making fun of himself, he’s making fun of all Bond henchmankind, of all time.

I believe he was made, literally and specifically, FOR US BOND FANS. For those of us who understand where the series has been, and what Bond has done for the Evil Henchman™ in cinema. We know the power that guys like Grant and Oddjob and Jaws have had on audiences and how important they are to Bond’s history. The filmmakers are giving us a little elbow nudge, whispering into our ears, “Hey, you know… nobody else is going to notice this… but check out what we’ve done to the ‘almighty Bond henchman’ <copious sarcasm>… you know… just this one time. Just for fun.”

Yet, as is the case with other great heroes of our world, he isn’t welcomed even in his own home.

[Not disagreeing w/you Sharpshooter. Just using your post as a springboard on which to continue with my rant.]

[Scottlee]

I saw QOS when it came out and I can't for the life of me remember who this "Elvis" was, or where he appears in the film. Can anybody remind me?

Until I see the film a second time I'm still on the fence with QOS. It was enjoyable fare but certainly not a classic (as far as I could make out). I didn't leave the cinema on as big a high as I did after CR, that's for sure.

[ElFenomeno]

Fields knocks him down the stairs at Dominic's party.

[Judo chop]

I saw QOS when it came out and I can't for the life of me remember who this "Elvis" was, or where he appears in the film. Can anybody remind me?

Until I see the film a second time I'm still on the fence with QOS. It was enjoyable fare but certainly not a classic (as far as I could make out). I didn't leave the cinema on as big a high as I did after CR, that's for sure.

Gladly.

Elvis thread

[Born_again_Bond]

Well, Q0S is better than most James Bond films, if not all of them. It's also the best paced and most intelligently written. Eon have hit a grand slam home run with Quantum.

4 or 5 unhappy fans won't change Eon's path. Q0S has sold nearly 80,000,000 tickets globally so a handful of unhapy CBn-ers mean nothing to Eon.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. In this week's Jay Leno interview Leno congratulates Daniel Craig on QoS taking $600 million at the box office.

Given that the critic's reviews were always shaky to begin with (sorry - dreadful pun), one would have thought that would have put people off going to see it, especially as many of the reviews said (basically) "CR it ain't".

It does not seem to have had that effect at all, and in a recession-ridden economy and right before Christmas when many families have other calls on their spare cash, it still (again according to Leno) was "the biggest opening of a Bond film ever".

My guess Eon is well happy with QoS. Having said that, Daniel Craig has a professional habit of breaking the mold every time he does a new movie and so I think if he has any say over it (and from he has said in interviews, he does have a measure of artistic input), then Bond 23 will move on from both CR and QoS to pastures new.

Can't wait!!

[HildebrandRarity]

Daniel Craig has a professional habit of breaking the mold every time he does a new movie and so I think if he has any say over it (and from he has said in interviews, he does have a measure of artistic input), then Bond 23 will move on from both CR and QoS to pastures new.

Can't wait!!

That's the exciting thing about Eon in it's current guise. It's willing to take risks.

Remember back in 2003 here on CBn? People were talking about DAD's wonderful success and how Bond 21 would be kinda DAD 2.

Well, they took the risk of announcing Daniel Craig in 2005 and then in 2007 they took another risk by not doing CR 2 and embarked on a fantastic journey that gave us a very different and special movie in Q0S.

I imagine Bond 23 will be just as different to Q0S than QOS was to CR, and CR was to DAD before that. The series is all the richer for it. Richness that ensures Eon's longevity. Longevity that's unsurpassed in the world of entertainment.

And the negative rants of 4 or 5 or 6 bloggers on a single thread at the CBn Forums won't count for a hill of beans in relation to the cash registers that rang 80,000,000 times world-wide for Q0S.

[Daddy Bond]

Daniel Craig has a professional habit of breaking the mold every time he does a new movie and so I think if he has any say over it (and from he has said in interviews, he does have a measure of artistic input), then Bond 23 will move on from both CR and QoS to pastures new.

Can't wait!!

That's the exciting thing about Eon in it's current guise. It's willing to take risks.

Remember back in 2003 here on CBn? People were talking about DAD's wonderful success and how Bond 21 would be kinda DAD 2.

Well, they took the risk of announcing Daniel Craig in 2005 and then in 2007 they took another risk by not doing CR 2 and embarked on a fantastic journey that gave us a very different and special movie in Q0S.

I imagine Bond 23 will be just as different to Q0S than QOS was to CR, and CR was to DAD before that. The series is all the richer for it. Richness that ensures Eon's longevity. Longevity that's unsurpassed in the world of entertainment.

And the negative rants of 4 or 5 or 6 bloggers on a single thread at the CBn Forums won't count for a hill of beans in relation to the cash registers that rang 80,000,000 times world-wide for Q0S.

Yes, indeed, and it creates great anticipation to see what they will do with Bond 23.

[MattofSteel]

I think we'll see something far more traditional, yet maintaining some of the tenants of modern style. Q and Moneypenny will return as a response to fan criticism, and one of the Swiss Alps or a tropical island will be included as a location. The editing will be far more nostalgic and conventional, or, for want of a better phrase - slower.

Not that I'm complaining about any of this, I'd be happy to see it. Mere speculation on my part .

[Judo chop]

Q and Moneypenny will return as a response to fan criticism

I don’t doubt that both will return, but I get the sense that it will be on EON and Craig’s terms and not necessarily fan criticism that drives the decision.

The editing will be far more nostalgic and conventional, or, for want of a better phrase - slower.

It couldn’t be much faster.

But I agree. Based on some of Craig’s comments, I expect a Thunderball in terms of tempo. And in sticking with that mindset, I too expect a tropical climate (not that Swiss Alps couldn’t make it into the story as well).