887 replies to this topic

[MattofSteel]

I wasn't really suggesting EON is at the beckon call of the fans, more just the point that they come up in every. damn. press interview. And Craig has given the same answer every. damn. time. That you can't just shoehorn these characters back in, and that they've got an opportunity to properly give Bond an origin arc that will carry the franchise for another 40 years.

Anytime I've heard the "QoS isn't a Bond film because there's no Q or Moneypenny" criticism, I've thought it to be absolute rubbish.

[Judo chop]

I wasn't really suggesting EON is at the beckon call of the fans, more just the point that they come up in every. damn. press interview. And Craig has given the same answer every. damn. time. That you can't just shoehorn these characters back in, and that they've got an opportunity to properly give Bond an origin arc that will carry the franchise for another 40 years.

Gotcha.

Anytime I've heard the "QoS isn't a Bond film because there's no Q or Moneypenny" criticism, I've thought it to be absolute rubbish.

I suspect that some people do feel that way, but have you actually heard someone brazen enough to say it that patently?

I’m thankful for the break from them, and I’m looking forward to seeing them refreshed and opposite Craig.

[MattofSteel]

I'm sure we could go back and find someone saying "It didn't feel like a Bond movie. Where's Q, where's Moneypenny..." And I merely feel, that a Bond movie, these things do not make.

[Born_again_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.

Unfortunately I was not here back here in 2003 but given the enthusiasm here for all things Bond, I can well imagine the robust speculation!!

If DC was willing (by all accounts including his own) to say "thanks, but no thanks" to taking on Bond unless the character was going someplace new, then I really do think we can safely assume he will not allow the character to stagnate in Bond 23.

I'm so excited by the prospect of Bond 23 that I will be impossible to live with when the release date is announced.

[Eddie Burns]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

off. Considering the point of this thread it is you who needs to leave Ernie.

Yes, I'm fully aware that EON don't really care what I think, but that would never stop me from expressing my opinion. I distinctly recall TND getting the same acclaim QoS is now. That of being the best ever, most Flemingian, great plot/villain so on and so forth. Now it's blasphemous to even compare the Craig era to the unBondiian Brosnan era. But I think I get it now, Bond fans are a fickle bunch and just jump on the latest movie bandwagon like Eon do with trends. I honestly do think history will not be kind to QoS, and I expect in a few years, this movie will be the butt of many jokes on here. As of now, it's revered in typical Bond sheep fandom. I, dear sirs, will call a spade a spade. And if I hate QoS, I hate it. I'm not employed by Eon neither do they pay my bills, Daniel Craig doesn't know me and neither me him. I will criticize when necessary.

And those using BO numbers as proof, get off it. It's a Bond film, and they always make money. Going by your reasonings DAD, TWINE were great films as well since they also broke records. Or are Bond fans (in typical fashion) just selective when it comes to defining success?

I feel sorry for the stuntmen in this film. I'm sure they share my opinion on the movie, probably moreso since it's their lives at stake during filming. I expect that's the last we will ever see of Forster's pretentiously spastic editing in ANY film...thank God!

[JimmyBond]

I distinctly recall TND getting the same acclaim QoS is now.

Really? What forums were you visiting because I seem to recall a lot of people slagging off the film when it came out. I don't recall anyone saying it was Flemingan.

[Harmsway]

I distinctly recall TND getting the same acclaim QoS is now. That of being the best ever, most Flemingian, great plot/villain so on and so forth.

I don't. In my recollection, the reaction to TOMORROW NEVER DIES wasn't anything like the reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, aside from the fact that both films divided the fanbase.

[Emma]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

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

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.


My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

Edited by Emma, 19 January 2009 - 07:46 PM.

[Judo chop]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

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

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.

My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

There are plenty of intelligent people here. We realize which threads attract posts such as this and we enter prepared to handle them, we realize that posts like this are really the outlying occurrence in the forums and don’t project them onto the whole of CBn, and we realize that there are plenty of others like us here.

[HildebrandRarity]

My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

I suppose it was so intelligent that Eon decided to match it by giving us Quantum. But judging from the buffonery as well as the hatred for QOS from a minority in this thread, they'll once again take the lead from here and dumb-down Bond 23.

Happy?

[dodge]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

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

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.


My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

Here's a mournful "Ditto."

[Eddie Burns]

Harmsway

As you said TND divided the franchise, in the same manner as QoS. The ones that loved it exaggerrated its positives, and the ones that didn't feared for the direction of the series albeit not in the same manner as someone like me after QoS. Back then we still had hope, but the following two movies showed us what false hope does to oneself.

I really don't trust these producers and I am looking at the big picture here. I fully expect B23 to either show up QoS or to prove once and for all Eon should call it quits and pass the mantle to someone else who is not out of touch.

Bond movies are slowly turning into gimmicks, homaging themselves and copying what else is out there, all in order to make a quick buck. The reboot was a gimmick, something they never really followed through. I'll end by saying I wish the series luck, but unless we get a creative and visionary (not experimental/gimmicky) director, creative writers and more effort, I'm afraid we'll be getting a gimmicky Bond, because Eon have no idea where to go.

Let's have Bond blaze his own path in his own way.

[Safari Suit]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

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

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.

My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

There are plenty of intelligent people here. We realize which threads attract posts such as this and we enter prepared to handle them, we realize that posts like this are really the outlying occurrence in the forums and don’t project them onto the whole of CBn, and we realize that there are plenty of others like us here.

That may be true, but there's really no excuse for anyone making posts which say "If you don't like QOS, off", especially from a poster who talks about other entries in the series forcing him to "crawl into a corner and cry"

[Judo chop]

That may be true, but there's really no excuse for anyone making posts which say "If you don't like QOS, off", especially from a poster who talks about other entries in the series forcing him to "crawl into a corner and cry"

I wasn't defending the offending post in any way. I was defending the rest (and the bulk) of CBn, as well as defending the good name of Common Sense.

[JimmyBond]

Bond movies are slowly turning into gimmicks, homaging themselves and copying what else is out there, all in order to make a quick buck. The reboot was a gimmick, something they never really followed through. I'll end by saying I wish the series luck, but unless we get a creative and visionary (not experimental/gimmicky) director, creative writers and more effort, I'm afraid we'll be getting a gimmicky Bond, because Eon have no idea where to go.

It's so amazing how completely and utterly I disagree with this paragraph. Everything you are accusing the series of I feel the exact opposite. I don't feel they are copying anything, and I'm not sure how the reboot wasnt followed through upon, what were you expecting exactly?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, QoS is one of the best Bond films since the 60s. The films no longer feel like they're holding onto the past but finally moving forward. I look forward to where the producers will take is in Bond 23 and what new and exciting ways they'll find to play around with the formula.

[Daddy Bond]

Bond movies are slowly turning into gimmicks, homaging themselves and copying what else is out there, all in order to make a quick buck. The reboot was a gimmick, something they never really followed through. I'll end by saying I wish the series luck, but unless we get a creative and visionary (not experimental/gimmicky) director, creative writers and more effort, I'm afraid we'll be getting a gimmicky Bond, because Eon have no idea where to go.

It's so amazing how completely and utterly I disagree with this paragraph. Everything you are accusing the series of I feel the exact opposite. I don't feel they are copying anything, and I'm not sure how the reboot wasnt followed through upon, what were you expecting exactly?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, QoS is one of the best Bond films since the 60s. The films no longer feel like they're holding onto the past but finally moving forward. I look forward to where the producers will take is in Bond 23 and what new and exciting ways they'll find to play around with the formula.

Exactly. What exactly is being looked for? What is gimmicky about CR and QOS?

[HH007]

To those that didn't like QOS:

GET OUT!!!

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

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.

My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

There are plenty of intelligent people here. We realize which threads attract posts such as this and we enter prepared to handle them, we realize that posts like this are really the outlying occurrence in the forums and don’t project them onto the whole of CBn, and we realize that there are plenty of others like us here.

Remember, Judo, Emma is the user who accused people who liked QoS of "smoking crack." So I really don't think she has the right to take the high ground here.

[Mr_Wint]

Remember, Judo, Emma is the user who accused people who liked QoS of "smoking crack."

Never argue with a woman, they are always right.

[MattofSteel]

The only sad thing about this thread is that it's leaning toward becoming what it wasn't supposed to be

Eddie, RE: your last comments, I'd have to agree with Jimmy and say that I'm completely on the other side of the fence (I think we talked about this already).

The emotional core of the "reboot", the aesthetic of the thing, the degree of realism, and the commitment to quality whilst keeping Bond firmly anchored in an echo of the prime aspects of his past, are all items that find themselves well in place so far. I couldn't be more pleased with the direction of the Craig era. We've seen more light shed on Bond's character in 2 films than we had in 20 before that, and they've managed to do it with, like it's been said - 2 films that are aesthetically and in many respects, technically, the best we've had since the 60s.

It's a glorious time to be a fan, and I wouldn't dare say the Broccoli's are doing much wrong at the moment. Quality control vis a vis a finished script might be an issue, sure. But a producer's job is to bring the major players and elements together whilst contributing to the films at an overall creative level. From that point of view, there's not much I can say about Michael and Barbara in this era that would come off as negative.

[Jim]

Ah here is a reminder why I rarely visit here anymore.

My God, is this what CBN has turned into? What a shame. It used to be such an intelligent place.

I assume the two phenomena are connected. Don't go blaming yourself, honeysuckle.

Rescue us from our absence of wisdom.

[dee-bee-five]

.

Rescue us from our absence of wisdom.

And our crack-smoking habit...?

[Jim]

.

Rescue us from our absence of wisdom.

And our crack-smoking habit...?

So far beyond rescue that Red Adair would think "sod it".

[dee-bee-five]

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.

Casablanca was being written as they shot it, with a cast no-one wanted from the start. So what? It didn't prevent Casablanca being a classic. Nor do the points you raise preclude QoS being, possibly, the finest (and certainly best-directed) Bond film, to my mind at least.

[dee-bee-five]

.

Rescue us from our absence of wisdom.

And our crack-smoking habit...?

So far beyond rescue that Red Adair would think "sod it".

Quite. Some of us would shock Amy Winehouse*.


* And look what can of worms I've just reopened. Oh, how one looks back fondly on those rational debates about Ms. Winehouse's suitability to sing the theme song (though looking at what we ended up with, in retrospect, I'm not sure I wouldn't have preferred a Gary Glitter/Boy George combo). It's curious how some people had a downer on every aspect of QoS even before it opened.

[Jim]

I'm not sure I wouldn't have preferred a Gary Glitter/Boy George combo).

I shall dwell upon that mental image well into my advancing old age.

[dee-bee-five]

I'm not sure I wouldn't have preferred a Gary Glitter/Boy George combo).

I shall dwell upon that mental image well into my advancing old age.

Perhaps they could do a number from that well-loved old musical Kiddie Fiddler On the Roof...*

(* the old 'uns are the best)

[HH007]

Remember, Judo, Emma is the user who accused people who liked QoS of "smoking crack."

Never argue with a woman, they are always right.

This woman was a CraigNotBonder.

And she was the one who said (as Mr. Blofeld has pointed out) that EON should've made Bond more like HITMAN.



Nice try, though.

[Eddie Burns]

Hmmm....

This article is not in favor of QoS but the facts do add up. I'm in agreement with about 90% of what he says. What do you guys think? (sorry if its been posted before)

Consider the Chaos

Reflections on the troubled script for Quantum Of Solace

By Ian Dunross
December 15, 2008

For those of you who were astounded by the horrendous reviews of Quantum Of Solace, allow me to end some of the preconceptions you might have for the new Bond film. It's not the chaotic, incomprehensible jumble of action scenes as described by the critics. Not at all. It's simply the most chaotic, incomprehensible film made in the last five years. In one sense, such an accomplishment must be saluted; for in a world with finite time, where so many other human endeavors are far more worthwhile to pursue, some people went out of their way to contribute to human confusion. It is a remarkable feat of audacity, the audacity to pursue nonsense. Indeed, it took the complicity of indecisive producers, a handful of incompetent and overrated screenwriters, and a remarkably below-average director to make this the worst Bond film to date.

The chaos of the film derives from the checkered script development. Let us try to catch a few fragments of the events. In October 2005, during the press conference to unveil Daniel Craig as the new 007, longtime Bond producer Michael G. Wilson “revealed work had already started on the 22nd James Bond film,” presumably a screen treatment of sorts (“Daniel Craig takes on 007 mantle”). By early spring of 2007, the producers approached director Roger Michell to helm the as yet untitled film. He looks at those early days with amusement. Sort of. But back then, frustration built up so much that it didn't take long for the director to bow out of the project, citing unease with a muddled pre-production phase and the lack of a script: “It was because in the end I didn't feel comfortable with the Bond process, and I was very nervous that there was a start date but really no script at all” (“They call him Director No”).

So was a script not written at all or does Michell's frank revelation suggest that a solid draft did not exist for him to develop into a final shooting script? Either way, the 22nd Bond film was heading into production without a definite story. And what of the script development from the time of the October 2005 press conference to the spring of 2007? Did work on the script come to a halt? Or was a script never even started? Tapped to add to the confusion was director Marc Forster, fresh from his profound box-office flop, The Kite Runner. Perhaps because no other self-respecting filmmaker was willing to join this brewing mess, the producers settled on Forster to helm the project. Right from the start, the German-Swiss director met with defeat: the producers, in what seems like utter madness, now committed to a release date but the script remained undeveloped. In an interview for the Mail & Guardian, Forster scoffs at the absurdity of the situation: “‘When I signed on, we had a release date but no script and no title,’ he says with a disbelieving laugh” (“My work is my bond”).

Ah, laughter, the wild deriding laughter of absurdity. It is the gesture to confirm nonsense, to signal the recognition of meaninglessness. I recall a few more lines from Michell:
I like to be very well prepared as a director. The Bond people—who are lovely—are used to going into these massive productions in quite a chaotic way: ‘Oh, we'll fix that later.’ I panicked about this. And it was starting to make me feel very, very unhappy about what I was doing and who I was (“They call him Director No”).

Apparently, this internal chaos was not enough to humble the powers-that-be into stern action. But what am I saying? Many movies that started from development hell have resulted as box-office hits—which only proves that in Hollywood, the only thing that matters is not the quality of the film but the degree of its success or failure.

By September 2007, with pressure mounting to have a screenplay, the producers turned to Paul Haggis. Haggis, you'll recall, is the allegedly brilliant screenwriter-director (and devout member of the Hollywood far-left brigade) who rewrote much of Casino Royale.1 Writing the stellar kitsch for that film was apparently not enough to satisfy the self-professed Marxist, and he must have looked into the mirror one morning and realized he had bigger, profound stupid ideas to contribute to the series. One gathers that the producers were unable to court other A-list screenwriters but Haggis reportedly returned for a pittance, in the tune of $4 million—and for that he delivered a lousy script (which was sternly rejected by the producers) and ranted about the production in various interviews.

Haggis first appeared on Craig Ferguson's The Late Late Show near the end of September. As soon as the new Bond film came up in conversation, he dropped the bombshell—namely, he was rewriting an apparent first draft, rather frantically, to deliver the final shooting script:
When asked how far along he is in re-writing the first draft script by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, Haggis said, “I am on page 45”.... He joked that “shooting doesn't start until December, so I have plenty of time”.... Haggis revealed he is heading to Italy to get some writing complete. (“Writer Paul Haggis gives status update on the Bond 22 script, gadgets and Italy”)

A draft, then, existed by September 2007, developed by Purvis and Wade, the screenwriting duo who tackled previous Bond entries, including Casino Royale. Whatever draft they completed for Bond 22 must have been in shambles--hence, the reason why Haggis was brought back to rewrite it. Did this sketchy draft exist earlier in pre-production? Put another way, did it exist at the time director Roger Michell was involved, a lousy script that forced him to say there was “really no script at all”? Forster, on the other hand, recalls the script development differently. In his version, the task of melding ideas into a screenplay—one that satisfied the Bond producers—became more elusive and required the involvement of Haggis and committee:
‘Once I signed on to do [Quantum Of Solace], we pretty much developed the script from scratch because I felt that it wasn't the movie I wanted to make and started with Paul [Haggis] from scratch,’ he said. ‘And I said to him these are the topics I am interested in this is what I would like to say, what's important to me. And we developed it from there together.... The good thing is that Paul and I and Daniel all worked on the script before the strike happened and got it where we were pretty happy with.’ (Zydel)

Presumably, there were action scenes galore in the script, but this business of listing topics indicates that Forster never had a single coherent storyline from the outset. Not surprisingly, in this topics-based approach, Forster ended up with a disjointed narrative: disparate action sequences abound, suggesting the film was cobbled piecemeal around its locations.

Meanwhile, Haggis turned out to have a penchant for dropping bombshells about the progress of the script: by mid-October, apparently unable to contain himself, he conducted an interview for Esquire magazine, babbling that “the original idea for the next 007 adventure was thrown out at the last minute.” In understated frustration, he admits that “I thought I had come up with a terrific plot, and we'd worked it all the way through, and yesterday we tossed it out” (“Paul Haggis on rewriting Bond 22 script”). Nothing is more humiliating than for an Oscar-winning writer/director to have his script thrown out. In unspeakable outrage, amid stern orders from the producers, Haggis feebly retreated to rewrite the script to their liking.2

It seems that the glory from his Oscar-winning Crash and the success from his contributions to Casino Royale all came to an end. He had also just returned from the dismal failure of In the Valley of Elah, and no one could even remember his involvement in Clint Eastwood's two Iwo Jima tales because both war films had faded into oblivion. The final nail in the coffin, so to speak, was the rejected script for the 22nd Bond film. Was Haggis worse than previous Bond screenwriters? Or did he just have bad luck? Or has his talent for filmmaking passed its midnight? His situation takes us to a disturbing situation: what happens to an individual when his skill or talent is no longer relevant to the world? Does the person change, struggle to adapt? For example, if Marco Polo (with all his skills in travel and exploration) existed today, would he become the CEO of an exporting firm? How about Monet? Would he take up digital animation and work for Disney? Or would such great figures convince themselves that they were misunderstood and, in feisty defiance, struggle to assert themselves in some other way? Of course, there is no answer to these questions, neither for me, nor for you, nor for our man Haggis.

By the end of October 2007, the Writers Guild strike loomed. Haggis continued to work on the script and turned it over to the Bond producers just hours before the strike began. The script was by no means complete but it did signal the end of Haggis’ involvement. It was another phase in the project that came and went, an experience that should just flash through an individual's life like a meteor and disappear. For Haggis, though, it was not the end: he found himself immersed in circumstances that allowed him to stay relevant to the Bond production. In early November, he joined the picket line where fellow scribes were in revolt, and there voiced support for his fellow oppressed writers in Hollywood. Alas, timing was not his strong suit; for despite the world revolution and with filming scheduled for December, Haggis trotted into another interview and gave a status on the incomplete script, declaring that “[the producers] haven't gotten the polish finished yet” (“Paul Haggis joins the writers strike picket line, comments on Bond 22”). Despite his struggle to remain visible, Haggis was a man fading quickly into forgetting. Hollywood lingers for no one. Not even for whining pasty writers. Cometh the hour, cometh a new screenwriter for Bond 22: Joshua Zetumer.

Forster again recalls events differently from Haggis. Weaknesses in the script were still evident as the production headed into Spring 2008. Luckily, Forster had the epiphany that something had to be done: “As soon as the strike was over, we did another polish with someone and it worked out with all this stuff coming up. So I was pretty happy with all the work we'd done in January and February so [there won't be any need for reshoots]” (Zydel). Zetumer, now the savior of the script, was a newcomer to the screenwriting world. The two or three scripts he had written (Forster was unsure of the man's accomplishments) were decent enough to impress the director and the producers. With Zetumer's involvement, the battle to patch up the script commenced while filming progressed. Did the filmmakers design the action set-pieces and then ask Zetumer to string the sequences into some kind of narrative? Or did they make up the story as they filmed explosions and stunt sequences and then dictated their ideas to Zetumer who had to piece it all into some semblance of a plot? One thing is certain: the 22nd Bond movie was filmed with an unstable story.

Where does this leave Haggis? Well, he was in a winter of discontent as principal photography was underway and the title finally revealed in January 2008. It was an odd choice: during a press conference in London, the producers announced that they selected the title of a little known Fleming short story, and the world was forced to do a double-take as it absorbed an arcane phrase—Quantum Of Solace. Haggis, about several thousand miles away, was in yet another interview, babbling to the MTV Movies Blog that he was puzzled by the title. He was now standing at the sidelines of the Bond film but still bound up with it. Even his dismissal of the title has a proprietorial edginess:
Screenwriter Paul Haggis told MTV Movies Blog that he has no idea what the title means. When asked about the meaning of the title, he said ‘I have no idea. It's not my title,’ he said. When the guy who wrote the script doesn't know what the title means, it probably wasn't the best choice. Not only does Haggis not know what it means, he clearly doesn't like it, either. When asked for his opinion of the phrase, he answered with a ‘no comment.’ (“Paul Haggis Hates Quantum Of Solace”)

The rationale for the title is myriad and labyrinthine, and possibly many other words with a y in them. But when they saw that the world was baffled by the title, the Bond team quickly went into damage control. What stagecraft! After the fog of confusion engulfed the public, it was necessary for Team Eon to show their reverence for Fleming; it was necessary to explicate the meaning of the title in context to their film; it was necessary to express that theirs was a thoughtful, sophisticated film, a continuation of the serious approach set forth in Casino Royale, faithful to Fleming's intention and so distant from the outlandish Bond films of yore. Says Wilson: “We thought it was an intriguing title and referenced what happened to Bond and what is happening in the film.” The story continues, he gleefully insists, where Casino Royale ends, and with Bond “contemplating revenge after his betrayal by his true love, Vesper Lynd.”

Oh, so we're back to a revenge routine, which was previously used in Licence To Kill. But not to be outdone, co-producer Barbara Broccoli, who is clearly on the same page with Wilson, explains that the film “is not a revenge movie. It's a lot more complicated than that. It has lots of action but it also deals with the inner turmoil Bond is feeling.” Ah, a red herring, then, this business about revenge. But wait! Craig himself adds to the contradiction by stating that his Bond is “looking for revenge, you know, to make himself happy with the world again” (“New Bond film title is confirmed”).

From the outset, the premise was shaky, reaching into the maudlin, into kitsch territory: the sheer notion of extending the story's concept into the emotional aftermath of Craig's Bond in Casino Royale is laughably pretentious. As Craig (painfully reciting lines from the film's public relations handbook) is forced to explain: “At the end of the last movie, Bond has the love of his life taken away from him and he never got that quantum of solace” (“New Bond film title is confirmed”). Um, no Mr. Daniel Craig. The Law of the Quantum of Solace has nothing to do with the loss of love from the death of the beloved.

Let's read the story correctly: Fleming shuns vengeance, car chases, gunfire, and explosions but offers a quiet drama about marital discord, pointing to the notion that social relations are volatile and require, at the very least, a degree of solace—compassion—to avoid conflict. The reader finds nothing cinematic in scope whatsoever; instead, it's the Governor of the Bahamas, essentially the central character, who takes center stage. With his bits of life wisdom, he recounts, during a dull after-dinner chat with Bond, a haunting anecdote about the marriage of a dull civil servant to an attractive flight attendant. His story-telling captivates the agent and reaches the significance of the title when the Governor describes, by his own admission, a rather pretentious theory about human relations:
‘When all kindness is gone, when one person obviously and sincerely doesn't care if the other is alive or dead, then it's just no good. That particular insult to the ego—worse, to the instinct of self-preservation—can never be forgiven.... I've thought about this and I've invented a rather high-sounding title for this basic factor in human relations. I have called it The Law of the Quantum of Solace.’ (90-91)

Again, the notion of the quantum of solace concerns the degree of humanity in a relationship, not the loss of love from the death of the beloved. If anything, the Craig-Bond has actually experienced quite a bit of solace with Vesper Lynd. In the last film, let us recall that Vesper falls in love with the agent—yes, say what you will, but she has enough interest in the Craig-Bond to fall in love, and we are forced to stretch our imaginations that she can actually fall for a pigmentless guy with a thin disheveled bowl haircut. In fact, despite the bashing of the Craig-Bond's manhood by Le Chiffre, Vesper maintains high interest level to stick around during his recovery to shower him with respect and compassion. To you MBA graduates, this forms a degree of love and humanity between the two, a “quantum of solace” at the very center of their romance.

What we have, then, is a seriously stupid idea from the filmmakers. This leads us to believe that the only justification for calling a mainstream action film Quantum Of Solace is that there were other worst titles—presumably offered by the incompetent trio of Haggis, Purvis, and Wade—that the Bond producers rejected. A clue to the selected title resides in the comment from Michael Wilson, who announced that the title was “chosen only a few days ago” (“New Bond film title is confirmed”), a very odd remark suggesting a slapdash effort for a multi-million dollar film. One senses that, just days before the press conference, the filmmakers were still undecided and forced to make a last minute sifting of the Fleming books for something, anything, to slap onto the new film as a title.

Several months later, during on-location filming in Chile, Wilson reflected on the arduous schedule. “I need a break for a while,” he told reporters, anticipating at least a one-year pause. Based on this proposed interim, the 23rd Bond film will be released later than the usual two-year cycle. Will the keepers of the Bond flame use the extra time to re-examine their approach to the series? Or can we expect the kind of behavior they exhibited during the development of Quantum Of Solace? As Bond fans, must we endure another garbled 007 adventure? Will Daniel Craig continue to look like an odorous, unkempt geriatric? I think you can count on that one. And the lamentable Paul Haggis?

No doubt he's in an interview somewhere.


Pretty solid stuff, and quite intelligently and factually put together. I don't agree with what he says about Craig, but that falls under the 10% of what I don't agree with. Its also telling how Haggis was treated, and I picked up on that as soon as filming got underway because Haggis never really had anything positive to say about anything. In fact he hasn't said anything for a while now in regards to what he thinks of the movie. I don't think he's coming back.

He also hits the nail on the head with the title, and I think this is where the movie exposes itself. I've said all along the movie was a 'make it up as you go along' film with emphasis on action to distract the audience for lack of script. No Bond movie has proven this controversial and I think I see why now. Because none of it makes any sense. Most of us are at odds as to what the real point of the movie is all about. Those praising this film and brandishing the word 'masterpiece' about are entitled to it. But c'mon guys...

[HildebrandRarity]

I guess it must be really boring on your end, eh, Eddie?

I wonder if this Donrod fellow is still in high school. He doesn't seem intelligent enough to have gone into a jounalism program at a respected university.

[Eddie Burns]

Nope...quite interesting actually.

I think you spend more time here than I do...so I think it is you that needs a life my good sir.

Just pointing out facts thats all...just ignore them if you want. I haven't put a gun to your head