887 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Just pointing out facts thats all...just ignore them if you want.

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.

It's pretty dumb stuff. The writer is a 12 year old blogger.

Next!

[Eddie Burns]

Whats dumb about it?

I mean the facts do add up and he does back them up.

Really? twelve year old blogger....what evidence do you have of that? Hildebrand, you are pathetic really. The dumbest poster on this site.

I mean...a twelve year old (according to you) can argue and point out things....you? Make childish accusations...whose the real 12y.o?

[Judo chop]

Most of us are at odds as to what the real point of the movie is all about.

This...

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.

...sounds like the words of someone who wanted another DAD/OP/GE/Bond Formula™ flick. The notion of exploring Bond's emotional arc in the aftermath of CR is not pretentious. It's mature.

Perhaps QOS had a hectic pre-production story as he would have us believe. I don't know that other great films haven't had the same, or maybe that's par for the big-budget course. His 'argument' is all set-up and no follow-through.

[HildebrandRarity]

Whats dumb about it?

I mean the facts do add up and he does back them up.

Really? twelve year old blogger....what evidence do you have of that? Hildebrand, you are pathetic really. The dumbest poster on this site.

I mean...a twelve year old (according to you) can argue and point out things....you? Make childish accusations...whose the real 12y.o?

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

[Eddie Burns]

Judo...at least you have something to say, Amen!

What I meant by most of us who are at odds as to what the movie is about is just that. Ask the regular joe on the street, and you'll have different answers. Some on here think it was a movie about Bond gaining M's trust, some say it was to get over Vesper...looking at the different things said by MGW, BB, and DC when the title was announced clearly showed that they didn't know either. On top of Haggis having no inkling as to what the title might mean? So, which one is it?

You could say the movie is about all those things (trust, vesper) and i'd agree with that, but it wasn't dealt and approached in a respectful manner. From the title all the way down to the post production, no one can say that much thought was put into it.

Whats dumb about it?

I mean the facts do add up and he does back them up.

Really? twelve year old blogger....what evidence do you have of that? Hildebrand, you are pathetic really. The dumbest poster on this site.

I mean...a twelve year old (according to you) can argue and point out things....you? Make childish accusations...whose the real 12y.o?

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

???????
Mate, the issue isn't about the blogger, its what he says! If you can't pick apart what he says and justify your opinion, then stop wasting your time. The blogger is a fan, who by the looks of it understands Fleming quite well. No different from any poster in these forums. So whether he writes for his high-school (one of your regular dumb suggestions, keep it up!) or for TIME magazine doesn't really matter, its what he's saying.

Seriously Hildebrand...

Most of us are at odds as to what the real point of the movie is all about.

This...

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.

...sounds like the words of someone who wanted another DAD/OP/GE/Bond Formula™ flick. The notion of exploring Bond's emotional arc in the aftermath of CR is not pretentious. It's mature.

Perhaps QOS had a hectic pre-production story as he would have us believe. I don't know that other great films haven't had the same, or maybe that's par for the big-budget course. His 'argument' is all set-up and no follow-through.

I agree wholeheartedly, but thats just a minor point in the whole article. There is nothing in his argument that isn't false and the fact that its happened to other movies is irrelevant...It just shows you why I think the movie is average, and that has a lot to do with the pre-production and Forster having no ideas.

[HildebrandRarity]

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

???????
Mate, the issue isn't about the blogger, its what he says! If you can't pick apart what he says and justify your opinion, then stop wasting your time...So whether he writes for his high-school (one of your regular dumb suggestions, keep it up!) or for TIME magazine doesn't really matter, its what he's saying.

Seriously Hildebrand...

It's terribly written with all kinds of errors. In addition he makes all kinds of assumptions which you erroneously think are 'fact'.

I say it's merely some 12 year old or teenage blogger with nothing else to do.

Name the publication it appears in.

PS

We already had a discussion about Haggis and the title on these forums back in early 2008. We all agreed Haggis came across like an idiot for his comments about the title's meaning, etc. Look it up.

[Eddie Burns]

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

???????
Mate, the issue isn't about the blogger, its what he says! If you can't pick apart what he says and justify your opinion, then stop wasting your time...So whether he writes for his high-school (one of your regular dumb suggestions, keep it up!) or for TIME magazine doesn't really matter, its what he's saying.

Seriously Hildebrand...

It's terribly written with all kinds of errors. In addition he makes all kinds of assumptions which you erroneously think are 'fact'.

I say it's merely some 12 year old or teenage blogger with nothing else to do.

Name the publication it appears in.

PS

We already had a discussion about Haggis and the title on these forums back in early 2008. We all agreed Haggis came across like an idiot for his comments about the title's meaning, etc. Look it up.

Well Hildebrand, where are his errors or erroneous assumptions? Please take the time and point them out. I think the gist of what he's pointing out is true. Especially in regards to the meaning of the title, and the inconsistent quotes by the producers and Craig. He backs them up with quotes we've all heard before.

You say its merely a blogger with nothing else to do? So....What does that make us? Fanboys writing on a forum with nothing else to do? So I take it our opinion holds more weight than a 12 y.o(??) who intelligently delved into something and attempted to explain the messy background to the making of this film? Something your finding hard to counter other than throwing playground accusations? That says more about you than him.

As for Haggis, he wasn't an idiot...if he wrote the script and had no inkling or even any idea what the title might mean, an Oscar winning writer and director who many on here have praised for QoS, that says a lot about the thought put behind this movie. If that doesn't make any sense, don't know what will.

[Judo chop]

What I meant by most of us who are at odds as to what the movie is about is just that. Ask the regular joe on the street, and you'll have different answers. Some on here think it was a movie about Bond gaining M's trust, some say it was to get over Vesper...looking at the different things said by MGW, BB, and DC when the title was announced clearly showed that they didn't know either. On top of Haggis having no inkling as to what the title might mean? So, which one is it?

You’ll forgive me if I outright dismiss any ‘word on the street’ evidence. I hear my own word on the street and it all depends on which street. But more importantly, why do we need them (Eon) to tell us what QUANTUM OF SOLACE is about when the film is in theaters for us to watch? I’ve seen the film, and it made complete sense to me without knowledge of any background dramatics.

It doesn’t have to be one theme or the other, and if it’s more than one, then it’s fair to expect one producer to call out one of them and the lead actor to call out another.

As for the title, who really cares how tightly the title sticks to the themes of the film? Quantum is the organization. The title is from the pages of Fleming. Is that not relevant enough? To what standard are we suddenly holding Bond film titles? I give you the last three films of the Brosnan era...

You could say the movie is about all those things (trust, vesper) and i'd agree with that

As would I. I think QoS makes those themes quite clear. I’d expect any Joe on the street to see them too.

but it wasn't dealt and approached in a respectful manner. From the title all the way down to the post production, no one can say that much thought was put into it.

As it might seem from this guy’s summary of events. But 1) I don’t know that his synopsis tells the whole story, or even paints the existing story in a fair light, and 2) it doesn’t matter in light of the actual product.

Perhaps QOS had a hectic pre-production story as he would have us believe. I don't know that other great films haven't had the same, or maybe that's par for the big-budget course. His 'argument' is all set-up and no follow-through.

I agree wholeheartedly, but thats just a minor point in the whole article. There is nothing in his argument that isn't false and the fact that its happened to other movies is irrelevant...It just shows you why I think the movie is average, and that has a lot to do with the pre-production and Forster having no ideas.

It’s a major point. In fact it’s the whole point, which I actually have to hand to him. Check out this irony; the article seems to be saying that QoS is lacking a point, but in fact it’s the article that doesn’t make a point. It’s a tale of a script wrought with change and revisioning and that’s it. Where does he even give his opinion of QoS (outside of a baseless insult here and there)? He just lumps his tragic tale of script rewritings in our laps and expects us to jump straight to his conclusion that QOS is pointlessly confusing and bad.

He’s ‘saying’ that he doesn’t like QoS. Why? Because there was no visionary consensus among producers/writers/directors? That’s not a reason for not liking a film.
After having read the article, I still don’t know why he doesn’t like the film. But based on the excerpt I quoted above, I’m guessing it’s because he doesn’t care for mature themes. He wants OCTOPUSSY.

[Daddy Bond]

What I meant by most of us who are at odds as to what the movie is about is just that. Ask the regular joe on the street, and you'll have different answers. Some on here think it was a movie about Bond gaining M's trust, some say it was to get over Vesper...looking at the different things said by MGW, BB, and DC when the title was announced clearly showed that they didn't know either. On top of Haggis having no inkling as to what the title might mean? So, which one is it?

You’ll forgive me if I outright dismiss any ‘word on the street’ evidence. I hear my own word on the street and it all depends on which street. But more importantly, why do we need them (Eon) to tell us what QUANTUM OF SOLACE is about when the film is in theaters for us to watch? I’ve seen the film, and it made complete sense to me without knowledge of any background dramatics. It doesn’t have to be one theme or the other, and if it’s more than one, then it’s fair to expect one producer to call out one of them and the lead actor to call out another.

You could say the movie is about all those things (trust, vesper) and i'd agree with that

As would I. I think QoS makes those themes quite clear. I’d expect any Joe on the street to see them too.

but it wasn't dealt and approached in a respectful manner. From the title all the way down to the post production, no one can say that much thought was put into it.

As it might seem from this guy’s summary of events. But 1) I don’t know that his synopsis tells the whole story, or even paints the existing story in a fair light, and 2) it doesn’t matter in light of the actual product.

Perhaps QOS had a hectic pre-production story as he would have us believe. I don't know that other great films haven't had the same, or maybe that's par for the big-budget course. His 'argument' is all set-up and no follow-through.

I agree wholeheartedly, but thats just a minor point in the whole article. There is nothing in his argument that isn't false and the fact that its happened to other movies is irrelevant...It just shows you why I think the movie is average, and that has a lot to do with the pre-production and Forster having no ideas.

It’s a major point. In fact it’s the whole point, which I actually have to hand to him. Check out this irony; the article seems to be saying that QoS is lacking a point, but in fact it’s the article that doesn’t make a point. It’s a tale of a script wrought with change and revisioning and that’s it. Where does he even give his opinion of QoS (outside of a baseless insult here and there)? He just lumps his tragic tale of script rewritings in our laps and expects us to jump straight to his conclusion that QOS is pointlessly confusing and bad.

He’s ‘saying’ that he doesn’t like QoS. Why? Because there was no visionary consensus among producers/writers/directors? That’s not a reason for not liking a film.
After having read the article, I still don’t know why he doesn’t like the film. But based on the excerpt I quoted above, I’m guessing it’s because he doesn’t care for mature themes. He wants OCTOPUSSY.

Agreed. Personally, regardless of the design and intent or any difficulties faced in creating Quantum, the end product was fantastic. Who knows, if they had "polished" it up a bit more, I might have liked it less. So here's to Quantum, the unintentionally fantastic movie!

[HildebrandRarity]

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

???????
Mate, the issue isn't about the blogger, its what he says! If you can't pick apart what he says and justify your opinion, then stop wasting your time...So whether he writes for his high-school (one of your regular dumb suggestions, keep it up!) or for TIME magazine doesn't really matter, its what he's saying.

Seriously Hildebrand...

It's terribly written with all kinds of errors. In addition he makes all kinds of assumptions which you erroneously think are 'fact'.

I say it's merely some 12 year old or teenage blogger with nothing else to do.

Name the publication it appears in.

PS

We already had a discussion about Haggis and the title on these forums back in early 2008. We all agreed Haggis came across like an idiot for his comments about the title's meaning, etc. Look it up.

Well Hildebrand, where are his errors or erroneous assumptions? Please take the time and point them out. I think the gist of what he's pointing out is true. Especially in regards to the meaning of the title, and the inconsistent quotes by the producers and Craig. He backs them up with quotes we've all heard before.

You say its merely a blogger with nothing else to do? So....What does that make us? Fanboys writing on a forum with nothing else to do? So I take it our opinion holds more weight than a 12 y.o(??) who intelligently delved into something and attempted to explain the messy background to the making of this film? Something your finding hard to counter other than throwing playground accusations? That says more about you than him.

As for Haggis, he wasn't an idiot...if he wrote the script and had no inkling or even any idea what the title might mean, an Oscar winning writer and director who many on here have praised for QoS, that says a lot about the thought put behind this movie. If that doesn't make any sense, don't know what will.

Are you the blogger?

If not, tell him to come here and speak for himself.

And the title means different things to different individuals. The majority of Bond titles could be used interchangably with eachother.

So you're saying that he's saying that because Haggis didn't know what the title meant, that, as a result Q0S is the worst movie in the series? That is poor logic.

So, either tell him to come here and debate or pick out the two or three main paragraphs/ideas/themes from his piece that you agree with, state them here and then defend them. Be specific about it.

If you do that, i'll happily debate you.

Fair?

I tend not to debate silly brain dumps...and this blogger's piece comes across as merely a brain dump that no reporter/journalist worth his salt would bother writing.


PS

You lose credibility when you start your post by suggesting the blog was an "article" and then refuse to tell us the publication.

[dee-bee-five]

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...

This blog - which smacks of having been written in a bedsit in between bouts of spanking the monkey - not only takes itself way too seriously to be taken seriously but begins with the premise that QoS is an incoherent mess. Given that I utterly refute that, can you imagine how intestered in what else he has to say...?

[Daddy Bond]

Not only is QOS not a mess, it is quite coherent. I had NO trouble tracking the plot and story development whatsoever.

IMO, the blogger is creating fantasy as an expression of his frustration and inability to understand QOS, which probably was way over his head.

[Eddie Burns]

What I meant by most of us who are at odds as to what the movie is about is just that. Ask the regular joe on the street, and you'll have different answers. Some on here think it was a movie about Bond gaining M's trust, some say it was to get over Vesper...looking at the different things said by MGW, BB, and DC when the title was announced clearly showed that they didn't know either. On top of Haggis having no inkling as to what the title might mean? So, which one is it?

You’ll forgive me if I outright dismiss any ‘word on the street’ evidence. I hear my own word on the street and it all depends on which street. But more importantly, why do we need them (Eon) to tell us what QUANTUM OF SOLACE is about when the film is in theaters for us to watch? I’ve seen the film, and it made complete sense to me without knowledge of any background dramatics.

It doesn’t have to be one theme or the other, and if it’s more than one, then it’s fair to expect one producer to call out one of them and the lead actor to call out another.

As for the title, who really cares how tightly the title sticks to the themes of the film? Quantum is the organization. The title is from the pages of Fleming. Is that not relevant enough? To what standard are we suddenly holding Bond film titles? I give you the last three films of the Brosnan era...

You could say the movie is about all those things (trust, vesper) and i'd agree with that

As would I. I think QoS makes those themes quite clear. I’d expect any Joe on the street to see them too.

but it wasn't dealt and approached in a respectful manner. From the title all the way down to the post production, no one can say that much thought was put into it.

As it might seem from this guy’s summary of events. But 1) I don’t know that his synopsis tells the whole story, or even paints the existing story in a fair light, and 2) it doesn’t matter in light of the actual product.

Perhaps QOS had a hectic pre-production story as he would have us believe. I don't know that other great films haven't had the same, or maybe that's par for the big-budget course. His 'argument' is all set-up and no follow-through.

I agree wholeheartedly, but thats just a minor point in the whole article. There is nothing in his argument that isn't false and the fact that its happened to other movies is irrelevant...It just shows you why I think the movie is average, and that has a lot to do with the pre-production and Forster having no ideas.

It’s a major point. In fact it’s the whole point, which I actually have to hand to him. Check out this irony; the article seems to be saying that QoS is lacking a point, but in fact it’s the article that doesn’t make a point. It’s a tale of a script wrought with change and revisioning and that’s it. Where does he even give his opinion of QoS (outside of a baseless insult here and there)? He just lumps his tragic tale of script rewritings in our laps and expects us to jump straight to his conclusion that QOS is pointlessly confusing and bad.

He’s ‘saying’ that he doesn’t like QoS. Why? Because there was no visionary consensus among producers/writers/directors? That’s not a reason for not liking a film.
After having read the article, I still don’t know why he doesn’t like the film. But based on the excerpt I quoted above, I’m guessing it’s because he doesn’t care for mature themes. He wants OCTOPUSSY.

I like you Judo, at least you make an effort and refute parts you disagree with...intelligently.

Well, having the producers say one thing and Craig say the complete opposite (not, as you put it, call out a different theme) is strange don't you think? I mean, they clearly weren't on the same page. The final product is more put together than one might have expected (taking their contradictory quotes into account), but that just proves they made it up as they went along.

To what standards are we holding the Bond titles? Goldeneye was a satellite, Tommorrow was a newspaper (ridiculous that they didn't stick with 'Lies' as it would have made more sense), TWINE is a great title for a Bond movie, no explanation needed. I'll give you DAD. But trying to pass off QoS as a Fleming title then raping exactly what Fleming meant by it is plain ridiculous. It reeks of desperation. The filmmakers definition doesn't hold up or make sense. And yes Quantum is the organisation, another desperate attempt to make the title allude to something in the movie so as not to seem ridiculous. They really put a lot of thought in this one! They try and come off being clever, but fail. I don't want to turn this into a title vs title thread, and there have been some ridiculous titles in the past but at least they didn't try and change what Fleming meant by them. For those that did, ended up being duds. I found it cheap using a Fleming title just so they could have the fanboys salivating and justifying a lame attempt.

Your right, there really is no point to the article. And thats why I put it here. Its clear he didn't like it. Why? Well one can only assume this article plays a part in explaining why he didn't like it, but i'm sure not the sole reason. He named it 'Consider the Chaos' a reflection on the troubled script. Its an open ended article in that it summarizes what happened during the script development stage AND he backs it up chronologically with quotes. Whether you want to believe him or not is up to you, but I don't think he's fabricated anything and most of us here that followed the production can confirm reading/hearing the quotes he mentions. I mean thats all we've got haven't we? Unless someone can come up with an article stating how smoothly things went during production, all we have is quotes that insinuate the opposite.

I don't know whether its all relevant now that the movie is out but it highlights why some of us don't like the movie. The lack of script, shallow character development, terrible dialog, too much action and a blatant lack of originality and creativity must have stemmed from somewhere and this article highlights where exactly. Those calling QoS intelligent are wrong, because with all that happened before the film was finished, it certainly can't be!

I agree with what he said but I don't want to see Octopussy, and even if the author does, so what? He's merely explaining what went wrong, and why the movie felt flat and uninspired. I don't think you can blame the producers & co. messing up simply because the author wants to see Octopussy. What the author would like to see and why, have no bearing on his arguments. Unless your saying every Bond film from now on should be approached in the same manner?

[Eddie Burns]

This blogger...name the publication he writes for? Other than his school paper?

???????
Mate, the issue isn't about the blogger, its what he says! If you can't pick apart what he says and justify your opinion, then stop wasting your time...So whether he writes for his high-school (one of your regular dumb suggestions, keep it up!) or for TIME magazine doesn't really matter, its what he's saying.

Seriously Hildebrand...

It's terribly written with all kinds of errors. In addition he makes all kinds of assumptions which you erroneously think are 'fact'.

I say it's merely some 12 year old or teenage blogger with nothing else to do.

Name the publication it appears in.

PS

We already had a discussion about Haggis and the title on these forums back in early 2008. We all agreed Haggis came across like an idiot for his comments about the title's meaning, etc. Look it up.

Well Hildebrand, where are his errors or erroneous assumptions? Please take the time and point them out. I think the gist of what he's pointing out is true. Especially in regards to the meaning of the title, and the inconsistent quotes by the producers and Craig. He backs them up with quotes we've all heard before.

You say its merely a blogger with nothing else to do? So....What does that make us? Fanboys writing on a forum with nothing else to do? So I take it our opinion holds more weight than a 12 y.o(??) who intelligently delved into something and attempted to explain the messy background to the making of this film? Something your finding hard to counter other than throwing playground accusations? That says more about you than him.

As for Haggis, he wasn't an idiot...if he wrote the script and had no inkling or even any idea what the title might mean, an Oscar winning writer and director who many on here have praised for QoS, that says a lot about the thought put behind this movie. If that doesn't make any sense, don't know what will.

Are you the blogger?

If not, tell him to come here and speak for himself.

And the title means different things to different individuals. The majority of Bond titles could be used interchangably with eachother.

So you're saying that he's saying that because Haggis didn't know what the title meant, that, as a result Q0S is the worst movie in the series? That is poor logic.

So, either tell him to come here and debate or pick out the two or three main paragraphs/ideas/themes from his piece that you agree with, state them here and then defend them. Be specific about it.

If you do that, i'll happily debate you.

Fair?

I tend not to debate silly brain dumps...and this blogger's piece comes across as merely a brain dump that no reporter/journalist worth his salt would bother writing.


PS

You lose credibility when you start your post by suggesting the blog was an "article" and then refuse to tell us the publication.

Yawn....

I put the blog/article/whatever (gosh, your anal, I didn't mean it literally) up for discussion. Mate, he's just a fan writing about his thoughts on the QoS script development. He's not a renowned journalist/reporter in the Christian Amanpour mold. Despite what Forster made you believe, James Bond is not high art or a matter of national security, he's a bloody movie character! I posted up this article (er...blog? essay? *puts on nerd glasses* sorry don't know the correct term to use!) to show what i've been saying all along. QoS is not great, and the art...sorry...blog...no wait....or well you know what I mean... shows the reasons behind my thinking this.

I think he raises valid points, and now you want me to pick sections of it just so I could make it easier for you to debate? Hildebrand, mate seriously, get....a....life. You accuse it of being written by a 12yo yet don't really state why, despite me asking you to elaborate. As for me picking out themes, read it again, i've put in bold the areas where I think he makes strong points.

[Judo chop]

I like you Judo, at least you make an effort and refute parts you disagree with...intelligently.

Thank you for the compliment. I like you too and I wish you saw in QoS what I see.

Well, having the producers say one thing and Craig say the complete opposite (not, as you put it, call out a different theme) is strange don't you think? I mean, they clearly weren't on the same page. The final product is more put together than one might have expected (taking their contradictory quotes into account), but that just proves they made it up as they went along.

If I recall, the contradictions were surrounding the ‘revenge’ theme? EON says “it’s not just a revenge movie” and then Craig says “Bond’s out for revenge”. Those are only inconsistent to the lazy listener. Bond is dealing with the temptation of revenge, and at the same time is trying to learn who he can trust. Therefore EON stands innocent. It’s NOT “just a revenge movie”. It’s something more. And Craig’s statement holds water too, if he misspeaks just a little (which isn’t that hard to comprehend is it?). Bond is dealing with revenge. I don’t think the script was ever about Bond getting his revenge, or that Craig ever thought it was.

But the real point is: It doesn’t mean diddly to me. Maybe there were disasters all over the trail that led to THE SHINING or THE GODFATHER or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or any number of gems. Maybe the writing for GIGLI went smooth as silk.

And yes Quantum is the organisation, another desperate attempt to make the title allude to something in the movie so as not to seem ridiculous.

Why wasn’t it ‘desperate’ when they match title with organization in TND?

It’s not astoundingly clever or anything, but it’s not ‘desperate’. It’s ‘fair’. Bond title = evil organization. Pretty basic formula work. Nothing to get all up in arms about.

I agree with what he said but I don't want to see Octopussy, and even if the author does, so what? He's merely explaining what went wrong, and why the movie felt flat and uninspired. I don't think you can blame the producers & co. messing up simply because the author wants to see Octopussy. What the author would like to see and why, have no bearing on his arguments.

I could agree with him that the called play was a disaster, and that nobody was running their correct routes and that men were out of position all over the field, but that says nothing about the end result. Might have been a QB sack, a fumble, a safety…

…but you know that when I look at QoS I see a touchdown. A logical and astute story, staged and filmed with (for the most part) a great deal of class.

You don’t like QoS. Therefore this drama surrounding the script and title looks like a cause for failure to you. And, for the record, I can totally sympathize with your stance. TWINE is far more of a perversion of Bond than even NSNA in my mind, and I’m led to believe that a big reason for that has to do the instability of the script. But I’m not going to throw the pre-production hysterics of TWINE at TWINE-supporters and say “See! Look what a debacle it was even before shot #1! It HAS to suck!!” Yes, I think that is a big reason for the exercise in aimless mopery that it ultimately became, but it didn’t necessarily have to be that way.

As you can see, I’m not afraid to fire shots at Bond films. When they suck and make no sense, I call them on it. But I LOVE QoS. It’s no TWINE. So now what do I have to make of all of this background drama? At worst, I call it a failed play pulled together at the end through teamwork and immeasurable talent, ultimately scoring big and saving the game.

Unless your saying every Bond film from now on should be approached in the same manner?

Not at all. Are you saying that before you can appreciate a film you must have confidence in the smooth construction of its script?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Not only is QOS not a mess, it is quite coherent. I had NO trouble tracking the plot and story development whatsoever.

IMO, the blogger is creating fantasy as an expression of his frustration and inability to understand QOS, which probably was way over his head.

This is an argument that I have heard a lot from some hardcore QOS fans, that really annoys me. I can't speak for the blogger, but c'mon, let's be realistics!! QOS isn't that deep and complex, as many fanboys would like to think it is (and Forster & crew would like to make it look).

I think is very pretentious to say "oh, you're aren't that smart, as I am, to understand it. That's why you don't praise QOS, as I do" Get off your high horse!! It's just a Bond movie, you don't need to be extremely intelligent to understand a 007's flick.

Most of the people (if not all) who don't love QOS, understood the movie perfectly, but simply didn't like it. Is it that hard to accept??!!

Personally, I like QOS (but don't love it) and I do understand it. However, that thing doesn't make me feel like one of the smartest guys in the world.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 03 February 2009 - 12:03 AM.

[MattofSteel]

The article does a great job harvesting quotes, but it's entire "point" is conjecture based on comments made to the press.

It's no secret Quantum had script troubles all along. After the success of Casino Royale, you can only imagine the insecurity the filmmaking team must have felt about duplicating such an amazing critical/commercial reception - and you can also only imagine how many people would have wanted their finger in the pie, so to speak.

This whole thing comes off as a slightly (or not so slightly) veiled insult at the producers. Sure, public perception would suggest that Haggis wasn't treated with the professionality or authority he maybe deserved. Everything we've ever heard from everybody who's worked with the Broccoli's has been positive about their relationship with creatives.

I'd be interested to see how much of the finished product is P&W, how much is Haggis, and how much is Zetumer. The Haggis moments I feel like I can pick out while watching the film, they tonally maintain the flair Casino Royale seemed to universally have throughout its dialogue. And other moments...don't.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Here's what I didn't like about QoS:
Marc Forster: I don't think he can direct an action scene at ALL, as I couldn't see what was happening (more about that when I get to the editors of Quantum). None of the action scenes (with the exceptions of the car chase, parts of Palio, and the Perla de las Dunas scenes) worked at all.
The editors: Where to begin? Two words: shaky cameras. I couldn't see the actions scenes because the cameras were moving all over, and I couldn't understand what the was happening. I can't STAND quick editing.
MK12: I liked the title sequence, but I wanted Kleinman back for Quantum. The title sequence, though it looked cool, was boring and unoriginal.
The Plot: <SPOILER ALERT>Having Medrano reinstated as the head of Bolivia so that Quantum could acquire water??? I'm sorry, but that didn't seem "Bondian" and it didn't make any [censored]ing -->sense.

[blueman]

Somebody hates QOS? Well I'll be darned.

[Daddy Bond]

Mr. Arlington Beach wrote:

This is an argument that I have heard a lot from some hardcore QOS fans, that really annoys me.

Daddy's Response:

Take a deep breath and count to ten.

Mr. Beach wrote:
QOS isn't that deep and complex, as many fanboys would like to think it is (and Forster & crew would like to make it look).

Daddy's Response:

Ah, you see, young grasshopper, you have not yet attained to the insight necessary to see what you think is not there.

Mr. Beach wrote:

I think is very pretentious to say "oh, you're aren't that smart, as I am, to understand it.

Daddy's Response:

Ah, but you admit to not seeing the great depth of Quantum young grasshopper. Your admission only reveals that you have not yet plumbed the depths of this great masterpiece. You think you understand it, but do you really? Only after hours of deep contemplation and concentration will the complexities of Quantum upon up to you, like the petals of a fragile rose.


Mr. Beach wrote:
Get off your high horse!!

Daddy's response:
Who told you how tall my horse is???

Mr. Beach:
It's just a Bond movie, you don't need to be extremely intelligent to understand a 007's flick.

Daddy Bond:
Oh, but in this case, Quantum is so much more. It charts a course of emotional depth and insight into the psyche of Bond in a way that brings one's true consciousness in tune with the Bond universe. Oh, the depth, oh the wisdom, young grasshopper that you do not yet see. Perhaps someday, when you are ready, the mystery of Quantum will be known to you.

Mr. Beach wrote:
Most of the people (if not all) who don't love QOS, understood the movie perfectly, but simply didn't like it. Is it that hard to accept??!!

Daddy's response:
Ah, but did they really??? That is the question isn't it? How often do the ignorant and naive believe they have insight greater than their masters, only to find out that it is the brashness of youth that blinds them to the mysteries of Quantum.

Mr. Beach wrote:
Personally, I like QOS (but don't love it) and I do understand it. However, that thing doesn't make me feel like one of the smartest guys in the world.

Daddy response:
Don't be too critical, it is hard being so smart. One is forced to share the wonders of Quantum with but a few who share in such intelligence.

Alas, perhaps some day, young grasshopper, some day...

[MattofSteel]

I sort of lament the fact the film has become so polarizing, because I don't believe that it belongs anywhere neither EITHER pole of subjective quality. It's no masterpiece, and it's no pile of crap either. There are a great many things about it which are wonderful, original, perfectly Bondian, and exactly what I wanted. And, at the same time, there are a good many things I would consider flaws - some glaring, and some not.

[dee-bee-five]

This is an argument that I have heard a lot from some hardcore QOS fans, that really annoys me. I can't speak for the blogger, but c'mon, let's be realistics!! QOS isn't that deep and complex, as many fanboys would like to think it is.

But, then, those who don't see the depth or appreciate how complex it is are bound to say that, aren't they...?

[ElFenomeno]

some things i liked in QoS

-the car chase and Time to get out line
-the main titles
-last shot of Craig killing Mitchell
-airplane talk with Mathis
-the Bond girls
-opera scene
-Vesper's love knot left in the snow

and for me these are enough to make QoS a good Bond movie because even in some bond movies i don't necessarily like i can find some stuff i love.

[MarkA]

I sort of lament the fact the film has become so polarizing, because I don't believe that it belongs anywhere neither EITHER pole of subjective quality. It's no masterpiece, and it's no pile of crap either. There are a great many things about it which are wonderful, original, perfectly Bondian, and exactly what I wanted. And, at the same time, there are a good many things I would consider flaws - some glaring, and some not.

This is the most sensible things written here in ages. I have pulled back from getting involved in these discussions because people are getting so passionate about what is in reality a highly flawed and dare I say it a very pretentious entry in the Bond series. But I concede as the above says, some very interesting moments. But please no masterpiece. In fact a bit of a mess really. But boy are people taking it way too seriously. The abuse that is being thrown about is laughable.

Edited by MarkA, 03 February 2009 - 12:29 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

I have pulled back from getting involved in these discussions because people are getting so passionate about what is in reality a highly flawed and dare I say it a very pretentious entry in the Bond series. But I concede as the above says, some very interesting moments. But please no masterpiece.

Fair comment. However, I trust you will accept that those of us who do regard QoS as a masterpiece of the series - I regard it as one of the most flemingian films, place it in the top three with OHMSS and CR and think it's possibly better than either - have the right so to do?

[HildebrandRarity]

I have pulled back from getting involved in these discussions because people are getting so passionate about what is in reality a highly flawed and dare I say it a very pretentious entry in the Bond series. But I concede as the above says, some very interesting moments. But please no masterpiece. In fact a bit of a mess really. But boy are people taking it way too seriously. The abuse that is being thrown about is laughable.

None of the Bond movies are 'masterpieces'in the Michelangelo sense, are they?

Recently I saw From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me at a vintage cinema house over a one week period during a James Bond film 'festival' in order to apprecate them on The Big Screen.

None of these iconic gems of the series came across as superior in any way to Q0S and i've been watching these films at the theatre since late 1971. All of them have flaws. Quantum, I believe, has less flaws than most and it's pace is blisteringly outstanding.

Quantum is amongst the best James Bond films in history and, according to the polling, most CBn-ers think that. A minority may not like it, but they're entitled to that opinion.

[MarkA]

Quantum is amongst the best James Bond films in history and, according to the polling, most CBn-ers think that. A minority may not like it, but they're entitled to that opinion.

What I can see is quite a polorizing opinion myself. But those who don't like are being shouted down by the ones that do. And the two above have been the most vocal. Why wasn't I surprised you two would be the first. All over this site you have constantly dismissed well thought out and written contrasting opinion. Just because it doesn't agree with yours. Quite sad really

[HildebrandRarity]

Quantum is amongst the best James Bond films in history and, according to the polling, most CBn-ers think that. A minority may not like it, but they're entitled to that opinion.

What I can see is quite a polorizing opinion myself. But those who don't like are being shouted down by the ones that do. And the two above have been the most vocal. Why wasn't I surprised you two would be the first. All over this site you have constantly dismissed well thought out and written contrasting opinion. Just because it doesn't agree with yours. Quite sad really

What's 'sad' about the end of my last sentence ("they're entitled to that opinion")?

What makes it polarizing is that most of the people who like the film, don't bother coming to this thread. That leaves a few on each side instead of the avalanche it ordinarily would be.

We all know it's always the minority that are the most vocal, another element which makes it seem that the debate is 'polarized' 50/50.

In reality it's more like 75-15-10, the 15 being neutral and the 10 being the handful of negative posters.

[MarkA]

I must admit I said I wasn't going to get into anymore silly arguments about this fairly average movie, it just isn't worth the effort. But as you asked. I have noticed you (and a few others) who have popped up all over this site being disparaging and constantly belittling people who's opinion differs from yours. And this goes way beyond having a discussion with someone with an opposing opinion.
And I am sorry but some flash direction cannot disguise the lack of plot and emptiness of QOS compared to the well crafted and predominately Fleming based stories of FRWL and Goldfinger.

[dee-bee-five]

Quantum is amongst the best James Bond films in history and, according to the polling, most CBn-ers think that. A minority may not like it, but they're entitled to that opinion.

What I can see is quite a polorizing opinion myself. But those who don't like are being shouted down by the ones that do.

And vice versa. But it appears those who don't like it seem determined to play the wounded party. Perhaps that comes from being in the minority, albeit a particularly vocal one, who knows? Not so much sad, as pathetic.