887 replies to this topic

[eddychaput]

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.

I second all of the above.

Wait... You thought the movie was pretentious? How dare you?!? Bla bla bla bla bla...bla bla bla you son of a bitch!

[MarkA]

And vice versa. But it appears those who don't like it seem determined to play the wounded party. Not so much sad, as pathetic.

And the reason I didn't get involved. The putdowns and name calling starts, oh well, nuff said.

[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?

I've re-read my post looking for any sign that I tried to shout you down, but can see only a request that you respect my right to hold a different opinion from yours (unless "Fair comment" is a term of abuse unknown to me until now).

Perhaps you read things in my post that weren't there. Much as I've been accused of by some in my appreciation of QoS...

[HildebrandRarity]

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.

Actually I was being generous in the above comment.

The truth is that the percentages are even more lopsided in favour of Quantum. Out of 326 CBN members, the results are clear to see for oneself:

http://debrief.comma...p...60&start=60

[MattofSteel]

Ah, darn! I thought for sure I'd come back and this discussion would have avoided itself

Props to MarkA, though. I mean, clearly - our opinion of the film is very different. For us, the FINAL place Quantum lands on the quality spectrum is different. I don't think you called it unforgiveably bad, and I've never called it a masterpiece. But for me, it's certainly a phenomenal Bond film - top 7 or 8 for me of all time, but that's for reasons beyond script and editing, for its my belief that in time, these things aren't exclusive to what makes a Bond movie...appreciable.

Simultaneously though, this whole discussion kind of depends on your definition of a Bond "masterpiece." Hildy, you just pointed out your viewing of 3 films I'd consider amongst my personal top 5 in the series. They're as close to a "masterpiece" in the Bondian sense insofar as they produce a certain kind of experience whilst expertly handling a brand and subject matter. But you're right, they're flawed - by a certain standard. A film like any of those would be reviled today for something like the lack of character development or punchy dialogue. And yet in their own context, many of us on CBN consider 1 or even all 3 of those to be Bibles of Cinematic Bond.

It's just so fun to have different opinions, isn't it?

[Judo chop]

It's just so fun to have different opinions, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. I only have mine.

[dee-bee-five]

Simultaneously though, this whole discussion kind of depends on your definition of a Bond "masterpiece." Hildy, you just pointed out your viewing of 3 films I'd consider amongst my personal top 5 in the series. They're as close to a "masterpiece" in the Bondian sense insofar as they produce a certain kind of experience whilst expertly handling a brand and subject matter. But you're right, they're flawed - by a certain standard. A film like any of those would be reviled today for something like the lack of character development or punchy dialogue. And yet in their own context, many of us on CBN consider 1 or even all 3 of those to be Bibles of Cinematic Bond.

It's just so fun to have different opinions, isn't it?

Quite. For instance, I find Thunderball dreary and think YOLT is a vast improvement on it. I also really like TWINE. Neither view is shared by the majority of CBners - and that's fine. But I do find the defensiveness of some of those who dislike QoS, bearing in mind the usual cut and thrust of internet debate is what makes said debates worthwhile, baffling. And, for the record, in my original review of QoS I started out by stating that I understood why the film would polarize opinion and why some people wouldn't like it. A fact some on here choose to ignore. Ah well, c'est la vie...

[HildebrandRarity]

Ah, darn! I thought for sure I'd come back and this discussion would have avoided itself

Props to MarkA, though. I mean, clearly - our opinion of the film is very different. For us, the FINAL place Quantum lands on the quality spectrum is different. I don't think you called it unforgiveably bad, and I've never called it a masterpiece. But for me, it's certainly a phenomenal Bond film - top 7 or 8 for me of all time, but that's for reasons beyond script and editing, for its my belief that in time, these things aren't exclusive to what makes a Bond movie...appreciable.

Simultaneously though, this whole discussion kind of depends on your definition of a Bond "masterpiece." Hildy, you just pointed out your viewing of 3 films I'd consider amongst my personal top 5 in the series. They're as close to a "masterpiece" in the Bondian sense insofar as they produce a certain kind of experience whilst expertly handling a brand and subject matter. But you're right, they're flawed - by a certain standard. A film like any of those would be reviled today for something like the lack of character development or punchy dialogue. And yet in their own context, many of us on CBN consider 1 or even all 3 of those to be Bibles of Cinematic Bond.

It's just so fun to have different opinions, isn't it?

Let me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

[Daddy Bond]

I generally like QOS better as well, although FRWL is still one of the best IMO (although a bit slow at times).

[MattofSteel]

Ah, darn! I thought for sure I'd come back and this discussion would have avoided itself

Props to MarkA, though. I mean, clearly - our opinion of the film is very different. For us, the FINAL place Quantum lands on the quality spectrum is different. I don't think you called it unforgiveably bad, and I've never called it a masterpiece. But for me, it's certainly a phenomenal Bond film - top 7 or 8 for me of all time, but that's for reasons beyond script and editing, for its my belief that in time, these things aren't exclusive to what makes a Bond movie...appreciable.

Simultaneously though, this whole discussion kind of depends on your definition of a Bond "masterpiece." Hildy, you just pointed out your viewing of 3 films I'd consider amongst my personal top 5 in the series. They're as close to a "masterpiece" in the Bondian sense insofar as they produce a certain kind of experience whilst expertly handling a brand and subject matter. But you're right, they're flawed - by a certain standard. A film like any of those would be reviled today for something like the lack of character development or punchy dialogue. And yet in their own context, many of us on CBN consider 1 or even all 3 of those to be Bibles of Cinematic Bond.

It's just so fun to have different opinions, isn't it?

Let me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

Sorry Hildy - I didn't mean to suggest I was bashing your opinion or even commenting at all on it, I was just using those 3 flicks as an example. Wasn't at all trying to present an opinion on what you said.

And what you've tapped in here is exactly what I'm saying. We all have our own scales by which we judge the Bond films. What you point out as flaws in FRWL I can completely recognize as being detriments, technically and stylistically. By definition, you're quite right in saying there's something wrong with a main character not appearing for nearly 20% of the movie and there being no action beats for well over the first third.

And I'd like to think that just because I was born in 1985 shouldn't necessarily mean I can't judge each Bond film unbiased of context. As it should happen, the Connery era is my favourite. Probably why I'm such a fan of Craig's thus far. And it's probably why, for me, QoS is absolutely full of redeeming qualities - and why I feel it's absolute garbage to outright call the film a total, uniform piece of crap like some do.

[MarkA]

L

et me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

This sums up why I find your whole stance quite aggressive. It doesn't matter a hoot how old anyone is. For the record I watched my first Bond YOLT on it's original release, but it is irrelevant to my opinion. But what I am getting at is this attitude that the people who disagree with you have nothing interesting to say. Your arrogance is unbelievable. There are plenty of people who's opinion doesn't jibe with mine but put forth interesting and valid opinions. And for the record I never said I was a real QOS hater, in fact I find it a interesting but highly flawed film. But this rabid hatred of people that have the slightest criticism of it, seems to have got out of hand. Boy! even the DAD lovers never got this much flak.

[Daddy Bond]

L

et me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

This sums up why I find your whole stance quite aggressive. It doesn't matter a hoot how old anyone is. For the record I watched my first Bond YOLT on it's original release, but it is irrelevant to my opinion. But what I am getting at is this attitude that the people who disagree with you have nothing interesting to say. Your arrogance is unbelievable. There are plenty of people who's opinion doesn't jibe with mine but put forth interesting and valid opinions. And for the record I never said I was a real QOS hater, in fact I find it a interesting but highly flawed film. But this rabid hatred of people that have the slightest criticism of it, seems to have got out of hand. Boy! even the DAD lovers never got this much flak.

I don't sense that much hostility in Hilde, just stating opinion.

[HildebrandRarity]

L

et me suggest that i've been watching Bond films since before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

This sums up why I find your whole stance quite aggressive. It doesn't matter a hoot how old anyone is. For the record I watched my first Bond YOLT on it's original release, but it is irrelevant to my opinion. But what I am getting at is this attitude that the people who disagree with you have nothing interesting to say. Your arrogance is unbelievable. There are plenty of people who's opinion doesn't jibe with mine but put forth interesting and valid opinions. And for the record I never said I was a real QOS hater, in fact I find it a interesting but highly flawed film. But this rabid hatred of people that have the slightest criticism of it, seems to have got out of hand. Boy! even the DAD lovers never got this much flak.

I don't sense that much hostility in Hilde, just stating opinion.

There isn't any.

I fail to understand why i'm being bashed as arrogant. Even MattofSteel, to whom I responded, took my response to him in the spirit of brotherhood.

We belong to a fraternity, Gentlemen and Ladies.

Let's all be friends!



*group hug*

And I'd like to think that just because I was born in 1985 shouldn't necessarily mean I can't judge each Bond film unbiased of context.

...and you'd be quite right to think so, my fine Canadian friend!

[blueman]

Not sure that QOS is any more or less polarizing than any other recent Bond film. The character's gone through so many changes over the decades, hard for EON to not present a Bond that's gonna rustle feathers. Nature of the beast at this point IMO. Everybody has their opinion - some are wrong, wrong, wrong but I'm okay with that.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

L

et me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery. Having said that, I don't really believe in Bond Bibles. They are what they are and I look at them with a critical eye equally. Why should I grade FRWL differently than QOS? When I note Bond doesn't appear in FRWL until 18 minutes and there's no action until 45 minutes, why should I hold it to a different standard than Q0S?

So when I say I think Q0S is 'superior' to FRWL, I say it because i've looked at all factors and my opinion or relative rating will remain until someone comes along and points out something interesting to sway it.

This sums up why I find your whole stance quite aggressive. It doesn't matter a hoot how old anyone is. For the record I watched my first Bond YOLT on it's original release, but it is irrelevant to my opinion. But what I am getting at is this attitude that the people who disagree with you have nothing interesting to say. Your arrogance is unbelievable. There are plenty of people who's opinion doesn't jibe with mine but put forth interesting and valid opinions. And for the record I never said I was a real QOS hater, in fact I find it a interesting but highly flawed film. But this rabid hatred of people that have the slightest criticism of it, seems to have got out of hand. Boy! even the DAD lovers never got this much flak.

I agree with MarkA...
With most of the QOS fans I have been able to argue in a polite way, with the exception of HildebrandRarity. Actually, although I overall like QOS, it's people like him who madly- and yes, aggressively too- refuse to accept any kind of slightly criticism for their fauvorite movie, what urge me to point out the flaws that I see in that movie, and not the good things which are several (in fact, I wouldn't have any problems to defend QOS in a very adverse forum to this film, like the imdb one, for instance).

[HildebrandRarity]

With most of the QOS fans I have been able to argue in a polite way, with the exception of HildebrandRarity.

Read post #529 above.

*group hug*

[eddychaput]

With most of the QOS fans I have been able to argue in a polite way, with the exception of HildebrandRarity.

Read post #529 above.

*group hug*

*hugs back. whispers in ear: QOS is sucks*

POW! Crack! Bang!

[dee-bee-five]

With most of the QOS fans I have been able to argue in a polite way, with the exception of HildebrandRarity.

Read post #529 above.

*group hug*

I fear your olive branch will continue to be snubbed. And to think you're the one standing accused of being aggressive... Hey ho...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

With most of the QOS fans I have been able to argue in a polite way, with the exception of HildebrandRarity.

Read post #529 above.

*group hug*

I fear your olive branch will continue to be snubbed. And to think you're the one standing accused of being aggressive... Hey ho...

Being 'extremely' gentle when there isn't any particular subject about QOS in discussion. And being aggressive at the slightest hint of criticism to you favourite movie, doesn't qualify you as a polite poster.

[Mr_Wint]

Glad to see that there is some fighting going on, to light things up a little bit. To merely discuss this depressive film seriously will bore us to death.

[MattofSteel]

It didn't depress me .

[eddychaput]

It didn't depress me .

It wasn't up to my usual high standards...humpf.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Somebody hates QOS? Well I'll be darned.

Are we all supposed to like it? Not everyone is going to like the same film. I'm sure that there are some people who HATED Casino Royale.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Somebody hates QOS? Well I'll be darned.

Are we all supposed to like it? Not everyone is going to like the same film. I'm sure that there are some people who HATED Casino Royale.

I support your question. And even further... Are we all supposed to hate it or love it, with no middle ground between?? Are we all the ones that like QOS have to praise it as a flawless masterpiece??

[dee-bee-five]

It didn't depress me .

It wasn't up to my usual high standards.

It exceeded mine. And my standard are impossibly high. Depressing? Nah. Stimulating, more like.

[HildebrandRarity]

Somebody hates QOS? Well I'll be darned.

Are we all supposed to like it? Not everyone is going to like the same film. I'm sure that there are some people who HATED Casino Royale.

I support your question. And even further... Are we all supposed to hate it or love it, with no middle ground between?? Are we all the ones that like QOS have to praise it as a flawless masterpiece??

It's certainly less flawed than FRWL, Goldfinger, OHMSS and 75 percent of the rest of the canon. It's nearly perfect in comparison to those movies. I actually saw both FRWL and Goldfinger at the cinema recently and they don't hold up as well as Q0S on the Big Screen in my book.

[MattofSteel]

Somebody hates QOS? Well I'll be darned.

Are we all supposed to like it? Not everyone is going to like the same film. I'm sure that there are some people who HATED Casino Royale.

I support your question. And even further... Are we all supposed to hate it or love it, with no middle ground between?? Are we all the ones that like QOS have to praise it as a flawless masterpiece??

That's what I'm saying. What's wrong with calling it a great, above-average Bond movie that (for me) doesn't quite touch the GF/FRWL/CR/OHMSS plateau of what the best Bond movies can be, but sits firmly in the second tier of excellent films (TSWLM, GE, TB). Most people just don't want to give anything subjective thought, they desperately need everything to be the 'best' or the 'worst' of something so they can be argumentative about it, and take a side. They do it without even realizing, so they don't have to really think.

And then there are those who legitimately find QoS to be the best or worst Bond ever. And by their own personal scales, I'm sure they've got good reason. And that's fine. Doesn't bother me. Sorry if you found it crap, happy if you consider it a masterpiece. It's like no one has any time to discuss it being in between, despite wherever it may fall on the scale.

I'm not saying that to be condescending or anything. Maybe I'm tired of fan board trench warfare

[Judo chop]

I don't think it's the best ever, MOS.

It's got flaws, though much fewer than most Bond films.

It's focused on some rather dark subject matter, which puts it in a minority group for Bond films. I would never want ALL Bond films to be QoS. I would sooner have ALL Bond films be TB.

But, I'm ever-so-thankful that QoS exists. It's a delicious addition to the series. The series needed something like QoS.

Incidentally, I put it @ #4 on my list. On most days I still prefer a FRWL or TB, or even CR, but God help the man who tries to take away my QoS.

[__7]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

[HH007]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.