Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

For Those That Didn't Like QoS, come in!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
887 replies to this topic

#571 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:58 PM

BTW – didn’t M get shot?


The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

I accept that explanation!

Although in the next scene wouldn't she be rubbing her tummy and complaining to James that she would have to leave work early because of a doctor's appointment? I guess if it was just a graze then she could have got some cream at the pharmacy without a doctors appointment. But if that's the case then she did make a big song and dance about being hit didn't she? Sheesh - what a drama queen!!


:(, she's M. She should be able to soldier on and not complain about a mere grazing. She's got plenty 'o fatty chub around the bum, thighs and tummy to soften the blow!

#572 MrKidd

MrKidd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 328 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:01 PM

BTW – didn’t M get shot?


The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

I accept that explanation!

Although in the next scene wouldn't she be rubbing her tummy and complaining to James that she would have to leave work early because of a doctor's appointment? I guess if it was just a graze then she could have got some cream at the pharmacy without a doctors appointment. But if that's the case then she did make a big song and dance about being hit didn't she? Sheesh - what a drama queen!!


:(, she's M. She should be able to soldier on and not complain about a mere grazing. She's got plenty 'o fatty chub around the bum, thighs and tummy to soften the blow!


The mystery of "Chubby M and the Missing Bullet' is solved and the case is now permanently closed to my satisfaction. Unless they want to do another sequel to the X-files...

#573 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:03 PM

BTW – didn’t M get shot?


The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

I accept that explanation!

Although in the next scene wouldn't she be rubbing her tummy and complaining to James that she would have to leave work early because of a doctor's appointment? I guess if it was just a graze then she could have got some cream at the pharmacy without a doctors appointment. But if that's the case then she did make a big song and dance about being hit didn't she? Sheesh - what a drama queen!!


:(, she's M. She should be able to soldier on and not complain about a mere grazing. She's got plenty 'o fatty chub around the bum, thighs and tummy to soften the blow!


The mystery of "Chubby M and the Missing Bullet' is solved and the case is now permanently closed to my satisfaction. Unless they want to do another sequel to the X-files...


That's it, then. QOS is the Best James Bond Film Ever™!

:)

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51654

#574 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:40 PM

What I understand for a work that can make you think hard, is something that could provoke you deep feelings, thoughts and ideas that revolves around your head many hours after you watch it. And I don't look for that kind of experience, in a Bond movie!!

I respect you as a decent person with a clear opinion on Bond but why can't you tolerate (at least one) QoS as a thinking movie. You seem to have a very predetermined mindset as to what a "proper" Bond film should be but that's a bit like making the foot fit the shoe which can only lead to pain and discomfort in the long run!

Don't we most of all, at some point, have preconceptions about what a proper Bond film should be?? And I'm not so sure about QOS is a 'thinking' movie or just try to be one, but the thing is that when I'm in the mood for a thinking movie, I'm certainly don't go and watch a Bond movie, and vice versa.

You call QoS "pretentious" almost as if this piece of bourgeois film has in some way betrayed it's socıalıst realist manifesto as laid down by Chairman Broccoli!

It's more like the other way around, I call it like that, because I think it seem pretentious try to make a thinking movie within a franchise, that in its whole has never taken itself too seriously.

EON seems keen to create films that evoke something more sophisticated in content and cinematic realisation than what we have become conditioned to expect from something as (apparently) lowly as a Bond thriller.

Certainly among my peers to admit to being a Bond fan (pre-CR) was always met with skepticism and derision (especially by women) so if QoS brings a bit of "art" into the discussion then I am not in the slightest bit upset. I respect a film and it's director that (just like CR) treated me as an adult with a brain, not some kind of popcorn-munching drone who yells "Dooode, awesome!" at every CGI explosion or head shot.

You don't really need a 'serious' movie like QOS to be treated "as an adult with a brain", I think the existence of movies like GF and CR proves that point.

QoS wasn't CR2 but the series can't (and shouldn't) be conveniently boxed into one particular genre or style as its history has amply demonstrated. Consider DN compared to DAF, TMWTGG to MR. Quite a bit different wouldn't you agree? Or TLD to DAD.
It is not simply a matter of saying I'm not used to thinking with a Bond film because each successive film has actually required a different viewing reception in order to fully appreciate it.
Bond is always evolving so I say, "Long live the Evolution!"

Yes, it's true that the EON series offers a great variety of types of movies (particularly due to the several times that these flicks have followed the current trends of its time), but all of them, including CR, have in common to be only pure- high quality- entertainment, guilty plesure at some stretch, without trying to bring "a bit of art", like QOS.


Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 07 February 2009 - 08:48 PM.


#575 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:56 PM

Do you not think previous Bond films have flirted with pretensiousness in the same way you believe QOS does?

#576 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 09:03 PM

Do you not think previous Bond films have flirted with pretensiousness in the same way you believe QOS does?

No.

#577 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 10:49 PM

If you liked QOS – good for you, fair enough. I like many films that others don’t – it’s all very subjective. Politics, Religion and Movies are things that you probably shouldn’t argue over (and not necessarily in that order). So – we’re agreed that all you can do is state your opinion and that shouldn’t be an invitation to start (over) heated arguments and threatening behavior, right??!

With that said, here’s my opinion. I think that QOS has been over analyzed and over justified by some FANS as being ‘intellectual’, ‘adult’, ‘a thinking man’s Bond’ etc. IMO – no its not! It’s actually just not very good.
- Screenplay is average at best
- Direction is not particularly interesting
- Action editing is awful
- Villains are underused

The only thing that kept me interested is that it is a Bond movie afterall and Daniel Craig is the best Bond in ages (although even he wasn’t particularly well used)

I’m all for an adult, thinking person’s movie. I’m all for Eon taking the franchise in interesting and different directions. I’m all for the franchise reinventing itself and coming up with new ideas. I think the intention was to do all these things in Q0S. But for one reason or another they botched it. IMO, it is not necessary to ‘change the direction’ of Bond for the next movie. They just need to make a better film, that’s all!

But not to worry, it’s certainly not the worst in the franchise, I don’t hate it, just very disappointed with it. And there’ll be another one coming along in the next 2 or 3 years anyway!

Totally agree with most of your opinion!!

#578 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:44 PM

Do you not think previous Bond films have flirted with pretensiousness in the same way you believe QOS does?

No.

I think Safari has a definite point!

There's a lot that is pretentious about Bond and it goes right back to Fleming and his incessant label whoring in the books!
I mean the continual suit wearing regardless of situation (think Brosnan), and the affectation of the dinner suit (which has long since passed out of fashion) are iconic to be sure but also a bit pretentious. As is his history of disdainfully trashing mega-expensive cars without the slightest hint of regret. (Secure in the knowledge, that for him, there will be more like that around the corner next episode!) :(
More specific examples are the Rolex/ Seiko conversation in CR and the image of DC (looking more than a little misplaced) eating caviar on toast struck me as fairly pretentious too... as is his sudden fluency(?) in Spanish in QoS!

Don't get me wrong I'm not deriding these elements because they are what makes Bond cool for us all, but you have to admit they are also a little pretentious!

BTW - I don't know why you don't label the whole romantic montage 3rd act of CR as pretentious Mr A-B, because, going on your own criteria for QoS, if that isn't a Bond film that has "taken itself too seriously" then I don't know what is!!!

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 February 2009 - 12:01 AM.


#579 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 01:00 AM

Do you not think previous Bond films have flirted with pretensiousness in the same way you believe QOS does?

No.

I think Safari has a definite point!

There's a lot that is pretentious about Bond and it goes right back to Fleming and his incessant label whoring in the books!
I mean the continual suit wearing regardless of situation (think Brosnan), and the affectation of the dinner suit (which has long since passed out of fashion) are iconic to be sure but also a bit pretentious. As is his history of disdainfully trashing mega-expensive cars without the slightest hint of regret. (Secure in the knowledge, that for him, there will be more like that around the corner next episode!) :(
More specific examples are the Rolex/ Seiko conversation in CR and the image of DC (looking more than a little misplaced) eating caviar on toast struck me as fairly pretentious too... as is his sudden fluency(?) in Spanish in QoS!

Don't get me wrong I'm not deriding these elements because they are what makes Bond cool for us all, but you have to admit they are also a little pretentious!

BTW - I don't know why you don't label the whole romantic montage 3rd act of CR as pretentious Mr A-B, because, going on your own criteria for QoS, if that isn't a Bond film that has "taken itself too seriously" then I don't know what is!!!

We alredy have discussed about this subject, Sniperscope. And these are two different things.

One thing is the class snobbery of the characther of Bond, and other is the intellectual pretentiousness of Forster's work.

Regarding the "whole romantic montage 3rd act" of CR, I don't see nothing different there that hasn't seen before in OHMSS, it could be a little corny if you want, but definitely not artsy like the montage for the action scene on the opera in QOS- with the slow motion and no sound-.

#580 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 01:32 AM

We alredy have discussed about this subject, Sniperscope. And these are two different things.

One thing is the class snobbery of the characther of Bond, and other is the intellectual pretentiousness of Forster's work.

Regarding the "whole romantic montage 3rd act" of CR, I don't see nothing different there that hasn't seen before in OHMSS, it could be a little corny if you want, but definitely not artsy like the montage for the action scene on the opera in QOS- with the slow motion and no sound-.

Yes we have and no they are not different.
Pretension by any other name is still pretension.
The examples I listed are perfectly good illustrations of my point.
As for the so-called intellectual pretension of Forster, well it's only there if you really want to see it and not everyone wants to deeply think about the movie (apparently you count yourself among that number). The Opera montage is no more pretentious than the romantic one in CR.
Artsy? I'm really tired of you using that as some kind of negative.
How bout this: Why don't you consider the opera sequence as an attempt by Forster to live up to the "class snobbery" of Bond's world, hmm?

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 February 2009 - 01:42 AM.


#581 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 02:23 AM

We alredy have discussed about this subject, Sniperscope. And these are two different things.

One thing is the class snobbery of the characther of Bond, and other is the intellectual pretentiousness of Forster's work.

Regarding the "whole romantic montage 3rd act" of CR, I don't see nothing different there that hasn't seen before in OHMSS, it could be a little corny if you want, but definitely not artsy like the montage for the action scene on the opera in QOS- with the slow motion and no sound-.

Yes we have and no they are not different.
Pretension by any other name is still pretension.
The examples I listed are perfectly good illustrations of my point.
As for the so-called intellectual pretension of Forster, well it's only there if you really want to see it and not everyone wants to deeply think about the movie (apparently you count yourself among that number). The Opera montage is no more pretentious than the romantic one in CR.
Artsy? I'm really tired of you using that as some kind of negative.
How bout this: Why don't you consider the opera sequence as an attempt by Forster to live up to the "class snobbery" of Bond's world, hmm?

Because I don't see any reasonable relation between one and the other.

And c'mon!! let's be frank about this. Many hardcore fans of QOS in this forum had already expressed how badly they want to deeply think about this movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 08 February 2009 - 03:29 AM.


#582 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 04:26 AM

We alredy have discussed about this subject, Sniperscope. And these are two different things.

One thing is the class snobbery of the characther of Bond, and other is the intellectual pretentiousness of Forster's work.

Regarding the "whole romantic montage 3rd act" of CR, I don't see nothing different there that hasn't seen before in OHMSS, it could be a little corny if you want, but definitely not artsy like the montage for the action scene on the opera in QOS- with the slow motion and no sound-.

Yes we have and no they are not different.
Pretension by any other name is still pretension.
The examples I listed are perfectly good illustrations of my point.
As for the so-called intellectual pretension of Forster, well it's only there if you really want to see it and not everyone wants to deeply think about the movie (apparently you count yourself among that number). The Opera montage is no more pretentious than the romantic one in CR.
Artsy? I'm really tired of you using that as some kind of negative.
How bout this: Why don't you consider the opera sequence as an attempt by Forster to live up to the "class snobbery" of Bond's world, hmm?

Because I don't see any reasonable relation between one and the other.

And c'mon!! let's be frank about this. Many hardcore fans of QOS in this forum had already expressed how badly they want to deeply think about this movie.

Yes, I use the word artsy, and I will keep on doing, as long as I see a director trying to make a 'thinking' or serious film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

That doesn't mean that I want dumb Bond flicks. I simply wish pure entertainment movies, that doesn't seem to be ashamed about that quality, as QOS seems to be, urged to recur to an arthouse façade (I recognize, however, that this was the producers's aim, with their decision to get a director like Forster for the job).

#583 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 05:31 AM

I welcome the pretentiousness. Being made to think, even for a second, is better than the previous dumdness (the Broz era) that made it feel like I was being slapped in the face with a wet kipper.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 08 February 2009 - 05:31 AM.


#584 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 05:45 AM

I welcome the pretentiousness. Being made to think, even for a second, is better than the previous dumdness (the Broz era) that made it feel like I was being slapped in the face with a wet kipper.

Well, you have a point there. As I stated before, I prefer QOS over any Brosnan Bond.

#585 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 07:10 AM

I've always appreciated the (relative) sophistication of the 60s Bonds (sans half of TB and all of YOLT), nice to see a new one go there. And the better moments in CR approach what QOS consistently achieves IMO. The dumbing down of Bond EON engaged in from DAF onward has always been a big turn-off for me, FWIW.

#586 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 08:43 AM

Yes, I use the word artsy, and I will keep on doing, as long as I see a director trying to make a 'thinking' or serious film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

And therein lies the problem my dear Mr A-B. Until you drop the reverse snobbery of condemning QoS for it's "artsy" qualities then I guess you're never going to jell with it.

As for it's "just a Bond movie" then I ask you to seriously consider why on earth you spend so much time on this forum.
We all know that Bond is more than "just" a movie, otherwise why would we be here?
You're too concerned with convenient and outmoded boxes to label everything by methinks. "Oh well Bond can't be a Fellini." is your attitude.
Well I ask you: Why not?
Do you need to view the world through such contrived and subjective black and whites?

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 February 2009 - 08:45 AM.


#587 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:02 AM

Yes, I use the word artsy, and I will keep on doing, as long as I see a director trying to make a 'thinking' or serious film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

That doesn't mean that I want dumb Bond flicks. I simply wish pure entertainment movies, that doesn't seem to be ashamed about that quality, as QOS seems to be, urged to recur to an arthouse façade (I recognize, however, that this was the producers's aim, with their decision to get a director like Forster for the job).


I think that, while they may not be as "arty" by your own personal criteria, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, TWINE, CR and for the most part DN, FYEO and GE take themselves at least as seriously as QOS.

And I don't see anything wrong with QOS using elements of so-called "arthouse films". One of the ways low culture stays fresh is by adapting elements of high culture in a format which makes it accessible yet still refreshing to audiences.

Many hardcore fans of QOS in this forum had already expressed how badly they want to deeply think about this movie.


I agree that some are painting it as a far more cerebral and intellectually challenging film than it actually is, yes. But don't serious fans (fanboys if you insist) generally do this with their favourite films?

#588 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:09 AM

I agree that some are painting it as a far more cerebral and intellectually challenging film than it actually is, yes. But don't serious fans (fanboys if you insist) generally do this with their favourite films?


Yep or else why are we all here???
Your point about low culture influencing high is well made but maybe some people need to recognise that the cozy distinction between the two has become increasingly eroded in this postmodern 21st century.
Heck they use opera to advertise cars nowadays!

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 February 2009 - 09:11 AM.


#589 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:23 AM

Your point about low culture influencing high is well made but maybe some people need to recognise that the cozy distinction between the two has become increasingly eroded in this postmodern 21st century.
Heck they use opera to advertise cars nowadays!


Yeah, I don't believe that there is a particularly great devide between the two strands, but I know that Mr. Arlington Beech does.
Specifically regarding opera, it has been more acceptable in the mainstream at least since Nessun Dorma was used as the Theme to the 1990 World Cup (and made Number 2 in the UK singles charts).

#590 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:43 AM

Your point about low culture influencing high is well made but maybe some people need to recognise that the cozy distinction between the two has become increasingly eroded in this postmodern 21st century.
Heck they use opera to advertise cars nowadays!


Yeah, I don't believe that there is a particularly great devide between the two strands, but I know that Mr. Arlington Beech does.
Specifically regarding opera, it has been more acceptable in the mainstream at least since Nessun Dorma was used as the Theme to the 1990 World Cup (and made Number 2 in the UK singles charts).

Yeah. The old distinctions no longer fully apply and to claim any kind of sovereignty between "artsy" and the "masses" is frankly ludicrous.
Like so many things, be they (so-called) high or low culture, ethnicity, language and "art" they have have become, as Barthes called it a "mass culture," a kind of a melting pot (without apology) from which anyone and everyone can make a meal of their own!
In fact on the three occasions I have actually seen opera live very few people wore a tie let alone an actual dinner suit!!!

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 February 2009 - 09:47 AM.


#591 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 11:04 PM

Your point about low culture influencing high is well made but maybe some people need to recognise that the cozy distinction between the two has become increasingly eroded in this postmodern 21st century.
Heck they use opera to advertise cars nowadays!


Yeah, I don't believe that there is a particularly great devide between the two strands, but I know that Mr. Arlington Beech does.
Specifically regarding opera, it has been more acceptable in the mainstream at least since Nessun Dorma was used as the Theme to the 1990 World Cup (and made Number 2 in the UK singles charts).

Yeah. The old distinctions no longer fully apply and to claim any kind of sovereignty between "artsy" and the "masses" is frankly ludicrous.
Like so many things, be they (so-called) high or low culture, ethnicity, language and "art" they have have become, as Barthes called it a "mass culture," a kind of a melting pot (without apology) from which anyone and everyone can make a meal of their own!
In fact on the three occasions I have actually seen opera live very few people wore a tie let alone an actual dinner suit!!!

Well, ragarding opera, I don't think it such a good example, because you can't forget that until 19th century opera was part of the popular culture- think of Verdi, for instance-, and it just get outdated through the 20th becoming increasingly enyoyed just for an older cultural elite of public.

#592 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:14 AM

Speaking of the Opera sequence, I've been thinking about it recently. May or may not have Youtubed it as well (shoot me - I'll be buying the DVD opening day :( ).

That sequence really is amazingly well done. I mean both the sequence on its own, and the way it's designed purposefully to work with the music. For those who didn't like the film, can we find some definite common ground on that issue? I can accept the criticism that Bond's "escape" is a bit over-edited and that entire segment is trying to be 'arty' for the sake of it, but I find myself not caring. It's just so bloody well done!

#593 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:34 AM

Your point about low culture influencing high is well made but maybe some people need to recognise that the cozy distinction between the two has become increasingly eroded in this postmodern 21st century.
Heck they use opera to advertise cars nowadays!


Yeah, I don't believe that there is a particularly great devide between the two strands, but I know that Mr. Arlington Beech does.
Specifically regarding opera, it has been more acceptable in the mainstream at least since Nessun Dorma was used as the Theme to the 1990 World Cup (and made Number 2 in the UK singles charts).

Yeah. The old distinctions no longer fully apply and to claim any kind of sovereignty between "artsy" and the "masses" is frankly ludicrous.
Like so many things, be they (so-called) high or low culture, ethnicity, language and "art" they have have become, as Barthes called it a "mass culture," a kind of a melting pot (without apology) from which anyone and everyone can make a meal of their own!
In fact on the three occasions I have actually seen opera live very few people wore a tie let alone an actual dinner suit!!!

Well, ragarding opera, I don't think it such a good example, because you can't forget that until 19th century opera was part of the popular culture- think of Verdi, for instance-, and it just get outdated through the 20th becoming increasingly enyoyed just for an older cultural elite of public.

But, anyhow I see your point about the difference between high and popular culture (or art) becoming increasingly thin.

Even further, I agree with that "one of the ways low culture stays fresh is by adapting elements of high culture in a format which makes it accessible yet still refreshing to audiences".

However, I guess you can modify a Volkswagen adding some parts of a Mercedes Benz, but the car is still a VW. And the thing is I like both brands equally, because they offer me different benefits. I would enjoy for everyday work my VW, not my MB; the latter I would keep it only for weekends. Just like I want to watch Bond movies almost every day that I can, and I don't feel the same urge so often, for my favourites works of Fellini, Antonioni or Buñuel.

Sniperscope you said that "Oh well Bond can't be a Fellini." was my attitude. But waht you seem to don't understand is that Bond doesn't need to be like a Fellini's film, both they're equally good in their own right.

And then again, when I'm talk about popular culture or even about 'guilty pleasure', I don't mean it in a diminishing or scornful way (yes, that's is proved by the fact that I spend plenty of time in this forum!), I'm pointing out that although I'm huge fan of Bond and I don't take the movies (or the novels) too seriously, like some fans of QOS are seem to be doing with this movie.

Safari Suit said: "I agree that some are painting it as a far more cerebral and intellectually challenging film than it actually is, yes. But don't serious fans (fanboys if you insist) generally do this with their favourite films?"

I find a little annoying this practice, perhaps I expected a more realistic view from the Bond fandom that make us different to the people who pretend to find a philosophy for life in movies that are also for pure fun, like Stars Wars.

#594 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:51 AM

Speaking of the Opera sequence, I've been thinking about it recently. May or may not have Youtubed it as well (shoot me - I'll be buying the DVD opening day :( ).

That sequence really is amazingly well done. I mean both the sequence on its own, and the way it's designed purposefully to work with the music. For those who didn't like the film, can we find some definite common ground on that issue? I can accept the criticism that Bond's "escape" is a bit over-edited and that entire segment is trying to be 'arty' for the sake of it, but I find myself not caring. It's just so bloody well done!

Yes, it's technically well done, no doubt about it. But that scene in a Bond movie seems a litle preposterous is like (following with my car examples) when you put a spoiler to a citycar, a little out of place and unnecessary -even if it's bloody good luxury citycar-. Just like you pointed out the "entire segment is trying to be 'arty' for the sake of it". But in another type of movie I would have definitely praise that sequence.

I mean some touches of- more experimental- art, are good in a Bond movie, when they are justified by the plot, like the poison scene in CR, but I don't see any powerful justification for this.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 12:54 AM.


#595 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:59 AM

Really? I think an Opera sequence is 100% appropriate for a Bond film. My reaction upon seeing it the first time was instant wonder as to why there HADN'T been a sequence in a 007 flick set there yet.

My argument about it being awesome is less for the arty effects/intercutting of Tosca itself later on. I'm talking more about the nature of the scene itself. Bregenz as a set piece, the concept behind Bond spying on a Quantum meeting, the visible wealth, luxury, and danger brimming just below an otherwise normal social surface (the most basic conceptual reason why, IMO, Casino Royale got back to a classic Bond feel).

Bond's escape does stick out a bit. Probably because it seems like the one place in the film where the picture itself actually steps back to almost comment on the characters. But at the same time, it's forgivable to me because such a visceral effect is achieved. It gives the sequence a sudden rush of cinematic colour, and layering. The whole thing just kind of reaches another level.

It's not only the most classically Bond sequence of the film, IMO (next to Fields' seduction), but the one that feels the most as if it were ripped from some lost Fleming manuscript. And I'm not going to go out and say Fleming was a master of literature and writing, but his stories had a flavour to them that the Tosca sequence emulates rather successfully. Arty or not.

#596 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:18 AM

It's quite funny that the last page of posts pits one against three. And the three are cornering the one who didn't like Q0S in it's own thread!

:(

Anyone thinking the Bregenz scene, as done, doesn't belong in a Bond movie has forgotten that these types of scenes have been done before, notably in the Pyramids Show sequence in TSWLM.

#597 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:53 AM

Really? I think an Opera sequence is 100% appropriate for a Bond film. My reaction upon seeing it the first time was instant wonder as to why there HADN'T been a sequence in a 007 flick set there yet.

My argument about it being awesome is less for the arty effects/intercutting of Tosca itself later on. I'm talking more about the nature of the scene itself. Bregenz as a set piece, the concept behind Bond spying on a Quantum meeting, the visible wealth, luxury, and danger brimming just below an otherwise normal social surface (the most basic conceptual reason why, IMO, Casino Royale got back to a classic Bond feel).

Bond's escape does stick out a bit. Probably because it seems like the one place in the film where the picture itself actually steps back to almost comment on the characters. But at the same time, it's forgivable to me because such a visceral effect is achieved. It gives the sequence a sudden rush of cinematic colour, and layering. The whole thing just kind of reaches another level.

It's not only the most classically Bond sequence of the film, IMO (next to Fields' seduction), but the one that feels the most as if it were ripped from some lost Fleming manuscript. And I'm not going to go out and say Fleming was a master of literature and writing, but his stories had a flavour to them that the Tosca sequence emulates rather successfully. Arty or not.

Of course, my critic was about that "over-edited" Bond's escape.

The rest of the scene is good, and an opera setting is certainly suitable for a Bond movie, which isn't is how Bond's escape was filmed and particularly edited.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 02:15 AM.


#598 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:11 AM

It's quite funny that the last page of posts pits one against three. And the three are cornering the one who didn't like Q0S in it's own thread!

:(


C'mon HildebrandRarity this is not a fight or a war, this is just a polite debate in a Bond forum; something that you may not want fit into, judging for some of your- not so polite- earlier post against me or others, than disagree with your view about QOS.

Anyhow, it's quite funny that you still refuse to see the result of the QOS's poll that yourself quoted where the option that reunites the majority of votes said "I prefer CR to QOS". The same happens in the poll for the favourite Craig Bond movie. I'm not saying that QOS is the most unpopular Bond flick (in fact I think I give it a 7.0 in that poll), but it is far from being the favourite of many, as you seem to suggest.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 02:28 AM.


#599 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:55 AM

You're touching on an idea something I find 'convenient', Beech (not that you do it, but some Quantum-haters have taken advantage of). They frequently jump between the two discussions of "Quantum of Solace is no good" and "Quantum of Solace is less impressive than CR".

I'm not proclaiming it a masterpice (it's funny - we should all have something added to our avatars explaining our QoS stance before any given post). I loved it. Above average all the way. But I find that in making that argument, I've encountered people who are simply there to state how bad the film is overall - and if they fail in doing that, or meet some kind of logical counterpoint, they immediately fall back on "well...it's not as good as CR." How is that fair? Or on topic? Whenever I try and say "It's still leagues ahead of the Brosnan/Moore eras in terms of depth and character" though, somehow that's an inappropriate argument to them.

Again Mr. Beech - not citing anything you've said - just that your previous post made me think of this. It's frustrating for me to try and defend the film, only to have them switch positions at convenience behind the mirage of a unified position - which "film is bad" and "film is worse than CR" certainly are not.

#600 Eddie Burns

Eddie Burns

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on Planet Earth

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:17 AM

The opera sequence was alright, the best bit of the movie. Arnold hits all the right spots with the music. But the ending is ridiculous. The whole muting and sped up action was just a film school gimmick that i've seen a million times on youtube.

What exactly has this film achieved? As far as I know, outside fandom, no ones talking about it. Haggis has distanced himself from the project (unlike after CR), the Bourne comparisons seem to have stuck, officially making Jason Bourne top dog in the publics eyes. Sort of like Tony Blair being the poodle to W., a former great empire reduced to playing second fiddle to America. Damon was the very unlikely winner of People Magazine Sexiest Man of the Year last year, strictly off the strength of his Bourne movies. Now that I find funny!

QoS has hardly raised Craig's profile higher than what it was before, and the almost lackadaisical reaction to Defiance hasn't helped his star power (despite it being a very good movie with a strong performance by Craig, only marred by the director going all Hollywood).

I find it laughable some go so far as saying QoS is better than Fleming inspired movies such as FRWL/TB/GF/OHMSS. Why? Well I think those movies were more memorable than QoS, which really didn't have the approach to character and depth that those movies carried. Also a hastily put together script really debunks any suggestion of 'intelligence' or 'depth' or 'Flemingian approach'. Just because Craig's walking around with a scowl on his face doesn't mean Bond's in 'pain' or 'coming to terms with Vesper'.

QoS is just an extended part of the script in CR that P&W wrote before Haggis suggested a 'third act', albeit, probably a worser version. The reboot idea has gone up in smoke because the theme of trust could really have been a center with which to develop the Bond character. Instead, its seems as if its been done to death. I expected a full arc spreading over 3-4 films encompassing all aspects of the character, not just Vesper. What I loved about Fleming's books is the La Vie en Rose references and how Vesper is always at the back of Bond's mind. All this closure stuff was unnecessary, because the arc and reboot is done now. Craig's busy talking about character development for Q & MP for B23 now! How utterly pathetic. Erm...how about the producers use their gray cells and try to turn Craig's Bond into an icon with great stories that enhance James Bond's mythology and make us understand why this man is as big as he is. Surely that was what they should have been striving for. I fear that now these Bourne comparison's have stuck (outside fandom) Bond's legend and mythology has been dulled.

B23 will be a better effort than B22 because Eon will have paid attention to the bad reviews and criticism. I find myself falling out of love with the current movies and that stems from the way the producers approached this reboot. No thought behind it whatsoever, e.g. why announce during the CR press conference you've already started working on the B22 script and then start production with a poor draft? You've had two years. Why film a movie with no underlying vision? Forster had no vision, Craig had no vision, and Haggis was in a rush to make a vision for Forster. If this reboot was thought over thoroughly from the beginning, we'd know exactly where Bond is headed because the stories won't need to hang on the hair of CR's balls (which is precisely what QoS does). Their hiring a non action director for a movie filled with action. And the list is endless. Since GE, this series has been a perfect example of missed opportunities. I'll always watch Bond, but I have zero faith in Eon because they appear to be quite amateurish in their approach.

Guy's, its been a pleasure but I'm going on a hiatus for a while. I've got surgery tomorrow that might put me out for a few weeks, so you'll be free of my anti-QoS ramblings, :(! I don't think there is much left to say, unless good ol' Hilly/MattofSteel etc. actually force me back!