887 replies to this topic

[BoogieBond]

Indeed, they are very different movies. The Transporter movies are okay, but, as you said, they are a bit cartoonish and fake - I'm thinking especially of the car jump from the top of the parking garage across to another building or the barrel roll to knock a bomb off the bottom of the car (both in Transporter 2). Very silly moments IMHO.

QOS is WORLDS better than any of the Transporter movies (which I DON'T hate - they're just not in the same league), much more realistic and grown up.

Personally, I really like the pacing of QOS which moves rapidly from action scene to moments of calm, back to action, to more calm, back to action - wonderful pacing which moves the film along brilliantly IMHO.

Interesting point. The structure and frequency of the action sequences in QOS is certainly "Like a bullet" as Marc Foster said, I think during the first 30 minutes you do get action sequence(although some short) between dialogue scenes of 5-10 minutes, so I guess the viewer never gets a time to settle, and the viewer needs to be on their toes. But I think that was what Forster intended. Also quick cuts to locations etc keeps the film zipping along. I saw OHMSS recently and the middle section where Bond is Sir Hilary Bray and goes to Piz Gloria is a large middle section where the story just develops and there is not much action until Bonds escape. QOS's structure really is pretty unique for Bond.

[Daddy Bond]

Indeed, they are very different movies. The Transporter movies are okay, but, as you said, they are a bit cartoonish and fake - I'm thinking especially of the car jump from the top of the parking garage across to another building or the barrel roll to knock a bomb off the bottom of the car (both in Transporter 2). Very silly moments IMHO.

QOS is WORLDS better than any of the Transporter movies (which I DON'T hate - they're just not in the same league), much more realistic and grown up.

Personally, I really like the pacing of QOS which moves rapidly from action scene to moments of calm, back to action, to more calm, back to action - wonderful pacing which moves the film along brilliantly IMHO.

Interesting point. The structure and frequency of the action sequences in QOS is certainly "Like a bullet" as Marc Foster said, I think during the first 30 minutes you do get action sequence(although some short) between dialogue scenes of 5-10 minutes, so I guess the viewer never gets a time to settle, and the viewer needs to be on their toes. But I think that was what Forster intended. Also quick cuts to locations etc keeps the film zipping along. I saw OHMSS recently and the middle section where Bond is Sir Hilary Bray and goes to Piz Gloria is a large middle section where the story just develops and there is not much action until Bonds escape. QOS's structure really is pretty unique for Bond.

Yes, and the fact that there were so many moments where things did stop, even briefly, where there was dialogue and calm (even a few that were quite lenghty - think about the length of time between Bond having his credit cut off by M while in the airport to the next major action scene - this is a REALLY, REALLY long time) - and yet people still see the movie as constant action. Personally, I think this shows that the sheer power of the action scenes leaves one a bit shaken and stirred, such that these - even lenthy and quiet times go by almost unnoticed. I think this is actually a testament to the film's excellent pacing. For example, my wife had a more emotional response to the film's action scenes which left her feeling breathless at the end of the movie.

I mean folks, for those who think QOS is wall to wall action, look at my lengthy list of moments I presented where there wasn't any major action scene to speak of, and then (for example) think about how long the break between the action scenes was from the moment Bond's credit is cut off at the airport until the next major action scene. Isn't the next major action scene the airplane chase (not counting his brief scuffle with the police when Mathis dies)? How many minutes is that without a major action scene? Here are the scenes I remember as they unfolded (let me know if I've forgotten something or if I have something wrong):

MAJOR ACTION SCENE AT THE OPERA (which, by the way, follows a period of no major action)
Bond's credit is cut off at the airport.
Bond travels to see Mathis, including time on a boat.
Bond arrives at Mathis' house and has a lenghty conversation with him.
Bond travels by plane with Mathis and has another conversation.
Bond and Mathis arrive at the airport and are met by Fields.
The taxi ride.
Bond and Fields go into the dumpy hotel.
Taxi ride.
Bond and Fields and Mathis go to the nice hotel.
Bond talks with Mathis.
Bond and Fields together.
Greene's evening party - somewhat lengthy.
Mathis is killed (there is a very brief scuffle here).
Bond and Camille take Mathis' SUV and drive to rent an airplane.
Bond and Camille have a conversation in the plant.
NEXT MAJOR ACTION SCENE - THE AIRPLANE CHASE AND SKYDIVING
After that, the next action scene isn't until Bond escapes from the hotel after Fields is killed (in between he's dialogued with Camille, explored the cave, walked through the desert, taken a bus and talked with M at the hotel).

There really are long periods with no action sequences.

And these are only a couple of examples of "down time" from action scenes.

[CM007]

My God,people are still trying to defend this Turd of a Movie....Jeez

[byline]

Those one liners above are the dreariest i've ever heard. Plus Craig did struggle with the delivery with some of them. Memorable? The only memorable one was the lottery/sabbatical one.

Well, I guess it's all a matter of perception. I didn't sense any struggling on Craig's part, and those lines certainly didn't strike me as "dreary"; I wouldn't have quoted them if they did.

Could "Quantum of Solace" have been better? Sure. That could be said of most films. Was the film good enough? It was for me.

[Judo chop]

"I really think you people should find a better place to meet."

To that one I think I prefer his opener, "Can I offer an opinion?", but they're both great and truly Bondian zingers.

There are tons of memorable lines in QoS. If you don't think so, I respectfully suggest that the problem is with your memory, not the lines.

"You only buy cheap wine."

[Daddy Bond]

"I really think you people should find a better place to meet."

To that one I think I prefer his opener, "Can I offer an opinion?", but they're both great and truly Bondian zingers.

There are tons of memorable lines in QoS. If you don't think so, I respectfully suggest that the problem is with your memory, not the lines.

"You only buy cheap wine."

Indeed, some of the best one liners in a Bond movie period - and they were funny and well delivered.

[Judo chop]

Craig, through a combo of sharp writing and the ability to convert said writing, has brought back the humor of Connery.

Take, for example, the following two lines:

"Okay."

"No."

Funny?

No, not yet. But put them in a Bondian context, and give them to Craig, like so:

Camille: "Get in."
Bond: "Okay."

Camille: "Did Slate give you any trouble?"
Bond: "No."

And.. voila! Now they are funny!!

And if you don't think so, I daresay you've been missing half the fun of DN through TB all this time.

[Daddy Bond]

Craig, through a combo of sharp writing and the ability to convert said writing, has brought back the humor of Connery.

Take, for example, the following two lines:

"Okay."

"No."

Funny?

No, not yet. But put them in a Bondian context, and give them to Craig, like so:

Camille: "Get in."
Bond: "Okay."

Camille: "Did Slate give you any trouble?"
Bond: "No."

And.. voila! Now they are funny!!

And if you don't think so, I daresay you've been missing half the fun of DN through TB all this time.

Absolutely agree. And don't you think Dan's straightforward, dry delivery of those lines are timed perfectly and delivered with just the right amount of wit to make them some of the BEST delivered funny lines in a many a Bond film?

[Judo chop]

And don't you think Dan's straightforward, dry delivery of those lines are timed perfectly and delivered with just the right amount of wit to make them some of the BEST delivered funny lines in a many a Bond film?

Definitely some of the BEST. Craig brings a slightly different flavor to his dryness than Sean did to his. Sean had just a hint of mischievous twinkle, whereas Craig’s approach I would call brutally dry. And between the two I still prefer Connery’s. But I’m thankful for both, I want both, and both are absolutely splendid and absolutely Bond. End of.

(Though I’m sure this thread will continue well into its 30th page nonetheless.)

[Daddy Bond]

And don't you think Dan's straightforward, dry delivery of those lines are timed perfectly and delivered with just the right amount of wit to make them some of the BEST delivered funny lines in a many a Bond film?

Definitely some of the BEST. Craig brings a slightly different flavor to his dryness than Sean did to his. Sean had just a hint of mischievous twinkle, whereas Craig’s approach I would call brutally dry. And between the two I still prefer Connery’s. But I’m thankful for both, I want both, and both are absolutely splendid and absolutely Bond. End of.

(Though I’m sure this thread will continue well into its 30th page nonetheless.)

I like that description "Brutally dry." Well said.

[Judo chop]

Thank you, thank you.

[Joe Bond]

Indeed, they are very different movies. The Transporter movies are okay, but, as you said, they are a bit cartoonish and fake - I'm thinking especially of the car jump from the top of the parking garage across to another building or the barrel roll to knock a bomb off the bottom of the car (both in Transporter 2). Very silly moments IMHO.

QOS is WORLDS better than any of the Transporter movies (which I DON'T hate - they're just not in the same league), much more realistic and grown up.

Personally, I really like the pacing of QOS which moves rapidly from action scene to moments of calm, back to action, to more calm, back to action - wonderful pacing which moves the film along brilliantly IMHO.

Interesting point. The structure and frequency of the action sequences in QOS is certainly "Like a bullet" as Marc Foster said, I think during the first 30 minutes you do get action sequence(although some short) between dialogue scenes of 5-10 minutes, so I guess the viewer never gets a time to settle, and the viewer needs to be on their toes. But I think that was what Forster intended. Also quick cuts to locations etc keeps the film zipping along. I saw OHMSS recently and the middle section where Bond is Sir Hilary Bray and goes to Piz Gloria is a large middle section where the story just develops and there is not much action until Bonds escape. QOS's structure really is pretty unique for Bond.

Yes, and the fact that there were so many moments where things did stop, even briefly, where there was dialogue and calm (even a few that were quite lenghty - think about the length of time between Bond having his credit cut off by M while in the airport to the next major action scene - this is a REALLY, REALLY long time) - and yet people still see the movie as constant action. Personally, I think this shows that the sheer power of the action scenes leaves one a bit shaken and stirred, such that these - even lenthy and quiet times go by almost unnoticed. I think this is actually a testament to the film's excellent pacing. For example, my wife had a more emotional response to the film's action scenes which left her feeling breathless at the end of the movie.

I mean folks, for those who think QOS is wall to wall action, look at my lengthy list of moments I presented where there wasn't any major action scene to speak of, and then (for example) think about how long the break between the action scenes was from the moment Bond's credit is cut off at the airport until the next major action scene. Isn't the next major action scene the airplane chase (not counting his brief scuffle with the police when Mathis dies)? How many minutes is that without a major action scene? Here are the scenes I remember as they unfolded (let me know if I've forgotten something or if I have something wrong):

MAJOR ACTION SCENE AT THE OPERA (which, by the way, follows a period of no major action)
Bond's credit is cut off at the airport.
Bond travels to see Mathis, including time on a boat.
Bond arrives at Mathis' house and has a lenghty conversation with him.
Bond travels by plane with Mathis and has another conversation.
Bond and Mathis arrive at the airport and are met by Fields.
The taxi ride.
Bond and Fields go into the dumpy hotel.
Taxi ride.
Bond and Fields and Mathis go to the nice hotel.
Bond talks with Mathis.
Bond and Fields together.
Greene's evening party - somewhat lengthy.
Mathis is killed (there is a very brief scuffle here).
Bond and Camille take Mathis' SUV and drive to rent an airplane.
Bond and Camille have a conversation in the plant.
NEXT MAJOR ACTION SCENE - THE AIRPLANE CHASE AND SKYDIVING
After that, the next action scene isn't until Bond escapes from the hotel after Fields is killed (in between he's dialogued with Camille, explored the cave, walked through the desert, taken a bus and talked with M at the hotel).

There really are long periods with no action sequences.

And these are only a couple of examples of "down time" from action scenes.

I agree and because of all the people who complained about it being non-stop action, I used my iPod touch's stop watch during the last time I saw it (which was the 7th for me) in the theatre and here is a list I compiled and I think people will be surprised at the results (keep in mind that this is not exact but should be close enough) and the times listed is the length of non-action scenes:

Car Chase

6 min. 50 sec.
Arrival to Siena, Main Titles, Interrogation

Foot Chase

4 min. 4 sec.
Return to Safe House, Mitchell Apartment, Marked Bills scene, and arrival at Port au Prince.

Slate Fight

10 min. 20 sec.
Fight aftermath, Meeting with Camille, Camille confronting Green, prelude to boat chase

Boat Chase

12 min. 10 sec
Bond gets into a Jeep and tracks Greene, Greene on CIA Plane, Bond's Arrival at the Opera, Bond's spying of the Quantum meeting

Opera Shootout

21 minutes 5 sec.
Same as Daddy Bond's Description

Dogfight

8 minutes 15 sec.
M and Foreign Secretary scene, Bond and Camille talk and discover water underground and head for an exit, they arrive back to their hotel and Bond and M get into a discussion in Bond's Room

Elevator Fight

10 minutes 2 seconds
Bond talks to M, Bond and Leiter meet in a bar, Bond and Camille in the Desert, prelude to the attack where Greene arrives and forces Medrano to sign a deed for ultilites.

Shootout at the Hotel

6 minutes

The rest of the Movie until the credits

4 min 20 sec.

End Credits

Total non-action: Roughly 1 hour and 24 minutes or 84 minutes so lets take 84/106 which equals .7924 or 79.2% of the movie is non-action which shows that this movie is paced so that the action feels longer than it really is and I would not be surprised if QoS, which has more action scenes than CR, would have a short action time average than CR since CR's action scenes are more drawn out then QoS' short and sweet action sequences. I think this supports Daddy Bond's theory.

[HildebrandRarity]

Total non-action: Roughly 1 hour and 24 minutes or 84 minutes so lets take 84/106 which equals .7924 or 79.2% of the movie is non-action ...

Kool stuff. I also saw it 7 times but I couldn't take my eyes off the movie to do what you did.

Q0S is indeed the best-paced Bond film ever.

[Vesper's dead lover]

QofS was a mess. While CR was a brilliant re-invention of the series, QofS was difficult to follow, a chop-suey in the editing department and the action sequences were a sad rip-off of the best of the Bourne movies. Water? In Bolivia? Come on. That's not Bond.
That said, great to see the film series is back to its old tricks of consistent inconsistency. The good news -- sure the next Craig outing will be a stunner!

[Daddy Bond]

QofS was a mess. While CR was a brilliant re-invention of the series, QofS was difficult to follow, a chop-suey in the editing department and the action sequences were a sad rip-off of the best of the Bourne movies. Water? In Bolivia? Come on. That's not Bond.
That said, great to see the film series is back to its old tricks of consistent inconsistency. The good news -- sure the next Craig outing will be a stunner!

I really don't mean this rudely or in a smug sense, but many of us had absolutely no problem whatsoever following QOS. It was a mess to you, but not to everyone. I understood the plot, (with the exception of M getting winged) I followed every cut of every edit, I tracked the camera angles, the order and the intent of each shot - the first time around - and I thought they were fantastic.

Why is water in Bolivia NOT Bond?

[byline]

QofS was a mess. While CR was a brilliant re-invention of the series, QofS was difficult to follow, a chop-suey in the editing department and the action sequences were a sad rip-off of the best of the Bourne movies. Water? In Bolivia? Come on. That's not Bond.
That said, great to see the film series is back to its old tricks of consistent inconsistency. The good news -- sure the next Craig outing will be a stunner!

I really don't mean this rudely or in a smug sense, but many of us had absolutely no problem whatsoever following QOS. It was a mess to you, but not to everyone. I understood the plot, (with the exception of M getting winged) I followed every cut of every edit, I tracked the camera angles, the order and the intent of each shot - the first time around - and I thought they were fantastic.

Why is water in Bolivia NOT Bond?

I agree, and also find it a bit frustrating that some folks don't seem to get that the plot wasn't just about water in Bolivia, but water around the world (hence, the Canadian angle mentioned in the opera and Corinne, the Canadian agent).

Edited by byline, 18 February 2009 - 04:12 PM.

[Judo chop]

What we say: “In Quantum of Solace, Bond undermines a small evil plot, which is actually part of a much bigger evil plot, which in turn opens up all kinds of possibilities to explore in future Bond chronicles.”

What they hear: “In Quantum of Solace, Bond undermines a small evil plot.”

It’s the same kind of frustration when you say to someone “You look really nice today” and they insist on hearing “You don’t look nice any other day”. You can’t win when someone just plain doesn’t want to take a compliment.

[Eddie Burns]

I worry about some on here

I think most of you missed the point about what I said about The Transporter. Those films (which I don't like btw) are just as well paced as QoS with better action scenes...this doesn't make them superior films. The same way it doesn't make QoS superior to any Bond before it. In fact an action movie with poor action scenes shouldn't even be considered good just because its fast paced. Come on now...

And where is all this 'mature adult Bond picture' coming from? Last I checked it was PG13/12A, erm...not really directed at a mature audience. CR was a mature film that shocked a lot of people who were surprised it got away with such low age specific. QoS is not a film you'll find mature (non-fanboys) having a discussion about. Fact.

I agree, and also find it a bit frustrating that some folks don't seem to get that the plot wasn't just about water in Bolivia, but water around the world (hence, the Canadian angle mentioned in the opera and Corinne, the Canadian agent).


Stop it now...right now. The plot was about water in Bolivia, and just the water in Bolivia. Canada was a different thing all together! There was no mention of water in Canada or the world, and Corinne was there to add 'depth'(ugh) to the last scene. The movie was about Greene controlling water in Bolivia, not the world. Don't make up something that isn't there.

Total non-action: Roughly 1 hour and 24 minutes or 84 minutes so lets take 84/106 which equals .7924 or 79.2% of the movie is non-action which shows that this movie is paced so that the action feels longer than it really is and I would not be surprised if QoS, which has more action scenes than CR, would have a short action time average than CR since CR's action scenes are more drawn out then QoS' short and sweet action sequences. I think this supports Daddy Bond's theory.

Here is another Mr Facts I think the point is being missed by many on here. That point being the reason why people complain about there being too much action, is because nothing really happens inbetween. Its just Bond running around killing people, scolded by M, etc. Nothing happens inbetween the action scenes that lingers in the mind and is quite memorable. No moment, or line, or imagery that sticks. All of it is rushed to accommodate the next action scene. What is 'better paced' for you, is a movie 'filled with action scenes' to others. There is no point trying to debunk all those that say its full of action, because in their minds thats what they got from the movie. Fact.

There are tons of memorable lines in QoS. If you don't think so, I respectfully suggest that the problem is with your memory, not the lines.

"You only buy cheap wine." biggrin.gif


Good lines? Maybe. Memorable? Please...the line you gave above is not funny or witty or memorable. I've heard that before in real life! The florist line by the Dame was a good one, but Craig really didn't say anything out of the ordinary or memorable. It just appeared so because the movie itself was dull and dreary. Seriously, I don't think you guys realize that this movie is already forgotten outside fandom. For the umpteenth time, there...is...nothing...memorable...about...it, Period.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

And where is all this 'mature adult Bond picture' coming from? Last I checked it was PG13/12A, erm...not really directed at a mature audience. CR was a mature film that shocked a lot of people who were surprised it got away with such low age specific. QoS is not a film you'll find mature (non-fanboys) having a discussion about. Fact.

So a PG13 film can't be directed at a mature audience? I suppose they should throw in a boob or two and some gore so to make the film more "mature" and heighten the rating.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 19 February 2009 - 04:17 AM.

[Daddy Bond]

I worry about some on here

I think most of you missed the point about what I said about The Transporter. Those films (which I don't like btw) are just as well paced as QoS with better action scenes...this doesn't make them superior films. The same way it doesn't make QoS superior to any Bond before it. In fact an action movie with poor action scenes shouldn't even be considered good just because its fast paced. Come on now...

And where is all this 'mature adult Bond picture' coming from? Last I checked it was PG13/12A, erm...not really directed at a mature audience. CR was a mature film that shocked a lot of people who were surprised it got away with such low age specific. QoS is not a film you'll find mature (non-fanboys) having a discussion about. Fact.

I agree, and also find it a bit frustrating that some folks don't seem to get that the plot wasn't just about water in Bolivia, but water around the world (hence, the Canadian angle mentioned in the opera and Corinne, the Canadian agent).


Stop it now...right now. The plot was about water in Bolivia, and just the water in Bolivia. Canada was a different thing all together! There was no mention of water in Canada or the world, and Corinne was there to add 'depth'(ugh) to the last scene. The movie was about Greene controlling water in Bolivia, not the world. Don't make up something that isn't there.

Total non-action: Roughly 1 hour and 24 minutes or 84 minutes so lets take 84/106 which equals .7924 or 79.2% of the movie is non-action which shows that this movie is paced so that the action feels longer than it really is and I would not be surprised if QoS, which has more action scenes than CR, would have a short action time average than CR since CR's action scenes are more drawn out then QoS' short and sweet action sequences. I think this supports Daddy Bond's theory.

Here is another Mr Facts I think the point is being missed by many on here. That point being the reason why people complain about there being too much action, is because nothing really happens inbetween. Its just Bond running around killing people, scolded by M, etc. Nothing happens inbetween the action scenes that lingers in the mind and is quite memorable. No moment, or line, or imagery that sticks. All of it is rushed to accommodate the next action scene. What is 'better paced' for you, is a movie 'filled with action scenes' to others. There is no point trying to debunk all those that say its full of action, because in their minds thats what they got from the movie. Fact.

There are tons of memorable lines in QoS. If you don't think so, I respectfully suggest that the problem is with your memory, not the lines.

"You only buy cheap wine." biggrin.gif


Good lines? Maybe. Memorable? Please...the line you gave above is not funny or witty or memorable. I've heard that before in real life! The florist line by the Dame was a good one, but Craig really didn't say anything out of the ordinary or memorable. It just appeared so because the movie itself was dull and dreary. Seriously, I don't think you guys realize that this movie is already forgotten outside fandom. For the umpteenth time, there...is...nothing...memorable...about...it, Period.

I personally don't care who's forgotten about QOS either inside or outside of Bond fandom since I never base my own opinions on what other people think. I REALLY enjoyed the movie - and that's that for me. There's plenty I enjoyed and remember about the film and I very much look forward to seeing on DVD. You seem to enjoy stating your opinion as fact. Well, I disagree.

Personally, I consider the action scenes MUCH better in QOS than in the Transporter movies.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Seriously, I don't think you guys realize that this movie is already forgotten outside fandom. For the umpteenth time, there...is...nothing...memorable...about...it, Period.

I personally don't care who's forgotten about QOS either inside or outside of Bond fandom since I never base my own opinions on what other people think. I REALLY enjoyed the movie - and that's that for me. There's plenty I enjoyed and remember about the film and I very much look forward to seeing on DVD. You seem to enjoy stating your opinion as fact. Well, I disagree.

Personally, I consider the action scenes MUCH better in QOS than in the Transporter movies.

First of all, I disagree with many of the opinion of Eddie Burns, I'm not so harsh with QOS, and I do think there are several good things about this movie (like, for for instance, being way bettter than any from the Brosnan era).

However, I think he have a fair point, which is outside the fandom, QOS didn't have any impact, unlike CR. Of course, any Bond actor debut will secure a good measure of attention- particularly if it include a marketed 'reboot', there's no question about it.

But if a film is overall very popular (I mean beyond the fandom, in the case that we concede that QOS is really popular here, and I still have my doubts about about it) a second entry of a same actor starring in a franchise, would have concite as much attention as the debut, a good example of that is The Dark Knight- let's keep in mind, that the general moviegoer still talk about that flick, and not only about Heath Ledger's posthumous performance-.

I would never base my taste or distaste for a film based in its overall level of popularity, but it would be a good thing to have in mind, how the rest of the world beyond the fandom, think- or in this case, don't care much- about QOS, before some hardcore fans declare it flawless or near masterpiece, and getting upset if someone doesn't share their appreciation for the flick; believing that outside their personal opinions, the second Craig entry also enjoys a great popularity, based, perhaps, in its (average for a Bond movie) BO result.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 February 2009 - 09:50 AM.

[Sniperscope]

However, I think he have a fair point, which is outside the fandom, QOS didn't have any impact, unlike CR. Of course, any Bond actor debut will secure a good measure of attention- particularly if it include a marketed 'reboot', there's no question about it.

But if a film is overall very popular (I mean beyond the fandom, in the case that we concede that QOS is really popular here, and I still have my doubts about about it) a second entry of a same actor starring in a franchise, would have concite as much attention as the debut, a good example of that is The Dark Knight- let's keep in mind, that the general moviegoer still talk about that flick, and not only about Heath Ledger's posthumous performance-.

I would never base my taste or distaste for a film based in its overall level of popularity, but it would be a good thing to have in mind, how the rest of the world beyond the fandom, think- or in this case, don't care much- about QOS, before some hardcore fans declare it flawless or near masterpiece, and getting upset if someone doesn't share their appreciation for the flick; believing that outside their personal opinions, the second Craig entry also enjoys a great popularity, based, perhaps, in its (average for a Bond movie) BO result.

Some points you have raised here Mr A-B are a tad sweeping in their generalisation.
How do you quantify the notion that the film made "no impact" with the general audience beyond your own opinion?
One minute it's IMBD or Rottentomatoes percentages prove QoS is cack, then it's inflation adjusted BO details, then it's 'how does QoS stack up against TDK?' Next it's Forster has betrayed the working classes by daring to attempt such navel-gazing bourgeois "art" and now it's judging the level of "impact" with les gens or the unsubstantiated notion that only fanatics on this forum care about the film anyway...
You're continually moving the goal posts in order to prove your point.
To me it's a bit tiresome to harp on about the supposed non-popularity of QoS based upon its so-called "average" BO results. As a Bond film outside of the 1960s QoS has been a huge financial success (despite the ludicrous and often vitriolic pillorying it has taken in both mainstream and fandom reviews).
Why reference TDK at all Mr A-B? Another example of moving the goal posts. This film is in no way comparable to Bond and it is spurious in the extreme to hold it as some kind of yardstick for Bond to surpass. TDK has massive across demographics and international appeal, it's a superhero, comic book film that looks and sounds "American." (At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation myself, US audiences seem to prefer productions that are more obviously American-centric. Bond is a virtual curiostiy to the modern American cinemagoer.)
Since the 1960s, the franchise does not have the same drawing power it once had. A Simple fact. so therefore Bond films can only really be compared against themselves in the last 20 or so years at best.
By this criteria QoS has been a success.

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 February 2009 - 01:07 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

However, I think he have a fair point, which is outside the fandom, QOS didn't have any impact, unlike CR. Of course, any Bond actor debut will secure a good measure of attention- particularly if it include a marketed 'reboot', there's no question about it.

But if a film is overall very popular (I mean beyond the fandom, in the case that we concede that QOS is really popular here, and I still have my doubts about about it) a second entry of a same actor starring in a franchise, would have concite as much attention as the debut, a good example of that is The Dark Knight- let's keep in mind, that the general moviegoer still talk about that flick, and not only about Heath Ledger's posthumous performance-.

I would never base my taste or distaste for a film based in its overall level of popularity, but it would be a good thing to have in mind, how the rest of the world beyond the fandom, think- or in this case, don't care much- about QOS, before some hardcore fans declare it flawless or near masterpiece, and getting upset if someone doesn't share their appreciation for the flick; believing that outside their personal opinions, the second Craig entry also enjoys a great popularity, based, perhaps, in its (average for a Bond movie) BO result.

Some points you have raised here Mr A-B are a tad sweeping in their generalisation.
How do you quantify the notion that the film made "no impact" with the general audience beyond your own opinion or anecdote?
Why do you care if the general public is still talking about QoS or not? You're always moving the goalposts in order to declare QoS as "average." One minute it's IMBD or Rottentomatoes percentages, then it's inflation adjusted BO details, now it's the level of "impact" with les gens...
I find it tiresome to harp on the supposed non-popularity of QoS based upon so-called "average" BO results.
As a Bond film outside of the 1960s QoS has been a huge financial success despite the ludicrous and often vitriolic pillorying it has taken in mainstream reviews.
And why reference TDK Mr A-B? This film is in no way comparable to Bond and it is spurious in the extreme to hold it as some kind of yardstick for Bond to surpass!
TDK has massive across demographics appea, it's a superhero, comicbook filml and it looks and sounds "American". (At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation myself, US audiences seem to prefer productions that are more obviously American-centric. Bond is a virtual curiostiy to the modern American cinemagoer.)
Since the 1960s, the franchise does not have the same drawing power it once had. A Simple fact. so therefore Bond films can only really be compared against themselves in the last 20 or so years at best.
By this criteria QoS has enjoyed great success at the BO.

What about a round for IMDb. com, Sniperscope... that's a very popular site among general moviegoers, and there QOS is not so popular (to say the least, speaking- not only, but particulalrly- for the forum area).

Right now, QOS has 7.0 rating, which isn't that shabby, but almost all the movies drops substancially after a couple years. CR in a similar period (last weeks of its run at cinemas), was at 8.3, currently it has 8.0.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 February 2009 - 11:40 PM.

[Sniperscope]

What about a round for IMDb. com, Sniperscope... that's a very popular site among general moviegoers, and there QOS is not so popular (to say the least, speaking- not only, but particulalrly- for the forum area).

Right now, it has 7.0 rating, which isn't that shabby, but almost all the movies drops substancially after a couple years. CR in a similar period (last weeks of its run at cinemas(, was at 8.3.

IMDd is a resource. Nothing more. It can be used to draw inferences but not conclusions. Not every cinemagoer refers to it (I certainly don't) and anyway don't you have to be a member of the site to vote which hardly makes it representative of all. This is the same site that has voted "The Shawshank Redemption" as the best film EVER made...
But you've evaded my other points Mr A-B...

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 February 2009 - 01:16 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You wonder why do I care if the general public is still talking about QoS or not. The answer is very simple...becuase I'm a Bond fan, so I want that my favourite film series to be as huge in popularity as possible, with every movie that came; and not that a film (QOS) could be praised for the fandom as some kind of cult flick.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What about a round for IMDb. com, Sniperscope... that's a very popular site among general moviegoers, and there QOS is not so popular (to say the least, speaking- not only, but particulalrly- for the forum area).

Right now, it has 7.0 rating, which isn't that shabby, but almost all the movies drops substancially after a couple years. CR in a similar period (last weeks of its run at cinemas(, was at 8.3.

IMDd is a resource. Nothing more. It can be used to draw inferences but not conclusions. Not every cinemagoer refers to it (I certainly don't) and anyway don't you have to be a member of the site to vote which hardly makes it representative of all. This is the same site that has voted "The Shawshank Redemption" as the best film EVER made...
But you've evaded my other points Mr A-B...

It' s a resource , right but one of the biggest on the web, and the rating measure popularity not quality, so it could be even a film like "Titanic" in the first place, and that wouldn't be absurd.

P.D.: I have not evaded your other points, it's that there isn't anything new in there, that hasn't been discussed before- I already have stated my opnions in those points in earlier posts-.

[Sniperscope]

You wonder why do I care if the general public is still talking about QoS or not. The answer is very simple...becuase I'm a Bond fan, so I want that my favourite film series to be as huge in popularity as possible, with every movie that came; and not that a film (QOS) could be praised for the fandom as some kind of cult flick.

You obviously reserve the same sentiment for "cult flick" as you do for "artsy."
I would argue that Bond has a cult following and is no longer as broadly popular with the general public as it was in the 60s. Fact. CR did little to change that. It gave Bond respectability and attention but it did not reinstate the franchise position similar to the 1960s.
Fine, you want it to be popular with the general public, but if it fails in that regard should the film then be automatically considered a failure by its fans? I think not. Sorry, Mr A-B but I care not a jot for the trendy whims and fancies of the general public and their 30 second attention spans.
Despite all this the BO speaks for itself and QoS has done very very well. OK (for you) it's not as good as CR but is that the end of the world? Many Bond films are far worse than QoS in my view...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Many Bond films are far worse than QoS in my view...

In the only thing that I can agree with you is in this last line, there are several Bond films worse than QOS, IMO too.

[Sniperscope]

It' s a resource , right but one of the biggest on the web, and the rating measure popularity not quality, so it could be even a film like "Titanic" in the first place, and that wouldn't be absurd.

You yourself have stated that QoS's popularity is only really supported in these forums, thereby suggesting that CBN represents a kind of fringe opinion.
Even if I were to accept that by the same token you can't then use another site that measures "popularity" based upon the votes of it's members as some kind of authority on the general public's view of the film. It's all OPINIONS. There is nothing empirical in any of it.

[HildebrandRarity]

Despite all this the BO speaks for itself and QoS has done very very well. OK (for you) it's not as good as CR but is that the end of the world? Many Bond films are far worse than QoS in my view...

Objectively speaking, Q0S's box office is about similar to CR if you take into account the very real fact that the UK Pound had declined from 1.98 to 1.48 thus costing Q0S ~ $25 million in relation to not only CR but in relation to TDK, Indy Jones 4, Mamma Mia as well.

In other words if Q0S had been released only 2 1/2 months earlier, it would be right on top of CR's global numbers because that was the time period (Aug 08 - Oct 08) during which Pound Stirling got massively crushed.