887 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

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."

Good lines? Maybe. Memorable? Please...the line you gave above is not funny or witty or memorable.

I laughed. My brother laughed. My dad laughed. And we all remember it.

Fact. Period. End of. You lose.

[HH007]

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."

Good lines? Maybe. Memorable? Please...the line you gave above is not funny or witty or memorable.

I laughed. My brother laughed. My dad laughed. And we all remember it.

Fact. Period. End of. You lose.

Winner: Judo

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

What I said is that as CBn is a good barometer of fandom's opinions, IMDb is the equivalent in general moviegoer's views.

[Mr_Wint]

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.

What I said is that as CBn is a good barometer of fandom's opinions, IMDb is the equivalent in general moviegoer's views.

IMDb reflects the far more serious moviefans. In no way does it represents the general moviegoer's opinion.

[dbldn12]

I don't think QOS was a very good film.

1. There was no finished script when shooting started. That is very obvious as the parts Craig and Forster likely worked on seemed thrown in between the (too many) action sequences.

The plot was fine, but would have benefitted from a scene after the title sequence that set up the villains.

2. QOS was a direct sequel to CR. It relied too heavily on audiences remembering the events of a film the general public hadn't watched in nearly two years. The emotional resonance of the Bond/Vesper relationship was lacking because of this.

When Daniel Craig was interviewed about CR, he made a point of saying that the cast and crew set out to make a good film first and foremost which happened to be a Bond film. 'I didn't set out to answer my critics, I just set out to make a good movie.' <URL>http://www.dailymail...yale.html</URL>

Craig and the producers kept going on about QOS being a direct sequel to CR, a new (and good in theory) idea for the Bond franchise. However, QOS doesn't work story-wise as a standalone film.

4. Marc Forster was a bad choice for the film. The producers wanted Roger Michell, but he was unable to direct due to scheduling constraints. I haven't seen any of Michell's films, so I don't know about his style of direction.

Forster did a good job on the non-action scenes, but since this was his first action film, he really should not have decided to experiment with the fast cutting/shaky cam style utilized in the Bourne franchise and the new Batman films.

The car chase was hard to follow because of the poor editing. Since QOS was supposed to be a direct sequel to CR, it should have kept the same stylistic qualities from CR. Before seeing QOS for the third time in theatres, I watched CR and the jarring difference in direction jumped out at me even more than it had in the first viewing.

The opera scene was excellent until the shootout. It had the feel of the 60s Bond films where Bond actually had to act like a spy and sneak around to do surveillance. The shootout being intercut with Tosca failed miserably. The idea was fine, but because Forster chose to use a modern performance of Tosca, with modern dress and handguns, it was hard to tell what was part of Bond's fight and what was part of the performance. A film buff friend I saw the film with commented during that scene, 'did Bond just shoot one of the chefs?'

5. QOS was marketed as a revenge film, but that element was barely in the film. There was the bit at the beginning where Bond swipes the photo of Vesper and Yusef, which was easy to forget about throughout the numerous action sequences, the scene on the plane with the photo, and the scene in Russia.

Because Yusef was actually who Bond was after, not Greene, Bond's interrogation of Greene should have been shown, rather than implied, and the rest of Bond's confrontation with Yusef should have been shown, so the audiences could see how Bond now handled these situations as opposed to how he handled them in CR (shot Mollaka and blew up the embassy).

A rule of thumb for writing is 'show, don't tell.' QOS 'told' more than it 'showed.' Seeing Greene crawling through the desert gasping and drinking the oil when Quantum's agents (and Mr. White perhaps?) show up and shoot him (ala Le Chiffre) would have been more effective and would have stopped people from thinking that after dropping off Camille, Bond drove back and forcefed Greene the oil and then shot him (which would have worked fine onscreen too).

6. QOS misused Bond allies.

Fields was an good character, but it seemed like the writers forgot about her character after she tripped Elvis at the party. Wouldn't Bond have remembered about her before leaving the party with Camille? Also, if Bond's mission was to get closure regarding Vesper, wouldn't he have waited until he had gotten closure to bed Fields?

I liked how Mathis' loyalty question was cleared up in QOS, but there was no need to kill off the character this early (if at all) in the reboot. The first problem with Mathis was in CR, when he was made an MI6 agent instead of a French intelligence agent. Just because the location of the card game changed didn't make that change necessary. He should have been left as Bond's European contact for future films. I suppose they could create a 'Mathis Jr.' character to take his place as they did in LALD with Quarrel Jr. because they filmed the novels out of order.

The portrayal of the CIA as corrupt and 'in bed' with Quantum made no sense in the context of the Bond franchise. It felt like a ripoff of the Bourne films where the CIA were the real villains and there was only one good person working there (Leiter/Pam Landy). Had this subplot been excised from the final film, there wouldn't have been much missing from the story. It felt like an attempt by Forster and Haggis to push their political views and anti-American sentiment on the audience. Bond is supposed to be escapism. In the novels Bond had a great admiration for the CIA and looked at America as an ally of Britain. His lines in the bar with Felix about the Americans having carved up South America were out of character (his line in the novels about sympathizing with the Cuban rebels against Batista made sense in the context. Since Batista was so evil, most people believed that Castro would be better, though he ended up being just as bad). It would have been better to keep Bond politically neutral.

M seemed to have been given alternate lines from CR to use in her scenes in QOS. It was all about whether she could trust Bond. That subplot appeared to have been solved at the end of CR when she and Bond spoke on the phone.

Tanner acted more like an aide/secretary to M, as opposed to a Chief of Staff. M had to explain things to him throughout, as if he was new on the job. In the novels, Tanner had been a field agent until he had received an injury. Villiers made sense in CR as M's personal aide when he appeared to become physically sick when he saw Solange's dead body. Tanner seemed to be just a different actor playing Villiers. I liked Villiers' character, but it appeared that the actor who portrayed Villiers was unavailable so they transferred his lines to a new character they arbitrarilly named Tanner.

7. Bond was played excellently by Craig, but was badly written.

At the end of CR, the audience is led to believe that 'James has become Bond.' Throughout the film he earns different aspects of the character ('OO' licence, Aston Martin DB5, gunbarrel, 'Bond, James Bond,' and of course the Bond theme). This caused audiences to think that Bond's character had evolved to the point of the previous films and was no longer growing into his skin.

But in QOS there was more developing for Bond's character, yet it seemed to be a rehash of what he learned in CR. In CR, he has to learn not to kill terrorists in embassies before he can question them, that quietly disposing Le Chiffre is not the answer because MI6 and CIA need information from him, that he cannot trust people as blindly he did Vesper, and he had to earn M's trust that he had his priorities straight (the phone call after Vesper's death appeared to confirm M's trust in Bond's judgment-'you've learned your lesson'). In QOS he has to learn not to kill Quantum's agents before he can question them ('Slate was a dead end'), to trust Leiter (didn't he already learn that when Leiter fronted him the $5 million? If he wasn't trustworthy, why help Bond out in that situation?), and to earn M's trust again (coming back to tell her about Fields after she had him taken away by MI6 agents). In the novel CR, Vesper's death cemented Bond's character and drive (to get at the people behind the spies), but in the films, Vesper's death seems to revert Bond back to his Madagascar/Miami mindset. That can't be though, because of his conversation with M after Vesper's death and the fact that he shot Mr. White in the leg with the intention of interrogating him.

Because Bond had become the Bond we all know and love at the end of CR, he should have acted that way moreso in QOS.

Had the filmmakers noticed the fact that Bond had 'earned' the gunbarrel during the bathroom fight in CR, they would have had the sense to put the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film.

8. There were too many action sequences: the car chase, the Palio chase, the hotel fight, the boat chase, the opera shootout, the plane chase, the elevator fight, the SWAT (was it SWAT or Bolivian police or CIA black ops?) chase, the hotel explosion/fight. Because there were so many fights and chases, few stand out as exceptional and the next Bond film will have a harder time finding unique action setpieces to use. Why not go back to the earlier Bond films, where there was suspense without a giant chase or shootout? The stalking from the beginning of FRWL, getting Koskov into the west in TLD, actual 'spy' stuff.

9. If it was so important for QOS to be a direct sequel to CR, the filmmakers should have given Martin Campbell however much money it would have taken for him to make a 'part deux' to his film CR.

Even non-Bond fan friends of mine have commented on the continuity of Bond's suit from CR to QOS. Bond's three-piece suit in CR was iconic, like the GF suit. That left a lasting impression on viewers. Though Tom Ford was the tailor for QOS (and Brioni for CR), there is no reason why Tom Ford couldn't have supplied Mr. Craig a three-piece navy suit with a blue shirt and blue tie (assuming the shirt and tie didn't come from another brand). Tom Ford wouldn't have had to make a duplicate of Brioni's suit (cut or color), they just would have had to add a waistcoat to give the casual viewer visual continuity. Bond could have taken the waistcoat off when he removed his tie during the interrogation scene.

The redeeming qualities of QOS are the music which was some of David Arnold's best, the acting from Craig, Dench, Arterton, Wright, and Jesper Christensen (Mr. White) was fantastic. I am sorry they were not given better material to work with.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

What I said is that as CBn is a good barometer of fandom's opinions, IMDb is the equivalent in general moviegoer's views.

IMDb reflects the far more serious moviefans. In no way does it represents the general moviegoer's opinion.

Well, it could be....

But my real point was that IMDb opinions and ratings are far beyond the Bond fandom.

[blueman]

I don't think QOS was a very good film.

1. There was no finished script when shooting started. That is very obvious as the parts Craig and Forster likely worked on seemed thrown in between the (too many) action sequences.

The plot was fine, but would have benefitted from a scene after the title sequence that set up the villains.

2. QOS was a direct sequel to CR. It relied too heavily on audiences remembering the events of a film the general public hadn't watched in nearly two years. The emotional resonance of the Bond/Vesper relationship was lacking because of this.

When Daniel Craig was interviewed about CR, he made a point of saying that the cast and crew set out to make a good film first and foremost which happened to be a Bond film. 'I didn't set out to answer my critics, I just set out to make a good movie.' <URL>http://www.dailymail...yale.html</URL>

Craig and the producers kept going on about QOS being a direct sequel to CR, a new (and good in theory) idea for the Bond franchise. However, QOS doesn't work story-wise as a standalone film.

4. Marc Forster was a bad choice for the film. The producers wanted Roger Michell, but he was unable to direct due to scheduling constraints. I haven't seen any of Michell's films, so I don't know about his style of direction.

Forster did a good job on the non-action scenes, but since this was his first action film, he really should not have decided to experiment with the fast cutting/shaky cam style utilized in the Bourne franchise and the new Batman films.

The car chase was hard to follow because of the poor editing. Since QOS was supposed to be a direct sequel to CR, it should have kept the same stylistic qualities from CR. Before seeing QOS for the third time in theatres, I watched CR and the jarring difference in direction jumped out at me even more than it had in the first viewing.

The opera scene was excellent until the shootout. It had the feel of the 60s Bond films where Bond actually had to act like a spy and sneak around to do surveillance. The shootout being intercut with Tosca failed miserably. The idea was fine, but because Forster chose to use a modern performance of Tosca, with modern dress and handguns, it was hard to tell what was part of Bond's fight and what was part of the performance. A film buff friend I saw the film with commented during that scene, 'did Bond just shoot one of the chefs?'

5. QOS was marketed as a revenge film, but that element was barely in the film. There was the bit at the beginning where Bond swipes the photo of Vesper and Yusef, which was easy to forget about throughout the numerous action sequences, the scene on the plane with the photo, and the scene in Russia.

Because Yusef was actually who Bond was after, not Greene, Bond's interrogation of Greene should have been shown, rather than implied, and the rest of Bond's confrontation with Yusef should have been shown, so the audiences could see how Bond now handled these situations as opposed to how he handled them in CR (shot Mollaka and blew up the embassy).

A rule of thumb for writing is 'show, don't tell.' QOS 'told' more than it 'showed.' Seeing Greene crawling through the desert gasping and drinking the oil when Quantum's agents (and Mr. White perhaps?) show up and shoot him (ala Le Chiffre) would have been more effective and would have stopped people from thinking that after dropping off Camille, Bond drove back and forcefed Greene the oil and then shot him (which would have worked fine onscreen too).

6. QOS misused Bond allies.

Fields was an good character, but it seemed like the writers forgot about her character after she tripped Elvis at the party. Wouldn't Bond have remembered about her before leaving the party with Camille? Also, if Bond's mission was to get closure regarding Vesper, wouldn't he have waited until he had gotten closure to bed Fields?

I liked how Mathis' loyalty question was cleared up in QOS, but there was no need to kill off the character this early (if at all) in the reboot. The first problem with Mathis was in CR, when he was made an MI6 agent instead of a French intelligence agent. Just because the location of the card game changed didn't make that change necessary. He should have been left as Bond's European contact for future films. I suppose they could create a 'Mathis Jr.' character to take his place as they did in LALD with Quarrel Jr. because they filmed the novels out of order.

The portrayal of the CIA as corrupt and 'in bed' with Quantum made no sense in the context of the Bond franchise. It felt like a ripoff of the Bourne films where the CIA were the real villains and there was only one good person working there (Leiter/Pam Landy). Had this subplot been excised from the final film, there wouldn't have been much missing from the story. It felt like an attempt by Forster and Haggis to push their political views and anti-American sentiment on the audience. Bond is supposed to be escapism. In the novels Bond had a great admiration for the CIA and looked at America as an ally of Britain. His lines in the bar with Felix about the Americans having carved up South America were out of character (his line in the novels about sympathizing with the Cuban rebels against Batista made sense in the context. Since Batista was so evil, most people believed that Castro would be better, though he ended up being just as bad). It would have been better to keep Bond politically neutral.

M seemed to have been given alternate lines from CR to use in her scenes in QOS. It was all about whether she could trust Bond. That subplot appeared to have been solved at the end of CR when she and Bond spoke on the phone.

Tanner acted more like an aide/secretary to M, as opposed to a Chief of Staff. M had to explain things to him throughout, as if he was new on the job. In the novels, Tanner had been a field agent until he had received an injury. Villiers made sense in CR as M's personal aide when he appeared to become physically sick when he saw Solange's dead body. Tanner seemed to be just a different actor playing Villiers. I liked Villiers' character, but it appeared that the actor who portrayed Villiers was unavailable so they transferred his lines to a new character they arbitrarilly named Tanner.

7. Bond was played excellently by Craig, but was badly written.

At the end of CR, the audience is led to believe that 'James has become Bond.' Throughout the film he earns different aspects of the character ('OO' licence, Aston Martin DB5, gunbarrel, 'Bond, James Bond,' and of course the Bond theme). This caused audiences to think that Bond's character had evolved to the point of the previous films and was no longer growing into his skin.

But in QOS there was more developing for Bond's character, yet it seemed to be a rehash of what he learned in CR. In CR, he has to learn not to kill terrorists in embassies before he can question them, that quietly disposing Le Chiffre is not the answer because MI6 and CIA need information from him, that he cannot trust people as blindly he did Vesper, and he had to earn M's trust that he had his priorities straight (the phone call after Vesper's death appeared to confirm M's trust in Bond's judgment-'you've learned your lesson'). In QOS he has to learn not to kill Quantum's agents before he can question them ('Slate was a dead end'), to trust Leiter (didn't he already learn that when Leiter fronted him the $5 million? If he wasn't trustworthy, why help Bond out in that situation?), and to earn M's trust again (coming back to tell her about Fields after she had him taken away by MI6 agents). In the novel CR, Vesper's death cemented Bond's character and drive (to get at the people behind the spies), but in the films, Vesper's death seems to revert Bond back to his Madagascar/Miami mindset. That can't be though, because of his conversation with M after Vesper's death and the fact that he shot Mr. White in the leg with the intention of interrogating him.

Because Bond had become the Bond we all know and love at the end of CR, he should have acted that way moreso in QOS.

Had the filmmakers noticed the fact that Bond had 'earned' the gunbarrel during the bathroom fight in CR, they would have had the sense to put the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film.

8. There were too many action sequences: the car chase, the Palio chase, the hotel fight, the boat chase, the opera shootout, the plane chase, the elevator fight, the SWAT (was it SWAT or Bolivian police or CIA black ops?) chase, the hotel explosion/fight. Because there were so many fights and chases, few stand out as exceptional and the next Bond film will have a harder time finding unique action setpieces to use. Why not go back to the earlier Bond films, where there was suspense without a giant chase or shootout? The stalking from the beginning of FRWL, getting Koskov into the west in TLD, actual 'spy' stuff.

9. If it was so important for QOS to be a direct sequel to CR, the filmmakers should have given Martin Campbell however much money it would have taken for him to make a 'part deux' to his film CR.

Even non-Bond fan friends of mine have commented on the continuity of Bond's suit from CR to QOS. Bond's three-piece suit in CR was iconic, like the GF suit. That left a lasting impression on viewers. Though Tom Ford was the tailor for QOS (and Brioni for CR), there is no reason why Tom Ford couldn't have supplied Mr. Craig a three-piece navy suit with a blue shirt and blue tie (assuming the shirt and tie didn't come from another brand). Tom Ford wouldn't have had to make a duplicate of Brioni's suit (cut or color), they just would have had to add a waistcoat to give the casual viewer visual continuity. Bond could have taken the waistcoat off when he removed his tie during the interrogation scene.

The redeeming qualities of QOS are the music which was some of David Arnold's best, the acting from Craig, Dench, Arterton, Wright, and Jesper Christensen (Mr. White) was fantastic. I am sorry they were not given better material to work with.

Not your cup o' tea, then? Fair enough. Disagree on all points but whatevs, to each their own and all that rot. For my dollar QOS was a better film than CR, and the best Bond film since OMHSS. Cheers!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

7. Bond was played excellently by Craig, but was badly written.

At the end of CR, the audience is led to believe that 'James has become Bond.' Throughout the film he earns different aspects of the character ('OO' licence, Aston Martin DB5, gunbarrel, 'Bond, James Bond,' and of course the Bond theme). This caused audiences to think that Bond's character had evolved to the point of the previous films and was no longer growing into his skin.

But in QOS there was more developing for Bond's character, yet it seemed to be a rehash of what he learned in CR. In CR, he has to learn not to kill terrorists in embassies before he can question them, that quietly disposing Le Chiffre is not the answer because MI6 and CIA need information from him, that he cannot trust people as blindly he did Vesper, and he had to earn M's trust that he had his priorities straight (the phone call after Vesper's death appeared to confirm M's trust in Bond's judgment-'you've learned your lesson'). In QOS he has to learn not to kill Quantum's agents before he can question them ('Slate was a dead end'), to trust Leiter (didn't he already learn that when Leiter fronted him the $5 million? If he wasn't trustworthy, why help Bond out in that situation?), and to earn M's trust again (coming back to tell her about Fields after she had him taken away by MI6 agents). In the novel CR, Vesper's death cemented Bond's character and drive (to get at the people behind the spies), but in the films, Vesper's death seems to revert Bond back to his Madagascar/Miami mindset. That can't be though, because of his conversation with M after Vesper's death and the fact that he shot Mr. White in the leg with the intention of interrogating him.

Because Bond had become the Bond we all know and love at the end of CR, he should have acted that way moreso in QOS.

Had the filmmakers noticed the fact that Bond had 'earned' the gunbarrel during the bathroom fight in CR, they would have had the sense to put the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film.

I agree with many of your points, particularly with this one, which I discussed further in this other thread: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52693

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 February 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Good post dbldn12. I agree with most of your points.

[Judo chop]

What I said is that as CBn is a good barometer of fandom's opinions, IMDb is the equivalent in general moviegoer's views.

IMDb reflects the far more serious moviefans. In no way does it represents the general moviegoer's opinion.

Well, it could be....

But my real point was that IMDb opinions and ratings are far beyond the Bond fandom.

IMDB represents people who have the time and interest to log on to an International Movie Data Base and click a star. That's it. And that tells you nothing.

How do we figure the 40-years-plus population is represented on IMDB? People with full time jobs, 4 kids with piano & swimming lessons and all that comes with those responsibilites? They're not.

We can't be confident that those who do log in to vote are voting their honest conscience. What portion of those votes are children who think it's funny to give DONNIE DARKO 10/10 and CASABLANCA 0/10? And do to so multiple times?

IMDB is good for picking up quotes, identifying a director's name or his filmography. As a rating database, it's crap. Good in theory for the naive, but in reality, utter crap.

And it's a darn good sign that a person isn't feeling good about the stability of his argument when he/she turns to IMDB ratings for support.

[JimmyBond]

While I do agree with what you're saying Judo Chop, only to an extent. I loved Donnie Darko and think it's very deserving of it's great reviews, however I also feel Casablanca is a classic and doesnt deserve it's low reviews (as you've said).

[Judo chop]

While I do agree with what you're saying Judo Chop, only to an extent. I loved Donnie Darko and think it's very deserving of it's great reviews, however I also feel Casablanca is a classic and doesnt deserve it's low reviews (as you've said).

Well, I wasn't really meaning to say anything about the deserts of either film. (I don't even have the foggiest idea how highly/lowly either are rated on IMDB.)

I was just trying to provide an example of what some young internet savvy deviant might find fun, to make the point that the average ratings on IMDB are a selective and perhaps even dishonest measure of 'public opinion'.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

While I do agree with what you're saying Judo Chop, only to an extent. I loved Donnie Darko and think it's very deserving of it's great reviews, however I also feel Casablanca is a classic and doesnt deserve it's low reviews (as you've said).

Well, I wasn't really meaning to say anything about the deserts of either film. (I don't even have the foggiest idea how highly/lowly either are rated on IMDB.)

I was just trying to provide an example of what some young internet savvy deviant might find fun, to make the point that the average ratings on IMDB are a selective and perhaps even dishonest measure of 'public opinion'.

So... according to you there isn't anyway to measure popularity, hence (following that judgment) we could think that AVTAK or DAD are more popular than GF. And what about CBn polls, you also distrust of those, because all the polls gives the preference to CR over QOS.

[Sniperscope]

So... according to you there isn't anyway to measure popularity, hence (following that judgment) we could think that AVTAK or DAD are more popular than GF. And what about CBn polls, you also distrust of those, because all the polls gives the preference to CR over QOS.

Hopefully no offense to you Mr A-B but you do seem to see things in absolutes!
Judo did not say that there is no way to measure popularity, he was merely pointing out that sites like IMDb (and indeed CBN) should not be held as a reliable authority on overall popularity.
At best, and only at best, IMDb represents the opinions of its membership at a particular point in time. Therefore it cannot and should not be upheld as a universal.
Surely you can see that!?! I don't think Judo and I are saying anything particularly controversial!
Without getting too paranoid, everyone knows votes can be stacked, especially on the Internet. (Didn't you hear about the online voting for the 2009 NHL All-Star game in which Montreal Canadiens fans block voted in order to skew the line-up, some have said, unfairly in their favour...) And anyway, I am highly skeptical of any site whose membership votes "The Shawshank Redemption" as the best film EVER in the HISTORY of cinema! Hmmm... I don't think I'll be checking in with IMDb anytime soon...

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 February 2009 - 10:52 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

So... according to you there isn't anyway to measure popularity, hence (following that judgment) we could think that AVTAK or DAD are more popular than GF. And what about CBn polls, you also distrust of those, because all the polls gives the preference to CR over QOS.

Hopefully no offense to you Mr A-B but you do seem to see things in absolutes!
Judo did not say that there is no way to measure popularity, he was merely pointing out that sites like IMDb (and indeed CBN) should not be held as a reliable authority on overall popularity.
At best, and only at best, IMDb represents the opinions of its membership at a particular point in time. Therefore it cannot and should not be upheld as a universal.
Surely you can see that!?! I don't think Judo and I are saying anything particularly controversial!
Without getting too paranoid, everyone knows votes can be stacked, especially on the Internet. (Didn't you hear about the online voting for the 2009 NHL All-Star game in which Montreal Canadiens fans block voted in order to skew the line-up, some have said, unfairly in their favour...) And anyway, I am highly skeptical of any site whose membership votes "The Shawshank Redemption" as the best film EVER in the HISTORY of cinema! Hmmm... I don't think I'll be checking in with IMDb anytime soon...

Again I have to point out that IMDb rating measure popularity not quality, so it could be even a film like "Titanic" in the first place, and that wouldn't be absurd.

... I don't see things in absolutes. But I'm still wondering if you and Judo chop distrust- that much- of this online polls, then what's is the way that you consider proper to measure a film's popularity (and please don't talk to me about the opinions of the people that you personally known, 'cause I can tell you about all the persons I know that have tell me that QOS is nothing impressive, and that CR is a whole lot better).

[Sniperscope]

(and please don't talk to me about the opinions of the people that you personally known, 'cause I can tell you about all the persons I know that have tell me that QOS is nothing impressive, and that CR is a whole lot better).

" I know more people than you who hate QoS so there Sniperscope!"
I'm soooooo glad the tone of your argument has degenerated to the level of a schoolyard squabble...
I'm not interested in giving any anecdotes Mr A-B. I am big enough to fight my own battles and I don't need the crutch of polls and votes to inform my own opinions.
I'm content with my point vis a vis IMDb and you've failed to convince me otherwise so there's really no future in continuing this line of discussion with you my friend.

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 February 2009 - 02:28 AM.

[Joe Bond]

(and please don't talk to me about the opinions of the people that you personally known, 'cause I can tell you about all the persons I know that have tell me that QOS is nothing impressive, and that CR is a whole lot better).

" I know more people than you who hate QoS so there Sniperscope!"
I'm soooooo glad the tone of your argument has degenerated to the level of a schoolyard squabble...
I'm not interested in giving any anecdotes Mr A-B. I am big enough to fight my own battles and I don't need the crutch of polls and votes to inform my own opinions.
I'm content with my point vis a vis IMDb and you've failed to convince me otherwise so there's really no future in continuing this line of discussion with you my friend.

I agree with you Sniperscope because when a movie like Iron Man opens up with a 8.2 which I would of said is only a 7.5 ish film in my opinion and The Dark Knight has a way too high ranking then I just don't trust these polls especially since CR is the only Bond films in the 8's which I feel that FRWL and GF deserve to be in the low 8's. Often more than not I check the rankings just to see how a film I like ranks and more time than not the ones I like tend to be rated lower than I was expecting. That just what I think.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

(and please don't talk to me about the opinions of the people that you personally known, 'cause I can tell you about all the persons I know that have tell me that QOS is nothing impressive, and that CR is a whole lot better).

" I know more people than you who hate QoS so there Sniperscope!"
I'm soooooo glad the tone of your argument has degenerated to the level of a schoolyard squabble...

I really can't understand how what I wrote can be interpreted as "schoolyard squabble". I just wanted prevent that type of argument, which I already have received in this forum- as an alternative way to measure popularity, instead of online polls. But of course, Sniperscope, you choose to avoid give an answer to my question about which do you consider as a proper way to measure the popularity of a film

I'm not interested in giving any anecdotes Mr A-B. I am big enough to fight my own battles and I don't need the crutch of polls and votes to inform my own opinions.
I'm content with my point vis a vis IMDb and you've failed to convince me otherwise so there's really no future in continuing this line of discussion with you my friend.

I wasn't trying to change you opinion about QOS, I just wanted make you see the "big picture" about this movie in its impact- or more like, the lack of it- with non-fandom audiences, I'm not saying it was a failure but it wasn' t somthing memorable either, unlike CR. However, "the worst blind man is the one that does not want to see".


I agree with you Sniperscope because when a movie like Iron Man opens up with a 8.2 which I would of said is only a 7.5 ish film in my opinion and The Dark Knight has a way too high ranking then I just don't trust these polls especially since CR is the only Bond films in the 8's which I feel that FRWL and GF deserve to be in the low 8's. Often more than not I check the rankings just to see how a film I like ranks and more time than not the ones I like tend to be rated lower than I was expecting. That just what I think.

Again and again... I have state that IMDb rating reflects the popularity, not the quality of a movie. Of course, that I agree that for my taste, the ranking for The Dark Knight, is way too high, but the fact is that right now that film is extremely popular in USA, and also in other contries.

So is it surprise that the most POPULAR film in IMDb-currently- is CR (with a very close second place for GF and third place for FRWL) and that the least popular is DAD (almost in a tie with AVTAK)??? I would say no, definitely not. Because is the same tendency- with perhaps some minor changes, related to the ages of the voters- that you can find in almost every poll, online or not.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 February 2009 - 05:35 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I really can't understand how what I wrote can be interpreted as "schoolyard squabble". I just wanted prevent that type of argument, which I already have received in this forum- as an alternative way to measure popularity, instead of online polls. But of course, Sniperscope, you choose to avoid give an answer to my question about which do you consider as a proper way to measure the popularity of a film

Again and again... I have state that IMDb rating reflects the popularity, not the quality of a movie. Of course, that I agree that for my taste, the ranking for The Dark Knight, is way too high, but the fact is that right now that film is extremely popular in USA, and also in other contries.

So is it surprise that the most POPULAR film in IMDb-currently- is CR (with a very close second place for GF and third place for FRWL) and that the least popular is DAD (almost in a tie with AVTAK)??? I would say no, definitely not. Because is the same tendency- with perhaps some minor changes, related to the ages of the voters- that you can find in almost every poll, online or not.

I didn't intentionally avoid your question as to how do I think popularity should be measured simply because I am personally not worried about whether a movie is popular or not. For me QoS was great as was CR. In that I am content and I'm not overly concerned as to which one is perceived as the more "popular" by the general audience.
I am highly doubtful as to how any objective measure of popularity can be empirically made, especially when so much of it depends on opinions. I guess for me a decent indicator of popularity is the BO. In this regard QoS has been an absolute success.

And please Mr A-B just think a moment about IMDb.
As I've said before (which you have seemingly ignored) IMDb is only an indicator of it's popularity according to its membership!!!
It is fallacious in the extreme to consider it as an indicator of universal popularity. That is what I was referring to when I said that you have failed to convince me otherwise.

Lastly, the "schoolyard squabble" is certainly something that I wish to avoid too, because you and I tend to discuss in a respectful manner.
If I misread your tone on your post then I hope I did not offend.

[Eddie Burns]

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."

Good lines? Maybe. Memorable? Please...the line you gave above is not funny or witty or memorable.

I laughed. My brother laughed. My dad laughed. And we all remember it.

Fact. Period. End of. You lose.

Winner: Judo

Fair enough, but that says more about you and your family than the quality of the quote, Judo. 'You only buy cheap wine' is a memorable quote in Bond history? Okaaaaaaaaaay then.

I actually think QoS and the Brosnan era are as bad as each other...both had very good ideas on paper, but incompetent directors and poor execution, not to mention poor scripts, led to fairly poor, unoriginal, and unmemorable films.

It's easy to say 'look...these films are better than what we got during the Brosnan era', but just because they don't have poor one liners, hot girls in hot pants or bikinis (This Craig era, as has slowly come to my realization, is catered to feminists and homosexuals, or at the very least there exists an undercurrent of those two themes, but thats a topic for another day), doesn't mean they're better. Of course there have been poorer Bond films, but this is a reboot and deserves to be judged on its own merits. I refuse to compare with what's gone on before CR because the reboot already implied a different direction/new beginning for the character, the first and only time this will happen. People saying its better than, say, AVTAK, say so as if its some type of achievement...I choose to compare it to other movies around it (in roughly the same genre) made within the same time frame. Doing otherwise is pointless. Bond, as of now, is just another action movie character lost in the quick edits and Bourne-like action.

dbldn12 got most of his post spot on. The themes (trust, revenge, solace), trumpeted on here as being the genius/depth behind this film, don't make sense and were lazily thought up. In fact all those themes were dealt with in CR, so I saw it a waste of $200m+ to rehash them all over again. Also, why get a writer with Marxist leanings to write a Bond picture (Haggis)? Isn't that contradictory to Fleming?



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


Now, why doesn't that surprise me? That's because one is the a James Bond movie and the other isn't, my friend...if said action scenes were to switch, the statement above would, in all likelihood stay the same.


I guess for me a decent indicator of popularity is the BO. In this regard QoS has been an absolute success.


That would be a very hazardous way of looking at it. The Matrix sequels made more money than the original, but they aren't as popular. Plus I can think of many movies that didn't make as much as QoS that are significantly more popular. I agree that it is hard to measure popularity, but we can only use what is available to us. Hence RT, IMDb, critic reviews, fan reviews, etc. are the only (not necessarily the most reliable) avenues to use when gauging the popularity of a film. Otherwise, what is the point of award shows, surveys?

Taking that into account...QoS is not a popular movie by any means.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 22 February 2009 - 09:59 PM.

[Sniperscope]

Eddie as you may have infered from my reply to Mr A-B I am hesitant to suggest anything as a reliable indicator of popularity.
I do agree with you that the BO is hazardous but it's no better or worse than any other indicator.
I could argue that the very reason why Matrix 2 and 3 did better was because of an overall cumulative popularity that had developed for the trilogy... The same could be said for the Star Wars prequels too. So based on BO you can possibly get a kind of "current" popularity but it's all fraught with intangibles.
If a film is popular with me then I am content. Selfish perhaps, I can't control what others think and I am almost always unconcerned by polls and the like.
As I've said before the sites you mention can only be taken as representative of their membership or sources. That in itself needs to be recognized before claiming universals.
What are the point of Award shows?!?! Gee mate you might as well ask what's the point of all those product placements that litter every Bond film!
If you hold any stock in those as being a genuine indicator of anything other than agenda-driven, self-congratulatory backslapping, advertising and cheap whoring of so-called "stars" then that's your choice I guess...
Lastly you drop in a not so subtle manner that Craig's era caters to feminists and gays... is that a problem?
What you don't mention is that Craig's era caters to the rest of us too!
I'm assuming you are referring to Bond's emasculation by M and the lack of overt heterosexuality (not masculinity) in Craig's performance, but the franchise had already started this with GE onwards so it's not anything new!
But If you aren't talking about that then what are you saying???

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 February 2009 - 11:18 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

Again and again... I have state that IMDb rating reflects the popularity, not the quality of a movie. Of course, that I agree that for my taste, the ranking for The Dark Knight, is way too high, but the fact is that right now that film is extremely popular in USA, and also in other contries.

So is it surprise that the most POPULAR film in IMDb-currently- is CR (with a very close second place for GF and third place for FRWL) and that the least popular is DAD (almost in a tie with AVTAK)??? I would say no, definitely not. Because is the same tendency- with perhaps some minor changes, related to the ages of the voters- that you can find in almost every poll, online or not.

I remember a survey they did in Sweden for DAD where more than 80% of the audience gave the film grade 5 out of 5... The ranking at IMDb is not useless or wrong in any way. But you have to interpret it in the right way otherwise it can be very misleading. This is how the more serious movie fans ranks the films. Nothing else.

[byline]

(This Craig era, as has slowly come to my realization, is catered to feminists and homosexuals, or at the very least there exists an undercurrent of those two themes, but thats a topic for another day)

Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced that it is), you seem to be presenting this as a denigration of the Craig era. I'm struggling to figure out why, precisely, this would be a problem. Having said that, I might fall into the feminist camp if I worked real hard at it, but my husband falls into neither. Yet "Quantum of Solace" appeals to both of us. So regardless of how you want to interpret statistics regarding the film's popularity, it's clear that "Quantum of Solace" caters to more than just those two demographic groups.

[Eddie Burns]

Eddie as you may have infered from my reply to Mr A-B I am hesitant to suggest anything as a reliable indicator of popularity.
I do agree with you that the BO is hazardous but it's no better or worse than any other indicator.
I could argue that the very reason why Matrix 2 and 3 did better was because of an overall cumulative popularity that had developed for the trilogy... The same could be said for the Star Wars prequels too. So based on BO you can possibly get a kind of "current" popularity but it's all fraught with intangibles.
If a film is popular with me then I am content. Selfish perhaps, I can't control what others think and I am almost always unconcerned by polls and the like.
As I've said before the sites you mention can only be taken as representative of their membership or sources. That in itself needs to be recognized before claiming universals.
What are the point of Award shows?!?! Gee mate you might as well ask what's the point of all those product placements that litter every Bond film!
If you hold any stock in those as being a genuine indicator of anything other than agenda-driven, self-congratulatory backslapping, advertising and cheap whoring of so-called "stars" then that's your choice I guess...
Lastly you drop in a not so subtle manner that Craig's era caters to feminists and gays... is that a problem?
What you don't mention is that Craig's era caters to the rest of us too!
I'm assuming you are referring to Bond's emasculation by M and the lack of overt heterosexuality (not masculinity) in Craig's performance, but the franchise had already started this with GE onwards so it's not anything new!
But If you aren't talking about that then what are you saying???

First, the BO doesn't really let us know about audience satisfaction. RT, IMDb, etc. actually reveal the thoughts of the people that have seen the film. Yes you are right in saying that these opinions are limited to a select few, but isn't it usually film buffs that write these reviews or sign up for membership? It means they care enough about films to devote some time reviewing them. Its impossible to take everyone into account, you can only work with what you have got and that's why as movie fans we should use whatever is available to gauge public reaction. Yes not everybody is accounted for, but sites such as RT and IMDb are better indicators of a film's popularity than B.O imo. It definitely is not the most reliable, but it is better than BO. Too many factors affect BO numbers, whereas critic/fan reviews reflect the opinion behind those numbers.

About the homosexuality and feminist themes during the Craig era; yes I do think it's a problem. The Bond in QoS is calculated to draw the widest possible demographics, a universal Bond if you will, one who abandons the iconic playboy lifestyle of James Bond in favour of an effeminate metrosexual persona—devoid of virility, Bond is, in a sense, emasculated to appease feminists, to accord with political correctness, and, on another level, to appeal to gay audiences; yet as an uncouth thug, he also plays straight into the sentiment of a world that, perhaps more vulgar and crass than ever, can no longer remember the concept of “debonair.” In other words, QoS is a Bond film that shuns the spirit of Fleming’s credo. “I have no message for suffering humanity,” Fleming declared, emphasizing that his books were written for a specific audience, “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, airplanes or beds”.

Now, I see nothing wrong with trying to appeal to gays and feminists, but I also see no point to go to great lengths to do so. Yes the Brosnan era started it, but the reboot era just multiplied it. I've seen more skin on Craig than I have on any of the Bond girls during this era. Olga K. doesn't hesitate to take it all off for any magazine that asks, but she keeps all her clothes on during QoS? It's almost like saying Bond girls can't be overtly sexual anymore. I don't sense any sexual tension (Solange & Fields being the very brief exceptions) or sparks flying off on screen. Plus the whole M being his mother figure really doesn't help. M's his bloody boss, not bosom buddy/mum.

Craig caters to the rest of us? Does that make it okay? Why not go the extra yard and make him a cross-dressing male escort in his spare time? We might as well cater to that crowd as well...Why is it that the portrayals of Tony Stark of Ironman and Bruce Wayne of Batman have no need to cater to anybody but their own respective characters? All this 'family entertainment' and PC crap has taken over what the essence of Bond is really about. I also find it strange and very 'American' that the violence has been upped at the expense of sexuality.

All this is my opinion of course, and I don't mean offence. I just get the sense that Eon are playing it safe and/or are waiting to see someone else attempt a Dr. No for the 21st Century simply because it is beyond them. As magnificent as Craig is, his Bond personality doesn't stand out, and the whole reboot idea has already run out of steam. I honestly believe there is a niche for a character that marches to the beat of his own drum and shows others how to do it. A character that is not only unapologetic about himself, but also his history (we saw hints of this in CR). Constantly diluting the character so to have him 'cater' to everyone is equivalent to feeding him poison in small doses.

[Sniperscope]

About the homosexuality and feminist themes during the Craig era; yes I do think it's a problem. The Bond in QoS is calculated to draw the widest possible demographics, a universal Bond if you will, one who abandons the iconic playboy lifestyle of James Bond in favour of an effeminate metrosexual persona—devoid of virility, Bond is, in a sense, emasculated to appease feminists, to accord with political correctness, and, on another level, to appeal to gay audiences; yet as an uncouth thug, he also plays straight into the sentiment of a world that, perhaps more vulgar and crass than ever, can no longer remember the concept of “debonair.” In other words, QoS is a Bond film that shuns the spirit of Fleming’s credo. “I have no message for suffering humanity,” Fleming declared, emphasizing that his books were written for a specific audience, “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, airplanes or beds”.
Now, I see nothing wrong with trying to appeal to gays and feminists, but I also see no point to go to great lengths to do so. Yes the Brosnan era started it, but the reboot era just multiplied it. I've seen more skin on Craig than I have on any of the Bond girls during this era. Olga K. doesn't hesitate to take it all off for any magazine that asks, but she keeps all her clothes on during QoS? It's almost like saying Bond girls can't be overtly sexual anymore. I don't sense any sexual tension (Solange & Fields being the very brief exceptions) or sparks flying off on screen. Plus the whole M being his mother figure really doesn't help. M's his bloody boss, not bosom buddy/mum.

***

Actually Eddie, I do find myself agreeing with your analysis of the current representation of Bond, but I don't have any particular issue with it.
I can recognise that we live in a very different era than the one in which Fleming was writing and Bond's chauvinism seems quaint or immature by today's standards. Some people are probably even offended by it. Certainly when I watch any of Rog's Bonds these days I often roll my eyes at the dodgy lines he pulls on the ladies and his somewhat camp machismo...
In some ways Craig's Bond is a perfect amplification for the uncertain position of heterosexual males in the 21st century, certainly something that many men, including me, could comment on. I do agree that the last two Bond girls have been heavily de-sexualized which says more about the ridiculous notion that Bond should be PG-13 than any notion of PC. I was very disappointed with Olga in this regard! (Especailly after seeing her in "L'Annualire"! *phew*)
But I find the notion of M as "Mum" as just a bit of a joke really, it's nothing to get too serious about! Really it's more reflective of psychoanalysis than Feminism...

***

Craig caters to the rest of us? Does that make it okay? Why not go the extra yard and make him a cross-dressing male escort in his spare time? We might as well cater to that crowd as well...Why is it that the portrayals of Tony Stark of Ironman and Bruce Wayne of Batman have no need to cater to anybody but their own respective characters? All this 'family entertainment' and PC crap has taken over what the essence of Bond is really about. I also find it strange and very 'American' that the violence has been upped at the expense of sexuality.

***

This to me is the biggest worry about the direction of modern cinema and I do agree with you 100%, It's largely driven by a repressive, Judeo-Christian, middle-American morality that is so false and dishonest.
Apparently it is fine to show any amount of violence, murder, torture, sadism and frequently valorise this blood-lust as acceptable "entertainment" and yet you can never show a moment of beauty between a man and a woman.
That's all wrong. Sexuality is demonised as 'dirty' or 'sinful' while violence becomes 'good' and 'entertaining.' But this is nothing new with Hollywood... In fact do you notice that both Solange and Fields with whom Bond is overtly sexual are both doomed to die horribly. I'm sure there's a not too subtle message there from the conservatives!
Perhaps it's time that Bond forgot about the US market and aimed it squarely at a more open-minded rest-of-the world or stop going for such a low censorship rating.

***

All this is my opinion of course, and I don't mean offence. I just get the sense that Eon are playing it safe and/or are waiting to see someone else attempt a Dr. No for the 21st Century simply because it is beyond them. As magnificent as Craig is, his Bond personality doesn't stand out, and the whole reboot idea has already run out of steam. I honestly believe there is a niche for a character that marches to the beat of his own drum and shows others how to do it. A character that is not only unapologetic about himself, but also his history (we saw hints of this in CR). Constantly diluting the character so to have him 'cater' to everyone is equivalent to feeding him poison in small doses.

***

No offense taken Eddie! Your points are well made and I agree with many of them.
I do think you're being a bit melodramatic with the notion that the reboot has run out of steam, but I guess Bond 23 will be the clincher.

Edited by Sniperscope, 23 February 2009 - 05:30 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

This to me is the biggest worry about the direction of modern cinema and I do agree with you 100%, It's largely driven by a repressive, Judeo-Christian, middle-American morality that is so false and dishonest.
Apparently it is fine to show any amount of violence, murder, torture, sadism and frequently valorise this blood-lust as acceptable "entertainment" and yet you can never show a moment of beauty between a man and a woman.
That's all wrong. Sexuality is demonised as 'dirty' or 'sinful' while violence becomes 'good' and 'entertaining.' But this is nothing new with Hollywood... In fact do you notice that both Solange and Fields with whom Bond is overtly sexual are both doomed to die horribly. I'm sure there's a not too subtle message there from the conservatives!
Perhaps it's time that Bond forgot about the US market and aimed it squarely at a more open-minded rest-of-the world or stop going for such a low censorship rating.

***

Yes, I agree with this. And I still miss- from the final cut- the scene between Bond and Vesper swimming supposedly nude, I wonder if that cut had to do with this tendency of the american market.

... In another subjects. I agree with Eddie Burns regarding that RT and IMDb are better (although not perfect)indicators of a film's popularity than B.O for the same reasons that he exposed. However, I disagree with him about of his description of Craig's Bond.

I think Bond always have been at some stretch a little metrosexual- basically because he's vain and doesn't have afraid to admit it (maybe 007 was a pioneer in this tendency, sadly this concept most of times is presented in a scornful and caricature way)-, but never effeminate or devoid of virility, with the only exception of Brosnan's Bond- just remember for instance, his non commanding tone of voice, to say the least-.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 February 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[Sniperscope]

I think Bond always have been at some stretch a little metro-sexual- basically because he's vain and doesn't have afraid to admit it (maybe 007 was a pioneer in this tendency, sadly this concept most of times is presented in a scornful and caricature way)-, but never effeminate or devoid of virility, with the only exception of Brosnan's Bond- just remember for instance, his non commanding tone of voice, to say the least-.

You're quite right Mr A-B.
Certainly Fleming portrayed Bond as not only vain but also extremely fussy as to the right way to dress or do things (like boiling an egg!)... the novels of course gave a balance to this by giving him an appetite for women that tended towards the cruel.
Certainly the term metrosexual has become a scornful one in general usage, when it first emerged in the late 90s it wasn't treated with such derision and it had a tone that I think suited Bond more perfectly.

[Eddie Burns]

I probably am being melodramatic Sniper, but in all honesty look at how dead the forums are. Compared to how they were after CR, everything seems rather flat. I'm not really anticipating the next film because, apart from a few things here and there, it all appears as we will have seen it all before or somewhere else (ahem...Bourne).

The reboot should have been way more than Vesper. It should have been about the greyness of his profession, the grandeur of being a 00 (you get the sense from the books of how proud Bond is of being one), maybe delve slightly into how the 00 section functions, the trouble with killing and death, his seduction powers, and the growth of a legend...a man both feared and respected by his enemies. A man so good at what he did that his name and personality alone transcended his profession...a man that could check in at The Dorchester on short notice and still be given the best room. These areas are what I expected to be covered during this reboot...but now Eon tell me that Vesper was the woman solely responsible for shaping Bond, and that he can't grow any further. That he's now the man we all know and love and the fully formed legend that he's known for. Well that was quick! QoS was in a hurry to rush his development when in reality there are enough themes in the Bond universe to shape the character over 3-4 films.

The reason I believe the reboot failed is because nobody cares about Vesper (she's already forgotten), nobody really cares about Bond's development(why else all the calls for Q & MP...because Bond doesn't seem interesting as a character himself any more). The audience is left none the wiser about Bond than in Dr. No. So what exactly has the reboot achieved? Pointlessness.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I probably am being melodramatic Sniper, but in all honesty look at how dead the forums are. Compared to how they were after CR, everything seems rather flat. I'm not really anticipating the next film because, apart from a few things here and there, it all appears as we will have seen it all before or somewhere else (ahem...Bourne).

The reboot should have been way more than Vesper. It should have been about the greyness of his profession, the grandeur of being a 00 (you get the sense from the books of how proud Bond is of being one), maybe delve slightly into how the 00 section functions, the trouble with killing and death, his seduction powers, and the growth of a legend...a man both feared and respected by his enemies. A man so good at what he did that his name and personality alone transcended his profession...a man that could check in at The Dorchester on short notice and still be given the best room. These areas are what I expected to be covered during this reboot...but now Eon tell me that Vesper was the woman solely responsible for shaping Bond, and that he can't grow any further. That he's now the man we all know and love and the fully formed legend that he's known for. Well that was quick! QoS was in a hurry to rush his development when in reality there are enough themes in the Bond universe to shape the character over 3-4 films.

I'm in the other opposite, I thought that one film (CR) was enough to the reboot thing, because IMO (and also Campbell's) Bond is already the beautiful machine that we all know and love at the last scene of Craig's debut, just like 007 was at the finale of Fleming's first novel.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 February 2009 - 10:00 PM.

[Daddy Bond]

I probably am being melodramatic Sniper, but in all honesty look at how dead the forums are. Compared to how they were after CR, everything seems rather flat. I'm not really anticipating the next film because, apart from a few things here and there, it all appears as we will have seen it all before or somewhere else (ahem...Bourne).

The reboot should have been way more than Vesper. It should have been about the greyness of his profession, the grandeur of being a 00 (you get the sense from the books of how proud Bond is of being one), maybe delve slightly into how the 00 section functions, the trouble with killing and death, his seduction powers, and the growth of a legend...a man both feared and respected by his enemies. A man so good at what he did that his name and personality alone transcended his profession...a man that could check in at The Dorchester on short notice and still be given the best room. These areas are what I expected to be covered during this reboot...but now Eon tell me that Vesper was the woman solely responsible for shaping Bond, and that he can't grow any further. That he's now the man we all know and love and the fully formed legend that he's known for. Well that was quick! QoS was in a hurry to rush his development when in reality there are enough themes in the Bond universe to shape the character over 3-4 films.

I'm in the other opposite, I thought that one film (CR) was enough to the reboot thing, because IMO (and also Campbell's) Bond is already the beautiful machine that we all known and love at the last scene of Craig's debut, just like 007 was at the finale of Fleming's first novel.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to take any more time to develop the character. I'm ready to get on with Craig as Bond.