887 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

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.

Again I find myself agreeing with many of your points Eddie. I too would have loved to see Bond explore the "greyness" of the profession and a lot of your ideas about how the Bond reboot could have gone strike a chord with me. I too am tired of the whole Vesper thing. Heck, I didn't even like her that much in the first place!!! (Caterina M being more my cup of tea.)
For me my all time favourite Bond moment has always been the "greyness" in TLD when Dalton said that M could sack him and he'd thank him after failing to kill Kara. It was almost Callan-esque if you remember that classic TV series and so wonderfully true to Fleming.
In all honesty I do get echoes of that from Craig's tenure so far and QoS (for me) had some of the world-weary grittiness that I expect from the spy-thriller genre... The London scenes, Bond visiting Mathis, the Bolivian hotel sequence, the dumpster moment, Camile trying to shoot Bond, the Eco-hotel scenes, Bond and Greene in the desert, Bond and Yusef... all of these remind me a lot of those down-beat spy books by Deighton and LeCarre that I grew up with in tone rather than content...
I do agree that there needs to be a classy cool (but not camp) to Craig that has been lacking so far. Have you seen the excellent TV series "Hustle"? In some ways when I watch that I wish Craig's Bond had a touch of the Mickey Stone about him... a kind of a grifter character who is cool and stylish as well as cunning... (although Mickey can get a little prissy but so could Fleming's Bond.)
It also goes without saying that Jaime Murray would be just the ultimate Bond girl!!! She would give Diana Rigg a run, that's for sure!
The characterisation of Bond / arc-thing is a little overplayed though, Eddie, and I don't think it's been pointless. True it's all been a bit quick but we've had more character development in the last two films than we did in the preceeding 20 and Bond is at the highest profile it's been for, what, 10 years?!
But all in all I loved QoS and can't wait to see it on DVD. I'm hopeful about Bond 23 and I think the production team is probably a bit miffed with all the Bourne comparisons so I would expect a different direction. But only time will tell!

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 February 2009 - 07:32 AM.

[blueman]

Thought QOS was the best exploration yet of the grey areas of Bondian espionage: Bond sure-footedly going after Quantum AND tracking the one man with the answers to his very personal questions re Vesper. Great sum-up at the end - M: "I need you back." Bond: "I never left." Highlights what a terrific job Forster/Zetumer/et al did on this Bond film, very reminiscent of the last act of OHMSS. Bond staying true to his path regardless of MI6 stumbling along in the dark behind him is a much more satisfying storyline than say a completely off-the-leash Bourne/LTK type story; Fleming often had Bond go about business his own way - notably in YOLT, best Fleming-mirror to QOS (the film).

As a fan I'd love for EON to slow down reboot-Bond's development into "Bond, James Bond," just doubt the average movie-goer would be as patient. IMO how they've done it so far with CR/QOS is about as good as one could expect, and looking forward to 23 being a good old fashioned Bond caper ala GF.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Bond staying true to his path regardless of MI6 stumbling along in the dark behind him is a much more satisfying storyline than say a completely off-the-leash Bourne/LTK type story; Fleming often had Bond go about business his own way - notably in YOLT, best Fleming-mirror to QOS (the film).

That's one of the main reason why I prefer QOS over LTK (the worst Bond movie, IMO).

[Mr. Blofeld]

Bond staying true to his path regardless of MI6 stumbling along in the dark behind him is a much more satisfying storyline than say a completely off-the-leash Bourne/LTK type story; Fleming often had Bond go about business his own way - notably in YOLT, best Fleming-mirror to QOS (the film).

That's one of the main reason why I prefer QOS over LTK (the worst Bond movie, IMO).

I agree with blueman; QOS is pretty similar to YOLT, especially in the way the British are attempting to wrangle a piece of the intelligence community from the Americans.

[Eddie Burns]

I guess its different strokes for different folks.

Some on here seem satisfied with what they've seen so far, saying we've had more character development in the last two than any of the previous ones. Again, why compare this reboot era to the one before it? It's broken free from those shackles and CR upped the game.

QoS felt like a spoof of James Bond, only to be taken seriously instead of being played for laughs. The recycling of previous Bond scenes, M, action man Bond, etc...nothing original, all borrowed from the past or from rival franchises. This movie was just a mash-up of things taken from here and there. It raises more questions than it can answer and like I mentioned earlier, apart from being able to jump from building to building, the audience is none the wiser about Bond than we were for DN. Vesper should have defined Craig's Bond but nobody really cares about her and nobody wants to care, which I think is the most damning.

[JimmyBond]

Again, why compare this reboot era to the one before it? It's broken free from those shackles and CR upped the game.

The same reason people compare the Dalton films to the Connery films or the Moore films to the Brosnan films. They may all be different eras but they're all part of the same film series.

[Sniperscope]

I guess its different strokes for different folks.

Some on here seem satisfied with what they've seen so far, saying we've had more character development in the last two than any of the previous ones. Again, why compare this reboot era to the one before it? It's broken free from those shackles and CR upped the game.

QoS felt like a spoof of James Bond, only to be taken seriously instead of being played for laughs. The recycling of previous Bond scenes, M, action man Bond, etc...nothing original, all borrowed from the past or from rival franchises. This movie was just a mash-up of things taken from here and there. It raises more questions than it can answer and like I mentioned earlier, apart from being able to jump from building to building, the audience is none the wiser about Bond than we were for DN. Vesper should have defined Craig's Bond but nobody really cares about her and nobody wants to care, which I think is the most damning.

In recent posts I've agreed with a lot of your points Eddie and I know you're disillusioned with QoS but you're going a wee bit overboard! I don't think you're correct in presuming that the "reboot" era has broken free from the "shackles" of the past. Apart from Bond "beginning again" in terms of being a OO, there is a lot that connects it back to the series as a whole. Dench specifically bridges the Craig and Bond eras which certainly problematises any cut-and dried notion that you may have about the latest era being disassociated with the previous 40 years. Anyway isn't the arrival of any new actor in the role a "reboot" of sorts anyway?
When you say QoS is a spoof then I know you're just having a laugh. "Played for laughs"??? Eddie, you yourself have said it was the most humourless Bond you've witnessed. So it's "played for laughs" what, more than DAF? MR? Octopussy? DAD? C'mon old chap you can't be serious!
Yep - nobody cares much about Vesper. Sorry mate, but I never took to her much in the first place and it's very difficult to sustain any kind of emotion for her over a new film unless the producers want to remake Bond into a soap opera. It's not "damning" at all. We mourned her in CR and we, like Bond got over her quickly in QoS because he's a pro and he's got a job to do.
I'm sure Eddie you've watched all the Bond films, so tell me, when haven't they been a mash-up of their own past? Bond is easily the most self-referential film series there is and one of things that lead to its slow death up to the 90s was it's "mash-up" navel-gazing in Broz's era! Both CR and QoS have strong elements from the past, but they have struck out in new and unexpected directions.
As for "rival franchises," by which I imagine you're referring to Bourne, my question is when did Bourne become the standard for originality, especially considering the enormous debt it owes to both Fleming and the filmic Bond. Maybe you need to recognise that over the last 20 years the action film market is so oversaturated that it's almost impossible to do anything genuinely new anyway.
QoS achieved quite a few surprising things in a Bond film and none of which owe anything to Bourne or its own past. The horse race, opera scene, and Mathis' dumping are clear examples. But I suppose you'll just brand those efforts as "arty" and thereby dismiss the attempt to do something new.

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 February 2009 - 09:06 AM.

[blueman]

Vesper should have defined Craig's Bond but nobody really cares about her and nobody wants to care, which I think is the most damning.

Erm, I think you missed that one part in QOS... like, the entire film.

I can think of few characters in literature or film who'd go through what Craig's Bond does in QOS to find the answer to the one question that haunts - hell, defines - him, and from the only man that can give him the answer to that question. Everyone tells Bond, Vesper loved him, Vesper made a deal to save his life, Vesper died for him... so he should simply accept it and move on, yes? Stop whatever new bad guy with his flavor-of-the-month space laser, make not-so-witty quips with the new Moneypenny, etc. etc. Right? EON's old Bond would do - and has done - just that, sure.

QOS adds to the myth of EON's Bond what YOLT added to Fleming's Bond, even one-ups it: instead of a straight revenge tale, Forster and co. crafted a film wherein Bond's mission runs parallel to his own secret agenda, and instead of an external enemy we now have Quantum's tentacles turning Bond's allies and even his own boss against him. It's an amazing construction and completely unprecedented in EON's series to have an entire film do this. Bond stays on the job through all obstacles and suffering major sacrifices, AND finds the man with whom he has "unfinished business." Bond finds his quantum of solace. Taking down Greene is ancillary to that throughline but necessary in order to complete it.

Can't help but think watching QOS, this is Fleming's Bond. Might not be perfect in its execution, but it's damn close and closer than any Bond has come since OHMSS. Just a shame they couldn't fit a giant squid in there somewhere... maybe 23?

(gosh that all reads syrupy, oh well )

[HH007]

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.

Again I find myself agreeing with many of your points Eddie. I too would have loved to see Bond explore the "greyness" of the profession and a lot of your ideas about how the Bond reboot could have gone strike a chord with me. I too am tired of the whole Vesper thing. Heck, I didn't even like her that much in the first place!!! (Caterina M being more my cup of tea.)

Are you freaking kidding me??? Eva Green is drop dead gorgeous, and she's a MUCH better actress.

Anyway, regarding Eddie's comment about the Bond re-boot should have been less about Vesper, a defining characteristic of Bond in the films is the way he treats women. We were used to seeing Bond treat women like "disposable pleasures." With Vesper in CR, he falls in love for real, gets his heart broken, and that's why he won't let any woman get close to him anymore. It also makes him much more proficient in his job, and it explains why he's very careful about who he trusts. Tragic love stories have always been a major component of drama, I don't see why Bond should be any different. And I think they do cover the greyness of his profession by showing it.

[Sniperscope]

Are you freaking kidding me??? Eva Green is drop dead gorgeous, and she's a MUCH better actress.

LOL! I couldn't care less who's the better actress!!! It's all about what gets you shaken and stirred my friend!

[Eddie Burns]

Again, why compare this reboot era to the one before it? It's broken free from those shackles and CR upped the game.

The same reason people compare the Dalton films to the Connery films or the Moore films to the Brosnan films. They may all be different eras but they're all part of the same film series.

That makes sense. But isn't one insinuating that the Bond's pre-reboot are all linked by a thread somehow, and that CR and QoS are very different? Saying,'Look! there is character development, we never had that before...this era is the best ever!!' is rather pointless when the Bonds of yesteryear weren't very concerned with character development. I'm extremely pleased with the introduction of character development recently, but I'm not going to put down a previous era just so I can big up the current one, something I notice is prevalent with 90% of Bond fans. Bunch of bandwagon jumpers we are.


When you say QoS is a spoof then I know you're just having a laugh. "Played for laughs"??? Eddie, you yourself have said it was the most humourless Bond you've witnessed. So it's "played for laughs" what, more than DAF? MR? Octopussy? DAD? C'mon old chap you can't be serious!

*Sigh*...please read my post again. I said instead of playing for laughs, it feels like a spoof meant to be taken seriously. That's strictly my opinion. All the homages, punchlines, in fact everything feels like a Bourne/Bond spoof only played seriously.

I'm sure Eddie you've watched all the Bond films, so tell me, when haven't they been a mash-up of their own past?

Let me see...DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR. Now that's a hefty number isn't it? Sure they all have a Q/Moneypenny/M scenes, but they are part of the furniture, same as the tuxedo, the PPK, etc. Same as the Joker, Batmobile, Bat signal in the Batman films. In a film series one has to come to expect a few things to be there, its the rest of the film that should be judged. Of those films mentioned above, not one scene from one film is used to homage another. In fact looking at the list, one can only marvel at the creativity and genius of Cubby and co. The homages in QoS were a creative cop out because they weren't necessary.

As for "rival franchises," by which I imagine you're referring to Bourne, my question is when did Bourne become the standard for originality, especially considering the enormous debt it owes to both Fleming and the filmic Bond. Maybe you need to recognise that over the last 20 years the action film market is so oversaturated that it's almost impossible to do anything genuinely new anyway.

Bourne is the main man right now. Eon were caught napping as soon as TBI came out. In fact, I'd go as far back as when Mission Impossible came out to point out how far out of touch Eon were and still are. Both those movies upped the ante. Bond has been trying to catch up ever since. Your claim that the action film market is oversaturated thus making anything new almost impossible may be true but sounds very defeatist. Bradley was hired to do what he did on the Bourne movies without actually asking him to stretch his talents and provide something new. His reputation was not enhanced by QoS since his material for other movies overshadowed what he did for this one...and he had a bigger budget. That in itself says a lot.

Eon need to wake up and treat their product with respect. Hire a director NOW and tell him to read at least 3 Fleming books and other Bond books to give him a sense of understanding, history, and importance of the character (unless he's M. Campbell). Give him time to establish his vision and work with the writers. I don't want a snobby arty director ever again unless he respects the foundations of the character, and doesn't see himself as above Bond. Honestly, if Spielberg thinks he's good enough for Bond, where the hell does Forster get off acting all high and mighty? Get rid of Marxist Haggis and get someone to add a touch of glamour and grace to the writing. Let this new director become immersed in the world of Bond for a year or so before production. Campbell spoke of the fan conventions he attended after GE wrapped and was surprised at the questions that were thrown at him regarding the new Bond universe. Before this he never took Bond seriously. I believe this experience whipped him into shape for CR, hence why the two films feel very different. It was his approach and his respect for the character that shone through in CR. Forster on the other hand...meh.

QoS achieved quite a few surprising things in a Bond film and none of which owe anything to Bourne or its own past. The horse race, opera scene, and Mathis' dumping are clear examples. But I suppose you'll just brand those efforts as "arty" and thereby dismiss the attempt to do something new.

The horse race was insignificant. The whole chase could have been inter-cut with anything and still have produced the desired effect. The opera scene was ruined by Forster. Just because its arty and different doesn't mean its good! The invisible car was different and NEVER seen before in cinema but that didn't make it great, same goes for the para-gliding. Come on now. The Mathis dumping of the body caused more confusion than it intended, coupled with the fact that the Bond of Fleming would never do such a thing. I put it that TWINE broke more ground than QoS but the fault of both movies lie in the execution. QoS is just as bad as any film in the Brosnan era.

instead of an external enemy we now have Quantum's tentacles turning Bond's allies and even his own boss against him. It's an amazing construction and completely unprecedented in EON's series to have an entire film do this.

I'll give you this. The one original thing Eon came up with and works well. However, don't people see how pointless the whole adventure was?(For the sake of speculation) By the end of it, Green and Medrano are killed, but Quantum will most likely get the replacements necessary within a week and Bolivia is none the better off. So all Bond achieved really was blowing a few things up, losing Mathis & Fields, all because he wanted to find Yusef. All because he wanted to get over his girlfriend? And to top it off, after all that and the poor posturing at the end, he lets Yusef off without laying a finger on him (not even a back handed slap Red Grant style!)!? Lol! Pathetic. Forster really should stick to his day job...making dull arty films that no one watches.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I have one really quick question involving spoilers: I think that I missed this point, but when Bond opens the trunk of the car in front of the Bolivian police, does he use <Spoilers Here>Mathis as a human shield from the police bullets???? I think that I missed that... If that did happen, then that's really irresponsible on the part of the producers IMO.

[Sniperscope]

*Sigh*...please read my post again. I said instead of playing for laughs, it feels like a spoof meant to be taken seriously. That's strictly my opinion.

Sorry Eddie - I misread your post here and went off half-ar*ed. All apologies!

Your claim that the action film market is oversaturated thus making anything new almost impossible may be true but sounds very defeatist.

I don't think it's defeatist Eddie - it's just a sober view of the reality of contemporary film!

Let me see...DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR. Now that's a hefty number isn't it? Sure they all have a Q/Moneypenny/M scenes, but they are part of the furniture, same as the tuxedo, the PPK, etc. Q/Moneypenny/M scenes, but they are part of the furniture, same as the tuxedo, the PPK, etc.

I think you do mistake the difference between self-referential and recurring motifs, which is in fact what you list here.
M scenes, PPK, tuxedo, etc. are all essential recurring motifs for the sake of continuity in a long running series but they are not self-referential at all! They're icons, like Batman's Bat-symbol.
I would argue CR is in fact self-referential in particular to Campbell's own GE. When I recently rewatched Broz's first film I noted how Campbell seemed to have re-hashed himself. Specifically, when Craig faces down the embassy staff, against Brosnan holding off the Russians in the PTS , the "tank-like" wall-busting of Craig in the free-running against Broz's literal tank wall-busting or even the crane chase in CR against the satellite dish fight in GE .
That to me is being self-referential.

For what you said of QoS, namely...

The recycling of previous Bond scenes, M, action man Bond, etc...nothing original, all borrowed from the past or from rival franchises. This movie was just a mash-up of things taken from here and there.

...should also in all fairness be said of CR too.
Campbell obviously owes a debt to OHMSS and DN for a couple of key sequences that are crucial for setting the tone of CR. Amongst which include the stairway fight which clearly echoes the hotel fight in OHMSS and Dan in bathers which re-imagines Ursula's iconic scene in DN. (Or is it Halle's in DAD?)
These are the kinds of things I was meaning when I said that the Bond series is self-referential and it stands to reason that those films that come later would reference the earlier (and hence potentially more original) films which make up your list. But I don't have a problem with QoS or any other Bond film self-referencing because, as I said before, it's damn near impossible to be completely original nowadays.

Edited by Sniperscope, 28 February 2009 - 11:07 AM.

[Darth Prefect]

OK...Here are the rules for this thread

#1 - No QOS praise. Take that to another thread.
#2 - No indirect QOS praise. Take that to another thread.
#3 - No QOS praise disguised in sarcasm.

Here's the goal of the thread...

To discuss the negative points and aggravating observations that are in QOS.

Why?

Pretty self-evident really.

I'll start...

1. Casino Royale part II. Like CR or not, I prefer to get new stories, not tacked on endings to existing ones.

2. "Let me hold you while you die, only friend I have made in this nasty business, before I unceremoneously dump you in the trash for no particular reason."

3. Action scenes that are impossible to follow and non-action scenes that take forever and go nowhere.

5. The gunbarrel got lost on the way to the editing room and only showed up in time for the closing credits.


Have something bad to say about QOS, or comment on a negative observation...come on in.

[dinovelvet]

Jim? Anyone?

[Blofeld's Cat]

Here's the goal of the thread...

To discuss the negative points and aggravating observations that are in QOS.

Why?

Why indeed, but that's just me. Unleash the dogs of war.....

[Darth Prefect]

when Bond opens the trunk of the car in front of the Bolivian police, does he ...

I don't think so.

Spoiler

Bond and the police believe that Mathis is already dead and they actually shout "he's moving" (or something like that) and I believe (far from Bond using him as a shield) they are actually shooting *at* Mathis.

[jaguar007]

I have nothing to say here except this looks like a stupid thread.

[JimmyBond]

[Jim]

Threads merged.

You don't have to like it to accept it.

[Major Tallon]

when Bond opens the trunk of the car in front of the Bolivian police, does he ...

I don't think so.

Spoiler

Bond and the police believe that Mathis is already dead and they actually shout "he's moving" (or something like that) and I believe (far from Bond using him as a shield) they are actually shooting *at* Mathis.

I asked this same question a while back, and the general consensus of the replies was a pronounced "No." I watched the sequence closely on my next trip to the cinema, and I agreed. He didn't.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up guys!

This is the last thing I'll say about QoS. Maybe if it didn't HAVE to be so short (105 min.), we could have had a better film. This way, characters would have been developed better and the action scenes would have been competent. But I feel that, because the plot is so simple, there have to be more action scenes to make people forget about the plot. That's just my opinion though.

[MattofSteel]

The more I think about it, the more I love the film. I'm starting to see why (I think) it didn't work for some people, too. And I'm really starting to see why it's kind of a modern OHMSS, minus the snow and the romance.

Forster, as the director, has to bear the weight of scrutiny regardless of whether or not someone considers the film good, or bad. That's his obligation as a director. And I'm finding that as I consider every element of the film, I keep finding new reasons why he's a pretty damned good director.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a good director is. I personally find that in any constructive or artistic endeavour, keeping control of your own execution and the eventual realization of your conceptual ideas is a particularly thing to do, consistently. Hearing some of his recent comments about the "film he set out to make," I just can't get over the fact that he made it - exactly. And it works.

[Emma]

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 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.

I disagree. I don't think that the reboot 'failed' because of Vesper. In fact I think that some of the best parts of Casino Royale were the quiet momments between Bond and Vesper. It was during their exchanges that you were able to get glimpses of Bond and who he was.

The simple fact of the matter is Quantum of Solace was a lousy film that played out more like a glorified video game than anything else. I found Bond completely unlikable and did not wish to see a repeat viewing of the movie. Whereas I saw CR five times (in cinemas) and even went out and bought the script. Right now I am not even sure I am going to get the DVD for QOS. I probably will eventually, but it certainly won't be on the day of release. I will probably wait until I find it at a second hand store.

The reasons the forums are so dead is 1. QOS provides so little food for thought, there really is nothing to discuss. 2. The people who appear to have enjoyed QOS for the most part strike me as very immature and tend to resort to juvenile attacks on anyone who does not share their opinion. It's why I rarely take a peak in here.

Edited by Emma, 02 March 2009 - 04:03 PM.

[Judo chop]

The people who appear to have enjoyed QOS for the most part strike me as very immature and tend to resort to juvenile attacks on anyone who does not share their opinion. It's why I rarely take a peak in here.

I think you reached your peak long ago.

[Mr_Wint]

The more I think about it, the more I love the film. I'm starting to see why (I think) it didn't work for some people, too. And I'm really starting to see why it's kind of a modern OHMSS, minus the snow and the romance.

I don't see any similarity between OHMSS and QOS at all. Two completely different Bondfilms.

Forster, as the director, has to bear the weight of scrutiny regardless of whether or not someone considers the film good, or bad. That's his obligation as a director. And I'm finding that as I consider every element of the film, I keep finding new reasons why he's a pretty damned good director.

I keep finding new reasons for why he should never touch a Bondfilm again.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a good director is. I personally find that in any constructive or artistic endeavour, keeping control of your own execution and the eventual realization of your conceptual ideas is a particularly thing to do, consistently. Hearing some of his recent comments about the "film he set out to make," I just can't get over the fact that he made it - exactly. And it works.

We can never know if QOS is exactly what Forster wanted. But he can always claim that this film is what he "set out to make". Schumacher is saying the same thing about Batman & Robin.

[MattofSteel]

I don't see any similarity between OHMSS and QOS at all. Two completely different Bondfilms.

RE: execution.

I keep finding new reasons for why he should never touch a Bondfilm again.

I'm not sure I'd want another Forster-directed effort, either. One was not bad. But it was enough.

We can never know if QOS is exactly what Forster wanted. But he can always claim that this film is what he "set out to make". Schumacher is saying the same thing about Batman & Robin.

To you, personally?

[Sniperscope]

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 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.

I disagree. I don't think that the reboot 'failed' because of Vesper. In fact I think that some of the best parts of Casino Royale were the quiet momments between Bond and Vesper. It was during their exchanges that you were able to get glimpses of Bond and who he was.

The simple fact of the matter is Quantum of Solace was a lousy film that played out more like a glorified video game than anything else. I found Bond completely unlikable and did not wish to see a repeat viewing of the movie. Whereas I saw CR five times (in cinemas) and even went out and bought the script. Right now I am not even sure I am going to get the DVD for QOS. I probably will eventually, but it certainly won't be on the day of release. I will probably wait until I find it at a second hand store.

The reasons the forums are so dead is 1. QOS provides so little food for thought, there really is nothing to discuss. 2. The people who appear to have enjoyed QOS for the most part strike me as very immature and tend to resort to juvenile attacks on anyone who does not share their opinion. It's why I rarely take a peak in here.

This is as close to trolling it gets Emma! There's no "simple fact of the matter" about anything especially when opinions are involved. This is a lively thread but considering its raison d'être should it be any surprise? But I won't take the bait that you have so obviously dangled...

Edited by Sniperscope, 03 March 2009 - 12:19 AM.

[byline]

The people who appear to have enjoyed QOS for the most part strike me as very immature and tend to resort to juvenile attacks on anyone who does not share their opinion. It's why I rarely take a peak in here.

Pot, meet kettle? That broad brush of yours is closely aligned with what you claim keeps you from peeking in.

[blueman]

The people who appear to have enjoyed QOS for the most part strike me as very immature and tend to resort to juvenile attacks on anyone who does not share their opinion. It's why I rarely take a peak in here.

Pot, meet kettle? That broad brush of yours is closely aligned with what you claim keeps you from peeking in.

My thought.

I think QOS is a different type of Bond film than we've seen in quite a while, and not what a lot of Bond fans expect/prefer. Downgrading that "type of Bond film" bolsters their POV as the correct one (hell I do that with the Glen Bonds and Brosnan, way of the world/human nature/all that).

The important thing here is, Forster made the best Bond since OHMSS.