887 replies to this topic

[Eddie Burns]

No he didn't, Blueman. I find the action and story more enthralling in TLD, and the appreciative nodding to Bond history and forward thinking found in CR is what makes that movie absolute quality for me. QoS is a movie trying to catch up with the times, a movie that isn't definitive whatsoever but a 'we've seen this all somewhere else' vibe. Just because we've never seen it in a Bond movie is what seems to be driving some people wild about Forster. Praising the vision instead of the execution.

Plus Forster, at least to me, will be remembered for creating a movie where the Bourne comparisons have stuck. Now that's not to say CR wasn't influenced by Bourne, because it was, but there was so much going on in that film that distracted away from the Bourne components that existed in it. QoS fails to do that.

Forster succeeded in one thing though, creating a Bond movie very different from the series, while at the same time creating a poor action movie that's overshadowed by many of its peers. Hence the praise in fandom, and the ridicule outside it.

[blueman]

Great thing about opinions, everybody's got one.

[Double-Oh Agent]

No he didn't, Blueman. I find the action and story more enthralling in TLD, and the appreciative nodding to Bond history and forward thinking found in CR is what makes that movie absolute quality for me. QoS is a movie trying to catch up with the times, a movie that isn't definitive whatsoever but a 'we've seen this all somewhere else' vibe. Just because we've never seen it in a Bond movie is what seems to be driving some people wild about Forster. Praising the vision instead of the execution.

Plus Forster, at least to me, will be remembered for creating a movie where the Bourne comparisons have stuck. Now that's not to say CR wasn't influenced by Bourne, because it was, but there was so much going on in that film that distracted away from the Bourne components that existed in it. QoS fails to do that.

Good points Eddie.

[Sniperscope]

Forster succeeded in one thing though, creating a Bond movie very different from the series, while at the same time creating a poor action movie that's overshadowed by many of its peers. Hence the praise in fandom, and the ridicule outside it.

"Many of its peers"? That's hyperbole Eddie - its only "peer" (which is a recent and no doubt limited future franchise) is Bourne and 2007's Ultimatum made $442mil against QoS's $574mil at the BO so that's not exactly "overshadowed"...
But that aside, there used to be a lot of "ridicule" aimed at OHMSS too, especially outside "fandom" in the not so dim past - but with the passage of time and a less reactionary stance it is now recognised by most as one of the top 10 or even top 5 Bond films of all time.
I think that given time QoS will solicit a similar reassessment. Right now, for many (as it was with OHMSS), QoS is a curiosity, an anomaly, possibly even a heresy. But let's talk about this again in say, 10 years eh, Eddie when it has been allowed to suitably mature! Then QoS can be judged in the wider context of Craig's era.

Edited by Sniperscope, 05 March 2009 - 06:12 AM.

[scottish peasant]

Wow. Lot of angst around a film that is no more a miss than 50% or more of Bond films (not saying that is my opinion of QOS).

Emma - your generalizations are insulting.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Forster succeeded in one thing though, creating a Bond movie very different from the series, while at the same time creating a poor action movie that's overshadowed by many of its peers. Hence the praise in fandom, and the ridicule outside it.

"Many of its peers"? That's hyperbole Eddie - its only "peer" (which is a recent and no doubt limited future franchise) is Bourne and 2007's Ultimatum made $442mil against QoS's $574mil at the BO so that's not exactly "overshadowed"...
But that aside, there used to be a lot of "ridicule" aimed at OHMSS too, especially outside "fandom" in the not so dim past - but with the passage of time and a less reactionary stance it is now recognised by most as one of the top 10 or even top 5 Bond films of all time.
I think that given time QoS will solicit a similar reassessment. Right now, for many (as it was with OHMSS), QoS is a curiosity, an anomaly, possibly even a heresy.

QOS is a curiosity or an anomally, for good or bad reasons, only among the fandom. Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie, catching with these- Bourne- times, nothing really special (just like the franchise has done it before with the likes of MR or LTK). Fact that is proved for its average or 'mixed' critic reception.

So, I don't see any OHMSS kind of path for QOS.

P.D.: And don't give me the argument of the good result in the BO that QOS had. Because, DAD also had good numbers, but I don't think that can anyone could reasonably state that Brosnan's last entry is a 'gem' that going to be discovered within 10 years.

[Mr_Wint]

Why do some people need 5-10 years before they can decide how much they really like a particular film?

It sounds like rocket science.

[Sniperscope]

Why do some people need 5-10 years before they can decide how much they really like a particular film?

It sounds like rocket science.

Yeah and that sounds like condescension.
Couldn't be bothered to read the whole post eh? How bout you take the comment in its context mr w rather than just picking it out in isolation hmm?

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 March 2009 - 10:32 PM.

[Sniperscope]

Forster succeeded in one thing though, creating a Bond movie very different from the series, while at the same time creating a poor action movie that's overshadowed by many of its peers. Hence the praise in fandom, and the ridicule outside it.

"Many of its peers"? That's hyperbole Eddie - its only "peer" (which is a recent and no doubt limited future franchise) is Bourne and 2007's Ultimatum made $442mil against QoS's $574mil at the BO so that's not exactly "overshadowed"...
But that aside, there used to be a lot of "ridicule" aimed at OHMSS too, especially outside "fandom" in the not so dim past - but with the passage of time and a less reactionary stance it is now recognised by most as one of the top 10 or even top 5 Bond films of all time.
I think that given time QoS will solicit a similar reassessment. Right now, for many (as it was with OHMSS), QoS is a curiosity, an anomaly, possibly even a heresy.

QOS is a curiosity or an anomally, for good or bad reasons, only among the fandom. Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie, catching with these- Bourne- times, nothing really special (just like the franchise has done it before with the likes of MR or LTK). Fact that is proved for its average or 'mixed' critic reception.

So, I don't see any OHMSS kind of path for QOS.

P.D.: And don't give me the argument of the good result in the BO that QOS had. Because, DAD also had good numbers, but I don't think that can anyone could reasonably state that Brosnan's last entry is a 'gem' that going to be discovered within 10 years.

Oh please Mr A-B! I did not use the BO to suggest its numbers validate QoS (or your input of DAD) as "undiscovered gems": I was using the numbers to refute Eddie's assertion that Bond has been "overshadowed" by his peers. You're conflating two separate points.
My comment re. 10 years was a little tongue in cheek but I was merely pointing out that A) over time views change and OHMSS seemed a good analogy; B) that maybe we should examine QoS down the track in the full light of Craig's era.
Have I made that clear enough on both separate points now Mr A-B lest you should misunderstand my meaning again?!?

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 March 2009 - 10:35 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

Why do some people need 5-10 years before they can decide how much they really like a particular film?

It sounds like rocket science.

Yeah and that sounds like condescension.
Couldn't be bothered to read the whole post eh? How bout you take the comment in its context mr w rather than just picking it out in isolation hmm?

You are perfectly right about my lack of enthusiasm for whatever you post here. But I did, by a mere coincident, read this: "...let's talk about this again in say, 10 years eh, Eddie when it has been allowed to suitably mature! Then QoS can be judged in the wider context of Craig's era."

Hence, my reply.

[Sniperscope]

Why do some people need 5-10 years before they can decide how much they really like a particular film?

It sounds like rocket science.

Yeah and that sounds like condescension.
Couldn't be bothered to read the whole post eh? How bout you take the comment in its context mr w rather than just picking it out in isolation hmm?

You are perfectly right about my lack of enthusiasm for whatever you post here. But I did, by a mere coincident, read this: "...let's talk about this again in say, 10 years eh, Eddie when it has been allowed to suitably mature! Then QoS can be judged in the wider context of Craig's era."

Hence, my reply.

"You are perfectly right about my lack of enthusiasm for whatever you post here." You're having a laugh, yeah? Because who are you agreeing with here? I never noted your "lack of enthusiasm" for my post.
Oh now I understand it "whatever you post here" you say, so it's just a personal dislike for "whatever" I say rather than an attempt to argue a point! Thanks for clearing that up. And since it was apparently a "coincidence" that you were reading how bout you try for a second such happenstance and take in the full post. You're still not looking at the context of my comment regarding how films are reassessed over time. It was a little tongue in cheek but I guess that kind of nuance would escape you Mr W.
Hence, my reply.

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 March 2009 - 11:08 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why do some people need 5-10 years before they can decide how much they really like a particular film?

It sounds like rocket science.

Yeah and that sounds like condescension.
Couldn't be bothered to read the whole post eh? How bout you take the comment in its context mr w rather than just picking it out in isolation hmm?

You are perfectly right about my lack of enthusiasm for whatever you post here. But I did, by a mere coincident, read this: "...let's talk about this again in say, 10 years eh, Eddie when it has been allowed to suitably mature! Then QoS can be judged in the wider context of Craig's era."

Hence, my reply.

"You are perfectly right about my lack of enthusiasm for whatever you post here." You're having a laugh, yeah? Because who are you agreeing with here? I never noted your "lack of enthusiasm" for my post.
Oh now I understand it "whatever you post here" you say, so it's just a personal dislike for "whatever" I say rather than an attempt to argue a point! Thanks for clearing that up. And since it was apparently a "coincidence" that you were reading how bout you try for a second such happenstance and take in the full post. You're still not looking at the context of my comment regarding how films are reassessed over time. It was a little tongue in cheek but I guess that kind of nuance would escape you Mr W.
Hence, my reply.

You're criticizing to Mr. Wint for make a reply to your post without taking to account you full post. Ironically, it seems that you have made the same with mine, because your response focus only in my P.D. (which, by the way, wasn't pointing directing at you- unlike the rest of it- but to several fans that use the BO numbers of QOS to sustain a supposed universal acclaim of this movie) and not in the heart of my post, in which I was arguing why I don't believe that QOS situation is similar to the one that OHMSS had in its time.

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

[Sniperscope]

You're criticizing to Mr. Wint for make a reply to your post without taking to account you full post. Ironically, it seems that you have made the same with mine, because your response focus only in my P.D. (which, by the way, wasn't pointing directing at you- unlike the rest of it- but to several fans that use the BO numbers of QOS to sustain a supposed universal acclaim of this movie) and not in the heart of my post, in which I was arguing why I don't believe that QOS situation is similar to the one that OHMSS had in its time.

Oh really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You are doing my head in Mr A-B and I'm going to be blunt here because I'm guessing nuance is lost on you too...
You said, and I quote:"And don't give me the argument of...etc etc"
Hmmmmmm? Now tell me how EXACTLY does this not relate to ME when you are in fact REPLYING TO A POST I MADE????? If you had said ""And to all those who give me the argument of..." that would clearly state you are talking to anyone else but me. But you did not. Considering it was me who brought up the BO, then tell me, to whom could it have been addressed??? Afterall, it was a postscript to a discussion with me.
Absolute nonsense, Mr A-B!
I did take into account your entire post but had noticed that you had MISINTERPRETED my comments, which to a certain degree invalidated your own. Therefore, it was my intention to set it straight with you, hence, points A) and B), which related DIRECTLY to what you have MISINTERPRETED.
OK? Are we OK now?

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 March 2009 - 06:01 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You're criticizing to Mr. Wint for make a reply to your post without taking to account you full post. Ironically, it seems that you have made the same with mine, because your response focus only in my P.D. (which, by the way, wasn't pointing directing at you- unlike the rest of it- but to several fans that use the BO numbers of QOS to sustain a supposed universal acclaim of this movie) and not in the heart of my post, in which I was arguing why I don't believe that QOS situation is similar to the one that OHMSS had in its time.

Oh really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You are doing my head in Mr A-B and I'm going to be blunt here because I'm guessing nuance is lost on you too...
You said, and I quote:"And don't give me the argument of...etc etc"
Hmmmmmm? Now tell me how EXACTLY does this not relate to ME when you are in fact REPLYING TO A POST I MADE????? If you had said ""And to all those who give me the argument of..." that would clearly state you are talking to anyone else but me. But you did not. Considering it was me who brought up the BO, then tell me, to whom could it have been addressed??? Afterall, it was a postscript to a discussion with me.
Absolute nonsense, Mr A-B!
I did take into account your entire post but had noticed that you had MISINTERPRETED my comments, which to a certain degree invalidated your own. Therefore, it was my intention to set it straight with you, hence, points A) and , which related DIRECTLY to what you have MISINTERPRETED.
OK? Are we OK now?

All right, I should have been more specific, but actually, as I said earlier, I wasn't pointing directely at you, but to anyone who could use that argument (there are several posters who have been using the numbers at the BO of QOS, to try to sustain a supposed universal acclaim of this movie). However, the rest of my post-which is the heart of it- I think still stands, and doesn't have yet any kind of straight answer.

For a reminder (with some additions): Unlike OHMSS which was a rarity for many critics, QOS is a curiosity or an anomally, for good or bad reasons, only among the fandom. Outside of it, no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie, catching with these- Bourne- times, nothing really special (just like the franchise has done it before with MR or LTK, for instance). Fact that is proved for its average or 'mixed' critic reception.

So, I don't see any elements that could suggest a similar path for QOS, as the one that OHMSS had. I mean, I don't think there's another Bond film, besides OHMSS, that has really switch its public perception (in a positive way) with the times.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 March 2009 - 07:24 AM.

[Sniperscope]

For a reminder: QOS is a curiosity or an anomally, for good or bad reasons, only among the fandom. Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie, catching with these- Bourne- times, nothing really special (just like the franchise has done it before with MR or LTK, for instance). Fact that is proved for its average or 'mixed' critic reception.

So, I don't see any OHMSS kind of path for QOS.

As to your point I wasn't avoiding it - it's just that I didn't really see the need to argue. I was merely wondering if in years to come QoS might win the same reassessment that OHMSS got.
Certainly there is always a difference to fandom and the general public and that was my point regarding OHMSS.
Here's two reviews from 1969 of OHMSS that express how divided opinion was on the film.

First the very negative:
"I must say that it's quite a jolly frolic in the familiar money-spinning fashion. Not a penny spared on production values, smart direction from Peter Hunt, and a shrewd eye kept throughout on the well-worn mixture of sex, violence, thrills and laughs... (Lazenby) looks like a Willerby Brothers clothes peg and acts as if he's just come out of of Burton's short on credit. It's reported that he would just as soon go back to lorry driving, and indeed I share his sentiments exactly..." - Derek Malcolm

Now the (sort of) positive:
"Lazenby's voice is more suave than sexy-sinister. But he could pass for the other fellow's twin on the shady side of the casino. In battle tactics there's nothing to let you know which has the better stuntman stand-in. And Lazenby definitely wins in fighting his way alone into a skin-fit shirt... One load Lazenby doesn't have to carry is the electronic gadgetry. He depends on what God, not IBM, gave him, except for a automatic safecracker that slaves away on the enemy's combination while Bond reads the fold-out section of Playboy... The result is a film with far more human action than in most recent Bonds. And a lot more zip and pow, not to mention zowie, inside the action... The film's glaring error is to end four times before it actually does, a sure sign of film-makers so surfeited with good scenes they want to cram them all in - but in the end take our appetite away. But Bond is definitely all set for the Seventies" - Alexander Walker, The Evening Standard.


My point is that both of these reviews (especially Derek Malcolm's which is very nasty) show how divided opinion was on the film and in some ways, to me, they are an echo of the response to QoS which has also been very divided.
My point is that within fandom, OHMSS is certainly well respected and probably in everyone's top 10 at least, but it wasn't always this way. It took many decades before people "rediscovered" OHMSS and gave it the credit it deserves.
Outside of fandom, OHMSS doesn't even register, perhaps making it similar to QoS...
I guess what I was saying, with a little tongue in cheek, is that maybe in 10 years or so we'll see QoS in a more positive light as we look back on the totality of the Craig era...

BTW- you said "Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie" which would actually seem to prove that QoS is as good as CR in the public's eye which I am sure you would not think is the case in light of our many conversations on this point...

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 March 2009 - 07:20 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

For a reminder: QOS is a curiosity or an anomally, for good or bad reasons, only among the fandom. Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie, catching with these- Bourne- times, nothing really special (just like the franchise has done it before with MR or LTK, for instance). Fact that is proved for its average or 'mixed' critic reception.

So, I don't see any OHMSS kind of path for QOS.

As to your point I wasn't avoiding it - it's just that I didn't really see the need to argue. I was merely wondering if in years to come QoS might win the same reassessment that OHMSS got.
Certainly there is always a difference to fandom and the general public and that was my point regarding OHMSS.
Here's two reviews from 1969 of OHMSS that express how divided opinion was on the film.

First the very negative:
"I must say that it's quite a jolly frolic in the familiar money-spinning fashion. Not a penny spared on production values, smart direction from Peter Hunt, and a shrewd eye kept throughout on the well-worn mixture of sex, violence, thrills and laughs... (Lazenby) looks like a Willerby Brothers clothes peg and acts as if he's just come out of of Burton's short on credit. It's reported that he would just as soon go back to lorry driving, and indeed I share his sentiments exactly..." - Derek Malcolm

Now the (sort of) positive:
"Lazenby's voice is more suave than sexy-sinister. But he could pass for the other fellow's twin on the shady side of the casino. In battle tactics there's nothing to let you know which has the better stuntman stand-in. And Lazenby definitely wins in fighting his way alone into a skin-fit shirt... One load Lazenby doesn't have to carry is the electronic gadgetry. He depends on what God, not IBM, gave him, except for a automatic safecracker that slaves away on the enemy's combination while Bond reads the fold-out section of Playboy... The result is a film with far more human action than in most recent Bonds. And a lot more zip and pow, not to mention zowie, inside the action... The film's glaring error is to end four times before it actually does, a sure sign of film-makers so surfeited with good scenes they want to cram them all in - but in the end take our appetite away. But Bond is definitely all set for the Seventies" - Alexander Walker, The Evening Standard.


My point is that both of these reviews (especially Derek Malcolm's which is very nasty) show how divided opinion was on the film and in some ways, to me, they are an echo of the response to QoS which has also been very divided.
My point is that within fandom, OHMSS is certainly well respected and probably in everyone's top 10 at least, but it wasn't always this way. It took many decades before people "rediscovered" OHMSS and gave it the credit it deserves.
Outside of fandom, OHMSS doesn't even register, perhaps making it similar to QoS...
I guess what I was saying, with a little tongue in cheek, is that maybe in 10 years or so we'll see QoS in a more positive light as we look back on the totality of the Craig era...

BTW- you said "Outside no-one care that much about this movie, and it was perceived just like another Bond movie" which would actually seem to prove that QoS is as good as CR in the public's eye

When I said "just like another Bond movie", of course I'm meaning that QOS was received as a regular, average Bond movie, nothing really special outside the fandom, whereas we all know that CR was perceived by the critics as something way above the media within the franchise (fact that is reflected in Rottentomatoes.com with 94% for Craig's debut and only 65% for his second entry).

Besides, the main thing that make so different-and generate controversy- OHMSS, I believe it was the first change in the lead role. And even if that is debatable, the thing is, as I said earlier, that I don't think there's another Bond film, besides OHMSS, that has really switch its public perception (in a positive way) with the times. So, what are the odds for QOS of reapeat the path of one movie, instead of follow the destiny of the other 20, which doesn't increase their popularity through the years?? I think, not very good ones.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 March 2009 - 08:05 AM.

[Sniperscope]

So, what are the odds for QOS of reapeat the path of one movie, instead of follow the destiny of the other 20, which doesn't increase their popularity through the years?? I think, not very good ones.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, Mr A-B.
I was simply wondering aloud...
I remember back in the day I was obsessed with Star Wars, generally disliked Empire Strikes Back and really enjoyed Return of the Jedi. Today, many people, me included, would consider Empire to be the best of the trilogy with Star Wars a very very close second and Return as complete dross. I recognise that in my life my views have changed over time as I have matured but also as a result of seeing and experiencing new things.
As a kid I loved MR. Today I find it vaguely embarrassing. I used to think Holly Goodhead was hot!!! Nowadays she looks to me like a prudish aunt!!! OHMSS didn't do much for me when I first saw it years ago. Today it's one of my favourites. OCTOPUSSY I have never liked, and in that I have remained consistent.
It's all anecdotal I know, Mr A-B, but (perhaps) I was offering the notion of a potential reassessment of QoS in the future a la OHMSS as an antidote to some of the gainsaying that has really limited this thread.

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 March 2009 - 08:51 AM.

[blueman]

Fans have flip-flopped on QOS from first viewing to second viewing, at least that's what I've read around these parts some. Makes sense to think more fans might switch their opinion, from bad to good, over time, as it's happening already.

[HH007]

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.

Hum... yet you accuse people who liked QoS of "smoking crack." Yeah, very mature, Em.

[blueman]

Fans have flip-flopped on QOS from first viewing to second viewing, at least that's what I've read around these parts some. Makes sense to think more fans might switch their opinion, from bad to good, over time, as it's happening already.

Now that I'm able to hit rewind, rewatch a chapter again...it's getting a bit better to see. I've moved it up from a C to a B.

Ta-da!

[byline]

Fans have flip-flopped on QOS from first viewing to second viewing,

Yup, I'm one of them.

at least that's what I've read around these parts some. Makes sense to think more fans might switch their opinion, from bad to good, over time, as it's happening already.

True enough.

[Eddie Burns]

I have to say that QoS is not a terrible film. In fact it's a poorly made sequel to the most critically acclaimed Bond movie in history. Yes after 2/3/4 viewings people may change their minds and love it, but that is because they are Bond fans and of course it is our duty to find something we like in all Bond movies. If it wasn't Bond, none of us would bother...and deep down we all know that's true.

However, QoS is not The 6th Sense and if you didn't get it the first time, then why force yourself? People didn't go and see CR more than once because they missed out on something, or because CR was catered to people with high I.Q's. It was because they enjoyed it, grasped everything they were meant to grasp, and wanted to see it again! The only reason for seeing QoS again is if I want to see if I'll actually like it, which after seeing twice, I realized I'll never get my 200 odd minutes back.

QoS is being forced down our throats by Forster fanboys as a masterpiece, now clutching at straws and saying that it may garner the same adulation that OHMSS has in recent times. Well, DAD has a better chance unfortunately. The only way it will increase in popularity is if Eon botch B23 up, which after QoS, I have to say, they might have trouble doing. But, never put it past Eon the guys that gave us DAD.

[Sniperscope]

QoS is being forced down our throats by Forster fanboys as a masterpiece, now clutching at straws and saying that it may garner the same adulation that OHMSS has in recent times.

You're entitled to your opinion Eddie but I am in no way "clutching at straws".
You really do have the most dreadful penchant for hyperbole, old chap.
I was putting forward an idea that I thought was interesting and had some potential for discussion!
Oh well, only time will tell!

Edited by Sniperscope, 11 March 2009 - 05:34 AM.

[MattofSteel]

QoS is being forced down our throats by Forster fanboys as a masterpiece, now clutching at straws and saying that it may garner the same adulation that OHMSS has in recent times. Well, DAD has a better chance unfortunately. The only way it will increase in popularity is if Eon botch B23 up, which after QoS, I have to say, they might have trouble doing. But, never put it past Eon the guys that gave us DAD.

What you've touched on here is part of the reason why the internet message board, even the phenomenal communities like CBN, are becoming an obsolete element of my daily routine.

I think we've underestimated the spread of vocal minorities on the internet. Happens with every new film. Those same Forster fanboys would accuse the vocal minority of extreme haters as clutching at similar straws. But neither side is really immune from criticism, are they? They're just two oppositely entrenched camps who are, at this point, using identical techniques to press their arguments. No one seems to take a tempered path to discussion anymore. I'm not a passionate admirer of the film, nor a devoted hater. I loved it, but it's clearly flawed. No, it's nowhere near as good a Bond film as OHMSS - that's one of the masterpieces. But it's still damned good.

I'm just saying we can go around in this circle endlessly. Because everyone has that basic need to quantify everything with an absolute answer - is it good, or bad - masterpiece, or failure - without wanting to stop and judge it compartmentally. I guess maybe I just see Bond films differently. It's more a summation of parts. And Quantum more than exceeds what, for me, is required to provide an excellent Bond experience. But I'd certainly like to think I'm not forcing anything down my opponents' throats!

[honeyjes]

The irony, the title of this thread (grudgingly positive comments were later welcomed) is in itself forcing QoS negativity down our throats. What research apart from opinion has gone into making QoS haters having a more valid point of view than the people who like QoS? Agree or disagree no one has the right to define whose POV is more valid and treat people as cultural pariahs. Some of us seem to have Einsteins Headteacher syndrome.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

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.

I'm almost tempted to agree with that second statement. I haven't been on here for a while because I felt that,because I happened to loathe QOS,I was being insulted by some of the people who did [won't name any names],I was an old-fashioned fuddy duddy for not enjoying the fast-cut action,I was stupid for not understanding the so-called complexities of the movie,I was not a true Bond fan for not liking it.Then I actually had a couple of personal insults,and was not the only one. It always seemed to be the people who love QOS insulting the people who didn't,I don't why but that was definately the case. That is why I decided to take a break.

Now I've come back on here and things appear to have improved a little bit. Well done Emma for saying what many of us probably thought but didn't dare to say.

Edited by Fiona Volpe lover, 17 March 2009 - 08:39 PM.

[00Twelve]

This is going to be seen as one of "those" posts, I'm sure, but what the hell is all this animosity about? This is film #22 in a series on which none of us has ever fully agreed. There are threads upon threads of disagreement over the merits of one film or another in the canon, yet I've never seen a single one of them contain as much vitriol that's been meted out about QOS. Some think it's the best Bond film ever, some think it's the worst, and all for the very same reasons...so what?? I can't fathom an excuse as to why the boards would dry up so much just because of one movie. No matter which side of the fence one sits, it's not a difficult effort, given a healthy perspective-- get over it! It's a movie. One movie. The next one will be an entirely-- ENTIRELY-- different movie. For crying out loud, friends. Chill out. We don't all have to be right. We don't all have to win an argument. We love Bond, and we love him in all his incarnations (I'd like to think). Yeah, QOS isn't flawless. None of them are flawless. What's new? I suppose it's futile to ask to stop arguing in circles, but c'mon. Lighten up.

[byline]

I think we've underestimated the spread of vocal minorities on the internet. Happens with every new film. Those same Forster fanboys would accuse the vocal minority of extreme haters as clutching at similar straws. But neither side is really immune from criticism, are they? They're just two oppositely entrenched camps who are, at this point, using identical techniques to press their arguments.

Exactly. IMO, you've nailed it. And I think this goes deeper than just wanting to press arguments. Many people seem not to want discussion; they want ongoing monologues in which their points of view are not challenged, and the only replies that are welcomed are those which agree. If they are challenged, such posters then completely dismiss opposing viewpoints with derogatory epithets and broad, sweeping generalizations (rather than simply stating disagreement). Sadly, this happens on both sides of the debate and is not the kind of discussion I like to participate in.

[MattofSteel]

Definitely. It's a sad part of the package that is 'the internet.' What could be a remarkable forum for discussion is hampered by the fact that the same number of freaks exist as have always, yet they all have equal power in transmitting their point of view.

Not that I would accuse CBN of being particularly infested. In my experience, this is one of the most welcoming and level-headed fan communities in existence. I just think that a particularly polarizing Bond film has increased certain levels of simultaneous passion and idiocy. There are plenty of people around here who feel exactly opposite about the film as I, and yet I'm happy to talk to them about it. And then, there are not.

[DamnCoffee]

Oh that worked out well Bond! Fly up in the air in a huge ing Jet when you know you've got people after you then look suprised when your plane gets shot down.