887 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

I much prefer pedestrian mediocrity to extraordinary mediocrity. At least it’s consistent with itself.

[MattofSteel]

As promised. Apologies for colossal length. I promise it's worth it.

BOND'S CHARACTER ARC, as promised for Mr. Burns. As I see it, anyhow.

James' arc begins with the second-to-last scene of Casino Royale. "The job's done, the bitch is dead." She's a bitch, and nothing more than that to him. Simple, objective. It's M who preaches temperance, asking him to consider the finer points of the situation, and to explore the possibility that Vesper, in fact, did love him. His response? He hangs up the phone. Can't even listen to such a sentiment, due to his emotional and psychological state. But more importantly, and most critically for his arc in Quantum, he doesn't WANT to listen.

CR ends with a Bond who feels so shattered, and so betrayed, that he feels no morsel of faith in, for lack of a better word, hope. He's seen the most intimate of human betrayals. There is no capacity in him to trust a woman, or to really admit just how BAD the events were that have transpired. We have a Bond who is, essentially, in denial. This is a man who is distraught by more than a woman - but by the WORLD - by circumstances, probably internally asking himself, "is this the low that people, that life are truly capable of reaching? Why even bother fighting this battle?" He is bereft of any motivation in this moment, beyond rage for what he undoubtedly feels is the "unjustness" of the situation. He is quantumless, when it comes to solace.

And yet, his curiosity gets the better of him. He opens up Vesper's phone, and sees his first clue that will lead him on his journey through 'QoS.' This tiny scrap of information, the identity of Mr. White, is the first step toward some kind of answer. Some kind of resolution to the chaos his character is enveloped in as he sits dockside in Venice. And being James Bond, he does what any long running, commercially successful cinematic hero would do. He doesn't put in his papers, so to speak. He puts a bullet in White's knee. What we have at the end of Casino Royale is a Bond who has no faith in people, total disregard for the system (or rather agency) that produced their betrayal, no patience for anyone interrupting his mission to find some kind of justification. But most importantly, we have a Bond who has been confronted by REALITY - and can't believe it. If this is the world into which he's fallen, can he really sustain himself in it? Can the world be SO cruel? I make it sound like he's whining about it, and internally he might be.

And thus, QUANTUM begins.

Forgetting all the pseudo-psychological battle above, Bond remains absolutely - pissed. The love of his life HAS just died. M immediately questions his mental state, which we (the audience) immediately knows to be less than admirable, given his lack of sleep and the emerging alcoholism. (Side dig: Flemingesque? Methinks.) Bond's conflict is immediate. He assures M that the company line, that duty, is his first priority. She's worried it's not, she's worried she can't trust his judgement - as, of course, he surreptitiously pockets a photo of Yusef. Bond is smart enough to know that if he's going to pursue his answers, his PERSONAL answers, he's going to have to do it on his own time. And yet his sense of duty remains. He makes it amicably through the interrogation (well, relatively) despite the obviously simmering rage beneath the surface. Bond is conflicted, he's not sure of his place in the system, and he's drawn by a simultaneous sense of duty and leaning toward personal justification/satisfaction. Good place for an arc to start.

Flash forward to Mitchell's apartment. Bond seems utterly unsurprised at Mitchell's betrayal, for good reason - all those listed above. If he's got no faith in trust, why should he be. Contrast that with M, who is positively rife with paranoia, still in shock. Bond remains cool. The lack of integrity simply doesn't surprise him. This scene, to me, exemplifies his absolute disdain for what's happened to MI6 as an institution.

The initial sequence in Haiti serves to further Bond's arc in M's eyes, that he's off the rails on rage, killing whomever crosses his path to get the Organization. He's not thinking "big picture," to take it back to Casino Royale. She figures he's making it personal, and yet he never really does anything to suggest he's not simply taking a solid run at Quantum. It shows Bond learning to control his personal rage, and focus on the mission. Sure, there's conflict happening - but he manages it. Definition: character development. Keeping in mind, Bond has lost faith in this system - "life" - does it not make sense that he should be somewhat indifferent to death? Many reviewers have referred to Bond by this point in the film as nothing more than a mindless terminator, and yet they fail to realize this is a crucial step in one of his main arcs in the film.

Then, it starts getting interesting. Post opera - M's position even further solidified, as Bond has accidentally killed a member of special branch. 007 himself is obviously surprised by the man's identity, and dare I say it - taken aback by his own actions. The look on Daniel's face sells it, on the phone. He generally starts to question whether or not he should be plowing through these people with so little disregard for consequence or discretion (gasp! more character development!). He rationalizes the situation before he hangs up: "But right now, I need to find the man who tried to kill you." Yeah, sure James. He's doing what Bond does - placating M - in order to keep this mission moving. He's thinking like James Bond should, given his general awesomeness as a character and his newfound lack of faith in the institution. He's smart enough to realize his own mistakes, and tone it down. And he's ALSO smart enough to realize that MI6 at this point will just hamper him by bringing him in and off Greene's trail, allowing Greene, Quantum, and thus his own PERSONAL answers and motivations to slip even further away. For the good of all three concurrent "missions," and because he's Ian Fleming's James Bond, he disregards the order (note, M doesn't seem particularly surprised) and goes "off grid," for want of a better phrase. Bond is learning, he's forcing himself to be clever, he's re-shaping his own opinions and actions in the light of what's happening around him - and yet, not in a reactive sense. He remains active about it, the makings of a well-written character. And development, by God, everywhere!

Then, we bring in Mathis. And it gets even better.

Up until this point, Bond has not even started to question whether or not Vesper loved him. It's been about larger issues. Mathis plants that seed, and thus increases Bond's big picture thinking even further through intimate example. Mathis thinks Vesper loved Bond, Bond claims "right up until the moment she betrayed me." It echoes his sentiment from the final boat scene in Venice, CR. He's still not quite ready to hear it. The most telling line in the scene is Mathis', "she died for you." The way he says it is just perfect. It's such an afterthought, so subtle, like Mathis is so removed from the situation. As if he's thinking to himself, "this poor bastard doesnt' get it, but he will." Mathis comes across exactly as he's supposed to in this scene, as an older, wiser man with something about the world to actually IMPART that would be useful to Bond. And Bond, being the not-quite-developed 007 he is, takes it in and is pushed a little farther along that journey while still not being able to concede any truth in the fact that Vesper might have been less than totally evil.

The plane. Bond can't sleep, he's possessed by his concurrent mission. He's drinking, apparently that's what Bond does quite a bit of (Flemingesque again, how many drinks does he take in this film?) . Mathis is perfectly aware of what Bond's problem is, of "what's keeping him awake," and yet he asks. He gives Bond the opportunity to share, and 007 again deflects. Classically an element of his character. "It takes something to admit you were wrong," Mathis admits as being his rational for accompanying Bond to Bolivia. In this one line, we see what Mathis sees: the developing Bond, not towing the party line, thinking for himself. Mathis makes a true point. Had some nameless MI6 agent shown up to ask for his help in South America, I dare say Mathis would have told him where to shove it. But he goes with Bond, because he sees a damaged man who needs help, and has perhaps earned the benefit of the doubt - or at the very least, earned the benefit of some assistance. Bond won't accept medication, and yet he'll drink himself under the table. Nice little bit of anachronistic hipocrisy there. Mathis knows what it's all about. "Some [pills] make you forget." Bond throws him the briefest of looks, as if to admit "Yeah, yeah, I know." This whole scene precipitated on the fact, of course, that Bond was sitting at a bar simply staring at a photo and the Algerian Love Knot. A rather simplistic statement on his state of mind.

Bond, THE Bond we know, continues to emerge. He won't stay in the ty Bolivian hotel, like Jason Bourne would prefer. He goes for the biggest and the best - Fleming's edict, practically verbatim. And he's clearly developing a taste for the finer things (some people say he's not) while maintaining his disdain for elaborate covers and aliases (a nicely written point from Casino Royale, evocative of Sir Ian), and being generally humorous throughout. And Fields. Oh, Fields. There is no more classicaly Bondian moment than in the hotel room between the two. Here is this 'incorruptible,' young, straight-faced office girl trying so desperately hard to be a spy, who won't take any form of resistance. In order to further his own goals, Bond has two simple options: subdue the girl, or do what James Bond does. He chooses correctly, and the audience ends up with a scene that is particularly memorable and evocative of classic Bonds past. Bond's development continues - he's clearly become comfortable with using sex as a tool, and he's being just ever so slightly misogynistic about the whole thing. Getting closer to 007 all the time.

At the party - yes, the Greene comments feel tacked on. But only initially. Someone made an excellent point above, about Greene having venomous words as his only weapon when Bond outdoes him, physically, in terms of intimidation. There can be no classically archetypal image than that, considering the entire angle of Greene's character (all bark and no bite, the image of what "corporate" magnates truly are at a basic human level, or so says the film) and how awesome the audience needs Bond's character to come off as. Bond brushes aside Greene's comments, just one more thing he doesn't have time for. You're asking yourself, why does Bond just take Greene right then and there, haul him out of the party, and get his answers?

Because he's thinking big picture. He's developing. He's struggling to balance duty and personal need.

I'm sure Bond would like to torture answers out of him, then and there. You can see the fury simmering behind Daniel's eyes, not unlike during White's interrogation. But he holds back. He thinks logically, for two reasons. One: like M's been drilling into him, big picture. Bond, at this point, still has NO idea what Greene is up to. His dutiful obligation to the greater mission drives him toward finding out, and he knows that based on Camille's knowledge of the man, she can lead him to THOSE answers. And reason two: Bond is outnumbered, out of position, and it would simply be a rash decision to pull Greene out. It would go against everything he's been learning so far about impulse killing, and uncalculated moves. The slow development, as it's been happening through the film, toward a thoughtful assassin. He's graduated from killing blindly by this point.

At least, that's all I read from that scene. Whether or not those points are executed well...

Mathis' death is another blow. This scene demonstrates how cold Bond has become to death, even to his closest "friends." Sure, he's pissed, you can see it - Mathis was "the only person he thought he could trust." And the man literally dies in Bond's arms. Yet Bond has already dispatched the guards, there's no further revenge that can be taken (at the moment). So he does what any logical spy would do. He dumps the body, and he PUSHES FORWARD. He even pauses just long enough to think of emptying Mathis' wallet beforehand. This isn't an offhanded gesture, and it's meant to be funny. It's Bond salvaging a lost situation, pressing forward through the direst of circumstances, with a clear head. It's a statement on his entire mindframe, and as I said, a testament to just how frighteningly comfortable he's become in this world.

Bond/Camille in the desert. This is where Camille emerges as a useful character tool, a mirror for Bond. He sees himself in her, quite literally - or more pointedly, what he might become. I think Bond feels pity for the girl. She's obviously consumed by revenge, and it's affected her life. I think that in the sinkhole, in that one instance of her story, Bond sees two things. First, an echo that the "horror" of the universe isn't central to his own view, and that things which are just as bad happen to other people. In that instance, his view of the world's ultimate evils is diluted ever so slightly, as he starts to realize that he's fighting against the tide. That for every unfortunate thing that's happened to anyone, there's always going to be something worse happening to someone else. Bond isn't simply listening to Camille's story. These thoughts are running through his head. The thoughts that human corruption, evil, all those things - they are universal. They extend beyond MI6, Quantum, and his situation with Vesper. And in this one, simple scene, Bond's view of the entire world is further - *cough* developed *cough* - just a bit. Camille turns the conversation toward him just once, and he immediately suggests they should leave. He still can't talk about Vesper.

Grand Andean hotel. Bond's "disappointed," but not just in M's apparent pandering to the Americans. In her lack of faith in him. The audience knows he's struggling with his duty/personal balance up until this point, but we also KNOW he's in control, and that he was making headway against Quantum. M knows he's struggling, but assumes he's not in control. She gives a very frank, if (maybe not wholly) incorrect assessment of his mental state, that he's been blinded by his own thirst for revenge. He disagrees, deflecting, although probably being very personally aware of how it must appear to everyone else that he's walking that line. And then Fields' death.

"Why?"
"It's just mis-direction-"
"I mean why HER, Bond."

And, queue the stunned look on 007's face. It had never even entered his mind. You can hear Arnold's score practically thud with this hammer of a beat on Bond's character arc. No doubt his connection to Fields was humanized more by their intimate day together, but he very suddenly feels remorse. Henchmen and thugs be damned - Bond is finally confronted with a very real, very emotional consequence of his actions. Fields was not all that far removed from Vesper as a character, being a paper-pusher who got caught up in the dirty side of espionage. And in a few simple lines of dialogue, M delviers a scathing critique of the history of James Bond, and of the man standing in front of her. His charm is deadly. Is there a more nostalgically cliched 007 statement? (Of course, nostalgically cliched in a good way). Very telling is Bond's reaction when "giving in" to the MI6 guards escorting him away. He simply looks fatigued, wiped - a situation Fleming's Bond might have founda at the bottom of the OHMSS ski run, for example. H's ready to give in. And then, through a tricky bit of editing, we see Fields' dead, naked body quite literally on Bond's mind. A plan starts formulating, and he makes the snap decision to take down the MI6 agents in the elvator. It was in this image of Fields, this consequence of his INACTION (via leaving her alone), that he decides to take ACTION. So what does he do? (In the funniest moment of the film) he returns to M about 20 seconds later, bereft of an escort, to re-iterate that the girl deserves more credit than to be a simple casualty. That's all. He doesn't make M privy to his plans, perhaps to avoid her being considered an accessory to his actions should some kind of official review be undertaken. Then he walks away, confident in her trust in him. She doesn't try to stop him, or tell the agents where he's gone. Why? What's changed in their relationship since she was reaming him out a moment ago?

Nothing, overtly. Because part of her "talk" was an act, and because Bond has developed to the point where he's reading, accurately, his relationship with M. In that sole instance of not stopping him, M offers him (if not subconsciously) an opening to really become an ally, to make her a part of his efforts to circumvent "the system" in order to quite simply get things done. And he takes it. Bond's starting to recognizes his true allies, and his world is improving for it. "You and I need to see this through," he tells her. She doesn't debate. She merely points out there's a capture-or-kill order out on him. Their relation ship has matured to the point that they understand each other without so many words.

Perla des las Dunas. You can see Bond struggling, wanting to drop Greene in to the fire when holding him by the hair. He might even be about to do it, we won't ever know - because of Camille's gunshot. "Sounds like you just lost another one!" Up until that point, the film was a pulse-pounding mixture of visuals and sound as Bond and Greent threw themselves at each other, when suddenly, 007 is confronted by the very real possibility that his last ally - and a mirror for himself - has been killed. As a result of Bond's actions, indirectly. As a result of her own obsession, directly. And in that moment of stark relief, brief mental clarity from the cacophony of whatever else was going on, Bond pulls Greene up and runs to Camille. Call it a mixture of Bond wanting to save the girl, Bond's guilt over his perceived concurrent responsibility for her "death" with Fields', Bond's fear at being consumed by his own need for revenge like Camille, or Bond's simple tiring of constant death. His realization is complete, in terms of thinking big picture. He runs to Camille, and finds her, cowering. He cradles her not unlike he did with Vesper in the Hotel Splendide shower. It's no symbolic irony that this time, they're surrounded by fire. The imagery evokes a classical definition of hell, where these two characters find themselves. Consumed by revenge, with no one to cling to except their own existance, and absent of anything better in the world outside. Camille appears most affected, obviously mortified at dying the same way as her family - there could not be a more horrifying reality for anyone than her, in that situation. In her quest for revenge, Camille has fallen into the very circumstancial injustice she was trying so hard to rectify. 007 sees it.

Bond seriously contemplates mercy-killing the girl. I think, personally, he was even beyond contemplation. That is untouched territory for a Bond film, and in that single act, we see a microcosm of Bond's entire point of view on what life has become.

We talked about how he doesn't see any justice in the world. About how the world is essentially a burning room frought with danger, betrayal, nothing to cling to, except your own physical existance. And even that might not be enough to succeed. There's no point in playing, the house always wins, so why bother?

We'll never know if Bond would have contemplated his own suicide as well, and it's irrelevant. He sees one singular opening, one chance to get out, as risky as it might be that the blowback from the exploding fuel cell might kill both of them as well. And in the single moment of the film where he takes the biggest step toward becoming James Bond, he shoots out the fuel cell. In that moment, Bond seems to realize that despite his definition of life, despite the futility of the whole thing - there's just no sense to be had for not trying. For giving up. And with that gunshot, James Bond ironically declares "war" on the world, on the hell that threatens to envelope him, and emerges from Perla des las Dunas a far more deadly man than when he entered. He's seen how dangerous the world is, how unjust it can be, and yet he's also seen why an attitude such as Camille's (or his at the beginning of the film) can pull you FARTHER down into the mess. And that just wouldnt' be practical, would it?

Bond's abandonment of Greene in the desert is a character statement, multifold. It's obvious symbolic retribution for the death of Fields. It's an obvious indication that Bond has become more than a "mindless" killer. It's just ever so-slightly sadistic, as Bond of the books was capable of being. Case in point, the OHMSS (constant references are because I'm re-reading) novel, one of the Piz Gloria guards throws a man down the bobsled run, and Bond muses that should he encounter any guards in his escape, he would be sure to "hit them extra hard!" This is all, of course, after Bond has the answers he needs. And let's not discount the fact that it's purely James Bond-ish in execution.

The train station. Minimal dialogue, but maximum effect. There's just not much left for these two people to say. Bond sees (and hears) the emptiness Camille feels with her consuming obsession resolved, and in turn sees the danger in such a choice were it made with his own life. Bond has, essentially, graduated from the attitude of revenge. Not retribution, mind you, but cold-hearted, simplistic, objective, revenge. Bond doesn't think the dead care about vengeance, akin to how some people say "funerals are for the living." It comes on the heels of Camille wondering how her family feels. Bond's deduction is a product of the fact they're probably not happy their daughter and sister took HERSELF so close to death in order to avenge them. "Before setting out on revenge, you must first dig two graves," I believe someone, somewhere, said sometime before . That may be an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but I don't think it's ever meant to be complicated.

The confrontation with Yusef. Brilliant. Bond gets his "revenge," but it's far more calculated and ultimately satisfying than any mere killing any could have been. He systematically destroys this man's existence in front of "Vesper," and leaves him a snivelling weasel on the couch, beggy not for mercy, but for ease in his death. Could there be a more perfect reflection on Bond's view of what life is? Bond has been through torture over Vesper (literally and emotionally), he sees a world consumed by endless danger and difficulty. And yet he's prepared to kill Yusef, to expunge him from existance (maybe), and this greasy douchebag asks for the easy way out. In that single instance, perhaps Bond sees that killing Yusef would give the man some form of release that he simply does not deserve. Daniel plays it perfectly. Bond is still obviously full of rage, and reacting realistically with the sudden face to face confrontation with Yusef. I'm sure Bond is struggling not to pull that trigger. Bond doesn't kill him, for all the reasons he didn't kill Greene, and all the reasons he hasn't killed at any particular time throughout the film. Yusef is just too valuable alive. And most importantly, it is a definitive statement on the crucial relationship between Bond's personal vendetta and his mission:

He CHOOSES the mission. Expunging the worry everyone else had. Why? Because he's James Bond, that's why.

The Final scene with M. Full of logical dialogue that succinctly states "where Bond is," with the key all in the delivery. "The right people kept their jobs." Bond's view of the entire system is not without a sense of jutice, and he's pleased with the outcome. "Wish I could help," regarding the circumstances of Greene's death. He communicates it in such a way that it's obvious - he knows, that she knows, that he knows what happened. And he doesn't care. It's Bond's foreknowledge that sometimes, the institution isn't always right, and that his own instincts prevailed. Were he to have listened to them and come in to "report" after Austria, Greene would have likely been in control of Bolivia's water supply by that point. This line is a statement in Bond's confidence - in his own deicisions.

"Congratulations, you were right."
"About what?"
"About Vesper."

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is the first time he speaks her name in the film. He can finally talk about it. It's a direct call back, contextually, to their final conversation in Casino Royale. It's Bond's admission of subjectivity, his allowance for discussion, and his graduation from the point of view where the world is a cold place with no redeeming qualities. It's his quantum of solace, that small measure of knowledge that the greater qualities of the world are, in some respect, redeemable. It's his acknowledgement that she did, in some part, love him. And I imagine that in some small measure, he's forgiving her for her betrayal, realizing (upon Greene's offscreen interrogation and confrontation with Yusef) the logical reasons why she would have fallen for Quantum's scheme. And even more importantly, in a call back to Mathis' final words - he's forgiving himself. Because the end of CR and beginning of QoS, his anger was self imposed - for being so stupid. He couldnt' believe he allowed himself to open up, to err so egregiously, which is why when QoS begins he shuts down. Now, he's forgiving himself for making a mistake. For being human. Perhaps slowly, but his wounds have healed (or at least started to).

"I never left," delivered as if to say, "What were you worried about?" It's one final nod to the film's overall theme: trust. Arguably, Bond (on "paper") had the mission on his mind the entire time. He delivered Quantum operatives and stopped their plot, and I'm sure all official reports would reflect that. It makes his "Congratulations, you were right" line even more powerful in retrospect, when you realize that he's offering one small window of trust, insight to M - his personal problem. They have no reason to really talk about that, in light of the fact that she's his boss. But they do, and that's why their relationship is "solidified" as the filmmakers might say, and that's why Judi was in the film so much.

Wow, my fingers hurt. So, the short version:

BEGINNING OF QOS
Bond is emotionally shut down, angry, spiteful at the "unjust" world around him, vengeful for the people who have done this to him, and right pissed.

END OF QOS
Bond realizes the world will always be this way, dangerous and unforgiving at every turn, and to hope for anything else from his (human) point of view is perhaps asking too much. He realizes that subjectivity is important, that a cold attitude toward Vesper's betrayal or mindless killing of endless thugs just isn't practical (situations of self-preservation not witshtanding). And most importantly, based on his delivery of the last line (and perhaps the expression on his face), he's got a sense of irony about the whole thing. It's so ridiculous, it's a joke - he might think about the world. Leading him down a path of using humour as a tool of deflection to mask danger or how frightened he might actually be - a "defense mechanism" - which is, in my opinion, the absolutely spot-on soruce of character motivation for James Bond's sense of humour.


So the character arc is most certainly there. Whether it's executed perfectly, or not, is another debate. But to say it's absent or irretrievable, I feel, is going a bit too far.

[Eddie Burns]

Thank you Mr. Arlington Beach,

Fad follower...the word I've been looking for to describe QoS. Just a fad follower. You can argue that that could be found throughout Bond's history but the producers did not have a reboot to build on. Again (and I won't stop asking till somebody attempts to answer this) what is the point of a reboot if your going to follow the latest trends without bringing any originality of your own to the table? The Batman people have created their own lane without copying anyone else and using their source material for guidance. You know where Batman is going and you trust the filmmakers. Eon just seem to be making it up as they go along, copying and pasting from the latest cinema fad. I was hoping more thought to have been put into at least four movies before talk of Moneypenny/Q/submarine lairs etc. Instead we get an artsy fartsy director who had no interest in making the movie, other than seeing how action his made. Bond shouldn't be used for a directors experiment, especially not in Craig's era.

The editing doesn't bother me now after watching it again recently. It just isn't impressive in it's execution and just drags the film down.

Wow Mattofsteel reading it now. Will definitely reply

[Judo chop]

Matt, that brought a tear to my eye. Thank you.

I think Bond does say "Vesper" at the beginning.

"I didn't think Vesper would be the sentimental type."

If I'm right about that, I guess in a way it's too bad that your theory doesn't stand. It would have been cool if, as you said, Bond was only able to speak her name at the end of his emotional journey. But then again, we can read into Bond's emotive state with that line as well. How could someone so two-sided as Vesper (as Bond would like to believe... or as he believes he'd like to believe) be the sentimental type? He's in denial about Vesper's love for him, and to him she wouldn't be the sentimental type, despite much evidence to the contrary.

(Loved the "hell" bit, by the way.)

[Judo chop]

By the way, Matt. I strongly suggest you start a new thread titled "Bond's Arc - CR through QOS" (or something to that effect) and copy/paste that sucker as post #1.

It deserves to be front and center. It's a (if not THE) core element of QOS and it'll get lost in here.

And actually, if you don't, I will.

[Eddie Burns]

Best post so far Mattofsteel! Sounds like a skeleton of a novelisation. I agree with all points made...

However...

It all goes over peoples head and the audience don't really care. Not for Fields, or whether Bond cares about the consequences of his actions...even the symbolic leaving of Greene in the desert. It all gets lost in the explosions and fast edits. That's why it appears that whatever arc exists it's very minimal. It all felt rushed through just so one could get to the next scene. The execution is flawed.

As for the last scene with Yusef, personally, it felt really sappy and unsatisfying. The dialogue left a lot to be desired and I felt it lacking something. Don't know what, but was expecting more. I don't know...Bond should have at least done something to him (a punch across the face...something!) in a controlled manner. Something to release the tension and grief that occupied his mind since the death of Vesper. Then maybe have him say a quip similar in delivery to Connery's "Shocking...positively shocking" line to emphasize that he really isn't that bothered anymore and that he's come to terms with everything. I think this would have rounded things up a lot better. Then gunbarrel arriving would have made perfect sense...at least to the audience. Instead of the bewildered look on some of the faces I saw.

[DR76]

Matt, you should seriously consider posting your article on Bond's character arc on LiveJournal - "Idol Reflections' Journal". In fact, I would recommend that you include Bond's character arc from "CASINO ROYALE" in the article. That was an excellent post!

[Daddy Bond]

For everyone here whose main problem with the movie is the action editing, I hope you're willing to hang in there and watch the movie a few more times. Your eyes *will* get used to the speed at which the images are passing. Everything really does even out and you can see so much more of what they intended us to see.

You're probably right but I don't feel people should have to watch it a few times, re-educate their brain and get used to it. What's wrong with just being able to see what they intended us to see first time? Imagine going back a year before QoS and let's say we were talking about a film in the 'What movie have you seen' thread, and about half of its viewers were to say what you have just said, that they needed a number of viewings in order to re-educate their brain into getting used to it. We'd say it's a nonsense, no? Nonsense and a failure. Let's not be blinded by our love for Bond into suggesting that making a film in which a significant percentage of viewers didn't have a clue what was going on is a good idea. Remember, the film is made for everyone, not just Bond geeks, and most people won't watch it five times to try and understand just what goes on with the boathook. If they would just do a quick re-edit then as far as I'm concerned, the film would be wonderful. As it is, I'm not sure I can physically watch it again, it was just awful.

Good points, Santa.

LOL

HOW OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE? BECAUSE IT SHOWS.

THIS MOVIE WAS MADE FOR THE MASSES AND THE MASSES ARE TAKING TO IT WAY MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF POSTERS ON CBN WHO HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS.

THE MIDNIGHT SHOWING I WENT TO ON THE 14TH WAS FILLED WITH 17 TO 25 YEAR OLDS. THIS AGE GROUP - IN THE AGGREGATE - PROCESSES RAPID INFORMATION A LOT QUICKER THAN THOSE WHO GREW UP IN THE 70S AND 80S, AGAIN IN THE AGGREGATE.

EON DID *NOT* MAKE THIS FILM FOR A DOZEN-ODD CBn-ERS WHO COME HERE TO WRITE NEGATIVE POST AFTER NEGATIVE POST AND HAVE NOT GOTTEN LAID IN AGES...THEY MADE IT FOR THE HIP CROWD, THE YOUNG, THE YOUNG AT HEART AND THOSE WHO'S MINDS ARE NOT STUNTED FROM YEARS AND YEARS OF WATCHING PEDESTRIAN MEDIOCRITY.

Hmmmm?

Well, I grew up in the 70's and 80's, am a bit younger than Craig. I have a huge collection of classic movies (about 500 that were made between 1933 and 1969),and have seen most of the great movies ever made. I enjoy reading and spend a good amount of time studying and reading books. I listen to classical music, go to museums, attend the symphony, enjoy a fine French restaurant, follow politics, have been all over the world (lived in Oxford for 1 year) and yet...

I can still beat my 12 year old son on any game on the XBox, Playstation or Nintendo, can still outrun him, I also listen to Alternative and Rock music, and I had absolutely no trouble whatsoever tracking the editing in QoS - and QoS is now my second favorite Bond film of all time.

Now, I'm not being snooty or a show off, but the point is, you don't have to be a teenager and you don't have to be ignorant of what makes a great movie and you don't have to be uncultured in order to enjoy QoS. As a matter of fact, I have argued that QoS is, in fact, deeper than most Bond films, and, in many ways, the masses have missed some of the greatness of QoS (i.e., miss the Bond elements, miss the humor, miss the drama - which I think are abundant in QoS).

It IS possible to enjoy the sweeping scope and rich drama of Lawrence of Arabia, appreciate the film noire and brilliant script of Casablanca, laugh at the slapstick and funny lines of Arsenic and Old Lace and STILL find the opening PTS car chase in QoS brilliant, exhilerating and good art. It IS possible to like BOTH Monet and the style of QoS. I do. It is possible to laugh at Shakespeare's comedies AND laugh at QoS. I do.

So, no, I don't see QoS as Pedestrian or fit only for teenagers and those in their 20's, I find it to be a film that is quite superior to that, in fact, much superior to that.

[Judo chop]

And Sheriff JW Pepper is the first comic character of the series. How many LOL moments did Elvis have exactly? An entirely useless, unnecessary character that won't be remembered.

I agree that Pepper is a comical character, but not in the same way that Elvis is for the very reason that you get at. Elvis has no LOL moments for the theater audience. His comedy is not meant to be of the Pepper kind or that which might leak out from the mind of John Glen. It's underwraps and needs to be discovered and then taken in as a whole.

It's his existence at all that is the LOL. Pepper says in each piece of dialogue he's given, "Hey! Look at me! I'm funny!" Elvis, on the other hand, is not in-your-face slapstick as every one of us has observed. The comic worth of Elvis is 100% of the ironical nature. It's the Bond henchman mocked. It's a message from the writers sent directly to the Bond fan via a dummy pigeon ironically named Elvis. And you're right, until that is understood, he's not going to be memorable.

I, for one, will never forget him.

[Daddy Bond]

And Sheriff JW Pepper is the first comic character of the series. How many LOL moments did Elvis have exactly? An entirely useless, unnecessary character that won't be remembered.

I agree that Pepper is a comical character, but not in the same way that Elvis is for the very reason that you get at. Elvis has no LOL moments for the theater audience. His comedy is not meant to be of the Pepper kind or that which might leak out from the mind of John Glen. It's underwraps and needs to be discovered and then taken in as a whole.

It's his existence at all that is the LOL. Pepper says in each piece of dialogue he's given, "Hey! Look at me! I'm funny!" Elvis, on the other hand, is not in-your-face slapstick as every one of us has observed. The comic worth of Elvis is 100% of the ironical nature. It's the Bond henchman mocked. It's a message from the writers sent directly to the Bond fan via a dummy pigeon ironically named Elvis. And you're right, until that is understood, he's not going to be memorable.

I, for one, will never forget him.

Well said, by the way.

[MattofSteel]

Matt, that brought a tear to my eye. Thank you.

I think Bond does say "Vesper" at the beginning.

"I didn't think Vesper would be the sentimental type."

Ah, you're right. Forgot about that line. Well he doesn't speak it again, in between .

It wasn't really a crux of my theory, or anything, just an observation.

By the way, Matt. I strongly suggest you start a new thread titled "Bond's Arc - CR through QOS" (or something to that effect) and copy/paste that sucker as post #1.

And actually, if you don't, I will.

Knock yourself out.

Best post so far Mattofsteel! Sounds like a skeleton of a novelisation. I agree with all points made...

However...

It all goes over peoples head and the audience don't really care. Not for Fields, or whether Bond cares about the consequences of his actions...even the symbolic leaving of Greene in the desert. It all gets lost in the explosions and fast edits. That's why it appears that whatever arc exists it's very minimal. It all felt rushed through just so one could get to the next scene. The execution is flawed.

As for the last scene with Yusef, personally, it felt really sappy and unsatisfying. The dialogue left a lot to be desired and I felt it lacking something. Don't know what, but was expecting more. I don't know...Bond should have at least done something to him (a punch across the face...something!) in a controlled manner. Something to release the tension and grief that occupied his mind since the death of Vesper. Then maybe have him say a quip similar in delivery to Connery's "Shocking...positively shocking" line to emphasize that he really isn't that bothered anymore and that he's come to terms with everything. I think this would have rounded things up a lot better. Then gunbarrel arriving would have made perfect sense...at least to the audience. Instead of the bewildered look on some of the faces I saw.

I agree, the execution is flawed, but I think it has to do with the pacing. The entire film flies by relentlessly, and I have no doubt that were there to be some more lingering directorial focus on these elements, the arc would have emerged. It's just Forster's style, apparently.

But in that sense, it doesn't bother me. It's unfortunate that it may have gone over the casual viewers' head (and that might be a generalization, every "casual" fan I saw the film with picked up on alot of this and quite liked it), but at the same time, it's all THERE for fans like us to dissect. I took a lot away from it, and that's all that really matters to me.

RE: the Yusef scene, I thought it was pitch perfect, and BECAUSE it contained none of those types of things you've mentioned. I wouldn't go so far as calling them contrivances, but I felt the scene was strong principally because of its honesty with respect to how it might happen in real life. Bond's emphasis of being "unbothered" as you've said - is the entire point behind his sparing of Yusef.

I had a friend describe to me once how he felt the "love-hate" scale is actually more complex and misrepresented in everyday life. He says it should be "love-hate-indifference" as the final polarization, where you've graduated beyond caring. I fully believe Bond reaches that conclusion, although not without some measure of emotional spite.

It sort of lines up with my entire philosophy of Bond's mindset at the end of the film. He sees the world for EVERYTHING bad it contains, and just rises above worrying about it. He takes it in stride. With a dose of irony.

And then cue the gunbarrel, because 007 is back.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

By the way, Matt. I strongly suggest you start a new thread titled "Bond's Arc - CR through QOS" (or something to that effect) and copy/paste that sucker as post #1.

It deserves to be front and center. It's a (if not THE) core element of QOS and it'll get lost in here.

And actually, if you don't, I will.

Agreed, Judo chop!

MattofSteel that was absolutely brilliant writing! Bravo! Thank you!

[HildebrandRarity]

For everyone here whose main problem with the movie is the action editing, I hope you're willing to hang in there and watch the movie a few more times. Your eyes *will* get used to the speed at which the images are passing. Everything really does even out and you can see so much more of what they intended us to see.

You're probably right but I don't feel people should have to watch it a few times, re-educate their brain and get used to it. What's wrong with just being able to see what they intended us to see first time? Imagine going back a year before QoS and let's say we were talking about a film in the 'What movie have you seen' thread, and about half of its viewers were to say what you have just said, that they needed a number of viewings in order to re-educate their brain into getting used to it. We'd say it's a nonsense, no? Nonsense and a failure. Let's not be blinded by our love for Bond into suggesting that making a film in which a significant percentage of viewers didn't have a clue what was going on is a good idea. Remember, the film is made for everyone, not just Bond geeks, and most people won't watch it five times to try and understand just what goes on with the boathook. If they would just do a quick re-edit then as far as I'm concerned, the film would be wonderful. As it is, I'm not sure I can physically watch it again, it was just awful.

Good points, Santa.

LOL

HOW OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE? BECAUSE IT SHOWS.

THIS MOVIE WAS MADE FOR THE MASSES AND THE MASSES ARE TAKING TO IT WAY MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF POSTERS ON CBN WHO HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS.

THE MIDNIGHT SHOWING I WENT TO ON THE 14TH WAS FILLED WITH 17 TO 25 YEAR OLDS. THIS AGE GROUP - IN THE AGGREGATE - PROCESSES RAPID INFORMATION A LOT QUICKER THAN THOSE WHO GREW UP IN THE 70S AND 80S, AGAIN IN THE AGGREGATE.

EON DID *NOT* MAKE THIS FILM FOR A DOZEN-ODD CBn-ERS WHO COME HERE TO WRITE NEGATIVE POST AFTER NEGATIVE POST AND HAVE NOT GOTTEN LAID IN AGES...THEY MADE IT FOR THE HIP CROWD, THE YOUNG, THE YOUNG AT HEART AND THOSE WHO'S MINDS ARE NOT STUNTED FROM YEARS AND YEARS OF WATCHING PEDESTRIAN MEDIOCRITY.

How old am I? I'm 33. I guess this makes me a dinosaur in your book, eh?

You apologised to Jim. How about an apology to Santa and to those other CBners you have made unwarranted personal attacks on?

Oh, and:

HOW ABOUT NOT TYPING IN CAPITALS AS THOUGH IT MAKES YOUR DRIVEL SOMETHING SPECIAL AND WORTH READING?

sorry

[Loomis]

No probs, dude.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't view the majority of your posts as drivel - you are, generally speaking, one of the most entertaining folks on CBn. You know your Bond, and you're the go-to guy for box office and budgets information.

BTW, tomorrow may well see my third viewing of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Can't wait. But it'll never take down THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN in my eyes.

[blueman]

Great post, Matt.

As to the execution, I'm with the other old fuddy-duddy: it was perfect for a Bond film (and much preferred over CR's more nostalgic hand-holding style of storytelling). And I'd use your post as proof, for how could anyone see such things in QOS if the filmmakers didn't communicate what they were doing effectively? There are some great moments and set pieces in CR, but QOS is a great film first shot to last. Yeah they could've dumbed it down and made Bond's arc more transparent like it was in CR, but the more sophisticated approach in QOS was greatly appreciated by this Bond fan - in fact it's easily the Bond film I've been waiting for for 30+ years, thank you very much Forster and co. (and bet the next one isn't so deep, and more fun-friendly... just a hunch)

[MattofSteel]

I've only called it flawed in spots, sorry if that's not clear. I love the film too, it's remarkably solid, and I think I gave it 8.5/10 in my review. It edges up toward a 9 some days.

My comment reagarding flawed execution refers to individual spots and just a few specific techniques, and maybe to only one or two minor "overarching" philosophies. Overall, I agree - I'm as much a fan of the subtlty as I am the overt stuff in CR. It was refreshing, and particularly effective. I'm just preaching subjectivity in the entire discussion .

And I'd agree with you too, the next one will probably be a little less esoteric.

[HildebrandRarity]

It took Our young Canadian friend from Ontario to engender some semblance of "correctness" to this twisted thread...a thread full of simple-minded junk:

About Bond's character arc. There really is none, sorry.

and out-right lies:

In QOS, for the first time in the Bond series, but just like in the Bourne movies, we got squalid (or realistic for some) locations for a spy movie...

[Judo chop]

"OH CAAAAN-A-DA... OUR HOME AND NATIVE LAAAAAND..."

[blueman]

Pretty amazing we're even talking about character arcs and mirrored subtexts and directorial shadings - in a Bond film! What's next, a blond Bond???

[HildebrandRarity]

"OH CAAAAN-A-DA... OUR HOME AND NATIVE LAAAAAND..."

True patriot love in all thy sons command...

With glowing hearts, we see thee rise
The True North strong and free

From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee...

[Judo chop]

Pretty amazing we're even talking about character arcs and mirrored subtexts and directorial shadings - in a Bond film! What's next, a blond Bond???

It is so very amazing, blueman. I hope that EON continues to hire directors who recognize the new path that's been blazed, and if they do... I can't wait to see what they come up with as the 'fun' version of CraigBond. Though QOS is, at some moments, funNY, I don't think I'd call it FUN.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

In QOS, for the first time in the Bond series, but just like in the Bourne movies, we got squalid (or realistic for some) locations for a spy movie...

MORE BULL[censored] FROM MR. ARLINGTON BEECH. DID YOU BEGIN YOUR BOND WATCHING CAREER IN 2006, MR BEECH?

THERE'S PLENTY OF 'SQUALID (OR REALISTIC...)' LOCALES IN DR NO, FRWL AND GOLDFINGER.

I SUGGEST YOU RENT THOSE MOVIES AND WATCH THEM.

THERE'S A SAYING...THROW ENOUGH BULL[censored] AND SOME OF IT WILL STICK.

THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF BULL[censored] BEING THROWN IN THIS THREAD.

Calm down, HildebrandRarity, there's no need for the use of 'censored' words, and write your so called arguments in capital, definitely doesn't bring more weight to them.

Regarding to the three first Bond movies, the locations looks exotic, of course (particulary in the Young's works, in GF the only one that could qualified in this category is the PTS). And certainly, there's an air of untameable nature speciallly in DN's Jamaica, but it's far a strech, to say that's equal to the squalid realism of the "Haiti" and "Bolivia" of QOS.

I reapeat this example that I wrote it in the other thread. Take for instance, "Madagascar" (Bahamas) in CR, there's no doubt that it is poor country in the real world, but in the first Craig entry, this location appears very colorful (thanks to the work of Phil Meheux), and yes exotic too.

It's not that much about how is the location in the real world, is about how you show it on the screen.

P.D.: I'm still waiting that you show me any major resamblance of Bourne or any other current trend in CR, just like I did it for QOS.

[byline]

We have a Bond who is, essentially, in denial.

Bravo! Your post reads like poetry! With your permission, whenever anyone cites the supposed lack of substance they feel this film has, I'll just link your post; it says it all.

The only thing I would add to your assessment of Bond's emotional state as he leaves "Casino Royale" and enters "Quantum of Solace" is that very telling exchange between him and M right before they go to interrogate Mr. White. M tells him she compared the DNA from a lock of Yusef's hair found in Vesper's apartment to that of the body that washed up, and it wasn't him. Bond cites the "lock of his hair" point and replies that he didn't think Vesper was the sentimental type.

But, of course, that's a lie. He knows full well that Vesper is the sentimental type . . . or else he is so deep in denial that he forgets it. After all, she wore the love-knot necklace until the last day of her life, then took it off in recognition of her feelings for Bond. And she left that him seashell in her purse from the day on the beach when he told her he loved her. Bond picked it up, then tossed it back down. You see the briefest flicker of recognition in his eyes that he knows what it means, yet he seems to reject that in favor of searching her phone for any possible clues.

Contrast that with Bond at the end of "Quantum of Solace," when he discards the necklace he'd clung to as a symbol of Vesper. Now he recognizes that it is not a symbol of Vesper, but a symbol of Yusef's betrayal of Vesper. He knows now that M was right about Vesper all along, and he can accept Vesper's love for him. He needs no physical symbols of her; she is in his heart, and there in a good way. That doesn't mean he's completely healed; this experience will have scarred him forever. But at least he's to a point where he can view things from a healthier perspective, without second-guessing himself and Vesper, or what they shared for the short time they were together. He can move on.

Edited by byline, 12 December 2008 - 09:59 PM.

[Harmsway]

I reapeat this example that I wrote it in the other thread. Take for instance, "Madagascar" (Bahamas) in CR, there's no doubt that it is poor country in the real world, but in the first Craig entry, this location appears very colorful (thanks to the work of Phil Meheux), and yes exotic too.

I actually see very little difference between "Madagascar" and "Haiti"/"Bolivia." "Madagascar" is slightly more colorful as a result of Meheux's cinematography, but I don't think it's anymore appealing or exotic.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's not that much about how is the location in the real world, is about how you show it on the screen.

P.D.: I'm still waiting that you show me any major resamblance of Bourne or any other current trend in CR, just like I did it for QOS.

Keep waiting, Mr Beech. Keep waiting. Anything lucid and well-thought out lines I'm inclined to write would fall far short of the mark.

The fact of the matter, Mr Beech, is that I, sadly, have very little respect for your entrenched opinion.

How's that for honesty?

Have a good evening Mr Beech.

[Born_again_Bond]

HOW OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE? BECAUSE IT SHOWS.

51 years old......and I loved QoS. The movie grabbed me right from the get-go, even though I had not seen CR at that point and so had no idea that it was a sequel. It had so much energy and drama that I was hooked solid. QoS and Daniel Craig's Bond brought me back to Bond movies and I had been AWOL for a very long time.

I don't think age has much to do with tuning into the movie or not. But maybe expectations do. My last cinema-going memory of Bond was Roger Moore, so you can imagine what a culture shock QoS was to me. My expectations were blown sky-high by QoS - - in the best possible way.

However, I didn't equate QoS with such films as Bourne, not even now, when I have read so many fan's opinions here on this site. I can't see the similarity, sorry. I watched Bourne Identity again last night and (imho) there is no way that character even comes close to the depth of character which is Bond played by DC in QoS. As for the style of the action sequences, they too do not "feel" the same as those in QoS. The difference is that on the screen in QoS is DC's Bond - and he is something altogether very special, and very different to Bourne or any other of the modern action figures.

For me, QoS stands as a unique film, a genuinely true sequel, something I didn't appreciate until I got my hands on CR after seeing QoS. If I was forced to pick QoS apart, then yes, there are some things which might have been done differently, but on the whole it grabbed me by the throat and gave me a good shaking. It also made a fledgling fan out of the friend I went with. She had avoided Bond movies since Sean Connery but has since bought CR on dvd and like me is eagerly awaiting the QoS dvd. (And if we are talking about age being a possible barrier, she is 63!!)

When it comes to what the critics said about QoS, my personal feeling is that most of them mentioning the Bourne action-shaky camera thing is rather lazy. Too few of them mention the other things that actually do push the movie along. Too few critics actually seem to have given the movie some 3D thinking about what was right as well as what they thought was wrong. I got the feeling from some of the reviews that they watched the movie with half an eye while chatting or having a cocktail or two. Occasionally there are good ones that thought up some different viewpoints - e.g.,

http://www.independe...ul-1521616.html

but so many critics sounded like they just cribbed each other's notes. It's the same with the in-print movie tie-in interviews with Daniel Craig; a large percentage of journos seem to refer ad naseum to his blue eyes. I found my inner voice saying "Duh. The man has blue eyes. Now can you ask him something interesting please?"

As a novice to the Bond fan world on-line (there was no "on-line" when I last saw Bond in the movie theatre, pre-QoS!!) I got far more out of the reviews of posters here on this site, and I don't just mean the yay-sayers, but also the nay-sayers, shaky camera comments included. At least on here, a lot of the nay-sayers comments about Bourne-style editing comes complete with a dissection of that, and where it fits or does not fit with Bond's movie history.

One thing for sure, QoS seems to have huge portions of the movie-going world talking and that can't be a bad thing. Even the reviews I've read that were less than glowing, mainly because they seemed to want "CR Take 2", on the whole praise Daniel Craig and look forward to Bond 23.

MattofSteel, I love your posts. #186 was superb. Bond is soooo much a more interesting and involved character in QoS. In CR he is almost, dare I say it, half-formed. In QoS he comes of age. Because he would not be that man without the foundations of CR, I firmly believe that these two movies should not be seen in isolation, they are bookends and they stand together.

This has been a really interesting thread.

[MattofSteel]

We have a Bond who is, essentially, in denial.

Bravo! Your post reads like poetry! With your permission, whenever anyone cites the supposed lack of substance they feel this film has, I'll just link your post; it says it all.

The only thing I would add to your assessment of Bond's emotional state as he leaves "Casino Royale" and enters "Quantum of Solace" is that very telling exchange between him and M right before they go to interrogate Mr. White. M tells him she compared the DNA from a lock of Yusef's hair found in Vesper's apartment to that of the body that washed up, and it wasn't him. Bond cites the "lock of his hair" point and replies that he didn't think Vesper was the sentimental type.

But, of course, that's a lie. He knows full well that Vesper is the sentimental type . . . or else he is so deep in denial that he forgets it. After all, she wore the love-knot necklace until the last day of her life, then took it off in recognition of her feelings for Bond. And she left that him seashell in her purse from the day on the beach when he told her he loved her. Bond picked it up, then tossed it back down. You see the briefest flicker of recognition in his eyes that he knows what it means, yet he seems to reject that in favor of searching her phone for any possible clues.

Contrast that with Bond at the end of "Quantum of Solace," when he discards the necklace he'd clung to as a symbol of Vesper. Now he recognizes that it is not a symbol of Vesper, but a symbol of Yusef's betrayal of Vesper. He knows now that M was right about Vesper all along, and he can accept Vesper's love for him. He needs no physical symbols of her; she is in his heart, and there in a good way. That doesn't mean he's completely healed; this experience will have scarred him forever. But at least he's to a point where he can view things from a healthier perspective, without second-guessing himself and Vesper, or what they shared for the short time they were together. He can move on.

You're absolutely right, and you can blame the early hour and tired fingers for why I left these out.

The necklace in the snow was particularly telling. I don't know how you can come up with a more direct statement of the change in his character over the course of the film.

It's nice symbolism, the only physical remnant of her dropped into the snow with more coming down - the weight of his own, cold heart slowly burying the memory of her.

Fleming. Onscreen. And anyone who feels different may take their opinion...and keep it to themselves .

[Eddie Burns]

Actually, those people saying that Quantum is more layered than CR really confirm that it's just the new Bond that makes you say that. CR had to be more overt than QoS when it came to character because Bond's journey was important. And we cared. We really cared. Nothing was force fed in CR. Daniel didn't have many lines in the first half of the movie, and when he did speak it furthered the character without being obvious.

I enjoyed reading Mattofsteel's post regarding character. I think it's informative and definitely helped me review certain things I may have missed. However, to say it's better expressed in QoS than CR is doing a discredit to Fleming and giving credit to a script that wasn't even finished. Which is taking it a step too far. The arc in QoS could be told in 15min of footage and you'd still get the same result. The rest is just padding, and quite unnecessary padding at that.

Personally, the scenarios told in the movie just didn't do it for me. I still stand by the fact that QoS is a style over substance movie indulged by an art movie director for his own kicks. A fad follower that unfortunately cannot step out of Bourne's shadow no matter what we think. Any substance on screen is poorly developed. And by that I don't mean QoS is too an intelligent of a movie that needs to be dumbed down. It's actually the least complicated movie I've ever seen. It just tries to be too clever by half and as a result leaves us feeling empty. Sure you can fill in the blanks as Mattofsteel has admirably done. But then you could do that with any movie.

I think many on here are filling in the blanks that could be found in the script in abundance. I've read a thread on LTK sort of linking Della with Tracy etc. Trying to get into Dalton's Bond's head which I cringe at. I sense people are trying to turn something or a moment into more than it already is. The funny thing is that that movie also had a writer's strike prior to it's release.

Fair enough, we're Bond fans and doing these sort of things is part of fandom. But Forster wanted to tell the arc in the fastest way possible, with us much editing and action as possible. In the end, we don't care because there is just too much irrelevant padding. Characters appear and disappear without explanation. And no emotion is invested. It's a poor film overall, and the stylish aspects of it distract from this fact.

Elvis? Memorable? Ok if you say so. Is he even a henchman or just a bufoon? Henchman don't stand by their bosses side while they're making a fundraising speech, and then entertain their guests while their boss deals with the mistress do they? I mean this could be the whole point as a reason for his humor. But then what about the whole gritty and down to earth aspect of the movie? Or is that an exception when it comes to the henchmen? We don't even hear his name! LOL! How the hell is a character whom we don't know anything about, don't know his name, and killed off as an afterthought supposed to be memorable. Believe me he won't be remembered a year from now. Just like most of this movie.

[Eddie Burns]

Welcome Born_again_Bond!

Great that you loved QoS and CR. I'd love to pick your brains as you haven't been corrupted by Dalton/Brosnan era filmmaking. Have you seen those movies by any chance? You think Bond is headed in the right direction? What's superior to you, CR or QoS?

[Judo chop]

It just tries to be too clever by half and as a result leaves us feeling empty. Sure you can fill in the blanks as Mattofsteel has admirably done. But then you could do that with any movie.

Everything Matt said is supportable. Maybe you can 'fill in blanks' with any movie (not sure that's even true) but you definitely can't make it stick.

And you REALLY need to stop referring to 'we' and 'us'. It actually makes you look a little desperate to prove your points.

Elvis? Memorable? Ok if you say so. Is he even a henchman or just a bufoon?

He's an experiment for the writer and a message to the viewer. Not even a real character.

HE'S AN INSIDE JOKE.

You choose: be in on the joke, or don't be. I'll tell you this though... it's a lot more fun on the inside.