55 replies to this topic

[Christopher006]

www.alternative007.co.uk/106.htm

[Zorin Industries]

Yes, if you want a review that gleans its opinions from the internet and makes very blanket statements about previous Bond films that can really only be verified by people who worked on them personally.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with most of the review.

Zorin - what do mean about the blanket statements about previous Bond films that only insiders could have known?

The script problems with TND have been documented in numerous places, and confirmed by Bruce Feirstein in interviews.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm not going to start mulling over in depth on a review for QUANTUM OF SOLACE that cannot see the wood for the trees.

But one example - the 'writer' states how the rape scene is awkward and nasty but then claims the film is not Fleming enough. Surely old Ian was not against the odd slap and gratuitous grope of a female lady of the opposite gender? (!). There have been more allusions to rape and female violence in Bond before than there was in SOLACE, only the reviewers nostaglia is ONCE AGAIN dictating his quite lazy, obvious and tired cliches of a 'review' - something that has dogged decent debate about SOLACE since it came out.

[bond 16.05.72]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries has doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 17 December 2008 - 01:34 PM.

[Jim]

It's another opinion. Hey ho.

[Zorin Industries]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Thank you.

That's the problem with armchair film writing. It doesn't think outside the box-set.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, if you want a review that gleans its opinions from the internet and makes very blanket statements about previous Bond films that can really only be verified by people who worked on them personally.

Absolutely right. It´s all the same rehash of "Why gunbarrel at the end?" and "Forster, the arty director who does not understand Bond".

Sorry, but why do people like these reviewers only complain about things they don´t understand instead of trying to THINK about it and to INTERPRET the artistic choices? They are like the bullies in class who hate "Moby Dick" because they don´t understand why the guy is after this big fish.

[plankattack]

I did read the review but I'm not going to comment on it's position - everyone's got an opinion and none of us own the "definitive" insight. Each to his own and this post has nothing to do with my own feelings about QoS.

Instead, I was struck by the fact that the website looked suspiciously like "The Sinking Ship" which was one of the Bond "fan" sights that were all the rage during the craignotbond era - every article pretty much took shots at EON and Craig, and took the position that Fleming would be rolling in his grave etc. Fair enough, but I remember trolling through the site back in 2006 and was struck by how factually wrong so many of the "claims" were and that people claiming to defend Fleming's Bond actually appeared to have little idea of Fleming's Bond. Or EON's for that matter. The bulk of the site really did seem to have no other ambition than slagging off the new guy and EON for getting rid of Brozza and why wasn't Owen, Jackman etc hired. Craig is too short, blonde, etc. Which is all fine if that's what you believe, but don't have the gall to cloak yourself in Fleming to do so.

So while the review doesn't think much of the film, if it's all from those sources, then the reality of it is, the chap didn't like the film before he saw it. And doubtless has already decided he doesn't like the next one.

Thank goodness for more balanced sites such as AJB, MI6, and this wonderful place here, where everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone has a history of logically supporting it!

[SecretAgentFan]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Well, at least put in the effort and write correct sentences if you like to be understood.

[sharpshooter]

I was expecting a link to my review. Oh well.

[bond 16.05.72]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Well, at least put in the effort and write correct sentences if you like to be understood.

I'm really sorry, I forgot this site was an example of the best spelling and grammar and no mistakes are never made.

I am at work in my dinner break not concentrating that much at what I'm writing in between eating and other things but I'm sure it made your day pulling me up on such a pathetic thing.

Go ahead knock yourself out!

[SecretAgentFan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - why so sensitive? Enjoy your dinner break.

[bond 16.05.72]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - why so sensitive? Enjoy your dinner break.

To be honest it was pretty pathetic considering the grammar mistakes on this site and you pick me up on that!

Maybe someone rubbed you up the wrong way and you felt a need to take it out on me, it's beginning to feel like MI6 on here at times, thats full of bullies wanting to impress everyone and throw around their double 0 status.

[Jim]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Well, at least put in the effort and write correct sentences if you like to be understood.

I'm really sorry, I forgot this site was an example of the best spelling and grammar and no mistakes are never made.

If I had my way, it would be.

But then I don't have my way. I don't no why.

Back onto the topic of wharreveritwas, big ta.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Good review I agree with pretty much everything in it.

[stamper]

I like it too, it tells that what we got here was an unoriginal by the numbers movie, made up from pieces of all past movies re the action bits. It may star Craig, it's definetely lackluster when standing against and as a sequel to Casino Royale.

[Mr_Wint]

Nice review, and very similar to my own feelings about the film.

[dee-bee-five]

He nails it if you don't like it and I'm not one of it's biggest fans but this is someone who has an axe to grind and saying it missing what alot of the generic cookie cutter crap entries doesn't gain it any points with me.

Daniel Craig's Bond is danger of becoming a 1 dimensional bruiser, what utter bollocks, as opposed to the previous 1 dimensional play boys which Moore & Brosnan gave us.

Well, at least put in the effort and write correct sentences if you like to be understood.

That is too much to hope for. Alas. So much for Tony Blair's promise of "education, education, education..."

As for the review, it's someone else's opinion, end of. If you don't get QoS, you don't get it. But no amount of saying so will change the opinion of those of us who do. Just as our promotion of the film's subtext fails to convince those who seemingly don't have the wit to see it.

[Auric64]

As for the review, it's someone else's opinion, end of. If you don't get QoS, you don't get it. But no amount of saying so will change the opinion of those of us who do. Just as our promotion of the film's subtext fails to convince those who seemingly don't have the wit to see it.

Just as all the pro QOS fans will never change the opinion of those, (including myself) of how bad the film is. It has nothing to do with having the "wit" to know what is good or bad, merely how a particular film, (in this case, QOS) effects the person watching it.

We all go into a new Bond film with certain expectations of what we want to see up there on the screen. Yet on this forum, if a fan is disappointed that the gunbarrel isn`t at the beginning of the film, or that Bond doesn`t say "Bond, James Bond" or that the Bond theme is missing, he/she is pillored, simply because those that pillor him/her, don`t see it as a big deal.

They fail to understand that for some, (including myself) it is a big deal, and it`s missing moments like those I have mentioned, which go some way to help separate Bond from the Bourne films, (and other spy films like Mission Impossible) that have jumped on the bandwagon since GoldenEye brought Bond back to the public in 1995.

For all those who loved QOS, great. I`m glad you were able to love it a helluva lot more than myself, (and others) but what I sense on this forum is a willingness of the pro QOS supporters to accept almost everything in this film as being so, so much better than anything that has gone before, especially if it`s the films of Moore and Brosnan.

I`ve even seen threads on here where posters have stated they feel QOS is superior to some of the Connery Bonds, which I find absolutely ridiculous, (just an opinion, here). Maybe it`s better than YOLT or DAF, (which wouldn`t be hard) but better than the first 4 Connery`s? If so, then those posters are saying that QOS is better than the 4 Fleming novels those films 4 were taken from. QOS better than anything Fleming wrote? Oh, well....

It`s interesting to note that if you look on the Internet Movie Data Base, and check the reviews of QOS, (and there are many pages of reviews on this film) time and time again you will see reviewers, (many of whom are simply casual fans who love to see Bond every two years) lambast the film for many of the "faults" the anti QOS haters have mentioned on this forum.

Too much like Bourne. Editing all over the place. Thin plot. No characterisation. Poor locations. Hollow action set pieces.

Can so many of the "casual film going audience" be so wrong?

Sure, there are also many reviewers on the IMDB who are happy with the film, as there are others who felt the film was okay, but that they were disappointed with it in some way.

I don`t know the percentages, but if someone was to take the time to add up those reviews which were either in favour or against the film, I would be willing to bet the majority would be against it.

These are the casual film going public. Sure, QOS has made lots of money, but that has happened because those casual fans went into QOS, expecting something akin to Casino Royale, and came out disappointed. Yet they couldn`t get their money back. Their money has been banked and I would say a good proportion of the millions QOS has made, has been from very disappointed filmgoers.

It`ll be interesting to see if those disappointed filmgoers will go along so readily to see Bond23, after expecting so much.

Best

Andy

[Zorin Industries]

As for the review, it's someone else's opinion, end of. If you don't get QoS, you don't get it. But no amount of saying so will change the opinion of those of us who do. Just as our promotion of the film's subtext fails to convince those who seemingly don't have the wit to see it.

Just as all the pro QOS fans will never change the opinion of those, (including myself) of how bad the film is. It has nothing to do with having the "wit" to know what is good or bad, merely how a particular film, (in this case, QOS) effects the person watching it.

We all go into a new Bond film with certain expectations of what we want to see up there on the screen. Yet on this forum, if a fan is disappointed that the gunbarrel isn`t at the beginning of the film, or that Bond doesn`t say "Bond, James Bond" or that the Bond theme is missing, he/she is pillored, simply because those that pillor him/her, don`t see it as a big deal.

They fail to understand that for some, (including myself) it is a big deal, and it`s missing moments like those I have mentioned, which go some way to help separate Bond from the Bourne films, (and other spy films like Mission Impossible) that have jumped on the bandwagon since GoldenEye brought Bond back to the public in 1995.

For all those who loved QOS, great. I`m glad you were able to love it a helluva lot more than myself, (and others) but what I sense on this forum is a willingness of the pro QOS supporters to accept almost everything in this film as being so, so much better than anything that has gone before, especially if it`s the films of Moore and Brosnan.

I`ve even seen threads on here where posters have stated they feel QOS is superior to some of the Connery Bonds, which I find absolutely ridiculous, (just an opinion, here). Maybe it`s better than YOLT or DAF, (which wouldn`t be hard) but better than the first 4 Connery`s? If so, then those posters are saying that QOS is better than the 4 Fleming novels those films 4 were taken from. QOS better than anything Fleming wrote? Oh, well....

It`s interesting to note that if you look on the Internet Movie Data Base, and check the reviews of QOS, (and there are many pages of reviews on this film) time and time again you will see reviewers, (many of whom are simply casual fans who love to see Bond every two years) lambast the film for many of the "faults" the anti QOS haters have mentioned on this forum.

Too much like Bourne. Editing all over the place. Thin plot. No characterisation. Poor locations. Hollow action set pieces.

Can so many of the "casual film going audience" be so wrong?

Sure, there are also many reviewers on the IMDB who are happy with the film, as there are others who felt the film was okay, but that they were disappointed with it in some way.

I don`t know the percentages, but if someone was to take the time to add up those reviews which were either in favour or against the film, I would be willing to bet the majority would be against it.

These are the casual film going public. Sure, QOS has made lots of money, but that has happened because those casual fans went into QOS, expecting something akin to Casino Royale, and came out disappointed. Yet they couldn`t get their money back. Their money has been banked and I would say a good proportion of the millions QOS has made, has been from very disappointed filmgoers.

It`ll be interesting to see if those disappointed filmgoers will go along so readily to see Bond23, after expecting so much.

Best

Andy

I hate to tell you, but IMDB is the last place anyone should look for insight, opinion and data about the film industry. It is a derided site that serves a quick admin purpose but beyond that is subjected to the same anal inaccuracies that dog many an internet movie site.

And I don't know about everyone else, but I personally did not go into SOLACE wanting ROYALE II. The filmmakers didn't set out to do that (tonally and emotionally the films share the same resonance), but they are two very different projects and were always meant to be.

[MattofSteel]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

[Jim]

It`s interesting to note that if you look on the Internet Movie Data Base, and check the reviews of QOS, (and there are many pages of reviews on this film) time and time again you will see reviewers, (many of whom are simply casual fans who love to see Bond every two years) lambast the film for many of the "faults" the anti QOS haters have mentioned on this forum.

Yes, but it may just be the same handful of people again and again. Ultimately, IMDb and this place and all others like are probably only a barometer of how much time some people have to waste. Except insofar as there's any credible means of gathering the view of every individual who has seen the film - and this isn't it and IMDb isn't it either - it's a snapshot of those who can be bothered to write something. This will tend to attract the extremes, either way. It may be a broader range of folk than would sign up to a Bond-specific message board, but it's still someone who is going to type under an anonymous name and inflict some eccentric spelling on the reader.

the anti QOS haters

You mean QOS haters? Although "hate" seems so redundant an emotion for some film.

Can so many of the "casual film going audience" be so wrong?

The proposition relies on the source being a representative sample. I suspect that the casual film going audience are insufficiently tragic to spend their time on message boards like this, banging on about a film several will have seen two months ago.

I don`t know the percentages, but if someone was to take the time to add up those reviews which were either in favour or against the film, I would be willing to bet the majority would be against it.

You might be right. I think you'd be wasting time spent on more meaningful pursuits, but you're probably right.

These are the casual film going public.

I'm not sure one can make such a confident assertion about the contributors. They might be, but I'm not sure they "are".

Sure, QOS has made lots of money, but that has happened because those casual fans went into QOS, expecting something akin to Casino Royale, and came out disappointed.

Which may - may - indicate (if one accepts the loose proposition that the contributors are representative of anything very much) that on this occasion the film-makers had more imagination than their audience (I accept that this is a partial argument, and I should declare that I enjoyed the film a great deal and therefore you can dismiss the observation if you so wish).

Yet they couldn`t get their money back. Their money has been banked and I would say a good proportion of the millions QOS has made, has been from very disappointed filmgoers.

It`ll be interesting to see if those disappointed filmgoers will go along so readily to see Bond23, after expecting so much.

That, I suspect, will be a far more credible means of assessing the view of the general audience: whether Bond 22 went down well with real people can be determined (in part) by the success or otherwise of Bond 23, although there will be other factors (if one accepted that argument at its purest one would have to agree that Licence to Kill was a huge success) and I accept that the Bond films are a special commodity given the hype, the merchandising and the pre-sales to TV rendering them an economic safe bet, or as good as.

Taking that position, it does rather mean that it leaves us with very little to discuss until we know whether people are watching Bond 23. Um.

[Judo chop]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

- Shakey-cam™ (which can also be found in films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, LAYER CAKE and others).
- rooftop chases
- fight scenes or car crashes
- any colors less saturated than those seen in Casino Royale
- any film in which one or more of its production team members have worked on a Bourne film

I think that is the exhaustive list, but I look forward to being corrected.

[Publius]

We all go into a new Bond film with certain expectations of what we want to see up there on the screen. Yet on this forum, if a fan is disappointed that the gunbarrel isn`t at the beginning of the film, or that Bond doesn`t say "Bond, James Bond" or that the Bond theme is missing, he/she is pillored, simply because those that pillor him/her, don`t see it as a big deal.

They fail to understand that for some, (including myself) it is a big deal, and it`s missing moments like those I have mentioned, which go some way to help separate Bond from the Bourne films, (and other spy films like Mission Impossible) that have jumped on the bandwagon since GoldenEye brought Bond back to the public in 1995.

What I just don't get is how you can enjoy a Bond film 95% of the time, since the elements you speak of take up only a few minutes in any given film, or how you can enjoy some of the earlier Bond films when those elements were often messed with or absent altogether. I think you're missing the cake for the icing.

For all those who loved QOS, great. I`m glad you were able to love it a helluva lot more than myself, (and others) but what I sense on this forum is a willingness of the pro QOS supporters to accept almost everything in this film as being so, so much better than anything that has gone before, especially if it`s the films of Moore and Brosnan.

What's wrong with that? Just because it's the most recent, it has to be lower down my list of favorites? It can't be that the direction of CR and QoS is exactly why I became a Bond fan, especially one who posts on a web forum? And do we have to have a "diverse" list of favorites that includes some of Moore's and Brosnan's films higher up than some of Connery's?

I`ve even seen threads on here where posters have stated they feel QOS is superior to some of the Connery Bonds, which I find absolutely ridiculous, (just an opinion, here). Maybe it`s better than YOLT or DAF, (which wouldn`t be hard) but better than the first 4 Connery`s? If so, then those posters are saying that QOS is better than the 4 Fleming novels those films 4 were taken from. QOS better than anything Fleming wrote? Oh, well....

No, we're saying we like it better than certain EON productions, not anything Ian Fleming wrote (even then, it's not like he was so flawless that he couldn't be topped... witness the film adaptation of Goldfinger). Even the most faithful to the source of EON's efforts was identifiably distinct, with the influences and modifications of Cubby, Saltzman, etc. being felt from the very beginning, even while Fleming was alive and they were staying closer to the novels than they ever would again.

Anyway, maybe it's because it's more willing to show Bond in the real world, maybe it's because it's more emotionally powerful, maybe it's any number of reasons, but the point remains that even the 60s greats lacked several elements featured in later films, particularly Craig's, and that includes QoS. There's ample reason to like it best or better than most. And thought-out, well-developed arguments have usually been given in support.

It`s interesting to note that if you look on the Internet Movie Data Base, and check the reviews of QOS, (and there are many pages of reviews on this film) time and time again you will see reviewers, (many of whom are simply casual fans who love to see Bond every two years) lambast the film for many of the "faults" the anti QOS haters have mentioned on this forum.

There is always a vocal minority that makes itself seem larger than it really is. Witness the CraigDotBondNotCom crowd. Even on IMDB, it's better to look at the film's average rating. After over 50,000 votes (CR has over 130,000), QoS is sitting pretty with a 7.1/10. CR is by far the best-ranked of Bond films with a 8.0/10, but at this point in its release it was actually lower than that. The consensus is "good, but not as great as CR," and even within that consensus there's a substantial minority that like it better than CR.

Can so many of the "casual film going audience" be so wrong?

Yes... or rather they can be not right, since this is all subjective. Numbers don't indicate intrinsic, objective quality, otherwise you'd have to tell me the best film of '06 was Pirates of the Caribbean or The Da Vinci Code.

I don`t know the percentages, but if someone was to take the time to add up those reviews which were either in favour or against the film, I would be willing to bet the majority would be against it.

RottenTomatoes has 72% of its community members (as opposed to select critics, who are marginally less approving at 65%) voting in favor of it. That's better than 5 in 7.

expecting something akin to Casino Royale,

Well, they got it... if what they were looking for was the return of this "new" (although some would say "truly classic") Bond who lives in our world, is believable as a former military man, carries himself with heroic confidence, enjoys life's luxuries whenever he can (but generally puts business before pleasure), has a sharp, dry wit, and is guided by a relatively reliable moral compass in this murky and cruelly indifferent world of ours, which serves him well as he confronts international threats lurking in the shadows.

If they fell in love with CR for its sweeping romance or lush color palette or another such element that was more likely to be cast off to suit the needs of this story, then yes they were probably disappointed. I don't say this to demean those who disliked QoS, but what was integral to CR was largely seen again in its sequel. I think QoS simply took Bond as we saw him in the CR pre-titles, Madagascar, the stairwell fight (and the subsequent bathroom/mirror scene), and the torture scene and built the world and plot around that.

[plankattack]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

Bourne gets a lot more credit than it actually deserves (and I like the films). The first big action flick to go with handheld in it's action scenes, (and begin to create the shakey-cam effect that the Bournes have exaggerated) was Die Hard 3 with Samuel L Jackson and Jeremy Irons. McTiernan says so himself - that he wanted to film the action in a different way - either in a making of doc or on the commentary.

So what does Bourne mean? Well, that the lead has a miserable look on his face of the time, presumably......(insert appropriate QoS joke at this point)).

[Zorin Industries]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

- Shakey-cam™ (which can also be found in films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, LAYER CAKE and others).
- rooftop chases
- fight scenes or car crashes
- any colors less saturated than those seen in Casino Royale
- any film in which one or more of its production team members have worked on a Bourne film

I think that is the exhaustive list, but I look forward to being corrected.

Shakey cam (TM or otherwise) is not actually a technical phrase nor is it a creative choice based on "making the picture shaky". The phrase you may be thinking of is "hand held" and it is as old as cinema itself. Cecil B DeMille employed it in his early silent work. A great many scenes in Bond and beyond involve dialogue and establishing shots. They too are sometimes shot on a hand held camera.

To reference the saturated look of one film as being BOURNE like suggests you view very few films. Obviously you don't. But - once again blanket assumptions dictate a narrow outlook when it comes to discussing cinema.

If we class all the personnel who worked on the BOURNE films then are you saying that MICHAEL CLAYTON (screenwriter), INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL (stunt co-ordinator), THE ITALIAN JOB remake (editor), SCOOBY DOO 2 UNLEASHED (DOP), FANTASTIC FOUR (DOP) and THE QUEEN (art director) are all BOURNE films as their key production personnel worked on those films too.

And are you saying that BOURNE invented the car chase, crash or fight scene. Again, De Mille might have a word to say on that one.

[Auric64]

[quote name='Zorin Industries' date='18 December 2008 - 14:37' post='974750']

I hate to tell you, but IMDB is the last place anyone should look for insight, opinion and data about the film industry. It is a derided site that serves a quick admin purpose but beyond that is subjected to the same anal inaccuracies that dog many an internet movie site.

There you go, exactly the point I was trying to make in my post. Reviewers who don`t like the film are attacked by you, simply because YOU think that IMDB is the "last place anyone should look for insight, opinion and data...." on a film. What makes YOUR point of view on this so right, and everyone else`s wrong?

Why can`t the reviewers on IMDB have an opinion that could actually be worth something? Why is it such a waste of time putting digit to keyboard? I`m sure non Bond fans could say the same at all of us expressing our feelings on this forum, about Bond. No?

At the end of the day cinemagoers go to the cinema, pay their money, and hope to be entertained by the film they have gone to see. If they come out, either happy or not, they have in the IMDB a forum to vent their feelings, much as this forum does for Bond fans.

I don`t see how our opinions on Bond are anymore important or worthy than those opinions on IMDB, (regardless of what film is being reviewed).

And I don't know about everyone else, but I personally did not go into SOLACE wanting ROYALE II.

I went into SOLACE hoping to get the same characterisation and Bondian moments that I saw and loved in ROYALE. Sadly, for me, I didn`t get that. What I saw instead was a film that was disjoined, (both in its editing and in its story) with hardly any humour, dull action sequences, poor characterisation, a poor villian and Craig acting as Bond in much the same way as Dalton did in LTK - going through the majority of the film wearing a death mask of hate and vengence - completely at odds with Fleming`s Bond of the books, and with the majority of the previous 21 films.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 18 December 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[Judo chop]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

- Shakey-cam™ (which can also be found in films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, LAYER CAKE and others).
- rooftop chases
- fight scenes or car crashes
- any colors less saturated than those seen in Casino Royale
- any film in which one or more of its production team members have worked on a Bourne film

I think that is the exhaustive list, but I look forward to being corrected.

Shakey cam (TM or otherwise) is not actually a technical phrase nor is it a creative choice based on "making the picture shaky". The phrase you may be thinking of is "hand held" and it is as old as cinema itself. Cecil B DeMille employed it in his early silent work. A great many scenes in Bond and beyond involve dialogue and establishing shots. They too are sometimes shot on a hand held camera.

To reference the saturated look of one film as being BOURNE like suggests you view very few films. Obviously you don't. But - once again blanket assumptions dictate a narrow outlook when it comes to discussing cinema.

If we class all the personnel who worked on the BOURNE films then are you saying that MICHAEL CLAYTON (screenwriter), INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL (stunt co-ordinator), THE ITALIAN JOB remake (editor), SCOOBY DOO 2 UNLEASHED (DOP), FANTASTIC FOUR (DOP) and THE QUEEN (art director) are all BOURNE films as their key production personnel worked on those films too.

And are you saying that BOURNE invented the car chase, crash or fight scene. Again, De Mille might have a word to say on that one.

I am saying that is what They™ are saying. I thought it was clear from my own very public admiration of the film and my disgust at others' admonishment of the film based on the so-called Bourne comparisons that my post was lathered in sarcasm.

But we’re making the same point, Zorin. I made it by use of sarcasm, and now you have reinforced it by exposing the silliness of my bogus and sarcastic post.

Good teamwork, buddy.

<high fives>

[MattofSteel]

Damn, I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, and I was ready to tear that post apart. I mean, just decimate it.

Let's say for argument's sake that some people actually use those points to detract from QoS/rebooted Bond - because they believe those things equate Bourne (and only Bourne), and that's where the argument ends.

How ridiculous is it, honestly, that they're actually being listened to.

I have a rather comical image in my head of a true "Bond" film based on your hypothetical anti-Bourne qualifications. Presumably, it would:

-Contain only stationary camera setups and no handheld, akin to some aspects of the early Bond films. Alright, I guess I could tolerate that. Let's see what the rest of today's 18-24 year olds think.

-Relegate Bond to running on the ground, exclusively. No heights involved, whatsoever.

-Absolve Bond from throwing any punches, or driving any cars in an agressive (or defensive) manner. So he's a pacifist, who relies on wit and Haggis dialogue alone.

[Side note: Roger Moore? Since technically, it was never him actually driving the cars, often to comical effect. See: AVTAK, when the back half of his car is ripped off, and sir Roger is most decidedly not the driver ]

-Display saturated colours. Actually I kind of like this one.

-Employ no one who has ever been involved in any way with a Bourne film. Including the theatre owners who showed it, thus BOND 23 will be played on a whopping 17 independent cinema screens across the country!

Sounds like a winning formula to me.