137 replies to this topic

[Joe Bond]

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.

But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

Following your predicate, I could even consider one of the Edward D. Wood Jr.'s work as a masterpiece.

If you felt it was a masterpiece who am I to tell you you're wrong?

Furthermore, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I would never call it a masterpiece, and that definitely doesn't prevent me to love that movie.

Fair enough, but just because you use the word far less than someone else does doesnt mean you're right and they're wrong.

I agree, I am tired of people who think their opinion is the right opinon and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and its unfair. I have seen QoS 6 times and I have not yet found something in it that I did not like but maybe thats because I am very open to different movies but I am not trying to convince people to that this movie is great, which I think it is, or saying if you hated the film your wrong because that would be unfair, and I think people who do this are infact trying to convince people who liked the movie that the movie is crap which is exactly what some of the people who dislike QoS are claiming the people who liked it are doing and when I try to explain to someone why I liked a scene who did not like the scene I am not trying to convince them they are wrong but just expressing my dissagreement and I would still respect their opinion and not say they were wrong. Its like someone else said art is subjective so not everyone is going to like the same movies as everyone else just look at The Dark Knight some people think its great but some people thinks its okay but not one of these opinions are right or wrong. To me its very closed minded thinking and I think a couple of poster's on this thread are guilty of this.

[Ultraussie (Jordan.adams)]

I went to see the movie with my Grandma, and how come he didnt have a heart attack in the middle of the cinema?
Because the scene isnt disturbing.
You want disturbing? Then I'd say when during the ending of Goldeneye: Alex Trevealan gets a sattelite falling ontop of him, and Boris is frozen in the moment of invincibility.

[HildebrandRarity]

I went to see the movie with my Grandma

Awwww. That's so sweet. Did you two have popcorn and candy?

And, did she like the movie?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.

But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

Following your predicate, I could even consider one of the Edward D. Wood Jr.'s work as a masterpiece.

If you felt it was a masterpiece who am I to tell you you're wrong?

Furthermore, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I would never call it a masterpiece, and that definitely doesn't prevent me to love that movie.

Fair enough, but just because you use the word far less than someone else does doesnt mean you're right and they're wrong.

I agree, I am tired of people who think their opinion is the right opinon and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and its unfair. I have seen QoS 6 times and I have not yet found something in it that I did not like but maybe thats because I am very open to different movies but I am not trying to convince people to that this movie is great, which I think it is, or saying if you hated the film your wrong because that would be unfair, and I think people who do this are infact trying to convince people who liked the movie that the movie is crap which is exactly what some of the people who dislike QoS are claiming the people who liked it are doing and when I try to explain to someone why I liked a scene who did not like the scene I am not trying to convince them they are wrong but just expressing my dissagreement and I would still respect their opinion and not say they were wrong. Its like someone else said art is subjective so not everyone is going to like the same movies as everyone else just look at The Dark Knight some people think its great but some people thinks its okay but not one of these opinions are right or wrong. To me its very closed minded thinking and I think a couple of poster's on this thread are guilty of this.

I never wanted to imply that my opinion was right and other's was wrong, that's why I stated that I didn't have any problem with someone expressing his love for Forster's work (and even declaring that QOS was the "best james bond film ever", as I wrote in another thread). What I was arguing was about how people can use a epithet in such gratuitous way, hence diminishing the meaning of the word.

I mean, one thing is to say that some movie is your favourite OO7's flick, and other is to declare that the same film is a near masterpiece of the seventh art.

P.D. Anyway, HildebrandRarity did clear his statement in another thread, in a reasonable way.

Oh, and I'm tired of people who write their opinion in one big long paragraph... I'm just kidding.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 January 2009 - 05:46 PM.

[Professor Pi]

Maybe the DVD gift set QoS will have a miniature dumpster!

[Professor Pi]

By the way, I was watching another Bond film and my jaw dropped when I noticed that QoS is not the first time Bond dumped a body into a dumpster!

Did any one else remember which movie this is? I thought I read most of this thread, but don't recall anyone mentioning this other scene. Care to compare?

[DamnCoffee]

By the way, I was watching another Bond film and my jaw dropped when I noticed that QoS is not the first time Bond dumped a body into a dumpster!

Did any one else remember which movie this is? I thought I read most of this thread, but don't recall anyone mentioning this other scene. Care to compare?

Really!? I haven't noticed!

[dee-bee-five]

I watch it for content, structure, and entertainment. But when the "defenders" start to explain to me the above realisms in life, then they have just taken the movie out of an entertainment light, and I will respond by pointing out the ludicrous scenes. Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.

I agree with you. That's the thing, some QOS fans don't realize that they are watching just a Bond movie. It's fine if they love this Forster's work, but from more than a century of filmmaking, pick this movie as masterpiece of cinema sounds a little bit exaggerated, to say the least.

Perhaps. But I do regard it as a masterpiece of the Bond series and I don't think anyone is suggesting anything beyond that. Others are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. What they are not entitled to do is to instruct me what to think

[HH007]

By the way, I was watching another Bond film and my jaw dropped when I noticed that QoS is not the first time Bond dumped a body into a dumpster!

Did any one else remember which movie this is? I thought I read most of this thread, but don't recall anyone mentioning this other scene. Care to compare?

Really!? I haven't noticed!

He dumps a body in a dumpster in TWINE... but, to be fair, the context is completely different. Comparison: In QoS he drops a friend's body in a dumpster, in TWINE, he drops a foe's.

[Sniperscope]

By the way, I was watching another Bond film and my jaw dropped when I noticed that QoS is not the first time Bond dumped a body into a dumpster!

Did any one else remember which movie this is? I thought I read most of this thread, but don't recall anyone mentioning this other scene. Care to compare?

Really!? I haven't noticed!

He dumps a body in a dumpster in TWINE... but, to be fair, the context is completely different. Comparison: In QoS he drops a friend's body in a dumpster, in TWINE, he drops a foe's.

It's a really good point you raise Prof and to kind of reiterate what I have said previously on this issue, my thoughts are that Forster and Haggis are attempting something rather daring for a Bond film/action thriller with this scene: they are asking us to consider the realities of violence and our response to it as entertainment in a way that TWINE did not.

Certainly no-one (I hope!) finds it entertaining to see Mathis treated in this manner but equally so why do we accept a 'baddie' in TWINE thrown into a bin simply because through dramatic convention he has been defined as "foe"? Isn't that character, all things being equal, supposed to represent a person as 'real' as Mathis who should also be treated with a certain dignity?

Of course many people would say no, but I suspect those may well be the same people who were 'shocked' by Mathis being dumped. It's an almost willlful evasion of the vicarious link between entertainment and violence.

Forster also seem to raise this when he cuts back to the people mourning over the random death of an innocent bystander in the horse racing scene and the lingering shot of Bond's attacker's face as he dies after the knife fight in Port au Prince. Both of those scenes are uncomfortable and unexpected in an action film for exactly the same reason that the dumpster scene is: the glossy and comfortable 'death as entertainment' raison d'etre of most Hollywood films is being turned back onto us.

So I see the dumpster scene in QoS as working opposite to that in TWINE by challenging our simplistic black and white expectations of an action film by reminding us that there is a tragic equality in death for "friends" and "foes" alike...

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 January 2009 - 11:59 AM.

[byline]

Certainly no-one (I hope!) finds it entertaining to see Mathis treated in this manner but equally so why do we accept a 'baddie' in TWINE thrown into a bin simply because through dramatic convention he has been defined as "foe"? Isn't that character, all things being equal, supposed to represent a person as 'real' as Mathis who should also be treated with a certain dignity?

Of course many people would say no, but I suspect those may well be the same people who were 'shocked' by Mathis being dumped. It's an almost willlful evasion of the vicarious link between entertainment and violence.

Excellent point, Sniperscope. I hope folks who question this scene give it some serious consideration.

[JimmyBond]

Certainly no-one (I hope!) finds it entertaining to see Mathis treated in this manner but equally so why do we accept a 'baddie' in TWINE thrown into a bin simply because through dramatic convention he has been defined as "foe"? Isn't that character, all things being equal, supposed to represent a person as 'real' as Mathis who should also be treated with a certain dignity?

Of course many people would say no, but I suspect those may well be the same people who were 'shocked' by Mathis being dumped. It's an almost willlful evasion of the vicarious link between entertainment and violence.

Excellent point, Sniperscope. I hope folks who question this scene give it some serious consideration.

It is a good post, but that's exactly why the people who dislike this film do. They don't want realism in their Bonds. Too bad for them though, I'm loving it

[DamnCoffee]

If I were dead, I would rather be dumped in a trash can, rather than be left in the middle of the road, to be hit by oncoming traffic.

[byline]

Certainly no-one (I hope!) finds it entertaining to see Mathis treated in this manner but equally so why do we accept a 'baddie' in TWINE thrown into a bin simply because through dramatic convention he has been defined as "foe"? Isn't that character, all things being equal, supposed to represent a person as 'real' as Mathis who should also be treated with a certain dignity?

Of course many people would say no, but I suspect those may well be the same people who were 'shocked' by Mathis being dumped. It's an almost willlful evasion of the vicarious link between entertainment and violence.

Excellent point, Sniperscope. I hope folks who question this scene give it some serious consideration.

It is a good post, but that's exactly why the people who dislike this film do. They don't want realism in their Bonds. Too bad for them though, I'm loving it

Same here!

[Judo chop]

If I were dead, I would rather be dumped in a trash can, rather than be left in the middle of the road, to be hit by oncoming traffic.

Duly noted.





(Sorry, Harks. I must be feeling a bit Jimmish today. )

[Jim]

If I were dead, I would rather be dumped in a trash can, rather than be left in the middle of the road, to be hit by oncoming traffic.

Can be arranged.

[DamnCoffee]

If I were dead, I would rather be dumped in a trash can, rather than be left in the middle of the road, to be hit by oncoming traffic.

Can be arranged.

Oh, Jim. You are a true gentleman.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Certainly no-one (I hope!) finds it entertaining to see Mathis treated in this manner but equally so why do we accept a 'baddie' in TWINE thrown into a bin simply because through dramatic convention he has been defined as "foe"? Isn't that character, all things being equal, supposed to represent a person as 'real' as Mathis who should also be treated with a certain dignity?

Of course many people would say no, but I suspect those may well be the same people who were 'shocked' by Mathis being dumped. It's an almost willlful evasion of the vicarious link between entertainment and violence.

Excellent point, Sniperscope. I hope folks who question this scene give it some serious consideration.

I have and I still hate it.

In The World Is Not Enough, Bond was hiding a foe by depositing him in a dumpster, thereby keeping his cover as Mikhail Arkov for his upcoming meet. He couldn't leave Sasha Davidov's body in the back of the SUV because he didn't know if he was leaving with someone or picking someone up so he had to make the vehicle clean in case someone looked in the back and, as a result, he got rid of the body.

In Quantum Of Solace, he callously dropped a GOOD FRIEND in the dumpster for NO GOOD REASON. He did NOT hide the body because Rene Mathis' arm and leg are STILL CLEARLY visible in the dumpster. There also was no reason to drop Mathis in the dumpster because it served NO PURPOSE. Those that set up Bond would know Mathis wasn't involved with the killing of the cops and that Bond was. Besides, no mugger would take the time to drop a victim in the dumpster after they robbed him, they would leave him lying in the street. If Bond was concerned about delaying the Bolivian cops, what might have bought him more time would have been propping Mathis up AGAINST the dumpster with gun in hand. THAT scenario is at least believable and might give the villains pause in wondering if Mathis had revived enough to drive the SUV before Bond entered it and then shot the cops in the traffic stop. Regardless, Bond would NEVER callously drop a friend, much less a good friend, in a dumpster. The entire scene is a crock of ****.

If I were dead, I would rather be dumped in a trash can, rather than be left in the middle of the road, to be hit by oncoming traffic.

Mathis wouldn't have been left in the middle of the road. Bond pulled over to the side and that is where Mathis and Bond sat when Mathis died. Besides, the cops' motorcycles are parked to the side of the road as well. They would have protected Mathis' body from on-coming cars who would have driven around the scene rather than right through the motorcycles and Mathis.

[Professor Pi]

All in all, had they just cut the scene, I think everyone would have been better served. Mathis dies in Bond's arms, fade out from overhead camera shot. Cue next scene. Leave it up to the viewer what happens to the body.

Those that are fans of this scene can surmise that's how Bond disposed of Mathis. Those that didn't need to see it, don't have to. Leave it as a deleted scene for the DVD. I mean, how many times have we not seen Bond dispose of an ally's body before and never thought twice about it? Saunders? Ferrara? Henderson? Rosie Carver (okay, not ally!)? Paris? Della? Zukovsky? Paula? In most of those cases, Bond had to bug out quickly, just like in Bolivia with Mathis. We never paid any mind.

As for the dumpster scene promoting discussion of the hard choices of the spy profession and the ugliness of death, well, this is supposed to be Bond, not Munich. Gentleman spy, remember.

[Harry Fawkes]

All in all, had they just cut the scene, I think everyone would have been better served. Mathis dies in Bond's arms, fade out from overhead camera shot. Cue next scene.

But then, there wouldn't be this interesting and most of all pasionate discusion would there.

It would just be another scene in another Bond movie.

The way they did it gave it 'spice' if you will

As for the dumpster scene promoting discussion of the hard choices of the spy profession and the ugliness of death, well, this is supposed to be Bond, not Munich. Gentleman spy, remember.

Gentleman spy reinvented into a more real, serious tone, remember.


Nah, but seriously, I can understand where everyone is going on this topic about the scene. All the opinions on this page are great. You all know what you are talking about and each view is very interesting I must say. Keep it up. In the end I believe it is what keeps Bond so fresh and popular and 'forever'.

The day people stop discussing a Bond film is the day the series'll probably come to an end (God forbid!)

Harry Fawkes

[HildebrandRarity]

Mathis wouldn't have been left in the middle of the road. Bond pulled over to the side and that is where Mathis and Bond sat when Mathis died. Besides, the cops' motorcycles are parked to the side of the road as well. They would have protected Mathis' body from on-coming cars...

No. I have seen the movie seven times, including after this thread was opened. The body is definitely in the middle of the road, not at the side to where the SUV and motorcycles were pulled.

[00Jaws]

Most disturbing scene was in QOS, but it was when M removed her make-up. That was so unnecessary Marc Forster.

[DR76]

As for the dumpster scene promoting discussion of the hard choices of the spy profession and the ugliness of death, well, this is supposed to be Bond, not Munich. Gentleman spy, remember.

There have been some ugly moments in the Bond franchise, including acts committed by Bond.

[DamnCoffee]

Most disturbing scene was in QOS, but it was when M removed her make-up. That was so unnecessary Marc Forster.

If you say so.

[Mr. Blofeld]

As for the dumpster scene promoting discussion of the hard choices of the spy profession and the ugliness of death, well, this is supposed to be Bond, not Munich. Gentleman spy, remember.

There have been some ugly moments in the Bond franchise, including acts committed by Bond.

Indeed:

- Shooting Dent in the back.

- Strangling Red Grant with his own garrotte.

- Electrocuting the Mexican.

- Breaking Bouvar's neck with a poker.

- Strangling a skiier with his own ski, then pushing him off a cliff.

- "What a helpful chap."

- Destroying the beautiful city of St. Petersburg

Need I say more?

[HH007]

Most disturbing scene was in QOS, but it was when M removed her make-up. That was so unnecessary Marc Forster.

If you say so.

Well, Matt, I am inclined to agree with that. That scene gave me nightmares.

[DamnCoffee]

I don't see the problem with it myself. It's no worse than seeing her in bed with her husband. God knows what they were up to before she got that call from Villiers.

[HH007]

I don't see the problem with it myself. It's no worse than seeing her in bed with her husband. God knows what they were up to before she got that call from Villiers.

*vomits into mouth*

[DamnCoffee]

Old Love. (L)

[byline]

Most disturbing scene was in QOS, but it was when M removed her make-up. That was so unnecessary Marc Forster.

Huh? I thought that was a marvelous touch! It showed the juxtaposition of M doing what she would normally do every evening, against the extraordinary demands MI6 placed on her and Bond. It astonishes me that people don't appreciate that, but to each his/her own.