14 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I know that some QOS fans would want to kill me for saying this, so I have to make clear that with this thread I'm not discussing the quality of QOS's filmmaking.

My point is that the existence of QOS, is mostly sustained by the somehow forced creation of the doubt about Bond's recentely achieved professionalism, that was already clearly working in the last scene of CR, when OO7 avoids killing Mr. White (acting by mere unconsolable rage), and instead, he opts for just a shoot in the leg, that would eventually allow a further-and professional- interrogation.

The thing is Bond "never left" to be only motivated by his duty, since the finale of CR, hence why make an entire movie to confirm further that.

[Mr_Wint]

The whole revenge bit is somewhat forced too, since Vesper killed herself...

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

The whole revenge bit is somewhat forced too, since Vesper killed herself...

Hardly...it's not like she was just a manic depressive who forgot to take her meds --she killed herself because of Quantum. She was ashamed at the way she had let them use her and couldn't face up to it.

And Arlington, I don't think it was at all clear that Bond was motivated solely by duty at the end of CR. He could've just shot him in the leg so he could torture him later.

Bond shooting White isn't resolution to me...it's a teaser.

The end of QOS, with Yusef and Corrine, is very clearly a resolution.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And Arlington, I don't think it was at all clear that Bond was motivated solely by duty at the end of CR. He could've just shot him in the leg so he could torture him later.

Torture him where? in his own house in Lake Como, quite improbable and inconvenient. And even in that case, that would have been a practice (although a dirty one, I have to say) of his MI6's job, to extract information.

Don't forget, that M makes an innuendo of the use of this kind of method to extract information, within the MI6's work.

Besides, Bond is known as killer, not as torturer (too), like let's say the likes of 24's Jack Bauer.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 01 January 2009 - 10:54 PM.

[sorking]

The whole revenge bit is somewhat forced too, since Vesper killed herself...

As has been said all too often, it's not a revenge picture - he's assumed to be acting outside of his duty, but never really is.

The thing is Bond "never left" to be only motivated by his duty, since the finale of CR, hence why make an entire movie to confirm further that.

For the same reason you make a movie showing him beating bad guys - entertainment.

The makers wanted to keep emphasis on character. That means something more than simply showing Bond solving a case and catching the evildoers. The film was tied in to being set close after CR - in that White was a dangling thread, as was the nature of the organisation behind LeChiffre, and the nature of Mathis' involvement.

So it needed to be a direct sequel in some ways, unless those threads were dumped - or just paid minor lip-service. Which, as DaF kinda proved, is pretty shallow and unsatisfying.

So if you have to follow the story threads on, shouldn't you follow the emotional ones too? Doesn't that make more sense than creating a new set of tensions and dynamics from whole cloth? Especially so soon after the most important Bond movie for 35 years?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The thing is Bond "never left" to be only motivated by his duty, since the finale of CR, hence why make an entire movie to confirm further that.

For the same reason you make a movie showing him beating bad guys - entertainment.

The makers wanted to keep emphasis on character. That means something more than simply showing Bond solving a case and catching the evildoers. The film was tied in to being set close after CR - in that White was a dangling thread, as was the nature of the organisation behind LeChiffre, and the nature of Mathis' involvement.

So it needed to be a direct sequel in some ways, unless those threads were dumped - or just paid minor lip-service. Which, as DaF kinda proved, is pretty shallow and unsatisfying.

So if you have to follow the story threads on, shouldn't you follow the emotional ones too? Doesn't that make more sense than creating a new set of tensions and dynamics from whole cloth? Especially so soon after the most important Bond movie for 35 years?

What about with just follow the Organization (Quantum) path, just like FRWL did it with the SPECTRE theme, instead of make an unnecessary direct sequel of Craig's debut. I think that would have worked bettter. But EON have to go for the safest option, of just capitalize the financial and critical success of CR.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 02 January 2009 - 12:28 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I mean the character was already fully formed at the finale of CR, just like Bond was at the end of the novel. No wonder why Fleming didn't make his second Bond book, Live And Let Die, a direct sequel of its predecessor.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I know that some QOS fans would want to kill me for saying this, so I have to make clear that with this thread I'm not discussing the quality of QOS's filmmaking.

My point is that the existence of QOS, is mostly sustained by the somehow forced creation of the doubt about Bond's recentely achieved professionalism, that was already clearly working in the last scene of CR, when OO7 avoids killing Mr. White (acting by mere unconsolable rage), and instead, he opts for just a shoot in the leg, that would eventually allow a further-and professional- interrogation.

The thing is Bond "never left" to be only motivated by his duty, since the finale of CR, hence why make an entire movie to confirm further that.

Quite right. Fleming's LALD bears little connection to CR's plot. The whole trilogy idea has turned out to be a bit of a dud, with QOS hastily written to fit as a straight sequel and the news that the next film won't be a follow up after all.

[sharpshooter]

Having witnessed Bond introduce himself to Mr White during CR’s rousing finale, I would have been extremely frustrated for the story not to follow on from there.

[sorking]

So if you have to follow the story threads on, shouldn't you follow the emotional ones too? Doesn't that make more sense than creating a new set of tensions and dynamics from whole cloth? Especially so soon after the most important Bond movie for 35 years?

What about with just follow the Organization (Quantum) path, just like FRWL did it with the SPECTRE theme, instead of make an unnecessary direct sequel of Craig's debut. I think that would have worked bettter. But EON have to go for the safest option, of just capitalize the financial and critical success of CR.

So if you don't like the creative choice, it's done for bad reasons? I refute your logic, sir! (Also, that doesn't solve the hanging story threads one iota.)

A sequel is always done for capitalisation reasons. That's how FRWL was made - to make money. To take what audiences liked about the last film and do it again. Accusing this one entry as somehow being mercenary about the way it went for audience appeal doesn't remotely set it apart from the rest of the series.

Citing FRWL is hardly fair anyway, since 'oh, SPECTRE exists' is the beginning and end of that film's hanging story threads. You think it would have been more reasonable - more dramatically satisfying - to throw the White and Mathis stories away with a quick line and move on? I think you'll find a lot of people who consider that a creative cheat and a cop-out. (CF the off-screen killing of the kraken in Pirates.)

You call it capitalisation. I call it audience satisfaction. The series didn't last this long by ignoring the way people enjoy movies.

In point of fact, the way FRWL was experienced - no home video market, fewer TV repeats - isn't the way CR was watched anyway. Cinema is a different beast now. Filmmakers are able to make films that are more interconnected, and in many cases it works both creatively and financially for audiences:

http://noisetosignal...quels-and-sagas

Arguably, making a sequel less behoven on its predecessor is the financially wise move. After all, who wants to see a movie if you can't follow the plot? Certainly there's no way tying two films directly together is a guarantee. If it was, AVP2 would have been a record-breaking hit while Indy 4 would have tanked.

I'll say it again: separate the films if you like, but the film still requires an emotional journey. Because the era of Bond has, finally, reached the 'dramatic substance' phase. Dump the 'solace' theme and you have to invent something else. Something less intrinsic, most likely.

The term 'unnecessary direct sequel' is meaningless. One could just as easily say 'unnecessary skipping over of the previous film's events'. It's a term that blatantly stems from dislike, rather than an academic debate on the creative choice.

You can't reasonably argue that the decision was made for any better or worse reasons than the methods behind FRWL. So it's only about audience appreciation. Not for the film itself, but for the film's intent to make good on the promises of Casino Royale. To treat the continuity and characters of the series with the creative respect they've too often lacked. Audiences were asking "Where does Bond go next?" not "I hope I see Bond do more stuff soon", and the difference is huge. For the first time in a long time, people were investing in the character, rather than just the one-man genre machine.

To go directly to a stand-alone film would be to behave like you're still making films in the 60s and haven't noticed the changes in modern cinematic technique.

[stamper]

What the OP means is that QOS doesn't advance 007 character one more bit than the end of CR.

I don't think the ending of QOS is closure.

In CR, Bond gained : a tux, the 1964 Aston, a new cocktail recipe, the embryo of the "shaken not stirred" line, attitude, relationship with women, and more.

In QOS : nothing. He walks out like a zombie visiting a movie a set. It's clearly a useless movie, which CR was not, it was an ESSENTIAL Bond movie.

[DamnCoffee]

Having witnessed Bond introduce himself to Mr White during CR’s rousing finale, I would have been extremely frustrated for the story not to follow on from there.

Yep, I completely agree with you on that one.

[pgram]

I know that some QOS fans would want to kill me for saying this, so I have to make clear that with this thread I'm not discussing the quality of QOS's filmmaking.

My point is that the existence of QOS, is mostly sustained by the somehow forced creation of the doubt about Bond's recentely achieved professionalism, that was already clearly working in the last scene of CR, when OO7 avoids killing Mr. White (acting by mere unconsolable rage), and instead, he opts for just a shoot in the leg, that would eventually allow a further-and professional- interrogation.

The thing is Bond "never left" to be only motivated by his duty, since the finale of CR, hence why make an entire movie to confirm further that.

I agree with the main point. There was no need to make it a sequel. The development of the character was done adequately enough in CR (even though I have some complains about it as well, but that 's not the point now). Remember that promoting CR involved mainly the phrase: by the end, he 's become the man we know and love. Remember the cues of the Bond theme can be heard for the first time during the last scene. And the 'bond, james bond' line, was to point out this exactly.

Plus, there was no need whatsoever to find out what happened with Mr White. We can all use our imagination. It is implied that now that Bond is 'the man we know and love', he takes care of things, learning everything he needs from Mr White, and makes the organisation behind him pay. By actually showing us what happened, it actually diminishes the dramatic effect of the finalle of CR.

I also agree with the argument that it was mainly to capitalise on CR's success. They wanted to make sure that everyone would get the message that this is still Craig Bond, the one everyone liked in CR. Remember the trailer: exactly identical to that of CR. Not by chance.

I also agree about the LALD novel point. I 'm reading it right now for the first time, and after all I heard about the promotion of QoS, I was expecting to find more references to CR. But there are too few. And, if I may say so, quite rightly. Bond is not an emo, at the end of the day...

But I disagree about not discussing about the quality of QoS. I understand that what you mean here is that it has been done to death in other threads, and you want to focus on your main point only here. But I do believe, that, even though unnecessary, QoS could work as a sequel in a better way than it did.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the film (7.5/10, I 'd say). What makes it weak as a sequel though, is that the only reference to CR comes only through Bond's state of mind. The events of the story though, are more or less, dramatically irrelevant. For example, Bond doesn't have sex with Camille, because he 's still affected by Vesper's death. Why does he shag Fields then?

My point is that the story of QoS has a big twist, with respect to what we knew from CR: Yusef was not abducted by Quantum, he was working for them. Vesper was a sucker for falling for him. He did it to her, and does it to others as well. That's a very good starting point for a story of revenge or redemption. The possibilities it creates are endless. But it was not used almost at all. What I mean is, either make a sequel, or not. Making something in between, sort of let me down.

Still, like a said, not a bad film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Having witnessed Bond introduce himself to Mr White during CR’s rousing finale, I would have been extremely frustrated for the story not to follow on from there.

There wasn't a big necessity to show the almost instant continuation of that scene, directly on screen. It could have been briefly referred by M, just like in the novels the resolution of FRWL's cliffhanger, was explained in the second chapter of DN, when Bond is out of danger, after months of recovery, so establishing a good separation among that two adventures.

Anyway, it's not even the case of CR's finale being a kind of cliffhanger. It was just a scene to prove, in the action, the final progression of the character, who has become, finally by that time, in a consummated professional. And it's, at the same time, an adaption to the screen of Bond's final reflection (and decision) regarding the path to follow for his job, extracted from the last chapter of the novel.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

sorking, the thing is I don't oppose to every sequel, I'm just against to a sequel (QOS) that try to forced a direct continuation to a story that is mostly complete in its predecessor.

The organization (Quantum) story could perfectly follow or not, in subsequent movies, but the plot of CR, and hence the development of Bond as the "wonderful machine" that we all know and love, is already completed at the last scene of Craig's OO7 debut, just like it was in the novel.