179 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

You honestly think there is no legitimacy to people finding elements, the boat chase being a prime example, of Quantum of Solace confusing?

Confusing as in "challenging" or confusing as in "impossible to make sense of"?

If the former, then I agree that QoS can be confusing. But why be so negative? Instead let's call it challenging and embrace the challenge head on. That's what Zorin and many others are saying. Or, alternatively, don't. One can always sit back and complain that they don't understand while the rest of us move on. I can't see the wisdom in that decision, but apparently some prefer it.

However, if the latter definition is what you meant, then no. There is only one legitimate complaint, and that is the conclusion of the boat chase. That is the only example. Everything else in QOS can be understood with a little effort and/or a second viewing. The boat chase conclusion is a dropped sequence, which supposedly has been remedied in post-release editing.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

You honestly think there is no legitimacy to people finding elements, the boat chase being a prime example, of Quantum of Solace confusing?

Confusing as in "challenging" or confusing as in "impossible to make sense of"?

Challanging to the point where is it nearly impossible for some to make sense of. Others are more gifted like HildebrandRarity.

If the former, then I agree that QoS can be confusing. But why be so negative? Instead let's call it challenging and embrace the challenge head on. That's what Zorin and many others are saying. Or, alternatively, don't. One can always sit back and complain that they don't understand while the rest of us move on. I can't see the wisdom in that decision, but apparently some prefer it.

I was primarily referring to the climax of the scene. It wasn't my attempt to be negative towards Quantum. I merely found Zorin's comments interesting that CR's card game required multiple viewings to grasp considering he doesn't have similar issues with Quantum.

That is the only example. Everything else in QOS can be understood with a little effort and/or a second viewing. The boat chase conclusion is a dropped sequence, which supposedly has been remedied in post-release editing.

Interesting. Where can I find out more information about this?

[Safari Suit]

Personally, some of the films Forster has made, Finding Neverland and Stramger Than Fiction I'm thinking of in particular here, are a complete anathema to me whereas I have enjoyed a few of Campbell's directorial efforts. On the other hand I prefer QOS greatly to both CR and GE, so I suppose I would advocate the return of Forster to the Bond director's chair sooner than I would Campbell.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I do not come on CBN to do a "routine". And bringing in mention of anal Bond fans who are genuinely only happy if every Bond film is one part FROM RUSSIA and one part SPY is actually NOT a tangent as that is what is going on here when fans think a director like Forster could not improve on ROYALE or that Campbell could make SOLACE better.

So I'm a blinded fanboy only guided by nostalgia because I have a different preference in Bond directors to you?

What "everyday film goers"? The very few people you spoke to in passing about the film or the millions of film goers you handed a questionaire to on their way home?

Obviously I can't ask every single person who saw Quantum. But what I can do is gauge feelings based on a small sample. It's just common sense. I never tried to give the impression that I was speaking as some kind of authority. Besides, I never talked about majority feelings or what all movie goers felt, I only ever used terms like "a good number of". By the way, remember this:

And I don't class a "card game" the average viewer has to see at least twice to understand as being wholly "successful".

So I take it you conducted your own scientific study.

At least I referenced other posts to back up my claims.

The people who do not like SOLACE must stop using sweeping statements to justify their fan-boy gripes.

Confusing and disorientating direction is hardly a fanboy gripe.

The problem is the folk who base their enjoyment on where a gunbarrel is or whether or not "Bond James Bond" is uttered will not see that - certainly not for a long time. Their spectatorship of 007 films is based on "the canon".

That certainly is unfortunate. There are particular viewers who let superficial things like that ruin their perceptions of the underlying film. I am not one of them. Can we move on and talk about directing please?

The boat chase is not "bad". That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. But just remember that not everyone thinks that.

But of course. Never did I imply such a thing. What I did state was that a good number of people needed more than one viewing of that sequence to grasp what was going on, which I think is due to less than stellar directing (I remember that topic!).

[Judo chop]

That is the only example. Everything else in QOS can be understood with a little effort and/or a second viewing. The boat chase conclusion is a dropped sequence, which supposedly has been remedied in post-release editing.

Interesting. Where can I find out more information about this?

See HildebrandRarity's review of QOS. (in the members reviews thread.)

I haven't seen it, but he swears new footage was added in later showings (in December, I believe) to help explain exactly how we get from 'hook toss' to 'boat flip'.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I disagree, CR wasn't a trend follower (unlike, QOS, LTK, MR and many others).

I have discussed this in another threads... The concept for the Bond origin story was around EON since 1986, particularly with Michael G. Wilson. While the so called realistic down-to earth tone for CR, was already in the earlier scripts for the Jink spin-off since 2002, and as a natural reaction to the excess of fantasy in DAD.

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

However, a real trend follower is a work that is created trying to be similar to the one that set the trend before. Definitely, not the case of CR.

Having a wide variety of ideas, drafts and treatments on retainer merely means that they'll pull such aces in the hole when the time calls for it. They jumped on the "reboot the franchise/origin story" during the success of Batman Begins, thus I do consider that to be trend-following.

That's not true, or at least, isn't accurate. The announcement that Bond 21 would be the adaptation of the novel Casino Royale took place in early 2005, while the premiere of Batman Begins (and hence the start of its succeses & trend) was later on june 15 of the same year.

[Mister Asterix]

I disagree, CR wasn't a trend follower (unlike, QOS, LTK, MR and many others).

I have discussed this in another threads... The concept for the Bond origin story was around EON since 1986, particularly with Michael G. Wilson. While the so called realistic down-to earth tone for CR, was already in the earlier scripts for the Jink spin-off since 2002, and as a natural reaction to the excess of fantasy in DAD.

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

However, a real trend follower is a work that is created trying to be similar to the one that set the trend before. Definitely, not the case of CR.

Having a wide variety of ideas, drafts and treatments on retainer merely means that they'll pull such aces in the hole when the time calls for it. They jumped on the "reboot the franchise/origin story" during the success of Batman Begins, thus I do consider that to be trend-following.

That's not true, or at least, isn't accurate. The announcement that Bond 21 would be the adaptation of the novel Casino Royale took place in early 2005, while the premiere of Batman Begins (and hence the start of its succeses & trend) was later on june 15 of the same year.

Quite right. Casino Royale was officially announced in Feb 2005 ( http://commanderbond.net/article/2656 ) and there were rumours as early as 2003. This Batman Begins mumbo-jumbo is pure crap.

[HildebrandRarity]

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

They jumped on the "reboot the franchise/origin story" during the success of Batman Begins, thus I do consider that to be trend-following.

That's not true, or at least, isn't accurate. The announcement that Bond 21 would be the adaptation of the novel Casino Royale took place in early 2005, while the premiere of Batman Begins (and hence the start of its succeses & trend) was later on june 15 of the same year.

The courts awarded Eon the rights to Casino Royale as far back as 1997, if memory serves. If not then it was 1999.

Remember the period 2003-2004? Brosnan suggesting 'paralysis' on the part of Eon and then suggesting his future as Bond was 'opaque'?

With the rights in Eon's hand and Brosnan's Bond having run it's natural course in the over-the-topness of Die Another Day, the re-boot idea and the genesis of the version of CR we got lay in that 2003-2004 period.

In fact, Daniel Craig was approached as far back as 2004 for James Bond and only when he got the script in his hands (with Paul Haggis' name attached to it) did he remotely budge.

Batman Begins had nothing to do with the 'origins' story in the Bondverse. I remember everyone and their grandfather doing 'origins' at that time, begining with Darth Vader/Star Wars prequels and then later, and less successfully so, Jack Ryan (The Sum Of All Fears) and Exorcist The Beginning, even a Hannibal Lector origin movie.

So to credit Batman Begins for bringing about Casino Royale is just plain incorrect, especially in light of the fact that Brosnan was wanting $20,000,000 for Bond 21 and Craig was going to get about $1,500,000 for it. The natural solution was to go younger/cheaper/better on the lead and use the savings to make Bond more relevant again by re-booting it and grounding it in reality with propper writing and real stuntwork. They were never going to accomplish that with a 53 year old who was pricing himself out of the market and who audiences already had pre-conceived notions about.

So, I beg to differ with respect to the suggestion that it was Batman Begins that led to Casino Royale. A lot of work and thinking went on prior to the announcement of Bond 21 being Casino Royale. You simply don't start work on a major re-boot on a franchise the massive size of James Bond only three or four odd months before shooting starts.

[Eurospy]

I stand properly corrected then.

It appears that my memory failed me a great deal.

My bad and my apologies.

Edited by Eurospy, 16 January 2009 - 10:10 PM.

[sorking]

I do worry that the term 'director' is being misunderstood in some cases. Action sequences aside, the director's influence is massively more fundamental. If Campbell had directed, it wouldn't have been Quantum of Solace at all. A wholly different story with different themes and priorities.

Campbell has a strong facility for on-screen geography and well-executed camera and actor moves within intelligently constructed sequence. He builds a sequence as if perfectly stroyboarded...

But his gift for screenplay development is...less than great. The more control he has over a project, judging from his catalogue, the more clumsy the story. He has pacing problems, too - prone to lulls - and if he doesn't have the right actors (from his own casting) he struggles to make emotion carry from the scene into the crowd.

The screenplay for CR, with it's long gestation and defined writing allocation, is a great thing. A stronger director would have solved the 'fourth act' problem, but it's a small price to pay for the content. And he did great putting it together. (Though the Babs/Mike factor can't be underestimated.)

But I'd never, never want to seem Campbell brought on board a film going through a fast, unfinished development to pull it into shape. Especially not a Bond. The result would have been a clunky mess, with tenuous plotting and awkward pacing. And while those that dislike the movie may find it that way, I do believe that the pieces are all there.

The film has a definite structure, an intent to use and payoff everything that it does. There are strong themes and ideas. Plus some fabulous performances (Giannini, Dench and Craig are all better this time, for me). You may or may not disagree, but from sheer script analysis, it's hard to find anything missing.

In identical production circumstances, I think Campbell would have delivered an inferior CR sequel - not as good as the last film, but also nowhere near as interesting and rich as QoS.

[Eurospy]

(Hoping this time memory won't fail me so miserably), but there's something that I never quite understood about Campbell, regarding Bond.

It seems that he asked a great deal of changes to GE, since he disliked many aspects of Bond in an early draft. One of them (still trying to maintain faith in my memory here), being Bond doing too much investigation-work.

Still, that same element that he seemed to dislike about Bond is quite present in CR.

Also, there are a lot of different visual elements that are not present in GE (for example in CR, the scene where he's just been poisoned, or the brief montage of him cleaning the blood etc. in the bathroom after the staircase fight).

Why didn't we see more of the visual differences back in GE?

I hope I'm not posing a question that is mere mumbo-jumbo crap by itself.

[Zorin Industries]

I do worry that the term 'director' is being misunderstood in some cases. Action sequences aside, the director's influence is massively more fundamental. If Campbell had directed, it wouldn't have been Quantum of Solace at all. A wholly different story with different themes and priorities.

Campbell has a strong facility for on-screen geography and well-executed camera and actor moves within intelligently constructed sequence. He builds a sequence as if perfectly stroyboarded...

But his gift for screenplay development is...less than great. The more control he has over a project, judging from his catalogue, the more clumsy the story. He has pacing problems, too - prone to lulls - and if he doesn't have the right actors (from his own casting) he struggles to make emotion carry from the scene into the crowd.

The screenplay for CR, with it's long gestation and defined writing allocation, is a great thing. A stronger director would have solved the 'fourth act' problem, but it's a small price to pay for the content. And he did great putting it together. (Though the Babs/Mike factor can't be underestimated.)

But I'd never, never want to seem Campbell brought on board a film going through a fast, unfinished development to pull it into shape. Especially not a Bond. The result would have been a clunky mess, with tenuous plotting and awkward pacing. And while those that dislike the movie may find it that way, I do believe that the pieces are all there.

The film has a definite structure, an intent to use and payoff everything that it does. There are strong themes and ideas. Plus some fabulous performances (Giannini, Dench and Craig are all better this time, for me). You may or may not disagree, but from sheer script analysis, it's hard to find anything missing.

In identical production circumstances, I think Campbell would have delivered an inferior CR sequel - not as good as the last film, but also nowhere near as interesting and rich as QoS.

Very well said. Thank you.

I disagree, CR wasn't a trend follower (unlike, QOS, LTK, MR and many others).

I have discussed this in another threads... The concept for the Bond origin story was around EON since 1986, particularly with Michael G. Wilson. While the so called realistic down-to earth tone for CR, was already in the earlier scripts for the Jink spin-off since 2002, and as a natural reaction to the excess of fantasy in DAD.

Anyhow, it's very probable that the producers decided that after the success of Batman Begins, it was the best moment to achieve a commercial success with a proyect that they have before, becuase of the similarities with Nolan's work.

However, a real trend follower is a work that is created trying to be similar to the one that set the trend before. Definitely, not the case of CR.

Having a wide variety of ideas, drafts and treatments on retainer merely means that they'll pull such aces in the hole when the time calls for it. They jumped on the "reboot the franchise/origin story" during the success of Batman Begins, thus I do consider that to be trend-following.

That's not true, or at least, isn't accurate. The announcement that Bond 21 would be the adaptation of the novel Casino Royale took place in early 2005, while the premiere of Batman Begins (and hence the start of its succeses & trend) was later on june 15 of the same year.

Quite right. Casino Royale was officially announced in Feb 2005 ( http://commanderbond.net/article/2656 ) and there were rumours as early as 2003. This Batman Begins mumbo-jumbo is pure crap.

Absolutely. Well said. A Bond film is not decided upon then announced the next day. ROYALE would have been in the works from whenever the rights fully returned to Eon - or even when they knew they could be returned - which was around 1999/2000 I believe. The first day of principle photography is not the first day the crew and production company work on a project.

I haven't seen it, but he swears new footage was added in later showings (in December, I believe) to help explain exactly how we get from 'hook toss' to 'boat flip'.

I could be wrong, but my gut instinct on that one is that it's probably not true. Films do not get re-edited once they have been on general release. The process of cutting and printing the actual reels is not something that can easily be repeated without a great deal of hassle - effort that is the last thing on the producers and distributors minds once the film is out there and needs promoting and supported.

[sorking]

I haven't seen it, but he swears new footage was added in later showings (in December, I believe) to help explain exactly how we get from 'hook toss' to 'boat flip'.

I could be wrong, but my gut instinct on that one is that it's probably not true. Films do not get re-edited once they have been on general release. The process of cutting and printing the actual reels is not something that can easily be repeated without a great deal of hassle - effort that is the last thing on the producers and distributors minds once the film is out there and needs promoting and supported.

I've no idea if it's true for QoS, and certainly it's insanely unlikely that prints be actively replaced for the sake of a creative decision. (Even though you'd only have to replace one reel, not the whole movie.) But certainly NEW prints - new areas, new requests - could get a tweaked version.

I know for certain that versions of Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park in the cinema differed slightly - included extra shots - from the versions that have become 'definitive'. I don't know if a mistake was made, or if early prints came from an earlier cut. It all seems bizarre...but there you go.

Edited by sorking, 17 January 2009 - 07:42 PM.

[Colossus]

I think Martin Campbell has so far shown to be the best director of modern Bond. Looking back on history the Bond director has always had experience with action movies more than any other genre. Terence Young and Guy Hamilton were both known for action movies before they did Bond. Even Lewis Gilbert made spectacle war films. John Glen and Peter Hunt worked with those guys and came from their schools of thought too. Martin Campbell was truly the first not picked from the old EON brood and was a lucky find.

Someone with a dramatic background i don't think was the best choice, Bond is more an action movie than it is a drama. It does have both elements and more genres in there, but it is an adventurous pulp action thriller first and foremost, at least that's what i gather from the books and early movies.

[tim partridge]

Martin Campbell was truly the first not picked from the old EON brood and was a lucky find.

Campbell's EDGE OF DARKNESS miniseries and REILLY ACE OF SPIES contributions were as close to Bond as you could get; British made and based cold war spy pieces. Didn't hurt that Campbell's DP had a track record shooting Brosnan in political thrillers either. It's not like Campbell got GoldenEye soley off the back of NO ESPACE because he was broadly an action director.


I agree that Campbell isn't the artistic stylist that Forster, Hamilton or Gilbert is, but he's very much still a highly skillful and talented director who brings something integral to Bond. He seems to work very well as a creative producer's director, with great judgement concerning compromise, and there's a big art to that which should not be underestimated in the face of the stylist Bond directors like Forster. Campbell is an incredibly well respected filmmaker. I have friends who worked on GOLDENEYE and CR who praise Campbell for his assertive, decisive manner. Certainly as far as their technical crafts are concerned Campbell sticks to his decisions and doesn't "um" and "ah" (unlike a lot of directors out there).

Edited by tim partridge, 18 January 2009 - 12:20 PM.

[Dekard77]

Martin Campbell was truly the first not picked from the old EON brood and was a lucky find.

Campbell's EDGE OF DARKNESS miniseries and REILLY ACE OF SPIES contributions were as close to Bond as you could get; British made and based cold war spy pieces. Didn't hurt that Campbell's DP had a track record shooting Brosnan in political thrillers either. It's not like Campbell got GoldenEye soley off the back of NO ESPACE because he was broadly an action director.


I agree that Campbell isn't the artistic stylist that Forster, Hamilton or Gilbert is, but he's very much still a highly skillful and talented director who brings something integral to Bond. He seems to work very well as a creative producer's director, with great judgement concerning compromise, and there's a big art to that which should not be underestimated in the face of the stylist Bond directors like Forster. Campbell is an incredibly well respected filmmaker. I have friends who worked on GOLDENEYE and CR who praise Campbell for his assertive, decisive manner. Certainly as far as their technical crafts are concerned Campbell sticks to his decisions and doesn't "um" and "ah" (unlike a lot of directors out there).

Agreed , I am still surprised that Campbell was chosen in for GE, as he is really firm when directing Bond which really gave the macho lift Brosnan needed and Craig the confidence in CR. QOS works fine with Forster as he understands the need the give the franchise a new look. Sometimes when you watch the series over and over again it helps when certain elements don't match to the previous movie.
A second viewing is needed to fully enjoy the movie and holds well and fine to CR. Lets hope the directors keep the franchise fresh without being OTT like TWINE.
The main reason behind the stall after DAD was that most audiences were preferring younger heroes with more with a better edge. Bourne and Batman were the best examples. Brosnan's demands also could have been a problem but you can hardly blame the actor as he does deserve pay rise given his track record.

[HildebrandRarity]

Brosnan's demands also could have been a problem but you can hardly blame the actor as he does deserve pay rise given his track record.

Tell us more...

Brosnan took a pay cut on every movie after Die Another Day...unless he was given 'points' for Mamma Mia!

I think his demands for Bond 21 were outrageous. Not only did he think he was worth $20 Million but there was rumour that he wanted a share of the gross as well.

What a blow to his ego it must have been to see Casino Royale do well. A double blow.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think Martin Campbell has so far shown to be the best director of modern Bond. Looking back on history the Bond director has always had experience with action movies more than any other genre. Terence Young and Guy Hamilton were both known for action movies before they did Bond. Even Lewis Gilbert made spectacle war films. John Glen and Peter Hunt worked with those guys and came from their schools of thought too. Martin Campbell was truly the first not picked from the old EON brood and was a lucky find.

Someone with a dramatic background i don't think was the best choice, Bond is more an action movie than it is a drama. It does have both elements and more genres in there, but it is an adventurous pulp action thriller first and foremost, at least that's what i gather from the books and early movies.

You're so right on the point!! And that's exactly what some fans refuse to understand (and accept), Bond- books and movies- is mainly pulp action thrillers. Hence, the best or more suitable director fot it, isn't the more academic or 'artistically' qualified as Forster could be, particularly in drama, but the better for action, who is in this case Campbell or other with similar filmic genre's strengths.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think Martin Campbell has so far shown to be the best director of modern Bond. Looking back on history the Bond director has always had experience with action movies more than any other genre.

Someone with a dramatic background i don't think was the best choice, Bond is more an action movie than it is a drama. It does have both elements and more genres in there, but it is an adventurous pulp action thriller first and foremost, at least that's what i gather from the books and early movies.

You're so right on the point!! And that's exactly what some fans refuse to understand (and accept), Bond- books and movies- is mainly pulp action thrillers. Hence, the best or more suitable director fot it, isn't the more academic or 'artistically' qualified as Forster could be, particularly in drama, but the better for action, who is in this case Campbell or other with similar filmic genre's strengths.

But that's only an opinion. It's not fact.

I can say QOS is the best James Bond film ever and it has the best action of the series...but it would only be an opinion.

And James Bond movies are not about action. They're about adventure and atmosphere and style. Which is also an opinion.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think Martin Campbell has so far shown to be the best director of modern Bond. Looking back on history the Bond director has always had experience with action movies more than any other genre.

Someone with a dramatic background i don't think was the best choice, Bond is more an action movie than it is a drama. It does have both elements and more genres in there, but it is an adventurous pulp action thriller first and foremost, at least that's what i gather from the books and early movies.

You're so right on the point!! And that's exactly what some fans refuse to understand (and accept), Bond- books and movies- is mainly pulp action thrillers. Hence, the best or more suitable director fot it, isn't the more academic or 'artistically' qualified as Forster could be, particularly in drama, but the better for action, who is in this case Campbell or other with similar filmic genre's strengths.

But that's only an opinion. It's not fact.

I can say QOS is the best James Bond film ever and it has the best action of the series...but it would only be an opinion.

And James Bond movies are not about action. They're about adventure and atmosphere and style. Which is also an opinion.

One can also say that he or she prefers potato vodka to grain vodka, but that would also be an opinion...

[HildebrandRarity]

I think Martin Campbell has so far shown to be the best director of modern Bond. Looking back on history the Bond director has always had experience with action movies more than any other genre.

Someone with a dramatic background i don't think was the best choice, Bond is more an action movie than it is a drama. It does have both elements and more genres in there, but it is an adventurous pulp action thriller first and foremost, at least that's what i gather from the books and early movies.

You're so right on the point!! And that's exactly what some fans refuse to understand (and accept), Bond- books and movies- is mainly pulp action thrillers. Hence, the best or more suitable director fot it, isn't the more academic or 'artistically' qualified as Forster could be, particularly in drama, but the better for action, who is in this case Campbell or other with similar filmic genre's strengths.

But that's only an opinion. It's not fact.

I can say QOS is the best James Bond film ever and it has the best action of the series...but it would only be an opinion.

And James Bond movies are not about action. They're about adventure and atmosphere and style. Which is also an opinion.

One can also say that he or she prefers potato vodka to grain vodka, but that would also be an opinion...

Indeed. As would be one's preference of Russian caviar over Peking duck...or is that now Beijing duck?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

Oh, and HildebrandRarity, do you think is also an opinion to say that Bond is mainly ‘pulp’ (and pure entertainment), or Fleming’s creation and the EON series is high art for you??

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 January 2009 - 05:44 AM.

[honeyjes]

I think its attitudes like this that turned Bond into a carricature,ending up with Dad. If your'e going to play it safe and not take risks, there's no point to your efforts. QOS may not work for some but it evidently has for others, taking risks does not guarantee success but what it gives is another dimension to what's gone before and opens the door to other possiblities. Forster may by an artistic choice, but if no effort is made to push the franchise forward, why bother making more films, you might as well shut up shop and put the current efforts on a loop.

[blueman]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

Really? I think Campbell barely manages to be workmanlike with the occassional moment of something greater, whereas Forster delivers true Bond Style. IMHO.

[HildebrandRarity]

Oh, and HildebrandRarity, do you think is also an opinion to say that Bond is mainly ‘pulp’ (and pure entertainment), or Fleming’s creation and the EON series is high art for you??

You're asking the wrong person. I actually paint on canvass using acrylics for a hobby and Binder's and Kleinmann's work for the Eon series has been a good deal of my inspriation.

I think there's an element of 'art' about James Bond - including 55-odd years of very interesting book covers - that seperates it from the run-of-the-mill 'action' movie series.

Do I think it's "high art"? I think you already know the answer.

Am I interested in being stunned by mind-blowing visuals and interesting locations? Sure I am.

If, however, all I want is 'action' only, i'd have gone to see Transporter 3 or Eagle Eye.

James Bond is much more than simply 'action' for me. It's also about attitude and a style...and Q0S has the right type of attitude and style for my tastes...and great action to boot!

If 5 or 6 or 7 people here on this blog don't like it, well then that's just too bad. These 6 or 7 people pale in comparison to the 80,000,000 tickets sold and i'm sure Eon won't be doing a 180 anytime soon.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

Really? I think Campbell barely manages to be workmanlike with the occassional moment of something greater, whereas Forster delivers true Bond Style. IMHO.

OK, I get your opinion, but I don't really see how that is related with my- quoted- point.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Oh, and HildebrandRarity, do you think is also an opinion to say that Bond is mainly ‘pulp’ (and pure entertainment), or Fleming’s creation and the EON series is high art for you??

You're asking the wrong person. I actually paint on canvass using acrylics for a hobby and Binder's and Kleinmann's work for the Eon series has been a good deal of my inspriation.

I think there's an element of 'art' about James Bond - including 55-odd years of very interesting book covers - that seperates it from the run-of-the-mill 'action' movie series.

Do I think it's "high art"? I think you already know the answer.

Am I interested in being stunned by mind-blowing visuals and interesting locations? Sure I am.

If, however, all I want is 'action' only, i'd have gone to see Transporter 3 or Eagle Eye.

James Bond is much more than simply 'action' for me. It's also about attitude and a style...and Q0S has the right type of attitude and style for my tastes...and great action to boot!

If 5 or 6 or 7 people here on this blog don't like it, well then that's just too bad. These 6 or 7 people pale in comparison to the 80,000,000 tickets sold and i'm sure Eon won't be doing a 180 anytime soon.

Excuse me, but I still don't quite understand your answer. I'm inclined to think from what I read, that Bond is high art for you, but then again you mention popularity at the BO and artistic inspiration for painting to explain your assessment, and I have to tell you that ‘pulp’ is also a form of art (or popular culture, to some stretch).

The thing is for many of us Bond is more than just average action movies, that's why we are fan of this series, but that's far from thinking that the EON flicks are serious pieces of work from the seventh art, that deserve to be in the heights of the likes of "Citizen Kane", for instance. However, if you really think so, that would be your opinion and I respect it.

[HildebrandRarity]

What is 'high art'?

Art is art. High, low, medium. I could care less. Art is a creation which moves me in some capacity.

Did Q0S 'move' me in some capacity? I say "yes".

Is "Citizen Kane" "high art"? I have no Idea. I've watched bits and pieces of it as a youngster on tv and was bored to death by it. So I hit the remote and switched channels every time.

Does that help answer you question?

[Safari Suit]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

I would say CR took itself a lot more seriously than QOS, which in spots made it feel rather silly indeed.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

I would say CR took itself a lot more seriously than QOS, which in spots made it feel rather silly indeed.

Interesting. Tell me, where do you see that excessive artistic seriousness in CR??