249 replies to this topic

[winstoninabox]

Hi,
I'm a new poster.

First off, I very much enjoyed QoS, but understand that people had issues with pacing, editing, character motivation,etc.

I'm wondering about how people's opinions of the film have changed since getting the DVD and being because they are now able to enjoy it at their own pace and to review scenes again and again?

Personally (with absolutely no evidence but a gut feeling)I think that QoS's standing in the pantheon will only increase. My flimsy rationale being that most of the issues that people had with the film will disappear with repeated viewings.

[Sir James Molony]

Great question.

I saw it twice in theaters and once on DVD. I was not a fan after the first viewing, but now rank it in my top 5.

So, I think QOS will be the OHMSS of our generation -- underappreciated and unfairly maligned upon release, but ultimately appreciated and ranked as one of the best.

[MattofSteel]

Should change for the better. It's a film that gets better with subsequent viewings.

[eddychaput]

Same here. While I'm not sure I'd give it a healthy B, I do like it a bit more, which means something at least.

I mean, after having seen DAD, DAF, MR and AVTAK at least 5 or 6 times each, I still think each one is absolute dreck.

QOS went from 'meh' to 'Okay, it has problems but I'm getting into it now at least.'

[tdalton]

I ranked it as a top 5 Bond film when I saw it the one time in theaters. Now, I think that it may be the best of the entire franchise, with only Casino Royale to rival it for the top spot.

[HildebrandRarity]

When it first came out, I thought it possibly the best James Bond film ever.

Now that I have the dvd and saw how they were on location more than any other OO7 production and for such a long time...and saw how much sweat went into it, I'm even a bigger fan.

Watching Craig on the Siena rooftops on disk two...well, he's just a TOTAL STUD! Something to aspire to.

[DR76]

So, I think QOS will be the OHMSS of our generation -- underappreciated and unfairly maligned upon release, but ultimately appreciated and ranked as one of the best.

If that happens, I will be very surprised. I don't view QoS as one of the worst Bond films I have seen. But I don't think it was one of the best, either. If it does aquire a reputation as one of the best . . . I don't know. I don't think I would accept that opinion.

[stamper]

You can't compare QOS to OHMSS, CR is a rise to OHMSS level, certainly not QOS -- you can't polish a turd, but the blu-ray disc certainly gives it a slight edge, you can now see every move on Craig's face, and since his performance is the only saving grace of this travesty of a film, it sightly improve on blu disc viewing -- also it helps that we aren't expecting it now to be on the level of CR since we have seen it already -- it's just a minor addendum to the 007 mythos in Bourne editing style, nothing to jump to walls about.
I hope the next one at least feature somethings from YOLT like the garden of death, and other unexplored things from the novels, because turning their back on Fleming in everything but the title was a big mistake. CR is proof that you need to use material to make a successful Bond film, not only at the box office, but as a movie, in order to reach the mainstream audience. And believe me, many of the casual 007 fans felt cheated by QOS, something that can't happen two times in a row with a Bond movie. Oh, yes, we also want a Bond that Arc, not one that Arc back to the end of the precedent movie arc that was already done.

[DR76]

CR is proof that you need to use material to make a successful Bond film, not only at the box office, but as a movie.

I don't quite agree with this assessment, either. Some of the movies based upon Fleming's novel have not turned out well in my eyes. Like DAF. And I think that some of the movies that have used a Fleming title to tell a different story has turned out well. Like TSWLM.

[MarkA]

I think the main problem with QOS have always been the problem since I saw it. I actually did the double bill thing with CR to see how they slot together, and in my opinion, right next to each other CR rose even further. QOS seems to me just the epilogue to a much greater film. Not one really badly made (though I have the issues, editing etc, that a lot of people have), but a film that ultimately just lacks a really strong story compared to CR. It just seems a minor bonus episode, until we make a proper story with the next film.

Edited by MarkA, 02 April 2009 - 07:27 PM.

[quantumofsolace]

It's not perfect but QOS is one of the best films in the franchise. I can understand why some people on first or second viewing will not like it but almost everything looks at the right pace and makes sense on the third or more viewings. OHMSS is a good film to compare it against as it also had huge box office, good reviews but it took a long time for the fans to embrace it .

[eddychaput]

The Spy Who Loved Me was insanely successful and it also only kept the title of a Fleming book,
Other than some character names and the location of Japan, You Only Live Twice movie has pretty nothing to do with You Only Live Twice the book.

So not be a party pooper, but I think we can get rid of the 'You need Fleming material to make a successful Bond movie' argument. It defintely helps, in fact I honestly prefer the movies that rely on a lot of FLeming, but there have been 007 films that had little/nothing to do with Fleming material that were very successful.

[blueman]

Still wildly enamored of the tight thriller-style plotting, the overall Flemingesque tone, the action, the quiet moments, the subtlety in so many scenes and the many surprises along the way. Best Bond since OHMSS, really captures a Bondian zeitgeist missing from so many Bond films.

[Sir James Molony]

You can't compare QOS to OHMSS, CR is a rise to OHMSS level, certainly not QOS -- you can't polish a turd, but the blu-ray disc certainly gives it a slight edge, you can now see every move on Craig's face, and since his performance is the only saving grace of this travesty of a film, it sightly improve on blu disc viewing -- also it helps that we aren't expecting it now to be on the level of CR since we have seen it already -- it's just a minor addendum to the 007 mythos in Bourne editing style, nothing to jump to walls about.
I hope the next one at least feature somethings from YOLT like the garden of death, and other unexplored things from the novels, because turning their back on Fleming in everything but the title was a big mistake. CR is proof that you need to use material to make a successful Bond film, not only at the box office, but as a movie, in order to reach the mainstream audience. And believe me, many of the casual 007 fans felt cheated by QOS, something that can't happen two times in a row with a Bond movie. Oh, yes, we also want a Bond that Arc, not one that Arc back to the end of the precedent movie arc that was already done.

I actually think that QOS is very much in the Fleming tradition, certainly more so than any of Brosnan's films. I agree that it doesn't rise to the level of CR (which is tied for first in my top 23 list). CR benefited from a better core story.

QOS felt very much like early period Fleming, say LALD or DAF (the books) -- stripped down, straightforward narrative, lots of action.

I think QOS will gain more fans over time because it is well crafted. I see new things and appreciate certain elements differently when I watched it again. That's how I feel about OHMSS. Peter Hunt and company really poured their hearts into making that movie as good (and Fleming-like) as it could be.

I too would love to see the last few scarps of Fleming ideas show up on screen, but there's really almost nothing left (except the garden as you point out). I'll be a happy camper if they stick with the Flemingesque feel and ethos, but updated for the 21st century and with the EON twist.

Edited by Sir James Molony, 02 April 2009 - 10:42 PM.

[Professor Dent]

It's the new movie on the block so there is a lot of excitement around it. As far as the presentation on Blu-ray, it is stellar & will get a lot of props for that alone. I like Arnold's score a lot. The movie itself on the whole is about middle of the Bond pack for me. For the casual Bond fan, I think it will be popular.

One thing that Quantum of Solace has done for me is really solidify just how good of a movie that Casino Royale really is - especially after watching them back to back.

[sharpshooter]

One thing that Quantum of Solace has done for me is really solidify just how good of a movie that Casino Royale really is - especially after watching them back to back.

Definitely. I like QoS, but I’m not really sure if any future Craig outings can reach CR's level. Anyway, as MattofSteel states, QoS does get better with each viewing. Those people that saw the film once in cinemas, hated it and give it a second chance on DVD may yet be won over.

[blueman]

I guess I'm the other way, QOS blew CR out of the water IMO. CR is a good/almost great traditional Bond film in the EON mold; QOS is a Bond film like I never thought I'd see, as if Fleming himself had a hand in shaping it. In a way QOS fulfilled CR's promise: Craig in CR was a slice of old school Fleming Bond in a modern EON Bond film, whereas QOS is a full-on embrace of Fleming's Bond. JMHO.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think the main problem with QOS have always been the problem since I saw it. I actually did the double bill thing with CR to see how they slot together, and in my opinion, right next to each other CR rose even further. QOS seems to me just the epilogue to a much greater film. Not one really badly made (though I have the issues, editing etc, that a lot of people have), but a film that ultimately just lacks a really strong story compared to CR. It just seems a minor bonus episode, until we make a proper story with the next film.

Totally agree!! This is the same way that I saw it.

[Vanish]

The majority of people I've spoken to about the film think very highly of it, and I think it will enjoy a healthy reputation as the years go on.

Personally, I view it as a solid, middle of the road entry that boasts a few fantastic qualities and a few unfortunate drawbacks. I've seen it multiple times on dvd and Blu Ray, and my opinion will likely remain consistent on this one.

[Auric64]

I too would love to see the last few scarps of Fleming ideas show up on screen, but there's really almost nothing left (except the garden as you point out). I'll be a happy camper if they stick with the Flemingesque feel and ethos, but updated for the 21st century and with the EON twist.

That`s not true. There are still a number of Fleming "moments" from the novels, which have not been used by the producers. Off the top of my head, are the following, but other posters may know more.

DAF - the whole sequence at Spectreville, with the wild west setting, the train, the fight in the bar - the sort of elements that a Bond villian would have, and which would look fantastic on the big screen.

OHMSS - Bond encountering Campbell, and having to tell Blofeld that he doesn`t know him, knowing that that would be the death of a fellow agent - handled correctly, and with different character names - it`s something that could be done for a future Craig film.

OHMSS - The sequence where Bond and Tracy are being chased in their car by the SPECTRE agents - where Bond changes the diversion sign to send the baddies to their death.

YOLT - The Garden of Death sequence - either all of it or major elements of it - could be used. Something like this - done correctly - would be accepted by a Craig audience rather than the previous audience of a Brosnan film.

TMWTGG - Bond trying to assassinate M. Again, done correctly, this could be a tour de force for actors like Craig and Dench.

Now, whether the producers could use just one of these sequences, to create a future film around it, (a la Octopussy/Living Daylights) or whether they could use more than one/all - is open to conjecture, but personally I would love to see them in future Craig Bond films.

Best

Andy

[blueman]

Squid! Squid!

[Mr_Wint]

No change for me. Still bottom 3.

[DR76]

I just saw QoS back-to-back with CR. My views on both movies have not changed. However, I must admit that I have become more appreciative of David Arnold's score for both movies.

Edited by DR76, 03 April 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[Frimmel]

It seems likely that those on the fence will fall off to one side or the other mostly based on their preference for serious Bond (don't hate Lazenby or Dalton) or comic book Bond (Roger Moore is the best Bond) and those who hated it will continue to hate it and those who loved it will come to see its flaws and continue to hope like heck the keep going away from 'old school' Bond.

The big effect of the DVD's reaction will be on the next film. If it doesn't do the sales and everyone keeps complaining how it wasn't any 'fun' (because doing your duty for Queen and country with a license to kill if you aren't killed first is all about fun) we'll go backwards to quips with Moneypenny or Q'ute and comic book gadgets, villains and plots and we'll get Die Another Day again.

[Harmsway]

Craig in CR was a slice of old school Fleming Bond in a modern EON Bond film, whereas QOS is a full-on embrace of Fleming's Bond. JMHO.

In some sense that's true. There are moments in QUANTUM OF SOLACE where I think it channels Fleming really powerfully, like the Mathis/Bond villa conversation, which must be one of the best-written scenes in a Bond flick ever. It's great.

CASINO ROYALE is more in line with the "cinematic Bond," in that it has a spirit about it that's more EON than Fleming (though it certainly has more Fleming to it than most entries in the franchise). But that's not a bad thing, if you ask me. I actually might prefer the spirit of CASINO ROYALE to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, even if QUANTUM OF SOLACE does occasionally line up more with a kind of Fleming style.

But overall, CASINO ROYALE is by far the superior film, and breaks with tradition in ways that QUANTUM OF SOLACE never manages. QUANTUM OF SOLACE's narrative is disappointingly standard fare for Bond, a return to the predictable narrative formula CASINO ROYALE had left behind. And for every good moment in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, there's one that just doesn't work, or is, at the very least, pretty dull. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a remarkably awkward, uneven flick, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

[Publius]

Its reputation will improve. Hell, CR's did and that didn't even have much room to grow in popularity. People will be better able to absorb it on the small screen, especially when they can pause and rewind at their leisure. No more missing a key moment because you looked down to find an extra-buttery piece of popcorn.

I ranked it as a top 5 Bond film when I saw it the one time in theaters. Now, I think that it may be the best of the entire franchise, with only Casino Royale to rival it for the top spot.

Same here. I'm bewildered by how much I still love it, given the consensus opinion even among fans. It almost feels like it was made just for me, if that makes any sense.

However, I must admit that I have become more appreciative of David Arnold's score for both movies.

Agreed. He did an especially stellar job with QoS, which I think is his best to date and one of my favorite Bond scores altogether. I was pleasantly surprised because I had been an advocate of replacing him, for fear that he couldn't change some of his more annoying tendencies and still couldn't bring an original sound. I don't know what got into him but I hope the same happens for Bond 23 if he returns.

[Sir James Molony]

I too would love to see the last few scarps of Fleming ideas show up on screen, but there's really almost nothing left (except the garden as you point out). I'll be a happy camper if they stick with the Flemingesque feel and ethos, but updated for the 21st century and with the EON twist.

That`s not true. There are still a number of Fleming "moments" from the novels, which have not been used by the producers. Off the top of my head, are the following, but other posters may know more.

DAF - the whole sequence at Spectreville, with the wild west setting, the train, the fight in the bar - the sort of elements that a Bond villian would have, and which would look fantastic on the big screen.

OHMSS - Bond encountering Campbell, and having to tell Blofeld that he doesn`t know him, knowing that that would be the death of a fellow agent - handled correctly, and with different character names - it`s something that could be done for a future Craig film.

OHMSS - The sequence where Bond and Tracy are being chased in their car by the SPECTRE agents - where Bond changes the diversion sign to send the baddies to their death.

YOLT - The Garden of Death sequence - either all of it or major elements of it - could be used. Something like this - done correctly - would be accepted by a Craig audience rather than the previous audience of a Brosnan film.

TMWTGG - Bond trying to assassinate M. Again, done correctly, this could be a tour de force for actors like Craig and Dench.

Now, whether the producers could use just one of these sequences, to create a future film around it, (a la Octopussy/Living Daylights) or whether they could use more than one/all - is open to conjecture, but personally I would love to see them in future Craig Bond films.

Best

Andy

OK, I'm impressed.

But these are individual moments, many of which have some sort of parallel within an EON film (except the Garden of Death, which is totally unused). The OHMSS scene was done in the movie; Bond being chased but escaping has been done at least once or twice. :-) There are simply no more fully fleshed out stories left.

And some Fleming moments have not appeared on screen for a reason. In the GF book, Bond becomes Goldfinger's secretary, but I'm happy to not have that scene in the film!

CR was a nice fusion of Fleming's Bond with EON's Bond, while QOS tipped more toward Fleming. I'd be quite happy with another CR, but they will obviously have to come up with a plot.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Craig in CR was a slice of old school Fleming Bond in a modern EON Bond film, whereas QOS is a full-on embrace of Fleming's Bond. JMHO.

In some sense that's true. There are moments in QUANTUM OF SOLACE where I think it channels Fleming really powerfully, like the Mathis/Bond villa conversation, which must be one of the best-written scenes in a Bond flick ever. It's great.

CASINO ROYALE is more in line with the "cinematic Bond," in that it has a spirit about it that's more EON than Fleming (though it certainly has more Fleming to it than most entries in the franchise). But that's not a bad thing, if you ask me. I actually might prefer the spirit of CASINO ROYALE to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, even if QUANTUM OF SOLACE does occasionally line up more with a kind of Fleming style.

But overall, CASINO ROYALE is by far the superior film, and breaks with tradition in ways that QUANTUM OF SOLACE never manages. QUANTUM OF SOLACE's narrative is disappointingly standard fare for Bond, a return to the predictable narrative formula CASINO ROYALE had left behind. And for every good moment in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, there's one that just doesn't work, or is, at the very least, pretty dull. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a remarkably awkward, uneven flick, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

Completely agree!!

I like Fleming's work, but what made Bond a worldwide cultural phenomenon was EON's movies not the books, so I also prefer a Bond film with a big nod to Fleming but within the frames of EON, just like CR or DN, and unlike QOS. That, in the case that this second Craig entry would really be considered as Flemingesque, which is a thing about I still have plenty of doubts- just like I feel when someone says that LTK is so Fleming inspired!, just to disguise the flaws of that flick-.

[plankattack]

, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

Nice post Harms, so I'll just comment on this little part. I've tried to stay out of QoS arguments - our opinions are all subjective and it's clearly a film that has split us fans (unlike CR). But what I don't think is debatable is that it did try to push the envelope for a big franchise film. From Forster's arthouse style (yes, I love the fact that Tosca looks like one long commercial for some new European perfume, and why can't cross-cutting in Italy appear in a Bond?), to some of themes within the story, whether or not one thinks it worked isn't the point. To me the greatest thing about QoS is that it didn't set out to copy it's predecessor, or open the whole EON playbook for making a Bond film.

I don't know if we'll ever agree on how "good" QoS was, but I do feel repeated viewings will help highlight the fact that it tried to be different. And too often this franchise has fallen dangerously close to getting stale indeed.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

, and I find myself loving it more for what it tries to be than what it actually achieves.

Nice post Harms, so I'll just comment on this little part. I've tried to stay out of QoS arguments - our opinions are all subjective and it's clearly a film that has split us fans (unlike CR). But what I don't think is debatable is that it did try to push the envelope for a big franchise film. From Forster's arthouse style (yes, I love the fact that Tosca looks like one long commercial for some new European perfume, and why can't cross-cutting in Italy appear in a Bond?), to some of themes within the story, whether or not one thinks it worked isn't the point. To me the greatest thing about QoS is that it didn't set out to copy it's predecessor, or open the whole EON playbook for making a Bond film.

I don't know if we'll ever agree on how "good" QoS was, but I do feel repeated viewings will help highlight the fact that it tried to be different. And too often this franchise has fallen dangerously close to getting stale indeed.

For me QOS, is different to the rest of the franchise only on the surface (with its arthouse style of direction and Bourne type of action sequence), but in its core- or in its "narrative formula", as Harmsway pointed out- it seems to me just like an average Bond movie, far from the worst but also far from the best of the series.