249 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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.

Indeed.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE's intentions were entirely honorable. And I appreciate the experimental spirit of the endeavor, including the willingness to make some interesting stylistic choices, even if the style didn't always play just right, and some bold narrative moves, even if they were ultimately underdeveloped.

In fact, I'm dismayed by the suggestion that BOND 23 will be more of a "back to tradition" Bond flick. I'm all for a return to some level of fun in the franchise - QUANTUM OF SOLACE was pretty grim, all things considered, and notably grimmer than the often very fun CASINO ROYALE - but the spirit of experimentation need not cease. I'm worried that EON will read the mixed reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE in the wrong way; I believe its root is not in QUANTUM OF SOLACE's deviation from familiar formula, really, but in QUANTUM OF SOLACE's lack of fun and overall unevenness. EON should take some lessons from QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but they shouldn't shy away from the spirit of these first two Craig Bond films. They should continue to be bold.

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.

I suspect that QUANTUM OF SOLACE will be one of my most-revisited entries in the franchise for precisely this reason.

[tdalton]

They should continue to be bold.

It would be nice if the franchise continued to be bold, but of course that ultimately won't happen. BOND 23 will almost assuredly be a return to the more laid-back, ridiculous Bond film that we were used to seeing during the first 20 films of the franchise. The extremely mixed reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE will probably result in a complete 180 from what we got in the last film, as opposed to continuing the path towards making Bond more interesting again. Every time the franchise finally gets headed in a direction that is somewhat interesting, something happens that causes them to do a complete 180 and head back in the other direction. It happened with OHMSS, it happened with the Dalton films, and it'll probably happen again this time around. I actually wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they even dropped the idea of ever using the QUANTUM organization again and just went ahead with the same types of villains we saw in the Brosnan films.

[eddychaput]

Hmm...Not even using Quantum? That's not a prediction I'll make. I am a bit worried that the mixed reaction to the film (notwithstanding its box-office success of course) will pursuade the producers to radically change the tone again. QOS was the LTK of the Craig era and that's fine. CR hit all the right notes for danger and adventure however. That's the kind of tone I like my 'regular' Bond films to have, à la FRWL and TLD almost. I'm really not in the mood to see another DAD or MWTGG.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

They should continue to be bold.

It would be nice if the franchise continued to be bold, but of course that ultimately won't happen. BOND 23 will almost assuredly be a return to the more laid-back, ridiculous Bond film that we were used to seeing during the first 20 films of the franchise. The extremely mixed reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE will probably result in a complete 180 from what we got in the last film, as opposed to continuing the path towards making Bond more interesting again. Every time the franchise finally gets headed in a direction that is somewhat interesting, something happens that causes them to do a complete 180 and head back in the other direction. It happened with OHMSS, it happened with the Dalton films, and it'll probably happen again this time around.

What really did happened with Dalton films was, IMO, that they did a pretty good film with TLD, and then, an awful one with LTK. I don't think that is what is going to happen right now, as long as Craig stays in the main role, and particularly if you take to account- I know that all of this is subjective- that QOS wasn't as bad as Dalton's second entry, which could be proved for a better reception at the BO and overall with the critics.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 04 April 2009 - 01:42 AM.

[tdalton]

They should continue to be bold.

It would be nice if the franchise continued to be bold, but of course that ultimately won't happen. BOND 23 will almost assuredly be a return to the more laid-back, ridiculous Bond film that we were used to seeing during the first 20 films of the franchise. The extremely mixed reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE will probably result in a complete 180 from what we got in the last film, as opposed to continuing the path towards making Bond more interesting again. Every time the franchise finally gets headed in a direction that is somewhat interesting, something happens that causes them to do a complete 180 and head back in the other direction. It happened with OHMSS, it happened with the Dalton films, and it'll probably happen again this time around.

What really did happened with Dalton films was, IMO, that they did a pretty good film with TLD, and then, an awful one with LTK. I don't think that's going to happens now, as long as Craig stays in the main role, and particularly if you take to account- I know that all of this is subjective- that QOS wasn't as bad as Dalton's second entry, which could be proved for a better reception at the BO and overall with the critics.

For me, I do agree that QUANTUM OF SOLACE wasn't as bad as LICENCE TO KILL simply because I view QUANTUM OF SOLACE as the best film in the franchise, but LICENCE TO KILL is my third favorite film in the franchise just behind QOS and CASINO ROYALE. I think that, by the very nature of them going back to a more laid-back and more "fun" approach to the films, as Craig has suggested, that I'm already going to probably enjoy the film less than CR & QOS. Hopefully they'll make a much better film than the others of that style they've made in the last two decades, but its doubtful considering the way the last few "fun" Bond films have turned out.

[Eddie Burns]

Interesting outlooks...

I've not bought the film on DVD and won't be buying it for the foreseeable future. I have already seen it on the little screen enough times, and with subsequent viewings I watch less & less of it.

I agree with Harms that the producers need to stay bold. But all this constant praising of how QoS didn't try to be it's successor and how it attempted something different, etc...is all a waste of time.

First of all, in regards to the movie refusing to be CR2...why not make CR2? It is a sequel to one of the most important movies in franchise's history, so not making CR2 was a cop-out as it would have been easier to attempt something else (Forster's film school standard artiness for example) rather than maintain the standard set in CR, which, whatever way you look at it, QoS does not do. It would be like me saying DAF is a great sequel to OHMSS because it doesn't try to be OHMSS2.

QoS also did try some different things, but that was just Forster desperately trying to stand out, imho. I would have been more impressed if more creative energy went towards character, personality, dialogue, story, iconography etc....instead of flashy camera tricks and sped up editing. For the first time ever on a Bond film, the director was the star...not James Bond the character. Unless someone would kindly explain to me how a Bond that really 'never left' can be said to have a character arc? Is his arc the fact that he's having trouble getting over his girlfriend? Because it's nothing to do with killing or demons or whatever any Forsterlite would have you believe. He's professional throughout, so the whole Yusef climax was really something about nothing. I also noticed, throughout this movie, Dench was used as a decoy to make things appear more interesting than they actually were. Hence why she was everywhere for no reason whatsoever.

As for the future, Eon don't have the balls anymore. This was highlighted by the fact that Wilson wasn't really in favour of the editing but let it go because of the time constraints and because 'that's what people want to see'. This, not surprisingly, didn't annoy many people on these boards. But it pissed me well off! A lot of people wanted to see Clive Owen as Bond, so why not hire him for the next one Michael? Ridiculous...this excuse is used time and time again by Eon to explain the poor choices that they make with frequent regularity.

It's reputation will stay as it is...the movie that polarized fans. You either like it or not. It will never reach OHMSS level of appreciation because....nothing happens in it. Nothing memorable. It will always be the 'one with all the action and crap edits' or the 'Bourne Bond' to the average Joe. In Bond fandom, you never know. Some have it as the best Bond ever already.I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

After 2 movies, noises are coming through that they might return Q & Moneypenny etc. TDK was a dark film, but not many people are shouting for a lighter film for the next instalment. Why? Because Nolan had a vision, stuck to it, broke the mould in his genre, and delivered a quality (albeit overrated) film. Something beyond bandwagon jumpers Eon, who now have their trusted formula to go back to. Yup...Reboot was a failure because I was convinced Q/MP won't be back at least until B24.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 04 April 2009 - 04:09 AM.

[Harmsway]

But all this constant praising of how QoS didn't try to be it's successor and how it attempted something different, etc...is all a waste of time.

Not really. The best sequels all go in different directions than the preceding installment(s), rather than attempting to retread the same ground.

I would have been more impressed if more creative energy went towards character, personality, dialogue, story, iconography etc....instead of flashy camera tricks and sped up editing.

It's fair to say that QUANTUM OF SOLACE really did invest a lot in these things. There are a lot of bold and unique ideas in the narrative for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, along with moments of some really terrific characterization. The problem is that it's all ultimately uneven, and not developed to the extent that would be admirable. But it certainly really tried for those things - QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a matter of mixed-up priorities.

He's professional throughout, so the whole Yusef climax was really something about nothing.

The Yusef climax isn't - IMO - about Bond being professional, at least not really. It's about Bond getting the chance to save the girl that he didn't get before. It's really about closure. It's not necessarily the most profound character statement ever, but let's face it, Bond isn't a particularly deep character, either. Most of the Fleming books had no character arc to speak of, and even when they do, it's hardly impressive.

This was highlighted by the fact that Wilson wasn't really in favour of the editing but let it go because of the time constraints and because 'that's what people want to see'.

Didn't he actually say that he accepted it because he stands in support of the director? He later commented on the time constraints and what people wanted to see, as well, but that wasn't his primary response.

I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

I haven't become bored of the character, but I have more or less become bored of the EON franchise and the tropes that come with it. I will take a bold, risky failure over a safe success any day. Especially in the Bond franchise.

[blueman]

Funny people's differing expectations re Bond and proper Bond films. Guess after 40+ years, shouldn't be surprised, "proper" is only that for each film's theatrical run (and sometimes not even then ).

[tdalton]

I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

I haven't become bored of the character, but I have more or less become bored of the EON franchise and the tropes that come with it. I will take a bold, risky failure over a safe success any day. Especially in the Bond franchise.

Completely agreed. I've not become bored with the character either, but it would be nice to see a change in the way the films are made. Even in this new reboot era, and even with the "radical" departure that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has made from the other films, it's still very recognizable as an EON Bond film. I think that, at this point, it would be interesting to see a different take on the character, as the current franchise has really covered about as much ground as it possibly can, and has already repeated itself on several occasions.

[blueman]

I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

Jesus, been saying that for 30 years, damn glad EON finally hired somebody like Forster to update Bond goings-on with a legitimately Flemingesque touch (caveat: if one prefers one's cinematic Bond at least laced with a healthy dollop of Fleming, as opposed to spread with a thin frosting of pithy quips and a raised eyebrow on top ). Truly, what's really missing from the cinematic Bond canon if you drop all the films DAF to DAD inclusive? A really cool ski jump, some wrinkles, and a perennially crooked tie? Nods to LALD and TMWTGG, but even those are more 70s-styled Bond send-ups than Bond adventures.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

They should continue to be bold.

It would be nice if the franchise continued to be bold, but of course that ultimately won't happen. BOND 23 will almost assuredly be a return to the more laid-back, ridiculous Bond film that we were used to seeing during the first 20 films of the franchise. The extremely mixed reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE will probably result in a complete 180 from what we got in the last film, as opposed to continuing the path towards making Bond more interesting again. Every time the franchise finally gets headed in a direction that is somewhat interesting, something happens that causes them to do a complete 180 and head back in the other direction. It happened with OHMSS, it happened with the Dalton films, and it'll probably happen again this time around.

What really did happened with Dalton films was, IMO, that they did a pretty good film with TLD, and then, an awful one with LTK. I don't think that's going to happens now, as long as Craig stays in the main role, and particularly if you take to account- I know that all of this is subjective- that QOS wasn't as bad as Dalton's second entry, which could be proved for a better reception at the BO and overall with the critics.

For me, I do agree that QUANTUM OF SOLACE wasn't as bad as LICENCE TO KILL simply because I view QUANTUM OF SOLACE as the best film in the franchise, but LICENCE TO KILL is my third favorite film in the franchise just behind QOS and CASINO ROYALE. I think that, by the very nature of them going back to a more laid-back and more "fun" approach to the films, as Craig has suggested, that I'm already going to probably enjoy the film less than CR & QOS. Hopefully they'll make a much better film than the others of that style they've made in the last two decades, but its doubtful considering the way the last few "fun" Bond films have turned out.

However, I can say that CR is a perfectly "fun" Bond movie (and I think I'm not the only one on this), just like DN was in its time, whereas I can't say the same about LTK and QOS. So, why can't expect that same type of- CR's- fun for future Craig's entries in the series??

[JimmyBond]

However, I can say that CR is a perfectly "fun" Bond movie (and I think I'm not the only one on this), just like DN was in its time, whereas I can't say the same about LTK and QOS. So, why can't expect that same type of- CR's- fun for future Craig's entries in the series??

It's all subjective though. You say CR is fun and QoS is not, I say both CR and QoS are fun Bond films. And for me QoS just happens to be a bit more fun to watch than CR.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

I haven't become bored of the character, but I have more or less become bored of the EON franchise and the tropes that come with it. I will take a bold, risky failure over a safe success any day. Especially in the Bond franchise.

Right, but a "risky failure" or "safe success", neither of them are really good things. And we as fans, I guess, we should expect the best things about the series, not just settle with the lesser bad ones.

[blueman]

I've never gotten the feeling EON sets out to make anything other than a popular Bond film, every time. And, hard to argue with their success rate (with two, maybe three obvious exceptions in decades past...).

BO-wise, EON hasn't made a false step since the 80s regardless of how fans feel about the individual films. "Risky" or "safe," all the Bond films GE-QOS inclusive have been BO hits.

[Harmsway]

I've never gotten the feeling EON sets out to make anything other than a popular Bond film, every time.

I have, but only once. And that was CASINO ROYALE, where you had Michael G. Wilson admitting that they weren't sure the film would be a success.

[blueman]

Yeah, but Wilson has also stated he was confident fans/public would love Craig/CR. IMHO EON knew what it was about in casting Craig/rebooting, way more so than efforts late 60s/early 70s and mid/late 80s.

[double o ego]

Look, the way I see it, I think many people aren't as satisfied with QoS because of a few reasons.

1)Too much time spent in dreary slums as opposed to lavish places, plush places.

2)The editing and quick cuts weren't optic-friendly.

3)Bond was too serious.

I personally love QoS and do acknowledge it's many flaws. However, I think many people do in fact miss the fact that CR/QoS are pieces that show Bond's cerebral evolution into the spy we're all familiar with. CR/QoS is an origin period that isn't pretty for Bond and that is what we're seeing. Whereas usually, we see Bond in his more traditional element of essentially having the time of his life, particularly spending his time in plush and culturaly eye-candy environments, these films showcase a time in point where being Bond is the last thing we want to consider as a male fantasy, even if he was doing all this cool stuff.
I think for Bond 23, it needs to be made abundantly clear, if it hasn't already that, Bond's emotional journey is well and truly over and that the male fantasy of wanting to be Bond, coupled with better editing and camera shots of the action needs to be in place.

[blueman]

I think for Bond 23, it needs to be made abundantly clear, if it hasn't already that, Bond's emotional journey is well and truly over and that the male fantasy of wanting to be Bond, coupled with better editing and camera shots of the action needs to be in place.

Can they simply keep making interesting movies about Bond? Go down whatever road that takes them? IMO there are interesting places to take the character they started with CR/QOS, why not go there and do that? For instance, Craig Bond hasn't yet had to deal with a Fiona-type femme fatale, seems perfect timing for that in 23.

That was always a great thing about the novels, Fleming never left Bond's emotional horizon alone, always throwing stuff at it, see if it stuck. Hate to back to same old same old formula-type Bond films now that EON has gone to all this trouble to create an actual character with depth and all. Would make the reboot meaningless IMO.

[tdalton]

That was always a great thing about the novels, Fleming never left Bond's emotional horizon alone, always throwing stuff at it, see if it stuck. Hate to back to same old same old formula-type Bond films now that EON has gone to all this trouble to create an actual character with depth and all. Would make the reboot meaningless IMO.

Completely, 100% agreed. The reboot would be rendered absolutely pointless if they reverted back to the same old, tired formulaic style of Bond film-making. Why go through all the trouble to finally, for perhaps only the second or third time in the franchise's nearly 50 year history, give the Bond character some form of depth, only to strip that away and return him to the cliched action-hero that he's been for most of the past 50 years? It wouldn't make much sense, and would be a total waste of the talent of someone like Daniel Craig, who has created the most interesting interpretation of the cinematic Bond in a very long time.

[JimmyBond]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Craig is keen to give Bond an emotional arc for each film. Where that leads us in Bond 23 who knows, but I can't see Craig signing on to a "formula" Bond film.

[solace]

This weekend I first watched The man with the golden Gun, Last night I watched Casino Royale again this afternoon I saw Dr No again then settled down this evening to watch QOS for the very first time on Dvd. I wasnt really sure what to expect as many of the reviews I've read and views put forth on this site have been a real mix. It is however, imo one of the great Bond films and easily ranks in my top 4. The action is spot on, the editing quick admittedly but you soon get used to it. A number of people have been negative about Bond throwing mathis into the bin but personally I think it makes sense given the situation and Bonds mindset at the time. Absolutely superb!!!!

[tdalton]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Craig is keen to give Bond an emotional arc for each film. Where that leads us in Bond 23 who knows, but I can't see Craig signing on to a "formula" Bond film.

Hopefully that ends up being true. It would be nice to see Bond continue to actually be a three-dimensional character rather than a cliche action hero, especially since giving Bond more depth has worked so well in the last two films.

[blueman]

Seems to be the sticking point in the fanboy split, more traditional Bond vs. (harder to hit this on the head, but...) updated Bond.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Look, the way I see it, I think many people aren't as satisfied with QoS because of a few reasons.

1)Too much time spent in dreary slums as opposed to lavish places, plush places.

2)The editing and quick cuts weren't optic-friendly.

3)Bond was too serious.

I personally love QoS and do acknowledge it's many flaws. However, I think many people do in fact miss the fact that CR/QoS are pieces that show Bond's cerebral evolution into the spy we're all familiar with. CR/QoS is an origin period that isn't pretty for Bond and that is what we're seeing. Whereas usually, we see Bond in his more traditional element of essentially having the time of his life, particularly spending his time in plush and culturaly eye-candy environments, these films showcase a time in point where being Bond is the last thing we want to consider as a male fantasy, even if he was doing all this cool stuff.
I think for Bond 23, it needs to be made abundantly clear, if it hasn't already that, Bond's emotional journey is well and truly over and that the male fantasy of wanting to be Bond, coupled with better editing and camera shots of the action needs to be in place.

Why do you mix QOS with CR?? The three points that you mentioned are only applicable to QOS, not to CR. Whereas Craig's debut is the real origin story here, not QOS, because is at the end of this movie when Bond finally become the "beautiful machine that we all know and love" (just like Campbell stated in the audio commentary for CR). And most important... was QOS the movie that got mixed reviews and polarized fans, not CR.

CR and QOS are two separated movies (just like Craig stated), very differents one from each other. It's somewhat annoying that still some people- particularly being fans- talks about this movies as if they were two parts of one big film. This is the EON series, not Kill Bill.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 April 2009 - 05:06 AM.

[stamper]

Unless someone would kindly explain to me how a Bond that really 'never left' can be said to have a character arc? Is his arc the fact that he's having trouble getting over his girlfriend? Because it's nothing to do with killing or demons or whatever any Forsterlite would have you believe. He's professional throughout, so the whole Yusef climax was really something about nothing. I also noticed, throughout this movie, Dench was used as a decoy to make things appear more interesting than they actually were. Hence why she was everywhere for no reason whatsoever.

pretty much agree. I always got the feeling that the final scene was probably written as the beginning scene for the movie (as it mirrors CR opening scene), and would have worked better with some recap from CR interspeded in (just like the CR opening). All the mentions about mr Greene are clearly overdubbed voiceovers on it. Also the scene where M shows Bond the Yussef pictures have continuity problems, it means it was probably added shots to justify the editing choices. I can't see the collar jumping in and out of Bond jacket being so oblivious to anyone on set if this was shot in one day only.

As for the M presence, it's just plain stupidity from the director, who may have read some polls where M/007 sequences scored big in CR, so he decided to put her everywhere without bothering to justify why she would always be one step behind 007, with all the responsabilities she as, as if he was her only spy.

Barbara and Michael needs a more iron grip producer to help them keep the director in check. Foster clearly was clueless about the whole franchise and the movie story.

[David_M]

I'll let you know in about a year when the DVD's selling for under $10.

[DR76]

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.

If you're going to label Roger Moore as a comic book Bond, you might as well do the same for Connery. Aside from two or three films, his Bond movies also had that comic book style. And at least two of Moore's films were rather serious in tone (with very few jokes).

As for the M presence, it's just plain stupidity from the director, who may have read some polls where M/007 sequences scored big in CR, so he decided to put her everywhere without bothering to justify why she would always be one step behind 007, with all the responsabilities she as, as if he was her only spy.

That whole mess started with Bernard Lee in YOLT. And I never could understand what M and the Minister of Defense were walking about Venice in MR and ordering the local police around, as if they were in charge. In fact, M appeared in both Venice . . . and Brazil in that movie.

Edited by DR76, 06 April 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[plankattack]

As for the M presence, it's just plain stupidity from the director, who may have read some polls where M/007 sequences scored big in CR, so he decided to put her everywhere without bothering to justify why she would always be one step behind 007, with all the responsabilities she as, as if he was her only spy.

That whole mess started with Bernard Lee in YOLT. And I never could understand what M and the Minister of Defense were walking about Venice in MR and ordering the local police around, as if they were in charge. In fact, M appeared in both Venice . . . and Brazil in that movie.

Why are we dumping on Forster for M showing up too much? As pointed out, it's been going on awhile, and has become more prevalent of late, say since P&W have come on board.

[Eddie Burns]

I think as fans, some of us have become so bored of the character that we'll take anything mediocre...just as long as it is different!

I haven't become bored of the character, but I have more or less become bored of the EON franchise and the tropes that come with it. I will take a bold, risky failure over a safe success any day. Especially in the Bond franchise.

Completely agreed. I've not become bored with the character either, but it would be nice to see a change in the way the films are made. Even in this new reboot era, and even with the "radical" departure that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has made from the other films, it's still very recognizable as an EON Bond film. I think that, at this point, it would be interesting to see a different take on the character, as the current franchise has really covered about as much ground as it possibly can, and has already repeated itself on several occasions.

Really? I think there is plenty of ground to go through before we start entering Bourne imitation territory. Ooops...too late.

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever. Why? Because the producers tried to be different? Listen, my criticism isn't with the intention/bravery/approach of the producers...I applaud them for it. They were just as brave during the Brosnan era except nobody noticed as his era was bogged down by the strict adherence to the formula and poor execution. My criticism of QoS lies with the execution.

I still say there was no arc to Bond's character, Brosnan had an arc in GE(albeit poorly done), Craig had nothing of the sort in QoS. Harmsway makes a fantastic point about closure and that makes a lot more sense to me. However, seeking closure and having an arc are two very different things. A character arc occurs when the character slowly changes from how he was at the start of the film to how he is at the end. If people drop this depth and arc malarkey and simply call it a movie full of (poor) action where Bond seeks closure from the events of CR...the movie enhances to something more acceptable in my eyes. Making it out to be anymore than that opens it up for criticism.

And Harnmsway, there was no risk involved in QoS...after CR it could not fail and it carried a lot of goodwill as a result. Creatively, the only risk they took was starting with an under-developed script. Don't be blinded by the fact that because it is so different that constitutes a risk. QoS was uneven not because the filmmakers took a risk, but because of their incompetence and lack of proper preparation.

tDalton...we ARE slowly heading back towards DAD type of films, i'm surprised you don't see this! QoS screams this fact at you! Craig definitely wouldn't have signed on in 2006 if it was the QoS script that he read instead of CR's. So all this talk about what Craig wants doesn't mean much, he's under contract and he'd be stupid to walk out now. It's going to get lighter from here on in, mate. Eon have no vision...they just follow trends. Whatever is hot (e.g. superspies dressing in drag) in 2011/12 best bet is you'll see it in a Bond movie.

You know what I think a risk is? Paving your own path, being original and creative and competing against your rival. Staying ahead of the curve.

You like a risky failure over safe success? I prefer risky success over anything, myself. Something that differentiates CR from QoS. They both involved a certain amount of risk, but one succeeds where the other failed. Why? Because one was thoroughly prepared for while the other wasn't.

[Harmsway]

And of course you've become bored of the character...you are willing to credit an appallingly average film as the best Bond ever.

Are you speaking to me or tdalton? Because as far as I'm concerned, QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't the "best Bond ever." I like it, and think it's better than most of the pack of Bond films (which isn't saying much, honestly), but I'm not praising it to the skies.

They were just as brave during the Brosnan era except nobody noticed as his era was bogged down by the strict adherence to the formula and poor execution.

The Brosnan era was marked by cowardice; they might have tried out some interesting ideas, but they were never courageous enough to really stray out of safe territory. If they had been truly brave, they would have stepped away from their adherence to formula (as they have, more or less, with the two Craig films).

I still say there was no arc to Bond's character, Brosnan had an arc in GE(albeit poorly done), Craig had nothing of the sort in QoS.

If whatever meager arc was present in GOLDENEYE counts as a character arc, then QUANTUM OF SOLACE certainly has one.

A character arc occurs when the character slowly changes from how he was at the start of the film to how he is at the end.

True. And Bond is clearly different - if only in minor ways - at the end of QUANTUM OF SOLACE than he was at the beginning. Hence, QUANTUM OF SOLACE does give Bond a character arc of some kind.

Craig definitely wouldn't have signed on in 2006 if it was the QoS script that he read instead of CR's.

Perhaps, but it's hard, almost impossible, to say for sure. At any rate, Craig seemed more pleased about the final result for QUANTUM OF SOLACE than he did about CASINO ROYALE. Add into that that we have no idea what the shooting script for QUANTUM OF SOLACE actually looked like (it likely had some substantial differences from the finished product).