153 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

To me, if you had the approach to action as seen in LTK (and I mean direction/editing of the action as seen in the film, not what was written on paper) in QOS instead of all of that incomprehensible Bourne cut and paste, you'd have one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

Albeit one with a wafer-thin plot. Zetumer did write some very witty dialogue, though.

[Mr_Wint]

To me, if you had the approach to action as seen in LTK (and I mean direction/editing of the action as seen in the film, not what was written on paper) in QOS instead of all of that incomprehensible Bourne cut and paste, you'd have one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

Zetumer did write some very witty dialogue, though.

Yeh, of course. "She's sea-sick" and "I have no friends" are up there with "You've had your six" and "What a helpful chap". True classics!!!!

[Tybre]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

[MattofSteel]

To me, if you had the approach to action as seen in LTK (and I mean direction/editing of the action as seen in the film, not what was written on paper) in QOS instead of all of that incomprehensible Bourne cut and paste, you'd have one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

Albeit one with a wafer-thin plot. Zetumer did write some very witty dialogue, though.

How does one separate subjective distinctions like "wafer-thin" and "simple"? Only curious. For me, it would be simple. And that's not a bad thing.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

"You and I had a mutual friend!!!" is another example on how to NOT write good dialogue.

[Tybre]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

"You and I had a mutual friend!!!" is another example on how to NOT write good dialogue.

Yeah. That was a pretty big facepalm moment when I heard that in the theatre.

[jaguar007]

I rank both LTK and QOS around the middle of the pack and like them pretty much equally (where both CR and TLD are both in my top 5). However I think QoS is by far the better filmed movie. It is in the editing room where I think most people have most of the problems. LTK suffers from a much poorer production quality. The gun fire in the PTS sound like toy cap guns and much of the movie is overlit and looks like a made for TV movie. LTK also suffers from an inconsistant tone and too much goofieness for a more serious Bond film (aka Q and Wayne Newton). The action scenes are good in both films, but more comprehensible in LTK.

[Royal Dalton]

Yeh, of course. "She's sea-sick" and "I have no friends" are up there with "You've had your six" and "What a helpful chap". True classics!!!!

Bad lines badly delivered. No, I'm talking about things like: "The dollar isn't what it once was. The cost of war."

How does one separate subjective distinctions like "wafer-thin" and "simple"? Only curious. For me, it would be simple. And that's not a bad thing.

Simple, then. But there still has to be a decent amount of meat on the bones. Which is something that Quantum of Solace is lacking, IMO.

[Mr_Wint]

Yeh, of course. "She's sea-sick" and "I have no friends" are up there with "You've had your six" and "What a helpful chap". True classics!

Bad lines badly delivered. No, I'm talking about things like: "The dollar isn't what it once was. The cost of war."

Yes, good example. And let's not forget: "I really think you people should find a better place to meet!". Another classic!

Where do they get all these good ideas from? There seems to be an endless supply...

[Mr. Blofeld]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

Well, it makes a great deal more sense than saying "What a helpful chap" to a dead body twenty feet below you or "Saved by the bell" to a friggin' bell.

[Tybre]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

Well, it makes a great deal more sense than saying "What a helpful chap" to a dead body twenty feet below you or "Saved by the bell" to a friggin' bell.

True enough, I suppose.

[Turn]

QoS=New LTK? Fine with me as I like both films and am enjoying the era in which they represent.

What I wouldn't want is a 6-year gap in between the next one or a return of Brosnan or the Brosnan era. Both of these films handle the revenge/personal angle better than the 4 Brosnan films.

Neither QoS nor LTK contains sparkling dialogue out of the classic eras, but I can overlook that when the actor playing Bond commands my attention and the action and tone are a bit gritty.

[blueman]

I guess it's just me, but LTK (and all the Glen Bonds for that matter) seems more akin to that daft Star Trek animated series from way back: yeah it had facsimiles of Kirk and Spock and all, but also lousy production values coupled with cripplingly bad storytelling. About as Bond as Austin Powers IMO, just in a different direction.

QOS on the other hand nails 21st century retooled Bond perfectly. Not any two things I would ever compare I guess, like apples and spark plugs or something. And, yeah, just really despise how terrible the series got in the 80s under Glen/old Cubby. Kneejerk, oh well.

[MattofSteel]

"I really think you people should find a better place to meet."

What was wrong with that?

[byline]

Yeh, of course. "She's sea-sick" and "I have no friends" are up there with "You've had your six" and "What a helpful chap". True classics!

Bad lines badly delivered. No, I'm talking about things like: "The dollar isn't what it once was. The cost of war."

Yes, good example. And let's not forget: "I really think you people should find a better place to meet!". Another classic!

Where do they get all these good ideas from? There seems to be an endless supply...

Strange, I liked all these lines. Different strokes, I guess.

[00Twelve]

There was some rubbish dialogue, though. "That wasn't very nice" could have worked so great. But hey, let's have Bond say it to himself! imo, waste of a line. Still a lot of very good dialogue overall though.

There are a lot of lines that Bond says to himself as if to the person he was talking to shortly before.

"Wait 'til you get to my teeth" was to himself.
"Not married by any chance, are you?" was to himself.
"What a helpful chap" was to himself.
"Saved by the bell" was to himself.

Okay, bad example.

Anyway, "that wasn't very nice" follows suit with those others. It's as if to Camille, but to the air instead. Same as in many films before.

[Righty007]

To me, if you had the approach to action as seen in LTK (and I mean direction/editing of the action as seen in the film, not what was written on paper) in QOS instead of all of that incomprehensible Bourne cut and paste, you'd have one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

Albeit one with a wafer-thin plot. Zetumer did write some very witty dialogue, though.

How do you know what Zetumer did or didn't write?

[00Twelve]

"I really think you people should find a better place to meet."

What was wrong with that?

Good question.

Felt like a great moment from an early novel, considering what he was doing at the time. Throwing his weight around and calling his enemies right out, deftly forcing their hand and getting a glimpse of some of the less thoughtful members. He just said something cocky and provocative, and I took it as a very fun moment. Just my take, mind.

[Eddie Burns]

Licence to Kill is the better film of the two in my eyes, though I like QoS better and better for each viewing. However, none of them really has the balls to let Bond hunt the bad guys completely on his own; LTK has Pam, and Q showing up on "holiday" and in QoS he "shares" his vendetta with Camille. And M. And Mathis. And...

Exactly my problem with both films. Eon have yet to make such a Bond movie, and this was their opportunity, and we all know about Eon and opportunity. It's like they don't believe a movie with Bond, and just Bond is enough.

QoS represented the most minimum risk they could have taken for a supposedly risky film, sprinkled with homages, and Bourne imitations. What did Craig bring or do that was drastically different to the character? Did we see a side of Bond we'd never seen before? Did he lose his cool? Did we see his anger expressed overtly in any way? Chugging down 6 martinis was as good as it got.

While QOS is more formula in its story, I still think that both films got the balance completely wrong when it comes to the Bond character.

Exactly. I will say that, at least with Dalton, I never forgot that he wanted to rip off Sanchez's head. I believed he was pissed off and despite his performance being uneven in quality, his motivations carry you through, you want to see the final confrontation. Plus Dalton was a lot more expressive...'watch the birdie you bastard' springs to mind. Craig was detached from everything, reserved, expressionless and emotionless except when wallowing in self pity and feeling sorry for himself.

QoS was good for one thing though...it made me appreciate Dalton's performance a whole lot more.

[DR76]

...The problem with the movie is that the plot was not supported with the proper running time. Forster paced the movie - especially the first half - too damn fast.

True, but to a point IMO.

I've just completed a little project of my own and damn if it isn't fun. I watched it last night.

Through the magic of editing at my own hands, I spliced CR and QoS into one nearly four hour Bond epic.

I cut the end titles on CR and simply froze and faded after the final line on CR - Hey "If you can't solve it, Dissolve it." and added a title card:

"TEN MINUTES LATER"

Cut the MGM/Columbia logos and went right into the opening shot on QoS.

You know what? It works even with the melding of two different styles of film making. For me, it makes the ultimate five act Bond epic.

MODERATOR'S DUMB- NOTE

Apolgies DR76 - I stupidly edited your post rather than quoting it. The Hell of not enough coffee and too many options as a mod. Pints are on me. If you want that to be as in "poured over my head" I completely understand.

Edited by Bryce (003), 29 April 2009 - 06:15 PM.

[Emma]

Well, they have some similarities, but QOS isn't as bad (and tacky with all the eighties rubbish style) as LTK.

I agree with this. I actually enjoyed watching QoS when I re-watched it on DVD. But I couldnt't even bother finish watching LTK when I rented it two years ago. It was just too cheesy and over the top.

Edited by Emma, 29 April 2009 - 04:35 PM.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

But I couldnt't even bother finish watching LTK when I rented it two years ago. It was just too cheesy and over the top.

Though opinions can off course differ, LTK is a lot more realistic than QoS as I see it... Some of the stunts might be over the top, but never at the level of QoS (due to the more modest budget, no digital tricks, and so on).

QoS was good for one thing though...it made me appreciate Dalton's performance a whole lot more.

I'm glad to hear that, Eddie. I hope many more people will do the same.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Quantum despite a weak plotline, had an original story.

I DISAGREE. I do not think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE had a weak plot. It had a better plot than some of the other Bond movies I have seen over the years. The problem with the movie is that the plot was not supported with the proper running time. Forster paced the movie - especially the first half - too damn fast. Worse, was the BOURNE style editing that I could have done without.

Well, the thing is that it was covered up by so many action scenes. Sure, making Bolivians pay for their own water sounds more realistic than eliminating the human race from your space station, but it was so poorly construed, that, I think, the producers/director needed more action scenes to cover up the plot...
I will aggree with you about the pacing and the editing. I've said it once and I'll say it again: The camera is shaking around so much that I literally can not see what's going on in the shot. And every frame of film last about one second. Come on, Marc!

[Martini]

I would say: LTK is a classic revenge movie, whereas QOS is a movie about revenge, what introduces a meta-level that LTK didn´t had. Meta-level was a foreign word in the Glen era.

Edited by Martini, 29 April 2009 - 06:36 PM.

[Tybre]

Quantum despite a weak plotline, had an original story.

I DISAGREE. I do not think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE had a weak plot. It had a better plot than some of the other Bond movies I have seen over the years. The problem with the movie is that the plot was not supported with the proper running time. Forster paced the movie - especially the first half - too damn fast. Worse, was the BOURNE style editing that I could have done without.

Well, the thing is that it was covered up by so many action scenes. Sure, making Bolivians pay for their own water sounds more realistic than eliminating the human race from your space station, but it was so poorly construed, that, I think, the producers/director needed more action scenes to cover up the plot...
I will aggree with you about the pacing and the editing. I've said it once and I'll say it again: The camera is shaking around so much that I literally can not see what's going on in the shot. And every frame of film last about one second. Come on, Marc!

It wasn't really poorly construed. It just wasn't wholly fleshed out. Which I think is a part of why there are pacing and runtime issues. They couldn't think of enough to pack the story to fill a longer runtime better suited to that style of story. I mean, look at LTK. Even if you hate it, you have to admit the revenge notion is much better fleshed out and the movie is drastically better paced.

[tdalton]

I don't think that the water-supply plot was underdeveloped at all, mainly because I don't see that as the main plotline of the film. For me, the main plot of the film is Bond's search for Yusef. From the moment that he took the picture out of M's file without her knowledge, I was thinking that the main focus of the story, regardless of how much they wanted us to think it was directed solely at the water-supply plot, was that Bond was on a quest to find Yusef. I think that Greene and Medrano simply were in the wrong situation at the wrong time, in that Bond's only lead to Yusef brought him to South America and ultimately pointed him in the direction of Greene and Medrano.

As for the LTK/QoS comparisons, I do think that they're similar films, which is fine by me. Both are great films, and have at one point or another, been my top film in the franchise (LTK was there until QoS came along).

Edited by tdalton, 29 April 2009 - 08:47 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Though opinions can off course differ, LTK is a lot more realistic than QoS as I see it... Some of the stunts might be over the top, but never at the level of QoS (due to the more modest budget, no digital tricks, and so on).

"A lot more realistic" (which is arguable, anyway) necessarily translate into a better Bond movie?? I disagree.

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Though opinions can off course differ, LTK is a lot more realistic than QoS as I see it... Some of the stunts might be over the top, but never at the level of QoS (due to the more modest budget, no digital tricks, and so on).

"A lot more realistic" (which is arguable, anyway) necessarily translate into a better Bond movie?? I disagree.

I didn't say that. However, it's a much better film than QoS in my eyes.

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

Sure, I get that, though I like the overall feel of the film. Like the Connery films feels like products of their time, so does LTK. QoS is probably more timeless, though the editing will look even worse when that particular style becomes unfashionable.

[Safari Suit]

The eighties style of LTK is only a big problem if you hate that eighties style. It's not any easier to tell when that film was made than it is with Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me or Die Another Day for example. To be fair, it could be argued that Goldfinger is so redolent of its era because the Bond films set much of the pop cultural tones of the time, but will that matter to many people watching it today?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Though opinions can off course differ, LTK is a lot more realistic than QoS as I see it... Some of the stunts might be over the top, but never at the level of QoS (due to the more modest budget, no digital tricks, and so on).

"A lot more realistic" (which is arguable, anyway) necessarily translate into a better Bond movie?? I disagree.

I didn't say that. However, it's a much better film than QoS in my eyes.

Nontheless, the main problem that I got with LTK is its heavy eighties style- unlike the rest of the Bond movies of that decade-. The vulgarity of that fad, with the role models of Miami Vice or Die Hard or almost every american action movie of that time, seems so inappropriate as inspiration for the characteristic elegance of Bond.

Sure, I get that, though I like the overall feel of the film. Like the Connery films feels like products of their time, so does LTK. QoS is probably more timeless, though the editing will look even worse when that particular style becomes unfashionable.

I don't think that either LTK or QOS are timeless, I think both movies were very trendy. It just happens that I think that the eighties fad is a lot worse and incompatible with Bond's characteristic elegance, than the style of the current decade.

The eighties style of LTK is only a big problem if you hate that eighties style. It's not any easier to tell when that film was made than it is with Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me or Die Another Day for example. To be fair, it could be argued that Goldfinger is so redolent of its era because the Bond films set much of the pop cultural tones of the time, but will that matter to many people watching it today?

Yes, I do hate the eighties!!

Nonetheless, I believe there are a few Bond films, where isn't that easy to tell to which decade belong, i.e. CR. And I'm not talking about historic references in the plot (like the one to the USA's 9/11), I'm pointing to the style of the film.