192 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

IMDB forums are not a sampling of average movie goers. Usually people who are passionate about their opinions are the who post there.

[Sniperscope]

How about the reviews that you can read on www.imdb.com? How come that they are...far more negative than the reviews for 'Casino Royale'? Let me explain it with some reviews from the IMDB-site concerning 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take in mind that those reviews are not necessarily written by Bond fans. And secondly, you can find the reviews down below on IMDB too.

After reading these reviews, can someone explain me why 'Casino Royale' scores a rounded 8.0 on www.imdb.com and 'Quantum Of Solace' a rather disappointing 6.9? Off course, we should not trust IMDB that much, but at least movie lovers come to the site...and have rated both films. Can someone explain me this with good arguments?

If you don't like QoS, Gustav Graves, that's fine by me - but you won't be changing my mind anytime soon by dragging in reviews from imdb to support your view.

I think it needs to be considered that despite all the "reboot" hyperbole, CR is actually not too far and away from a traditional Bond movie.
It has enough tweeks and class about it to make it stand out as different from the Brosnan era but overall anyone who has watched several Bond films in the past would not feel particularly alienated by CR.
In fact visually it is almost too similar to Campbell's GE which in many ways makes it very, very familiar...

QoS is however a very different issue. It's the real "reboot" of the franchise.
People generally approach films (this is both fans and casual viewers) with a set of preconceptions that are largely based on precedence and comfort. Actually the more you watch QoS on DVD the more you realise it is visually very consistent with previous Bond films (especially the credit sequence, Bond visiting Mathis, the cocktail party, the aeroplane fight, the coda) but on first viewing a lot of these things are missed. Instead QoS pushes viewers right from the get-go out of many preconceived views of what a Bond film can be, that had been established only as recently as CR. Mainly this is in non-expository dialogue (which never goes down well with the popcorn crowd), fast, impressionistic editing in action sequences and associative, symbolic montage (ditto on the popcorners).

If QoS had any failing, for me, it was being a direct sequel of CR and unconsciously this may have contributed to the confusion some viewers had regarding the motivation and direction of the film.
Part of me wants the Vesper storyline ended in the PTS with the rest of the film having Bond try to get to the top of Quantum via Greene.
The general audience cannot be assumed to carry the emotional attachment to Bond/Vesper to the next film, but much of QoS expects us to which creates a motivation for Bond that we can empathise with. Maybe this is why fandom has been largely positive to QoS because we, as fans, have emotionally made the essential bridge between the two films which general fans can't be expected to make.

So this, combined with the fact that QoS pushes viewers even further out of their comfort zone than CR could ever hope to, for me, suggests why the film was received the way it was.
Oh and probably coupled with the fact that DC was no longer the new kid on the block...

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 May 2009 - 10:04 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

How about the reviews that you can read on www.imdb.com? How come that they are...far more negative than the reviews for 'Casino Royale'? Let me explain it with some reviews from the IMDB-site concerning 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take in mind that those reviews are not necessarily written by Bond fans. And secondly, you can find the reviews down below on IMDB too.

After reading these reviews, can someone explain me why 'Casino Royale' scores a rounded 8.0 on www.imdb.com and 'Quantum Of Solace' a rather disappointing 6.9? Off course, we should not trust IMDB that much, but at least movie lovers come to the site...and have rated both films. Can someone explain me this with good arguments?

If you don't like QoS, Gustav Graves, that's fine by me - but you won't be changing my mind anytime soon by dragging in reviews from imdb to support your view.

I think it needs to be considered that despite all the "reboot" hyperbole, CR is actually not too far and away from a traditional Bond movie.
It has enough tweeks and class about it to make it stand out as different from the Brosnan era but overall anyone who has several watched Bond films in the past would not feel particularly alienated by CR.
In fact visually it is almost too similar to Campbell's GE which in many ways its very, very familiar...

QoS is however a very different issue. It's the real "reboot" of the franchise.
People generally approach films (this is both fans and casual viewers) with a set of preconceptions that are largely based on precedence and comfort. Actually the more you watch QoS on DVD the more you realise it is visually very consistent with previous Bond films (especially the credit sequence, Bond visiting Mathis, the cocktail party, the aeroplane fight, the coda) but on first viewing a lot of these things are missed. Instead QoS pushes viewers right from the get-go out of many preconceived views of what a Bond film can be, that had been established only as recently as CR. Mainly this is in non-expository dialogue (which never goes down well with the popcorn crowd), fast, impressionistic editing in action sequences and associative, symbolic montage (ditto on the popcorners).

If QoS had any failing, for me, it was being a direct sequel of CR and unconsciously this may have contributed to the confusion some viewers had regarding the motivation and direction of the film.
Part of me wants the Vesper storyline ended in the PTS with the rest of the film having Bond try to get to the top of Quantum via Greene.
The general audience cannot be assumed to carry the emotional attachment to Bond/Vesper to the next film, but much of QoS expects us to which creates a motivation for Bond that we can empathise with. Maybe this is why fandom has been largely positive to QoS because we, as fans, have emotionally made the essential bridge between the two films which general fans can't be expected to make.

So this, combined with the fact that QoS pushes viewers even further out of their comfort zone than CR could ever hope to, for me, suggests why the film was received the way it was.
Oh and probably coupled with the fact that DC was no longer the new kid on the block...

Thank you. Well said.

[Gustav Graves]

If you don't like QoS, Gustav Graves, that's fine by me - but you won't be changing my mind anytime soon by dragging in reviews from imdb to support your view.

I think it needs to be considered that despite all the "reboot" hyperbole, CR is actually not too far and away from a traditional Bond movie.
It has enough tweeks and class about it to make it stand out as different from the Brosnan era but overall anyone who has several watched Bond films in the past would not feel particularly alienated by CR.
In fact visually it is almost too similar to Campbell's GE which in many ways its very, very familiar...

QoS is however a very different issue. It's the real "reboot" of the franchise.
People generally approach films (this is both fans and casual viewers) with a set of preconceptions that are largely based on precedence and comfort. Actually the more you watch QoS on DVD the more you realise it is visually very consistent with previous Bond films (especially the credit sequence, Bond visiting Mathis, the cocktail party, the aeroplane fight, the coda) but on first viewing a lot of these things are missed. Instead QoS pushes viewers right from the get-go out of many preconceived views of what a Bond film can be, that had been established only as recently as CR. Mainly this is in non-expository dialogue (which never goes down well with the popcorn crowd), fast, impressionistic editing in action sequences and associative, symbolic montage (ditto on the popcorners).

If QoS had any failing, for me, it was being a direct sequel of CR and unconsciously this may have contributed to the confusion some viewers had regarding the motivation and direction of the film.
Part of me wants the Vesper storyline ended in the PTS with the rest of the film having Bond try to get to the top of Quantum via Greene.
The general audience cannot be assumed to carry the emotional attachment to Bond/Vesper to the next film, but much of QoS expects us to which creates a motivation for Bond that we can empathise with. Maybe this is why fandom has been largely positive to QoS because we, as fans, have emotionally made the essential bridge between the two films which general fans can't be expected to make.

So this, combined with the fact that QoS pushes viewers even further out of their comfort zone than CR could ever hope to, for me, suggests why the film was received the way it was.
Oh and probably coupled with the fact that DC was no longer the new kid on the block...

I am not dragging in reviews from IMDB to support my case. I have posted them here, because I was surprised to see that 'QOS' has got many more of these same negative or average reviews. 'CR' on the contrary is LOADED with extreme positive results.

I completely disagree when you say that CR is a more traditional Bond film. For me, CR captures the intense thriller atmosphere from only two Bond films from the sixties: FRWL and OHMSS. And how can you say that it is a 'more traditional' Bond film. The word 'traditional' is in fact very subjective. If you look back to 'Die Another Day', which is loaded with references to past Bond film, which uses a big icy villain's lair, which has some comedy when 'Q' enters the stage, which has a 'traditional' gunbarrel, which has a fully-loaded invisible Aston Martin, then I would say THAT film is the more traditional film.

And then, after 4 years, there was 'Casino Royale'. How on EARTH can you say that QOS is the 'real reboot' and not CR. 'Casino Royale' introduces us again to the character of James Bond, not 'Quantum of Solace'. We see how Bond gets his 00-licence, QOS is merely a follow-up to that story. Moreso, when it comes to plot and storyline it's completely dependent on 'Casino Royale'. So CR is for me the 'real reboot', whereas QOS is becoming more of a 'reboot-of-a-reboot', which is totally unnecessary and perhaps for ordinary cinema-go-ers to hard to get.

A good Bond film makes impact on first viewing. That's what 'Casino Royale' did. Most cinema-go-ers saw QOS one time only and don't analize it time after time on blue-ray or DVD's. Well, except our bunch of Bond nerds. A perfect Bond film is as good as a follow-up and as good as a stand-alone Bond film. So I don't buy it when you talk about 'non-expository dialogue'. I also expected more from the screenplay writers, especially Paul Haggis. A good Bond film NEEDS good dialogue. It can't go without it. Dialogue is the basis of a good story.

For me it's a must when also the 'ordinary people', not being Bond fans, think highly of a Bond film. The fact that those people warmly accepted the first outing of Daniel Craig in 'Casino Royale' makes it clear for me: ordinary cinema-go-ers aren't THAT stupid. They can cope with emotional storylines. They can cope with romantic plot too.

To summarize it all: 'Quantum of Solace' doesn't succeed in being a stand-alone Bond film. The fact that only die-hard Bond fans don't feel alienated doesn't add anything to the overal quality of 'Quantum of Solace' as a stand-alone film.

[Sniperscope]

I am not dragging in reviews from IMDB to support my case. I have posted them here, because I was surprised to see that 'QOS' has got many more of these same negative or average reviews. 'CR' on the contrary is LOADED with extreme positive results.

I completely disagree when you say that CR is a more traditional Bond film. For me, CR captures the intense thriller atmosphere from only two Bond films from the sixties: FRWL and OHMSS. And how can you say that it is a 'more traditional' Bond film. The word 'traditional' is in fact very subjective. If you look back to 'Die Another Day', which is loaded with references to past Bond film, which uses a big icy villain's lair, which has some comedy when 'Q' enters the stage, which has a 'traditional' gunbarrel, which has a fully-loaded invisible Aston Martin, then I would say THAT film is the more traditional film.

And then, after 4 years, there was 'Casino Royale'. How on EARTH can you say that QOS is the 'real reboot' and not CR. 'Casino Royale' introduces us again to the character of James Bond, not 'Quantum of Solace'. We see how Bond gets his 00-licence, QOS is merely a follow-up to that story. Moreso, when it comes to plot and storyline it's completely dependent on 'Casino Royale'. So CR is for me the 'real reboot', whereas QOS is becoming more of a 'reboot-of-a-reboot', which is totally unnecessary and perhaps for ordinary cinema-go-ers to hard to get.

A good Bond film makes impact on first viewing. That's what 'Casino Royale' did. Most cinema-go-ers saw QOS one time only and don't analize it time after time on blue-ray or DVD's. Well, except our bunch of Bond nerds. A perfect Bond film is as good as a follow-up and as good as a stand-alone Bond film. So I don't buy it when you talk about 'non-expository dialogue'. I also expected more from the screenplay writers, especially Paul Haggis. A good Bond film NEEDS good dialogue. It can't go without it. Dialogue is the basis of a good story.

For me it's a must when also the 'ordinary people', not being Bond fans, think highly of a Bond film. The fact that those people warmly accepted the first outing of Daniel Craig in 'Casino Royale' makes it clear for me: ordinary cinema-go-ers aren't THAT stupid. They can cope with emotional storylines. They can cope with romantic plot too.

To summarize it all: 'Quantum of Solace' doesn't succeed in being a stand-alone Bond film. The fact that only die-hard Bond fans don't feel alienated doesn't add anything to the overal quality of 'Quantum of Solace' as a stand-alone film.

Errr... "our bunch of Bond nerds"???!!! You are, I take it, aware that you are posting on a dedicated James Bond fansite?
Isn't re-watching and analysing a Bond film part and parcel of being a FAN? (which i should hasten is a contraction of FANATIC.)
Is it worth replying when you're virtually sneering at yourself?

I have pointed out that if QoS suffers from anything it is being a direct sequel. Thanks for backing me up on that. That was a production decision and one that I think will not be attempted again anytime soon. Many people within the industry will tell you that a direct sequel, for the general audience needs to arrive no more than a year later - the memory and emotional connection does not hold any longer especially if the film is only seen once.

I will stand by the notion that CR is in fact a very traditional Bond film. It does more than enough to make it distinguishable from Brosnan's era, but it is very GE in several set-pieces and look - especially in terms of cinematography and camera set-ups. I used the term "reboot" not in the overly simplistic notion of just introducing a new Bond, but in taking the franchise in a new and unexpected direction - in this case the storytelling and visuals of QoS mark it as unique in the franchise. Perhaps it was a little injudicious for me to use the term, but... meh.

Dialogue is not the basis of a good story. Plot is. The basis of a good play is dialogue. The basis of a good film is visuals.

I was trying to offer a suggestion as to why fans saw the movie one way in contrast to regular viewers.
I take you're not convinced?

Perhaps we should try to re-orientate the discussion to the thread's topic?
The battle over the virtues of QoS is being waged elsewhere...

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 May 2009 - 02:31 PM.

[Gustav Graves]

I'm sorry. Didn't mean to offend you or myself by using the word 'nerd'.

So far, I really like this discussion . At least Bond fans can disagree too. That's what keeps it diverse .

[Sniperscope]

I'm sorry. Didn't mean to offend you or myself by using the word 'nerd'.

So far, I really like this discussion . At least Bond fans can disagree too. That's what keeps it diverse .

No personal offense taken; disagreement is fine. It's just a little mystifying when fans start criticising each other for being a fan...

[JimmyBond]

A good Bond film makes impact on first viewing.

Well then QoS succeeded in my opinion.

A perfect Bond film is as good as a follow-up and as good as a stand-alone Bond film.

Again, I feel QoS did this.

Dialogue is the basis of a good story.

We must have been watching a different film, cause QoS has great dialogue, certainly better than most Bond films.

For me it's a must when also the 'ordinary people', not being Bond fans, think highly of a Bond film.

Really why? The only thing that matters when I watch a Bond film is how I enjoy it, I could care less what other's think.

To summarize it all: 'Quantum of Solace' doesn't succeed in being a stand-alone Bond film. The fact that only die-hard Bond fans don't feel alienated doesn't add anything to the overal quality of 'Quantum of Solace' as a stand-alone film.

And just you saying it doesnt have quality doesnt make it so. I enjoyed it, you didnt. End of story.

[Gustav Graves]

Not quite. Again, you are not speaking for the average global opinion of QOS. I do respect that you like QOS a lot though. But QOS is for me the film that...made me less interested in future Bond films. I can't help it .

BUT, having heard Michael G. Wilson lately. I have a sincere feeling that he's kinda fed up with the Sony Pictures contract. He openly admit how he felt....pushed aside by bigger movie companies. He openly talked about the rather bland Bond song sang by Alicia Keys. And not only that...it seems EON wants to have a finished script when they start filming. It seems Wilson wants to have a tighter control on the franchise again. And that is only good for the next Bond film:

'The Hildebrandt Rarity'. I love the title. And the short story by Fleming, which is entirely set on a luxury yaught, was absolutely fantastic. And why not feature a newly discovered sea-animal as the 'Hildebrandt Rarity'? Would be nice if Bond 23 will be set mostly under water again.

[jaguar007]

I take the middle road about QoS. It is true, much of the public felt it was a let down after the highly acclaimed Casino Royale. I wonder how different people would have felt about it had it followed DAD? I think it would have been much more enthusiastically reviewed and loved had it not followed what many people consider the best Bond movie ever. The IMDB and critic reviews for QoS are no worse than most other Bond films over the past 30 years. It is just that CR set the bar so high.

[JimmyBond]

Not quite. Again, you are not speaking for the average global opinion of QOS.

I'm speaking for myself. Unless of course that wasnt directed towards me.

BUT, having heard Michael G. Wilson lately. I have a sincere feeling that he's kinda fed up with the Sony Pictures contract. He openly admit how he felt....pushed aside by bigger movie companies. He openly talked about the rather bland Bond song sang by Alicia Keys. And not only that...it seems EON wants to have a finished script when they start filming. It seems Wilson wants to have a tighter control on the franchise again. And that is only good for the next Bond film:

I see nothing to suggest that Wilson didnt have complete control over his film. In fact it's common knowledge he allowed Forster more room to breath when making the film than any of the previous Bond directors. And what if he disliked the title song? I actually enjoyed it, sure it's not as good as YKMN but it's better than some of the previous Brosnan songs.

[bosst]

Why do we keep having this stupid argument.When a bond film doesn't click we refer to the "Fleming-Bond" when we like the film it's more of the Bond we know and love.If Bond fans love this film it's because they have an appreciation of the character,the history and the franchise.Bond is constantly changing.
If QOS is a great film it is precisely of this backdrop.It is perhaps too subtle a film for some and for the critics.The fact it makes you think and it does more in what is left out for the imagination to roam speaks volumes.One good example is the way Forster paid homage to most of the previous bond films without slapping our faces in it.Now to the ordinary Joe much would be missed but not to our beloved fraternity-that is precisely what is great about it.Who noticed that the plane attacking the DC3 was almost identical to the one in OHMSS surveying the helicopter convoy attacking Piz Gloria.So I echo all sentiments that the film bears up well to repeat DVD viewings.
One of my favourite moments is when Bond has the last shot to kill the MI6 double agent in the roof top chase.Forster timed that echoing shot to perfection.After all the freneticism of the preceding fight Forster does not need to show the man shot,staggering and falling off the scaffolding-that is direction 101.We know you don't mess with JAMES BOND.
I agree to a certain extent that the lack of dialogue and exposition has dented people's opinion of the film.Strangely enough the action sequences seem better on the small screen than the cinema because of the quick edits and busy camerawork-it's far easier for the eye to take it all in.That is not to be overly critical because the fast editing makes us suspend belief enough to make some of stunt work seem plausible.
I liked a lot of the dialogue in the film although I think that CR scored a bit better on that front even though it took an actor like DC to pull off some very cheesy lines with aplomb.
To conclude I would say that EON won't be able to carry on with this very cold,gritty Bond for long otherwise the character will become very one dimensional.I will add that QOS is a very thoughtful Bond film which will fare very favourably for the future and you can't be much of a fan if you hate it.Not that you can't have an opinion on it.

[Gustav Graves]

It is a common fact that Michael G. Wilson HIMSELF wasn't that keen on the fast editing stuff that was done for QOS. Michael G. Wilson himself gave a lecture earlier this year during the Bradford Filmfestival. And I'm quite astonished that almost no-one did pick this up. The interview, with the important quotes in bold:

Cinema Retro publishers Lee Pfeiffer and Dave Worrall attended the Bradford International Film Festival in Bradford, England last week. Here is Lee Pfeiffer's first report:

Although the Widescreen Weekend had officially kicked off this day with a screening of The King and I, our first and only event on the day was to attend a separate event: producer Michael G. Wilson's "Master Class" on the making of James Bond movies which was held - appropriately enough - in the Museum's Cubby Broccoli Theatre. Wilson and Eon Productions have long been patrons of the Museum and the film festival, but this was his first participation in an actual event. Tony Earnshaw, the Artistic Director of the Museum, had tried for years to convince Wilson to sit down for a one-on-one interview, but the typically modest Wilson had to be convinced there was actually interest among the movie-going public to hear a discussion about the inner-workings of the Bond films. The rapt attention of the audience would immediately nullify those concerns

Earnshaw proved to be a most adept interviewer: every question was appropriate and intelligent (something I wish I could say for many chat show hosts on TV and radio). The program began with an amusing montage of all the cameo appearances Wilson has made in the Bond films over the decades. The Hitchcockian touch is considered a good luck charm by the cast and crew. Wilson is not known for being overly-verbose and tonight was no exception. However, he was comfortable, relaxed and in good spirits - and he spoke about the making of the Bond films with refreshing candor.

Wilson related how he had been happily pursuing a career in law when the increasing legal difficulties between his stepfather Cubby Broccoli and his production partner necessitated his move into the Eon offices in order to work on legal matters. After Broccoli and Saltzman split, Cubby convinced Wilson to stay on and groomed him in the fine art of movie producing. He also noted that Wilson had a creative streak when it came to coming up with concepts for specific sequences in the films. Before long, Wilson was co-authoring scripts with long-time franchise screenwriter Richard Maibaum.

Wilson related some amusing and occasionally harrowing stories from his early days on the series. He had seen a liquor ad with stuntman Rick Sylvester skiing off the face of a mountain and felt it should be used as the pre-credits sequence for The Spy Who Loved Me. It was only after Sylvester had been formally hired and the stunt budgeted and planned for, that Wilson learned the ski stunt never happened - it was all done with trick photography. Nevertheless, Sylvester assured Wilson that he could indeed do the stunt, if the crew were to film in a remote mountainous region of Canada where conditions were appropriate. The led to near disaster, as the cost of bringing a full crew to such an inhospitable area caused the budget to soar. The weather had to be perfect to enact the stunt, but nature wouldn't cooperate and the crew burned up $250,000 (a huge sum in 1976) with nary a single frame of film to show for it. Nervous United Artists executives demanded the unit return home - which probably would have put an end to Wilson's fledgling career as a future producer. However, in dramatic Hollywood fashion, there was a brief break in the weather and Sylvester managed to carry off the stunt. The idea of adding the Union Jack to Bond's parachute was literally done at the last minute to bring some levity to the sequence. Wilson revealed that, to this day, such late-in-the-day brainstorms are often incorporated into the films.

Wilson acknowledged that the production of each film is a frantic period and that Eon delivers the finished movie to the studio with relatively little wiggle room to make changes. He said this actually works in Eon's favor because it precludes studio brass from ordering wide-ranging alterations to the films, as there simply isn't enough time to enact them. On the other side of the coin, he expressed frustration that the tight deadlines have compromised Eon's influence over the title song. He said that in the past, the composer of the song worked in consultation with the filmmaking team. In recent years, however, Eon had little or no say over the song, which has been delivered so late in the process that the producers have to accept whatever is delivered. (Although Wilson did not mention any specific song titles, one would not be going out on a limb to assume it includes the dreadful Another Way to Die from Quantum Of Solace.)

Wilson also explained why Eon tends to use writers and technicians who are veterans of the series. He said it is very time consuming to bring on new talent and wait for them to assimilate into understanding Eon's methods, as well as comprehend the company's philosophies of how the Bond character should be presented. He also said that he doesn't let fan or media bias deter his creative instincts. He acknowledged it was frustrating to read the widespread campaign against Daniel Craig after he was signed as Bond, but never wavered in his belief that the end result would be that the public and critics would embrace him.

At the end of the session, Wilson took questions from the audience - which is often a recipe for disaster at fan events because seemingly every eccentric within ten miles is drawn to the microphone like a moth to a flame. However, in our first indication that Bradford draws serious and mature film fans, every question asked was appropriate and interesting. One in particular hit the mark when someone asked Wilson why he allowed the action sequences in Quantum to be edited with so many fast cuts that it robbed the scenes of any suspense. Wilson acknowledged that they were attempting to please modern audiences who are used to that style of editing but did not outwardly endorse the style.

He said that Eon always experiments with different filmmaking styles that the director may favor - and that by the time the first edit is done, there is precious little time to make radical changes. The only news Wilson broke about the next Bond film is that there is no news at all. He said there had been no significant work done on the next entry.

At the end of the session, Wilson graciously stayed on to chat informally with fans and sign autographs. Although we've known Michael for many years on a personal basis, this was an enjoyable and rare opportunity for us to hear him discuss aspects of his career that we had not been aware of. More importantly, this highly enjoyable evening served as a teaser for the great weekend events that were to follow.

So please. Cut the crap. Wilson himself wasn't overly enthusiastic about the music for 'Quantum Of Solace'. He openly admitted that EON's influence on picking the singer/performer for the Bond theme isn't what it used to be. On that I completely agree with my heroe Michael Wilson. We can only expect better stuff and especially a better song for Bond 23.

Now concerning the fast-pace editing style of QOS, that is reminiscent of Jason Bourne: Wilson likes to experiment, but it wouldn't have been his personal choice to add this style of editing.

Compared to Wilson's stepfather, I think Wilson also suffers from a too powerfull movie company: Sony Pictures. Compared to MGM/United Artists, Sony Pictures is...just...too powerfull. They dominate the creative process during the production of a Bond film too much. Just TOO much. Product placement is one thing.

But when this all is resulting in EON Productions becoming a rather weak production partner, then I think it's no good news for future Bond films. I am convinced Michael G. Wilson knows this by himself. You can be sure of Wilson and EON Productions to become more dominant again in the creative process of producing Bond 23.

Having said all this, I still want to mention the fact that I am a Bond fan. And allthough I'm not fond of 'Quantum Of Solace, I think that 'Doctor No', 'From Russia With Love', 'Goldfinger', 'Thunderball', 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service (especially that one), 'Live And Let Die', The Spy Who Loved Me', 'For Your Eyes Only', 'Octopussy', 'The Living Daylights', 'GoldenEye', 'The World Is Not Enough' and especially 'Casino Royale' are all better Bond films than 'Quantum Of Solace'.

So that means that 'Quantum Of Solace' is not in my top 13 of best Bond films. But is that a problem? No! I do think that 'Quantum Of Solace' is better than YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, LTK, TND and DAD. What do you think?

Edited by Gustav Graves, 28 May 2009 - 09:55 AM.

[JimmyBond]

It is a common fact that Michael G. Wilson HIMSELF wasn't that keen on the fast editing stuff that was done for QOS.

So?

Is his opinion the be all end all opinion? Just because he doesnt like the editing means I'm supposed to share his opinion like a sheep?

[Gustav Graves]

Beg your pardon? . Show a bit more respect for Mr Wilson. Off course we don't need to agree, but quoting only ONE sentence from my rather informative post isn't showing us the big picture. Wouldn't you say?

Why are you.....defending QOS so much. I'm not a QOS-fan, I am a James Bond-fan.

[Sniperscope]

The things people complain about!
So the theme song wasn't any good?? So what? It's not as if it's unheard of for a Bond film to have a so-so opening song... (Nancy Sinatra I'm looking at you!)
And so Wilson wouldn't endorse the editing. Again so what? He gives a rationale for it - which is both pragmatic and with an eye to the general audience. In this I agree with JimmyBond - I can think for myself fine thanks. If Wilson doesn't like it it doesn't make on whit of difference to me liking it. Sorry.
And finally, Gustav, why do you feel the need to rank the Bond films? Or more importantly, share the ranking with us? What's it prove? I've never ranked the Bond films - some I think are poor, most are good, and few, very, few are exceptional. QoS is in the latter for me, but why should anyone care? It's only my view.

[Manticore]

Why do we keep having this stupid argument.When a bond film doesn't click we refer to the "Fleming-Bond" when we like the film it's more of the Bond we know and love.If Bond fans love this film it's because they have an appreciation of the character,the history and the franchise.Bond is constantly changing.
If QOS is a great film it is precisely of this backdrop.It is perhaps too subtle a film for some and for the critics.The fact it makes you think and it does more in what is left out for the imagination to roam speaks volumes.One good example is the way Forster paid homage to most of the previous bond films without slapping our faces in it.Now to the ordinary Joe much would be missed but not to our beloved fraternity-that is precisely what is great about it.Who noticed that the plane attacking the DC3 was almost identical to the one in OHMSS surveying the helicopter convoy attacking Piz Gloria.So I echo all sentiments that the film bears up well to repeat DVD viewings.
One of my favourite moments is when Bond has the last shot to kill the MI6 double agent in the roof top chase.Forster timed that echoing shot to perfection.After all the freneticism of the preceding fight Forster does not need to show the man shot,staggering and falling off the scaffolding-that is direction 101.We know you don't mess with JAMES BOND.
I agree to a certain extent that the lack of dialogue and exposition has dented people's opinion of the film.Strangely enough the action sequences seem better on the small screen than the cinema because of the quick edits and busy camerawork-it's far easier for the eye to take it all in.That is not to be overly critical because the fast editing makes us suspend belief enough to make some of stunt work seem plausible.
I liked a lot of the dialogue in the film although I think that CR scored a bit better on that front even though it took an actor like DC to pull off some very cheesy lines with aplomb.
To conclude I would say that EON won't be able to carry on with this very cold,gritty Bond for long otherwise the character will become very one dimensional.I will add that QOS is a very thoughtful Bond film which will fare very favourably for the future and you can't be much of a fan if you hate it.Not that you can't have an opinion on it.

Very good post...

[Zorin Industries]

It is a

Wilson himself wasn't overly enthusiastic about the music for 'Quantum Of Solace'. He openly admitted that EON's influence on picking the singer/performer for the Bond theme isn't what it used to be. On that I completely agree with my heroe Michael Wilson. We can only expect better stuff and especially a better song for Bond 23.

Now concerning the fast-pace editing style of QOS, that is reminiscent of Jason Bourne: Wilson likes to experiment, but it wouldn't have been his personal choice to add this style of editing.

Compared to Wilson's stepfather, I think Wilson also suffers from a too powerfull movie company: Sony Pictures. Compared to MGM/United Artists, Sony Pictures is...just...too powerfull. They dominate the creative process during the production of a Bond film too much. Just TOO much. Product placement is one thing.

But when this all is resulting in EON Productions becoming a rather weak production partner, then I think it's no good news for future Bond films. I am convinced Michael G. Wilson knows this by himself. You can be sure of Wilson and EON Productions to become more dominant again in the creative process of producing Bond 23.

Have you read any of the history of MGM and United Artists over the last forty years? Compared to MGM and United Artists, Sony were a Sunday picnic (especially when you remember Barbara Broccoli and the then head of Sony, Amy Pascal, are friends). Cubby had great problems with every film and the studio money-men behind them. Every film would see a new head of studio think he will be the one to change Bond and make more money from him and each time Cubby et al knew their product throughout enough to defend it and make sure meddlers left it alone. It is also worth remembering that MGM (in a round-about way) were responsible for the six year hiatus between 1989 and 1995 - which has presented far more of a legal and interfering presence to Bond's longevity than the likes of Sony allegedly interfering.

Michael Wilson would indeed have said he wanted more time with the editing - but you show me a producer or director who do not say that. There is NEVER enough time. And Michael Wilson is not the only producing influence on the new Bond films - and neither is Barbara Broccoli (though they sway is above all).

And I would be careful with statements such as "Eon..are becoming a rather weak production partner".... That is nothing but your interpretation of something you have not witnessed personally. And which - when you look at the end products - is a rather silly sentiment.

And sentiments such as "cut the crap" are hardly conducive to a sensible and progressive discussion on the recent years of Bond onscreen...

[Zorin Industries]

The things people complain about!
So the theme song wasn't any good?? So what? It's not as if it's unheard of for a Bond film to have a so-so opening song... (Nancy Sinatra I'm looking at you!)
And so Wilson wouldn't endorse the editing. Again so what? He gives a rationale for it - which is both pragmatic and with an eye to the general audience. In this I agree with JimmyBond - I can think for myself fine thanks. If Wilson doesn't like it it doesn't make on whit of difference to me liking it. Sorry.
And finally, Gustav, why do you feel the need to rank the Bond films? Or more importantly, share the ranking with us? What's it prove? I've never ranked the Bond films - some I think are poor, most are good, and few, very, few are exceptional. QoS is in the latter for me, but why should anyone care? It's only my view.

Well that is my number one response... what do others think about that ranking? No. Don't answer.

I couldn't and wouldn't even start to do a one-man league table of Bond films as my criteria for a Bond film involve a lot more than whether I liked it. And those personal polls never reflect the vast difference between what some people's favourite Bond film is versus what they think is the best 007 entry. And because one of my answers there gets NO support round these parts, I will not degrade Zorin Industries rather tenuous support any more!

[Gustav Graves]

I....feel certain..anger in the air? I don't know why . Today it came out that Bond 23 will be moved to a late 2011 release AND that production on Bond 23 has already started.

I completely agree with such a late release. It'll give the producers more time. Furthermore, I do think that a Bond film every two years doesn't work anymore. It worked until the late eighties, but in today's fast consumer society I think a three-year gab is perfect.

I'm also quite astonished that some people are not reacting to the actual interview from the Bradford Film Festival. Can't we get on terms and feel HAPPY that Wilson agrees with certain weaknesses of QOS, so that Bond 23 won't have these flaws? Please?

And don't write me off as a Bond-hater. I am a Bond fan and I DO admire Michael G. Wilson.

[Zorin Industries]

What is said at a film fan event is not always what is the film making reality. Time will of course tell.

[byline]

Why are you.....defending QOS so much. I'm not a QOS-fan, I am a James Bond-fan.

Well . . . for those of us who love "Quantum of Solace," it's worth defending. Just watched it again, and was blown away all over again. So of course I (and anyone who shares that opinion) am going to defend something I enjoy that much. Why wouldn't we?

By the way, being a "Quantum of Solace" fan and being a James Bond fan are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms.

Edited by byline, 28 May 2009 - 04:55 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Can't we get on terms and feel HAPPY that Wilson agrees with certain weaknesses of QOS, so that Bond 23 won't have these flaws? Please?

Why should I be happy that Wilson feels their are some flaws in QoS? I don't see these things as flaws, so what does it matter if he thinks they are or not?

[Gustav Graves]

Is QOS in your top 5 of all-time favourite Bond films then?

[Loomis]

What is said at a film fan event is not always what is the film making reality.

What do you mean? That Wilson was just talking bollocks at this "film fan event", because film fans are so dumb that you can get away with saying anything at all to them, and they're certainly too stupid to handle the truth (and too ungrateful to deserve it), which is that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an utterly perfect motion picture on which its makers achieved every single last one of their goals 100%?

[Zorin Industries]

What is said at a film fan event is not always what is the film making reality.

What do you mean? That Wilson was just talking bollocks at this "film fan event", because film fans are so dumb that you can get away with saying anything at all to them, and they're certainly too stupid to handle the truth (and too ungrateful to deserve it), which is that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an utterly perfect motion picture on which its makers achieved every single last one of their goals 100%?

Well it achieved a lot of goals for Eon.

And no, I am not saying Wilson was talking rubbish at the Bradford event. But there is always an official line on these matters and it is not always the real line.

I think we're going round in circles here. You did not like QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Fine. You didn't have to, nor did I have to like it. I personally think it is a Bond masterpiece whose standing will continue rising. And it is the best directed Bond film for decades. But people who don't see / think / believe that appear to look for official evidence to endorse their opinions whereas those that rate SOLACE do not need to.

[tdalton]

Can't we get on terms and feel HAPPY that Wilson agrees with certain weaknesses of QOS, so that Bond 23 won't have these flaws? Please?

Why should I be happy that Wilson feels their are some flaws in QoS? I don't see these things as flaws, so what does it matter if he thinks they are or not?

Agreed. While I do note that there are a few minor things about QUANTUM OF SOLACE that I would change (the editing would not be one of them), I don't really see any major flaws in the film that would keep it from being a great Bond film, IMO. I'm sure that Wilson sees some flaws within the film, just as any producer/director is going to after a film is completed, as I'm sure that not every film that gets released doesn't have things that a director or producer wanted to do a bit differently (which is probably why we see so many director's cuts of films).

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Have you read any of the history of MGM and United Artists over the last forty years? Compared to MGM and United Artists, Sony were a Sunday picnic (especially when you remember Barbara Broccoli and the then head of Sony, Amy Pascal, are friends). Cubby had great problems with every film and the studio money-men behind them. Every film would see a new head of studio think he will be the one to change Bond and make more money from him and each time Cubby et al knew their product throughout enough to defend it and make sure meddlers left it alone. It is also worth remembering that MGM (in a round-about way) were responsible for the six year hiatus between 1989 and 1995 - which has presented far more of a legal and interfering presence to Bond's longevity than the likes of Sony allegedly interfering.

Yes Yes Yes.
The talent of the Bond producers is twofold. Make the films themselves and sustain the series itself.
One of the most interesting facets of Cubby's biography for me is his stories of ever changing executives at MGM during the eighties who were trying to interfere with the productions, particularly on AVTAK.
I think the CR and QoS reaped the benefit of having Sony behind them. I for one wish Sony were continuing making Bonds with Eon.

[tdalton]

I think the CR and QoS reaped the benefit of having Sony behind them. I for one wish Sony were continuing making Bonds with Eon.

Agreed. IMO, Sony's involvement in the franchise is the best thing that's happened to the franchise in quite a while, and I wish that it were able to continue on for a while.

[Loomis]

What is said at a film fan event is not always what is the film making reality.

What do you mean? That Wilson was just talking bollocks at this "film fan event", because film fans are so dumb that you can get away with saying anything at all to them, and they're certainly too stupid to handle the truth (and too ungrateful to deserve it), which is that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is an utterly perfect motion picture on which its makers achieved every single last one of their goals 100%?

Well it achieved a lot of goals for Eon.

And no, I am not saying Wilson was talking rubbish at the Bradford event. But there is always an official line on these matters and it is not always the real line.

I think we're going round in circles here. You did not like QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Fine. You didn't have to, nor did I have to like it. I personally think it is a Bond masterpiece whose standing will continue rising. And it is the best directed Bond film for decades. But people who don't see / think / believe that appear to look for official evidence to endorse their opinions whereas those that rate SOLACE do not need to.

Actually, I did like QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Very much. I always have done and probably always will do. I just don't think it's the second coming or the last word in Bond films.