220 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

I disagree with this. I understand that Forster, Haggis, and company subtly tried to take the piss out of Elvis and make him a complete loser--the anti-Bond henchman, if you will. Nevertheless, I still find him completely and utterly forgettable. Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

As for the topic's point, Roberto Schaefer's work was good--the distant shot of Bond leaving Greene in the desert was brilliant--but I prefer the work of Phil Meheux in Casino Royale.

[MattofSteel]

But that's...the whole point. Re: Elvis. No?

[Zorin Industries]

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

I disagree with this. I understand that Forster, Haggis, and company subtly tried to take the piss out of Elvis and make him a complete loser--the anti-Bond henchman, if you will. Nevertheless, I still find him completely and utterly forgettable. Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

As for the topic's point, Roberto Schaefer's work was good--the distant shot of Bond leaving Greene in the desert was brilliant--but I prefer the work of Phil Meheux in Casino Royale.

Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

Er - yeah - subtly sort of does have a lot to do with the success of a character like ELVIS. And because it was subtle it was successful. He was weak and forgettable to you, but to others who got the fresh take on the VERY TIRED hired heavy role ELVIS works extremely well.

Maybe his main fault was he didn't have "cliched signpost" emblazoned across his shirt?

[The Shark]

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

I disagree with this. I understand that Forster, Haggis, and company subtly tried to take the piss out of Elvis and make him a complete loser--the anti-Bond henchman, if you will. Nevertheless, I still find him completely and utterly forgettable. Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

As for the topic's point, Roberto Schaefer's work was good--the distant shot of Bond leaving Greene in the desert was brilliant--but I prefer the work of Phil Meheux in Casino Royale.

Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

Er - yeah - subtly sort of does have a lot to do with the success of a character like ELVIS. And because it was subtle it was successful. He was weak and forgettable to you, but to others who got the fresh take on the VERY TIRED hired heavy role ELVIS works extremely well.

Maybe his main fault was he didn't have "cliched signpost" emblazoned across his shirt?

So Elvis ultimately works because he satisfies a small esoteric minority of viewers, while the rest ignore him or consider him a weak and inconsiquential character?

[byline]

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

I disagree with this. I understand that Forster, Haggis, and company subtly tried to take the piss out of Elvis and make him a complete loser--the anti-Bond henchman, if you will. Nevertheless, I still find him completely and utterly forgettable. Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

As for the topic's point, Roberto Schaefer's work was good--the distant shot of Bond leaving Greene in the desert was brilliant--but I prefer the work of Phil Meheux in Casino Royale.

Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

Er - yeah - subtly sort of does have a lot to do with the success of a character like ELVIS. And because it was subtle it was successful. He was weak and forgettable to you, but to others who got the fresh take on the VERY TIRED hired heavy role ELVIS works extremely well.

Maybe his main fault was he didn't have "cliched signpost" emblazoned across his shirt?

So Elvis ultimately works because he satisfies a small esoteric minority of viewers, while the rest ignore him or consider him a weak and inconsiquential character?

How do you know it's a "small esoteric minority of viewers"? Maybe the majority of us really did get it.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

I disagree with this. I understand that Forster, Haggis, and company subtly tried to take the piss out of Elvis and make him a complete loser--the anti-Bond henchman, if you will. Nevertheless, I still find him completely and utterly forgettable. Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

As for the topic's point, Roberto Schaefer's work was good--the distant shot of Bond leaving Greene in the desert was brilliant--but I prefer the work of Phil Meheux in Casino Royale.

Subtly has nothing to do with the success, or lack thereof, of his character. It's the character itself and Elvis is a failure as shown on-screen. The main henchman should never be so weak and forgettable in a Bond film. A secondary henchman, fine, but never the main one.

Er - yeah - subtly sort of does have a lot to do with the success of a character like ELVIS. And because it was subtle it was successful. He was weak and forgettable to you, but to others who got the fresh take on the VERY TIRED hired heavy role ELVIS works extremely well.

Maybe his main fault was he didn't have "cliched signpost" emblazoned across his shirt?

First of all. I don't have anything against or in favor to the Elvis character; but it does annoy me the insistence of some fans to depict as a misunderstood stroke of genius, every little aspect of QOS that is criticized by others.

PS: I hope that the response, to my post would not be something like: 'I'm annoyed by your insistence in criticize the profound masterpiece of QOS'. Because as I have said earlier, it's not the case that I really loathe QOS (for me, is in the middle of my list), what I do hate is the aims of almost canonize this movie, developed by some fans.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 June 2009 - 03:43 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm annoyed by your insistence.........

And what also annoys Zorin Industries is this die-hard obsession by some (maybe not you Mr Beech) to find fault in a film because it hasn't laboured to make itself a 126 minute retread of everything 007 that has gone before. And what I loathe probably even more is the naysayers complete inability to determine why QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a failure just because it firstly didn't love-nosh their childhood nostalgia and secondly was "over edited" as if every film (including BOND) can only be good or worthy if it is edited like the other films they like. Some fans complete inability to recognise the basic device of cinema (namely editing) to do what it wants is a bit limiting. (well it is to me).

I am not in the business of canonizing anything. Certainly not round here. But - on the example of ELVIS - why do we need to see the 22nd chief henchmen as a brooding, excessively proportioned, ruthless, agile killer? The whole point of Quantum and the GREENE angle of it is surely that their threat and menace cannot be boiled down to brute force and psychopathic determination as those traits enable anyone else (i.e. any other onscreen hero like 007) to get rid of them. It sort of limits the need for the narrative protagonist's to rid the antogonists if BOND's adversaries are all on the nose villains.

[Mr_Wint]

The film looks a little bit pale in a few shots. But apart from that, I can't see anything special with the cinematography in QOS. Been there, done that.

As for Elvis, he is the most boring henchman I've ever seen in a Bondfilm. If that is what they aimed for, they were extremely successful.

[Royal Dalton]

Elvis was a pretty pointless character. But Taubman turned him into something worth watching. And that was his gift to us.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think you can talk about the Elvis character without necessarily going into the merits of QoS per se.

But - on the example of ELVIS - why do we need to see the 22nd chief henchmen as a brooding, excessively proportioned, ruthless, agile killer?

I agree with this. There is nothing about the cinematic Bond to say a Henchman has to be defined and portrayed in a certain way. If people don't like the character and what the film makers did with Elvis fair enough. I like the fact that we get something a bit different with Elvis. I am someone who tires with everything in film and TV generally being spelled out as if we are all idiots with a low grade attention span. Character nuances and subtleties raise a film for me.

[Zorin Industries]

I think you can talk about the Elvis character without necessarily going into the merits of QoS per se.

But - on the example of ELVIS - why do we need to see the 22nd chief henchmen as a brooding, excessively proportioned, ruthless, agile killer?

I agree with this. There is nothing about the cinematic Bond to say a Henchman has to be defined and portrayed in a certain way. If people don't like the character and what the film makers did with Elvis fair enough. I like the fact that we get something a bit different with Elvis. I am someone who tires with everything in film and TV generally being spelled out as if we are all idiots with a low grade attention span. Character nuances and subtleties raise a film for me.

Thank you. "Nuances" are a key word in defining SOLACE for me.

[00Twelve]

I think you can talk about the Elvis character without necessarily going into the merits of QoS per se.

But - on the example of ELVIS - why do we need to see the 22nd chief henchmen as a brooding, excessively proportioned, ruthless, agile killer?

I agree with this. There is nothing about the cinematic Bond to say a Henchman has to be defined and portrayed in a certain way. If people don't like the character and what the film makers did with Elvis fair enough. I like the fact that we get something a bit different with Elvis. I am someone who tires with everything in film and TV generally being spelled out as if we are all idiots with a low grade attention span. Character nuances and subtleties raise a film for me.

The Henchman is a tired archetype anyway. I'll be interested to see how the next movie deals with him. He sort of has to be brought back, I suppose, but I'll be curious to see if he will actually be interesting.

Anyway, on topic:

I absolutely love the cinematography of the car chase. The flashes of the Aston Martin trademarks tell us immediately whose car we're seeing, then the steely cold eyes. Sort of reminds me of OHMSS' intro. Then the lovely shot of the thug hanging out the passenger window with the gun, reflected in the Aston's glossy exterior. Lovely!

I'm continually impressed that the chase felt so real even though Craig wasn't even on location. None of his interiors were shot at Garda. The chase was just engaging enough that one would never be able to tell that without just knowing the fact. That's good camerawork and (brace yourselves!) editing.

I love that the chase ends as suddenly as it begins. We have no idea the climax is about to happen. One second the cars are momentarily going around the construction vehicle, the next moment Bond's fired his shots and the baddies are over the cliff. Done. Then the calm, beautiful rising panorama of Siena. Ahhhh. By the time Bond opens the trunk and utters one of the best lines since Connery's prime, the whole sequence has told a beautiful little story that feels like a sequence from a Fleming story. At least, it does to me.

Gets better every time I see it.

[Mr_Wint]

By the time Bond opens the trunk and utters one of the best lines since Connery's prime, the whole sequence has told a beautiful little story that feels like a sequence from a Fleming story.

You must be joking... right?

[00Twelve]

By the time Bond opens the trunk and utters one of the best lines since Connery's prime, the whole sequence has told a beautiful little story that feels like a sequence from a Fleming story.

You must be joking... right?

Of course I am.

[MattofSteel]

Car chase is indeed pretty spectacular at times. Manages to capture the sense of humour behind cinematic Bond and remain utterly grounded and suspenseful in a legitimate way. Kind of like the rest of the film. But the opening chase is definitely a major highlight.

I really didn't mean to re-start the whole Elvis debate. It's been well documented (and obvious from watching) that part of the purpose of QoS was to de-familiarize the audience with archetypal identities of heroes and villains (Mathis' little speech paraphrased, which I believe was from the original CR novel). As much as we've talked of "anti-heroes" being the rage in film nowadays, I think QoS very much gives us our first full roster of "anti-villains."

Elvis is the prime example. He's so inept and naive that he's hilariously out of his depth as a Quantum henchman. There's literally nothing sinister about him. Greene is much the same. He's a charismatic middleman with a sinister attitude, but has no actual muscle - either his own, or through influence (as evidence by his frantic attacks on Bond at the end). Probably why the villains feel underwhelming to some - because they totally are. Within Greene's immediate posse - are any of them legitimately dangerous? Mitchell was the deadliest individual villain in the movie, and other vaguely connected members of Quantum/mercenaries proided the rest of the physical threats. It seemed obviously intentional, and plays into that overall theme. Greene positions himself quite arrogantly as a very powerful and influential man, and his final scene is one of absolutely helpless emasculation at the hands of 007.

"Minnows pretending to be whales," someone else pretty important analogized once.

[Mr_Wint]

It's been well documented (and obvious from watching) that part of the purpose of QoS was to de-familiarize the audience with archetypal identities of heroes and villains (Mathis' little speech paraphrased, which I believe was from the original CR novel). As much as we've talked of "anti-heroes" being the rage in film nowadays, I think QoS very much gives us our first full roster of "anti-villains."

Forster talked a lot about this during the interviews, but I can't say that we see much of that in the movie. Greene appears to be fighting for the environment, yes. But how original is this? Both Elliot Carver and Gustav Graves pretended to have a good purpose with whatever they were doing. So did Elektra King, Koskov and Kristatos.

Very early in the film it is totally obvious that Greene is not fighting for a good thing. And when he tells Gregg Beam to get rid of Bond it is even more obvious. So what's the big deal really?

They could've created some great villains with Mr White and a new powerful organization. Instead we got Greene, silly Elvis and the most clichéd dictator the world have ever seen.

[Harmsway]

The flashes of the Aston Martin trademarks tell us immediately whose car we're seeing, then the steely cold eyes.

While I love the opening over-the-water shot and some of the other shots (the close-up of Craig's eye, for one), I don't like the shots of the car itself. They scream "car commercial," rather than "arty montage."

But overall, I agree about the opening car chase. While somewhat extraneous to the story (nothing new for a PTS, of course), it's a thrilling opening that absolutely rocks. It might not rock quite as much as it could have overall, if you ask me, but it's still a thrilling sequence that knocks the wind out of most of its competition in the franchise, and remains one of the highlights of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[00Twelve]

The flashes of the Aston Martin trademarks tell us immediately whose car we're seeing, then the steely cold eyes.

While I love the opening over-the-water shot and some of the other shots (the close-up of Craig's eye, for one), I don't like the shots of the car itself. They scream "car commercial."

But overall, I agree about the opening car chase. While somewhat extraneous to the story (nothing new for a PTS, of course), it's a thrilling opening that absolutely rocks. It might not rock quite as much as it could have, if you ask me, but it's a thrilling sequence that knocks the wind out of most of its competition in the franchise, and remains one of the highlights of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I'm really taken with its complete short-story narrative at the moment, and just how quickly it's clearly told. Of course, all the pre-title sequences have been little self-contained prologues of their own, but I feel like this one does a particularly fine job of being its own little short story, if you will.

The Story:

Opening shot of Garda - Our setting
Closeup shots of Aston Martin and steely blue eyes - Our hero
Shots of bullets being loaded into machine guns - Our villains

The exposition is really that simple. All of it is given to us before the sound even kicks in. Schaefer gets a hug from me for that.

CHASE!! - Bond outruns the villains, a simple premise given to us with a dizzying ferocity that analogizes the hero's frenetic state of mind. Police are killed in the process, upping the stakes, and the chase ends as abruptly as it began.

Rising panorama of Siena - The hero's safe arrival to his destination. He has won his battle.

Closing twist - The hero had a villain in his trunk the whole time! We understand why the other villains were giving chase. And the hero is made doubly cool.

The End.

And yet, The Beginning of the larger story.

And all in four minutes.

[Richard]

I like what Roberto Schaefer does with light and texture in Quantum of Solace. There are times when it looks like a monochrome world in color, with its black wardrobes and white surfaces. The mood, atmosphere, and composition are noir and evoke From Russia With Love, perhaps the most brilliantly shot film of the series.

In contrast, Phil Meheux's work in Casino Royale is flat, pedestrian, and unimaginative.

Richard

Closing twist - The hero had a villain in his trunk the whole time! We understand why the other villains were giving chase. And the hero is made doubly cool.

The villain getting banged around in the trunk is stolen outright from Mike Hodges' much-admired gangster classic Get Carter (1971) where it is infinitely more effective.

And all in four minutes.

That's the problem with it.
It's all over in four minutes.

Richard

[Mr_Wint]

CHASE!! - Bond outruns the villains, a simple premise given to us with a dizzying ferocity that analogizes the hero's frenetic state of mind. Police are killed in the process, upping the stakes, and the chase ends as abruptly as it began.

It is a brief action scene with a few flashy images and loud noises. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a narrative...

And I would definitively not call it nuanced...

[The Shark]

CHASE!! - Bond outruns the villains, a simple premise given to us with a dizzying ferocity that analogizes the hero's frenetic state of mind. Police are killed in the process, upping the stakes, and the chase ends as abruptly as it began.

It is a brief action scene with a few flashy images and loud noises. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a narrative...

And I would definitively not call it nuanced...

In contrast to the majority of Bond action sequences I'd say it is.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I like what Roberto Schaefer does with light and texture in Quantum of Solace. There are times when it looks like a monochrome world in color, with its black wardrobes and white surfaces. The mood, atmosphere, and composition are noir and evoke From Russia With Love, perhaps the most brilliantly shot film of the series.

In contrast, Phil Meheux's work in Casino Royale is flat, pedestrian, and unimaginative.

I don't understand why do you think that. Could you developed a little your opinion about CR's cinematography, to make a full argument about this??!!

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 June 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[00Twelve]

CHASE!! - Bond outruns the villains, a simple premise given to us with a dizzying ferocity that analogizes the hero's frenetic state of mind. Police are killed in the process, upping the stakes, and the chase ends as abruptly as it began.

It is a brief action scene with a few flashy images and loud noises. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a narrative...

And I would definitively not call it nuanced...

There's a clear beginning, middle and end. Thus a story, brief though it may be.

[Zorin Industries]

The flashes of the Aston Martin trademarks tell us immediately whose car we're seeing, then the steely cold eyes.

While I love the opening over-the-water shot and some of the other shots (the close-up of Craig's eye, for one), I don't like the shots of the car itself. They scream "car commercial."

But overall, I agree about the opening car chase. While somewhat extraneous to the story (nothing new for a PTS, of course), it's a thrilling opening that absolutely rocks. It might not rock quite as much as it could have, if you ask me, but it's a thrilling sequence that knocks the wind out of most of its competition in the franchise, and remains one of the highlights of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I'm really taken with its complete short-story narrative at the moment, and just how quickly it's clearly told. Of course, all the pre-title sequences have been little self-contained prologues of their own, but I feel like this one does a particularly fine job of being its own little short story, if you will.

The Story:

Opening shot of Garda - Our setting
Closeup shots of Aston Martin and steely blue eyes - Our hero
Shots of bullets being loaded into machine guns - Our villains

The exposition is really that simple. All of it is given to us before the sound even kicks in. Schaefer gets a hug from me for that.

CHASE!! - Bond outruns the villains, a simple premise given to us with a dizzying ferocity that analogizes the hero's frenetic state of mind. Police are killed in the process, upping the stakes, and the chase ends as abruptly as it began.

Rising panorama of Siena - The hero's safe arrival to his destination. He has won his battle.

Closing twist - The hero had a villain in his trunk the whole time! We understand why the other villains were giving chase. And the hero is made doubly cool.

The End.

And yet, The Beginning of the larger story.

And all in four minutes.

EXACTLY!!

The whole pretitle sequence to SOLACE is all about making the audience feel they are too late.

[MattofSteel]

It's been well documented (and obvious from watching) that part of the purpose of QoS was to de-familiarize the audience with archetypal identities of heroes and villains (Mathis' little speech paraphrased, which I believe was from the original CR novel). As much as we've talked of "anti-heroes" being the rage in film nowadays, I think QoS very much gives us our first full roster of "anti-villains."

Forster talked a lot about this during the interviews, but I can't say that we see much of that in the movie. Greene appears to be fighting for the environment, yes. But how original is this? Both Elliot Carver and Gustav Graves pretended to have a good purpose with whatever they were doing. So did Elektra King, Koskov and Kristatos.

Very early in the film it is totally obvious that Greene is not fighting for a good thing. And when he tells Gregg Beam to get rid of Bond it is even more obvious. So what's the big deal really?

They could've created some great villains with Mr White and a new powerful organization. Instead we got Greene, silly Elvis and the most clichéd dictator the world have ever seen.

My fault for not clarifying I didn't really mean "anti-villain" in the same sense "anti-hero" is used...as in, the polar opposite. The "anti-hero" traditionally describes a protagonist with less than enviable qualities about him, but with whom we identify in a flawed way.

My usage of "anti-villain" should more specifically said "anti-Bond villain" in the sense that the characters are essentially egotistically wrong about their own station in the world, vastly overestimate themselves, and have constructed such a spectre of grandeur about themselves that they forget their own inability to deal with conflict or problem at a base reality. "A wimp in wolf's clothing," perhaps. But then again - is this really something new? Is this not a common flaw in many of the iconic Bond villains? If it weren't, perhaps one of them would have beaten 007 in a fist fight by now!

[Robinson]

The villain getting banged around in the trunk is stolen outright from Mike Hodges' much-admired gangster classic Get Carter (1971) where it is infinitely more effective.

I thought the signature moment in Get Carterwas Michael Caine's (non) expression when that particular car was pushed into the water.

I wonder what Mike Hodges would have brought to the table if he directed DAF or LALD?

I enjoyed Schaffer's cinematography & I still consider the Tosca scenes to be my favorite part of the movie. My major beef with QOS is that for all the locations filmed, you rarely get a chance to soak it all in, as the filmmakers cut away to something else.

I've admired Meheux's post GE work. Especially on THE SAINT and ENTRAPMENT. He really makes you fall in love with a location.

[Zorin Industries]

The villain getting banged around in the trunk is stolen outright from Mike Hodges' much-admired gangster classic Get Carter (1971) where it is infinitely more effective.

I thought the signature moment in Get Carterwas Michael Caine's (non) expression when that particular car was pushed into the water.

I wonder what Mike Hodges would have brought to the table if he directed DAF or LALD?

I enjoyed Schaffer's cinematography & I still consider the Tosca scenes to be my favorite part of the movie. My major beef with QOS is that for all the locations filmed, you rarely get a chance to soak it all in, as the filmmakers cut away to something else.

I've admired Meheux's post GE work. Especially on THE SAINT and ENTRAPMENT. He really makes you fall in love with a location.

I think Meheux is vastly overrated round these shores. Yes, his work on ROYALE was leagues ahead of what he did on GOLDENEYE (at least he remembered in 2006 that the Bond entry was not being made for television so could actually shoot its characters in other ways rather than the neck up all the time).

I feel that people don't need to fall in love with a location but be carried along with the continuing story. If you fall in love with a location, the DOP has usually failed as he should be telling the story not selling the countries involved.

[Royal Dalton]

Where the camera's positioned is the director's job.

[The Shark]

Here's some examples to compare Shaeffer's style with Meheux's.

Meheux:

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_1476.htm
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_1538.htm
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0642.htm
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0682.htm
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0686.htm
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0462.htm

Shaeffer:

http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0002.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0041.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0116.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0253.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0292.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0593.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0707.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0774.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0900.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0969.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1097.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1100.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1122.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1332.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1412.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1468.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1539.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1582.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1588.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1633.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1689.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1755.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1779.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1913.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1851.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1952.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_2010.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_2052.htm
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_2104.htm

[Zorin Industries]

Thanks for the snaps.

All they do for me is buoy up that Schaefer is the better DOP by a long stretch. There is a resonance of honesty rather than beauty in his work.