220 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I've always disliked the scene of Bond and Vesper in the car. Not sure who's to blame, but Bond looks really greasy in that scene.

[The Shark]

Same, he looks like he's spent the afternoon at a Montenegran kebab shop.

Edited by The Shark, 23 June 2009 - 08:49 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Thanks Shark. And as much as I loved Meheux, I'm with Zorin. Comparing the two this closely just cements the fact that Schaefer is a far more developed and mature photographer. He captures just as much with his image and it's often layered and texturized (both in terms of the image, and the content) far more appropriately.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Thanks Shark. And as much as I loved Meheux, I'm with Zorin. Comparing the two this closely just cements the fact that Schaefer is a far more developed and mature photographer. He captures just as much with his image and it's often layered and texturized (both in terms of the image, and the content) far more appropriately.

I disagree, I think that the more colorful (even satured) palette of CR is more appropriate for EON's Bond than Schaefer's. But as ws have discussed earlier that's a matter of tastes and preconceptions about what is really suitable for Bond.

[Dekard77]

CR was the first Bond film since FYEO where i felt I was watching a Bond movie and wanted to travel to that time and place!
However QOS is far superior in terms of photography. I loved the locations they used and how they filmed it. I never had an issue with the editing and felt it complimented the story.
The party/hotel/opera/finale were quite memorable. I honestly felt the glamour of watching a Bond movie.

[Double-Oh Agent]

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.

Don't all the pre-title sequences follow along these lines?

[00Twelve]

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.

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...

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

Don't all the pre-title sequences follow along these lines?

Yes, that was a point that I made in the original post there. I'm just taken with the PTS in this particular movie and how well it condenses a whole story (exposition, body, epilogue) into a four minute runtime-- due in no small part to the skilled camerawork.

[Mr_Wint]

While watching QOS on Blu-Ray I tried to play a little bit with the contrast/brightness to make the image look a little bit more appealing. It didn't help. Bond deserves something better than this neutral sandpaper-tone. Oh, so boring. Especially when they combine it with clichéd blue office scenes.

[Judo chop]

Bond deserves something better than this neutral sandpaper-tone.

I understand the complaint, but I don’t think it’s a matter of desert. I think the neutral-sandpaper tone suits the film’s narrative, say what you will about the latter. I wouldn’t want this look for Bond all the time, and maybe never again, but I’m very pleased that he’s been-there-done-that this once.

For the most part.

[MattofSteel]

Thanks Shark. And as much as I loved Meheux, I'm with Zorin. Comparing the two this closely just cements the fact that Schaefer is a far more developed and mature photographer. He captures just as much with his image and it's often layered and texturized (both in terms of the image, and the content) far more appropriately.

I disagree, I think that the more colorful (even satured) palette of CR is more appropriate for EON's Bond than Schaefer's. But as ws have discussed earlier that's a matter of tastes and preconceptions about what is really suitable for Bond.

I agree, Mr. Beech. The "saturated/colourful" look from CR is far more appropriate for an EON Bond, and my initial enjoyment was far higher. I'm just saying Schaefer's is better. I can see why that's an overly grey area for some. For instance, what I think is the best motion picture ever made differs considerably from what I would consider my favourite.

While watching QOS on Blu-Ray I tried to play a little bit with the contrast/brightness to make the image look a little bit more appealing. It didn't help. Bond deserves something better than this neutral sandpaper-tone. Oh, so boring. Especially when they combine it with clichéd blue office scenes.

It's not like they half-assed the look and Bond accidentally came out with it, "deserving" of more effort. It was 100% intentional, a reflection of the film's locations, imagery, themes, and especially Bond's state of mind. I was blown away how the entire thing took the concept "spiritual sequel" to heart and reflected it visually. It was as if Bond's world itself had adjusted to accomodate that empty, foreign, not-quite-the-same-worldy feeling that accompanies the loss of a loved one. One aspect of Forster's direction that was certainly impressive was how he integrates all the various elements of a film to serve the same thematic and narrative purpose.

Overwhelming when he's cross-cutting, but appropriately serving when it adds some depth.

[Dekard77]

Next to Moonraker I think QOS has one the best cinematography. It really does reflect on the characters well to a great extent. It looks very precise. Foster had the right team to compliment his visuals for the movie rather than use the Bond staples. The opening scene chase really puts you in a good mood. You almost feel how fun it is to be Bond. When he travels it's like looking at the world from Bonds point of view. Sueprb job. Hope they keep it fresh for the next outing.
QOS has to be one of the best films you can watch on blu ray.

[JackWade]

I'll take Meheux's cinematography over Schaefer's any day. The work on the parkour chase trumps anything in QUANTUM as far as I'm concerned.

Meheux's cinematography has a fine polish to it without ever feeling too stagey. For all intents and purposes, I found Schaefer's work to be cold and unmemorable.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

While watching QOS on Blu-Ray I tried to play a little bit with the contrast/brightness to make the image look a little bit more appealing. It didn't help. Bond deserves something better than this neutral sandpaper-tone. Oh, so boring. Especially when they combine it with clichéd blue office scenes.

So true!!

Thanks Shark. And as much as I loved Meheux, I'm with Zorin. Comparing the two this closely just cements the fact that Schaefer is a far more developed and mature photographer. He captures just as much with his image and it's often layered and texturized (both in terms of the image, and the content) far more appropriately.

I disagree, I think that the more colorful (even satured) palette of CR is more appropriate for EON's Bond than Schaefer's. But as ws have discussed earlier that's a matter of tastes and preconceptions about what is really suitable for Bond.

For instance, what I think is the best motion picture ever made differs considerably from what I would consider my favourite.

I share this notion.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Thanks Shark. And as much as I loved Meheux, I'm with Zorin. Comparing the two this closely just cements the fact that Schaefer is a far more developed and mature photographer. He captures just as much with his image and it's often layered and texturized (both in terms of the image, and the content) far more appropriately.

I disagree, I think that the more colorful (even satured) palette of CR is more appropriate for EON's Bond than Schaefer's. But as we have discussed earlier that's a matter of tastes and preconceptions about what is really suitable for Bond.

While watching QOS on Blu-Ray I tried to play a little bit with the contrast/brightness to make the image look a little bit more appealing. It didn't help. Bond deserves something better than this neutral sandpaper-tone. Oh, so boring. Especially when they combine it with clichéd blue office scenes.

It's not like they half-assed the look and Bond accidentally came out with it, "deserving" of more effort. It was 100% intentional, a reflection of the film's locations, imagery, themes, and especially Bond's state of mind. I was blown away how the entire thing took the concept "spiritual sequel" to heart and reflected it visually. It was as if Bond's world itself had adjusted to accomodate that empty, foreign, not-quite-the-same-worldy feeling that accompanies the loss of a loved one. One aspect of Forster's direction that was certainly impressive was how he integrates all the various elements of a film to serve the same thematic and narrative purpose.

Overwhelming when he's cross-cutting, but appropriately serving when it adds some depth.

I understand Schaefer intention, but as I have said I don't like it for EON Bond, not even for one movie.

Actually, I never appreciate the idea of make any direct sequel to CR, I would prefer a not direct continuation like the Live and Let Die novel was to the Casino Royale book.

[MattofSteel]

It was certainly a bold approach, and in my opinion an interesting balance that was struck.

Frankly I'm almost tired of discussing the merits of direct sequel vs. not. Film franchising nowadays has changed in spirit so far that without an emotional hook of some kind, or a line to follow through, a franchise won't survive. Bond is adapting to that. And yet - the Le Chiffre plot is over, Vesper is dead, but the themes and Bond's emotions continue - a "soulful sequel" would be perhaps a better term.

What is a sequel but the next in a series of episodic stories? I wouldn't consider FRWL (and every subsequent Connery film) any less of a "sequel" than QOS, coincidence being that Dr No did not provide any unresolved emotional issues and CR did. And keeping in mind, the filmmaker's obligation is to try and be original and give the audience something unexpected - which QOS was, IMO.

The most interesting twist for me, by far, was that they elected to move on from what we all thought was a 1-film origin piece and reveal it to actually be a fairly specific 2-part story, with an ending that, to me, clearly indicates we are "established" and moving forward. Didn't expect that, either.

[Loomis]

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?

How on earth does Elvis even qualify as a character in any meaningful sense?

All he does is stand there with a shy smile and at one point falls down some stairs. It's laughable. I'm reminded of the bit in BRUNO where Sacha Baron Cohen is successfully goading an airheaded model into claiming she has one of the hardest jobs in the world - "It must be difficult because you have to stand straight but you also have to walk and sometimes you have to turn."

Or is this some fantastically brilliant new minimalist postmodern thing - "characterisation through non-characterisation" or something like that?

[Safari Suit]

Kinda

[Judo chop]

How on earth does Elvis even qualify as a character in any meaningful sense?

All he does is stand there with a shy smile and at one point falls down some stairs. It's laughable.

Have you been to my Elvis thread, Loomis?

He does a hell of lot more than fall down stairs. His failings start small and slowly escalate so that by the end of the film, he has achieved a level of buffoonery unparalleled in Bond. And he does all of this, subtly. And the subtlety is the KEY. You see... he looks like a real person, standing there next to Greene with a shy smile. A real, and very useless, person. But he’s not! He’s not a person at all! He’s a secret message from the creators to us, and the message is: “We’re going to take your precious Bond henchman and beat him like a red-headed stepchild. But only you – Mr. Bond fan – are going to be in on it. That casual fan sitting next to you isn’t going to know or care. He’s going to think Elvis is a real person, as are so many others... but you and I… we both know differently.”

Elvis is a watermark on a dollar bill. One of them tricky 3-D pictures that you can only see if you stare cross-eyed at it for 90 seconds. He’s the easter egg on a DVD. Not a JW Pepper joke. A secret joke.

Join us, Loom. Elvis is only going to be here once. The card has been played and the joke is used. It can't happen again.

Join HERE

[MattofSteel]

How on earth does Elvis even qualify as a character in any meaningful sense?

All he does is stand there with a shy smile and at one point falls down some stairs. It's laughable.

Have you been to my Elvis thread, Loomis?

He does a hell of lot more than fall down stairs. His failings start small and slowly escalate so that by the end of the film, he has achieved a level of buffoonery unparalleled in Bond. And he does all of this, subtly. And the subtlety is the KEY. You see... he looks like a real person, standing there next to Greene with a shy smile. A real, and very useless, person. But he’s not! He’s not a person at all! He’s a secret message from the creators to us, and the message is: “We’re going to take your precious Bond henchman and beat him like a red-headed stepchild. But only you – Mr. Bond fan – are going to be in on it. That casual fan sitting next to you isn’t going to know or care. He’s going to think Elvis is a real person, as are so many others... but you and I… we both know differently.”

Elvis is a watermark on a dollar bill. One of them tricky 3-D pictures that you can only see if you stare cross-eyed at it for 90 seconds. He’s the easter egg on a DVD. Not a JW Pepper joke. A secret joke.

Join us, Loom. Elvis is only going to be here once. The card has been played and the joke is used. It can't happen again.

Join HERE

Amen. I mean really. Amen.

[Judo chop]

Brothers in Elvis, MattoSteel.

Forever!

<hugs>

[Loomis]

*Deep breath*

Okay.

If Elvis is supposed to be an ironic pisstake kinda idea that flies in the face of yer stereotypical "showy" henchman who's incredibly musclebound or sports a steel eye or maybe a chainsaw for a leg, then I guess it's reasonably clever and funny, but not that clever or funny, and in any case the character makes so little impact that the joke is over in seconds if even registered at all. Not that everything needs to be, as Zorin is fond of putting it, On the Nose™, but, still, I have a hard time accepting Elvis as some kind of masterstroke of writing and performance.

What does Greene employ him for? What does he do? My feeling is that he's either Greene's boyfriend or his slightly retarded younger brother who's on the payroll as an act of charity.

Now, I'm all for things not being On the Nose™. But, ultimately, filmgoers remember films for what happens in them, not what doesn't happen in them, and they remember characters for what they do, not what they don't do. Which is why I only remember Elvis' existence when I look at threads like this one on CBn. Not that Elvis hurts the film, as such, but, erm, he sure doesn't help it. He's barely worthy of comment, let alone gushing praise.

[MattofSteel]

And in some ways, Loomis, I agree with you too.

It comes down to the question of design vs. execution that has plagued virtually every QOS-related debate on the forums since the film was released.

Now, I'd say I picked up on Elvis the first time I watched it. But definitely not "all" of the Elvis-isms. I got what he was supposed to be, but I only really truly came to appreciate the subtleties after multiple viewings. But that was always destined to happen. I'm a Bond fan. We're all Bond fans. Most of us will watch the movie countless times.

But I completely understand the argument that the subtlety was almost too much - and in the end that comes down to direction, so I suppose if there is to be blame, it falls on Forster. Marc's sense of humour is actually quite specific, certainly subtle, and perhaps a bit "murkier" than we're used to from previous Bond films. Elvis is a byproduct of that.

It's ultimately very subjective. The best example I've seen was one of my old roommates, actually, who was sort of lukewarm on the entire film the first time he saw it - but we re-watched it the day the DVD was released, and he came to the consensus that the film was actually much better than he'd realized. And he gave special mention to Elvis - having said, and I quote, "I hadn't realized the first time how funny that guy really is." Not kidding.

'Minnows pretending to be whales.' Familiar phrase, familiar theme, familiar dialogue from Sean Connery to describe another iconic character. Forster latched onto the concept to define all his villains, IMO, and came away with something that was - perhaps, too subtle, but - very refreshing.

You've said he's barely worthy of comment - certainly not gushing praise - due to his almost insignificance to the entire thing. But it seems to me, that's kind of the point. In a quantitative sense, you'd be right. It depends how far you want to take your views of the film, I suppose.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It was certainly a bold approach, and in my opinion an interesting balance that was struck.

Frankly I'm almost tired of discussing the merits of direct sequel vs. not. Film franchising nowadays has changed in spirit so far that without an emotional hook of some kind, or a line to follow through, a franchise won't survive. Bond is adapting to that. And yet - the Le Chiffre plot is over, Vesper is dead, but the themes and Bond's emotions continue - a "soulful sequel" would be perhaps a better term.

What is a sequel but the next in a series of episodic stories? I wouldn't consider FRWL (and every subsequent Connery film) any less of a "sequel" than QOS, coincidence being that Dr No did not provide any unresolved emotional issues and CR did. And keeping in mind, the filmmaker's obligation is to try and be original and give the audience something unexpected - which QOS was, IMO.

The most interesting twist for me, by far, was that they elected to move on from what we all thought was a 1-film origin piece and reveal it to actually be a fairly specific 2-part story, with an ending that, to me, clearly indicates we are "established" and moving forward. Didn't expect that, either.

I disagree. For me, it was all solved- in a very cold, early fleming's bondish way- with the finale of CR. 007 going after Mr. White (and choosing just shooting in the leg for further interrogation instead of killing him) was a reflection of the line from the novel that said that Bond "would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy", so this whole sentimental journey of QOS seems to me like a forced way to capitalize the success of CR. Perhaps, it would have been appropriate after Tracy's death, just like in the You Only Live Twice novel, but not for Vesper's.

[Loomis]

But I completely understand the argument that the subtlety was almost too much

Well, I don't know whether it's subtlety so much as just.... nothing. Perhaps Anatole Taubman is a good friend of Marc Forster and was given a role purely on that basis, and so a part was created (but not actually written) for him. For all I know that's the case.

I do see quite a bit of the emperor's new clothes in the way certain people praise QUANTUM OF SOLACE to the heavens. I think quite a bit of the brilliance with which the film is credited in some quarters simply isn't there.

It's really the worst kind of auteurist approach to film criticism, neatly mocked by William Goldman in his wonderful book ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE. Watching a Hitchcock film, an excitable young French critic notices a car crashing through a part of a fence that's shaped a bit like a cross, and so he decides it's a clever anti-Catholic statement on the director's part. When no such thing was intended, of course.

Who knows? Perhaps Michael G. Wilson is reading this thread and pissing himself laughing at the idea of Elvis as a brilliant subversion of the Bond henchman archetype, when in fact all they were trying to do was spend their budget (so they'll get at least as much for BOND 23).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And in some ways, Loomis, I agree with you too.

It comes down to the question of design vs. execution that has plagued virtually every QOS-related debate on the forums since the film was released.

Now, I'd say I picked up on Elvis the first time I watched it. But definitely not "all" of the Elvis-isms. I got what he was supposed to be, but I only really truly came to appreciate the subtleties after multiple viewings. But that was always destined to happen. I'm a Bond fan. We're all Bond fans. Most of us will watch the movie countless times.

But I completely understand the argument that the subtlety was almost too much - and in the end that comes down to direction, so I suppose if there is to be blame, it falls on Forster. Marc's sense of humour is actually quite specific, certainly subtle, and perhaps a bit "murkier" than we're used to from previous Bond films. Elvis is a byproduct of that.

It's ultimately very subjective. The best example I've seen was one of my old roommates, actually, who was sort of lukewarm on the entire film the first time he saw it - but we re-watched it the day the DVD was released, and he came to the consensus that the film was actually much better than he'd realized. And he gave special mention to Elvis - having said, and I quote, "I hadn't realized the first time how funny that guy really is." Not kidding.

'Minnows pretending to be whales.' Familiar phrase, familiar theme, familiar dialogue from Sean Connery to describe another iconic character. Forster latched onto the concept to define all his villains, IMO, and came away with something that was - perhaps, too subtle, but - very refreshing.

You've said he's barely worthy of comment - certainly not gushing praise - due to his almost insignificance to the entire thing. But it seems to me, that's kind of the point. In a quantitative sense, you'd be right. It depends how far you want to take your views of the film, I suppose.

I can understand subtleties in another types of movies, and actually I encourage them. But in EON Bond movies which is a series focused in massive audience, they seems pretty much out of place and somewhat pretentious. I'm not saying that we have to come back to silly movies like the ones from Brosnan era, I'm just stating that with Bond you need that the entire audience - not just the Bond fans- captures the whole movie with all of its details in first viewing.

But I completely understand the argument that the subtlety was almost too much

Well, I don't know whether it's subtlety so much as just.... nothing. Perhaps Anatole Taubman is a good friend of Marc Forster and was given a role purely on that basis, and so a part was created (but not actually written) for him. For all I know that's the case.

I do see quite a bit of the emperor's new clothes in the way certain people praise QUANTUM OF SOLACE to the heavens. I think quite a bit of the brilliance with which the film is credited in some quarters simply isn't there.

Totally agree!!!

And the other half are pretty much pretentious 'subtleties', in the context of a Bond movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 24 July 2009 - 12:58 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

'Minnows pretending to be whales.' Familiar phrase, familiar theme, familiar dialogue from Sean Connery to describe another iconic character. Forster latched onto the concept to define all his villains, IMO, and came away with something that was - perhaps, too subtle, but - very refreshing.

You've said he's barely worthy of comment - certainly not gushing praise - due to his almost insignificance to the entire thing. But it seems to me, that's kind of the point. In a quantitative sense, you'd be right. It depends how far you want to take your views of the film, I suppose.

I get your point, mate; it's like Quantum of Solace is a novella, with Elvis being the physical representation of one of the themes running throughout it. Quite brilliant, in my humble opinion.

[MattofSteel]

Yep. You're both perfectly right. It's a valid argument - does this "kind of thing" (depth? meaning? subversion?) have any place in a Bond film? Does the modern Bond film require these aspects to survive against the backdrop of other modern genre films?

One argument might be, "whatever keeps it fresh." Another might be, "Bond films should always be universally accessible." If nothing else, QOS got the debate going for the first time at a level that's a bit more interesting than, say, which car he should be driving.

[Loomis]

Yep. You're both perfectly right. It's a valid argument - does this "kind of thing" (depth? meaning? subversion?) have any place in a Bond film?

I think it does. And it's welcome. But it has to be noticeable, while at the same time not being On the Nose™ - which is, of course, a difficult balancing act. Otherwise, it's all just fan conjecture.

[Robert Watts]

I can see the idea behind the approach of Elvis discussed here but I don't see the point. Yeah, the henchman may be an archetype. But archetype's don't neccesarily have to be broken. The key role of the henchman in the Bond films and novels, even moreso than the main villain, is to be an immediate threat to Bond. To be dangerous and intimidating. The villain provides the threat to us, the reader/viewer the world at large. He sets the stakes, he frames the consequences that Bond's failure would bring. The henchman is there to provide the immediate threat to Bond and the characters who we've got an emotional investment in. Having him be weak, ineffectual and pathetic above all serves to derive the film of any tension of "How will Bond get out of this?" before any post-modernist attempts of irony. Does Elvis ruin Quantum? Of course not. But he doesn't do it any favours.

I disagree. For me, it was all solved- in a very cold, early fleming's bondish way- with the finale of CR. 007 going after Mr. White (and choosing just shooting in the leg for further interrogation instead of killing him) was a reflection of the line from the novel that said that Bond "would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy", so this whole sentimental journey of QOS seems to me like a forced way to capitalize the success of CR. Perhaps, it would have been appropriate after Tracy's death, just like in the You Only Live Twice novel, but not for Vesper's.

Quoted for emphasis. The writers, director, producer and composer deliberately wrote that scene at the end of CR to be "Hey, journey over. He's the Bond you know and love now." Hence the first use of the line, hence the first horns blazing version of the Bond theme. QoS takes that scene and says "Hey, he's the Bond you know and love but he's not quite there yet" and basically recycles the whole character arc of Casino Royale (Bond becoming "Bond").

Anyway, I guess this is off topic. My five cents on the cinematography:

The film's shot quite well, it's very pleasant to look at. It's just a shame you can't see more of it.

That said, part of me prefers Casino Royale. Not because I think that film is excellent, because I don't by any means, but there was an understated quality to Casino Royale that I prefer, in this instance.

i.e. QoS is a bit "showy", IMO, for the type of film it is.

Someone referred to it as "epic" earlier in the thread. I agree. Problem is, Quantum is not an epic film, even by intention. At least I don't think it is.

Edited by Robert Watts, 24 July 2009 - 11:46 AM.

[MattofSteel]

Yep. You're both perfectly right. It's a valid argument - does this "kind of thing" (depth? meaning? subversion?) have any place in a Bond film?

I think it does. And it's welcome. But it has to be noticeable, while at the same time not being On the Nose™ - which is, of course, a difficult balancing act. Otherwise, it's all just fan conjecture.

Exactly! And I guess my position is that the subtlety in Quantum didn't bother me. Personally. But I certainly understand why some consider it to be too far in that direction, away from On the Nose™.

The Bond flims has always been audience pictures, first and foremost, and I think I'm paraphrasing Cubby there. It's as if the film itself is talking to you, saying, "Take my hand, and come along for this ride. Do you see what we've done here? Wasn't that ironic scene clever? Now laugh at this joke!" Part of the communal experience of watching (and enjoying) a Bond film is to be able to appreciate those things together. Those types of things are probably why people like us became so attached to the brand in the first place.

And it seems to me, that Quantum is the first film in the series to be entirely bereft of that quality - intentionally. I suppose one of two things will happen going forward. Quantum will either be looked back on as an experiment, or it has broken new ground and we'll see a new "balance" of the elements in Bond films going forward.