220 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Gunbarrel= Legendary

I know this is again something off topic, but... I still can't understand how QOS's gunbarrel could be called "legendary". As many other things in this movie,the gunbarrel is different for the EON series (just because it's out of the traditional order), but I don't see how this distinction could make it any better or legendary. In the other hand, I think CR's gunbarrel is the one that really could be considered legendary.

For one it was the effects used to make the gunbarrel. It seemed quite refined. The CR one looked CGI/Cartoonish.

For me it was the other way around. QOS's gunbarrel seems average, nothing that different from the Brosnan era, and just odd- only for the sake of it- due to its use after the finale; whereas CR's looked for the first time realistic in its shape, matching with its correspondent context. and still respecting the tradition of the gunbarrel before the main titles (in fact, it has the same order of DN, where the gunbarrel is directly followed for the titles).

My preference is to QOS. I never liked the thick cgi effect blood on CR.

When I said that CR's gunbarrel was realistic I was only referring to the- very brief sequence- previous to the blood. The blood is part of the beautiful and very elegant retro sixties style main titles, so it has to looked this way (cartoonish, if you want). Besides I don't see much of a difference between the aspect of the blood among this couple of Craig's sequences, I think the big defference it is in the presentation of the gunbarrel itself without the blood.

Bloody Hell ! You like CR, I like QOS.

Potaetoes, potahtoes, mate.

Anyhow, QOS's gunbarrel is, if you think about it, a bit like Dr. No's, as well; remember the little red gunbarrel over the credits? If you compare it like that, you'll see that CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.

Ah yes yes... I was thinking of Dr No. I felt QOS is closer to that. I am game to see Bond in a different light every now and then and really hated the Moore 70's gunbarrel till the end of the of tenure.

So... you're saying you really liked AVTAK's gunbarrel?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Gunbarrel= Legendary

I know this is again something off topic, but... I still can't understand how QOS's gunbarrel could be called "legendary". As many other things in this movie,the gunbarrel is different for the EON series (just because it's out of the traditional order), but I don't see how this distinction could make it any better or legendary. In the other hand, I think CR's gunbarrel is the one that really could be considered legendary.

For one it was the effects used to make the gunbarrel. It seemed quite refined. The CR one looked CGI/Cartoonish.

For me it was the other way around. QOS's gunbarrel seems average, nothing that different from the Brosnan era, and just odd- only for the sake of it- due to its use after the finale; whereas CR's looked for the first time realistic in its shape, matching with its correspondent context. and still respecting the tradition of the gunbarrel before the main titles (in fact, it has the same order of DN, where the gunbarrel is directly followed for the titles).

My preference is to QOS. I never liked the thick cgi effect blood on CR.

When I said that CR's gunbarrel was realistic I was only referring to the- very brief sequence- previous to the blood. The blood is part of the beautiful and very elegant retro sixties style main titles, so it has to looked this way (cartoonish, if you want). Besides I don't see much of a difference between the aspect of the blood among this couple of Craig's sequences, I think the big defference it is in the presentation of the gunbarrel itself without the blood.

Bloody Hell ! You like CR, I like QOS.

Potaetoes, potahtoes, mate.

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.

That's blasphemy!!

Please, don't say that.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Gunbarrel= Legendary

I know this is again something off topic, but... I still can't understand how QOS's gunbarrel could be called "legendary". As many other things in this movie,the gunbarrel is different for the EON series (just because it's out of the traditional order), but I don't see how this distinction could make it any better or legendary. In the other hand, I think CR's gunbarrel is the one that really could be considered legendary.

For one it was the effects used to make the gunbarrel. It seemed quite refined. The CR one looked CGI/Cartoonish.

For me it was the other way around. QOS's gunbarrel seems average, nothing that different from the Brosnan era, and just odd- only for the sake of it- due to its use after the finale; whereas CR's looked for the first time realistic in its shape, matching with its correspondent context. and still respecting the tradition of the gunbarrel before the main titles (in fact, it has the same order of DN, where the gunbarrel is directly followed for the titles).

My preference is to QOS. I never liked the thick cgi effect blood on CR.

When I said that CR's gunbarrel was realistic I was only referring to the- very brief sequence- previous to the blood. The blood is part of the beautiful and very elegant retro sixties style main titles, so it has to looked this way (cartoonish, if you want). Besides I don't see much of a difference between the aspect of the blood among this couple of Craig's sequences, I think the big defference it is in the presentation of the gunbarrel itself without the blood.

Bloody Hell ! You like CR, I like QOS.

Potaetoes, potahtoes, mate.

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.

That's blasphemy!!

Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

[DaveBond21]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

Indeed; that's how I came up with it, as it pretty much fits the principle of Occam's Razor in action -- at least, in action films.

[MattofSteel]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

The QOS gunbarrel was no accident. It was no mistake. It was intentional from the start, a combination of showmanship and clever marketing - and at the same time, rather metaphorically satisfying from a narrative point of view.

In my opinion.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

The QOS gunbarrel was no accident. It was no mistake. It was intentional from the start, a combination of showmanship and clever marketing - and at the same time, rather metaphorically satisfying from a narrative point of view.

In my opinion.

Only that the line 'Bond, James Bond' was originally intended for finish QOS- just before the gunbarrel- which would have made even more obvious than it was, the forced repetion or extension of CR's idea (origin story), that was most of QOS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

The QOS gunbarrel was no accident. It was no mistake. It was intentional from the start, a combination of showmanship and clever marketing - and at the same time, rather metaphorically satisfying from a narrative point of view.

In my opinion.

Only that the line 'Bond, James Bond' was originally intended for finish QOS- just before the gunbarrel- which would have made even more obvious than it was, the forced repetion or extension of CR's idea (origin story), that was most of QOS.

That's blasphemy!

[MattofSteel]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

The QOS gunbarrel was no accident. It was no mistake. It was intentional from the start, a combination of showmanship and clever marketing - and at the same time, rather metaphorically satisfying from a narrative point of view.

In my opinion.

Only that the line 'Bond, James Bond' was originally intended for finish QOS- just before the gunbarrel- which would have made even more obvious than it was, the forced repetion or extension of CR's idea (origin story), that was most of QOS.

Exactly. And that would have been an unnecessary mistake. And it was corrected. You can't criticize an approach to a film based on something that doesn't appear in the final product.

Have you seen the script? Do you know for a fact that line was supposed to end it? It hardly seems to me that they would willfully be so ignorantly and obviously repetitive.

[Bucky]

that is the main reason why i am looking forward to the special edition is for that scene. i want to see how it is different from the ending of casino royale.

[00Twelve]

It was much better off without The Line.

The closing shot of the Loveknot in the snow was as perfect an ending as one could conceive. And we still have a great deal of mystery about White and Quantum in general (being that we don't know what Bond knows). Great place to leave off for next time.

[Dekard77]

that is the main reason why i am looking forward to the special edition is for that scene. i want to see how it is different from the ending of casino royale.

I think the ending was given to satisfy the audience by saying 'he is Bond now'. With QOS being a continuation it was a mistake. A lot of people I know who saw the movie wanted to know what the hell was going with Bond being nasty all around and I said it's cos he is still not Bond yet. I don't know if I was right but that is how I saw it.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Gunbarrel= Legendary

I know this is again something off topic, but... I still can't understand how QOS's gunbarrel could be called "legendary". As many other things in this movie,the gunbarrel is different for the EON series (just because it's out of the traditional order), but I don't see how this distinction could make it any better or legendary. In the other hand, I think CR's gunbarrel is the one that really could be considered legendary.

For one it was the effects used to make the gunbarrel. It seemed quite refined. The CR one looked CGI/Cartoonish.

For me it was the other way around. QOS's gunbarrel seems average, nothing that different from the Brosnan era, and just odd- only for the sake of it- due to its use after the finale; whereas CR's looked for the first time realistic in its shape, matching with its correspondent context. and still respecting the tradition of the gunbarrel before the main titles (in fact, it has the same order of DN, where the gunbarrel is directly followed for the titles).

My preference is to QOS. I never liked the thick cgi effect blood on CR.

When I said that CR's gunbarrel was realistic I was only referring to the- very brief sequence- previous to the blood. The blood is part of the beautiful and very elegant retro sixties style main titles, so it has to looked this way (cartoonish, if you want). Besides I don't see much of a difference between the aspect of the blood among this couple of Craig's sequences, I think the big defference it is in the presentation of the gunbarrel itself without the blood.

Bloody Hell ! You like CR, I like QOS.

Potaetoes, potahtoes, mate.

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.

That's blasphemy!!

Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

To say that CR and QOS are really one long story, is like saying that Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982) are really one long story, or that Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Staying Alive (1983) are really one long story too.

And don't give me to compare the typical exception example of The Godfather Part I and Part II, because, that continuation was just as successful with the critics and audiences as its predecessor, unlike QOS which got mixed reviews and divided fans.

[Dekard77]

From the moment they were promoting CR they said there is going to be continuation. Usually Bond films have some sort of continuity to the previous movie but in this case it was Intentional.
Godfather 1 and 2 was connected together due to their success nothing else. But QOS did get hurt a bit with critics and audience when it didn't look like what they wanted to see as a sequel to CR.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

CR and QOS are really one long story, so the twin gunbarrels serve as bookends for the entire thing.
That's blasphemy!!
Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

I don't know if it's true but it's the best explanation for the positioning of the gunbarrel in QOS.

The QOS gunbarrel was no accident. It was no mistake. It was intentional from the start, a combination of showmanship and clever marketing - and at the same time, rather metaphorically satisfying from a narrative point of view.

In my opinion.

Only that the line 'Bond, James Bond' was originally intended for finish QOS- just before the gunbarrel- which would have made even more obvious than it was, the forced repetion or extension of CR's idea (origin story), that was most of QOS.

It hardly seems to me that they would willfully be so ignorantly and obviously repetitive.

Well, in some way they did it, when they decided to show a 007 that was already the Bond that we all know and love- according to the explicited aim of the previous director- and even going against the tagline of CR that announced that we're going to see in that movie (not in its sequel) "how James...became Bond"; as if this character still had an incomplete origin story.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

From the moment they were promoting CR they said there is going to be continuation.

I guess that it was considered as one of the options during the early promotion period, but it was only in february 2007- when CR was already a big hit- when they finally decided to make a direct sequel.

[Dekard77]

I think from Nov '06 they were annoucing the direct sequel. Before I watched the film in Nov I remember Mi6 running an article as to whether Vespers character will return in one form. Either way the moment audience expected Bond to be Bond, QOS seems a bit out of place with his bull in china shop attitude.
Something really rubbed people off with QOS.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think from Nov '06 they were annoucing the direct sequel.

See this: http://www.cinematic...-to-casino-roy/ is from march 2007, and only by that time (with the big success of CR being already a fact) there was an official confirmation that the follow up to CR was going to be a direct sequel. By the end of 2006 Barbara Broccolli wasn't still quite sure about doing a direct sequel, hence her somewhat evasive answer.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 29 July 2009 - 09:30 AM.

[00Twelve]

To say that CR and QOS are really one long story, is like saying that Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982) are really one long story, or that Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Staying Alive (1983) are really one long story too.

And don't give me to compare the typical exception example of The Godfather Part I and Part II, because, that continuation was just as successful with the critics and audiences as its predecessor, unlike QOS which got mixed reviews and divided fans.

?

Staying Alive doesn't pick up on the same day that SNF ends. Psycho II doesn't pick up just after the car's been completely pulled out of the swamp at the end of Psycho. On the complete other hand, QOS does pick up just after Bond kneecaps Mr. White. I fail to see the analogy. All sequels take place in the same universe as the first; it's quite another thing to pick up RIGHT after part one ends.

It's not even like Godfather I and II, which likewise don't flow from last scene directly into first scene. If there were any comparisons, it'd have to be either the Back To The Future movies or the Bourne movies (here we go...).

I, for one, do sort of regard them as a continuous story. Along with the 27 other reasons for thinking so, there's a wonderful visual throwback to the beginning of CR at the end of QOS, with Bond waiting for his prey in the dark. Mind that's just how I see it, but it comes across like that to me quite strongly.

[byline]

To say that CR and QOS are really one long story, is like saying that Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982) are really one long story, or that Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Staying Alive (1983) are really one long story too.

And don't give me to compare the typical exception example of The Godfather Part I and Part II, because, that continuation was just as successful with the critics and audiences as its predecessor, unlike QOS which got mixed reviews and divided fans.

?

Staying Alive doesn't pick up on the same day that SNF ends. Psycho II doesn't pick up just after the car's been completely pulled out of the swamp at the end of Psycho. On the complete other hand, QOS does pick up just after Bond kneecaps Mr. White. I fail to see the analogy. All sequels take place in the same universe as the first; it's quite another thing to pick up RIGHT after part one ends.

It's not even like Godfather I and II, which likewise don't flow from last scene directly into first scene. If there were any comparisons, it'd have to be either the Back To The Future movies or the Bourne movies (here we go...).

I, for one, do sort of regard them as a continuous story. Along with the 27 other reasons for thinking so, there's a wonderful visual throwback to the beginning of CR at the end of QOS, with Bond waiting for his prey in the dark. Mind that's just how I see it, but it comes across like that to me quite strongly.

I agree.

[Dekard77]

To say that CR and QOS are really one long story, is like saying that Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982) are really one long story, or that Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Staying Alive (1983) are really one long story too.

And don't give me to compare the typical exception example of The Godfather Part I and Part II, because, that continuation was just as successful with the critics and audiences as its predecessor, unlike QOS which got mixed reviews and divided fans.

?

Staying Alive doesn't pick up on the same day that SNF ends. Psycho II doesn't pick up just after the car's been completely pulled out of the swamp at the end of Psycho. On the complete other hand, QOS does pick up just after Bond kneecaps Mr. White. I fail to see the analogy. All sequels take place in the same universe as the first; it's quite another thing to pick up RIGHT after part one ends.

It's not even like Godfather I and II, which likewise don't flow from last scene directly into first scene. If there were any comparisons, it'd have to be either the Back To The Future movies or the Bourne movies (here we go...).

I, for one, do sort of regard them as a continuous story. Along with the 27 other reasons for thinking so, there's a wonderful visual throwback to the beginning of CR at the end of QOS, with Bond waiting for his prey in the dark. Mind that's just how I see it, but it comes across like that to me quite strongly.

True! Very nicely written.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

To say that CR and QOS are really one long story, is like saying that Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982) are really one long story, or that Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Staying Alive (1983) are really one long story too.

And don't give me to compare the typical exception example of The Godfather Part I and Part II, because, that continuation was just as successful with the critics and audiences as its predecessor, unlike QOS which got mixed reviews and divided fans.

?

Staying Alive doesn't pick up on the same day that SNF ends. Psycho II doesn't pick up just after the car's been completely pulled out of the swamp at the end of Psycho. On the complete other hand, QOS does pick up just after Bond kneecaps Mr. White. I fail to see the analogy. All sequels take place in the same universe as the first; it's quite another thing to pick up RIGHT after part one ends.

It's not even like Godfather I and II, which likewise don't flow from last scene directly into first scene. If there were any comparisons, it'd have to be either the Back To The Future movies or the Bourne movies (here we go...).

I, for one, do sort of regard them as a continuous story. Along with the 27 other reasons for thinking so, there's a wonderful visual throwback to the beginning of CR at the end of QOS, with Bond waiting for his prey in the dark. Mind that's just how I see it, but it comes across like that to me quite strongly.

True! Very nicely written.

My point was more about QOS being a forced direct sequel prompted to capitalize the big success of CR (thing that is proved for the article that I quoted in my earlier post); and not a story that was already written as a direct continuation, I mean, for a good reason Ian Fleming didn't wrote a direct continuation to Casino Royale with the follow up novel Live And Let Die.

If CR wouldn't be such a big hit, Bond 22 probably would have took place in the same year that was filmed- 2008- two years after CR's facts, just like any other film in the EON series.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 01 August 2009 - 12:52 AM.

[blueman]

Direct sequel, happens.

[sorking]

My point was more about QOS being a forced direct sequel prompted to capitalize the big success of CR (thing that is proved for the article that I quoted in my earlier post); and not a story that was already written as a direct continuation, I mean, for a good reason Ian Fleming didn't wrote a direct continuation to Casino Royale with the follow up novel Live And Let Die.

If CR wouldn't be such a big hit, Bond 22 probably would have took place in the same year that was filmed- 2008- two years after CR's facts, just like any other film in the EON series.

It's ridiculous to suggest that following the immediate timeline of CR was a purely audience-grabbing, commercial decision. Hundreds of sequels are made every year, all with the intent of capitalising on the success of the previous instalment - picking up the next day doesn't somehow make the film more appealing by default. If it did, everyone would be doing it.

It's reasonable to suggest there was a demand for such a follow-up, mind you, given Mr White's capture at the end of CR and the questions left hanging. Setting the film two years later - White sprung from MI6 after a long stay, Bond trailing The Organisation and revealing more of Vesper's involvement, uncovering the truth about Mathis - would still have made QoS a 'direct sequel'.

It's reasonable to use The Godfather Part II as an example, since the nature of that film mirrored much of what happened with QoS - delving further into the past of the original film while also providing a protracted coda on how the first film ended with its main narrative. (Godfather II's entire Michael story is, in essence, an exploration of things already stated - he wants the family to go straight, but can't make it happen, despite losing his soul to the process.) It comes from a similar place, both creatively and financially (GF2 was financed for profit as much as art, after all). Critical and audience response doesn't alter the intent, which was blatantly to explore themes and threads from CR.

In both instances, not knowing the arc story for both movies in advance is not an automatic argument for not making your sequel that way. It has creatively interesting possibilities. If they didn't work for some, fine, that's the nature of the work, but let's not pretend that skipping ahead two years somehow makes a movie by the same makers significantly 'better' as opposed to merely 'different'.

A single long story can be a long story in retrospect. Of course it can. When TV shows plot their first season they don't usually have a five-season arc ready. But BSG is a single, long story - even though it was made up as they went along. 'Forced sequel' is a nonsense term coined in order to dismiss a disliked aspect, it has no sensible place in a discussion about a film series that was intended to perpetuate - particularly after a film with deliberate threads left dangling. "Because it's set immediately after" is arbitrary to whether the sequel is intended or not, belongs or not, or is valid or not - this is storytelling, after all, not history.

[MattofSteel]

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say they "cashed in," either. It's a Bond film. They don't need to rely on anything but themselves.

It seemed there was a legitimate need to address what the filmmakers (and I would assume the audience) perceived as unfinished. I mean, CR ends with a cliffhanger. At least, by my reading it always has. How can they not be expected to address where the story with Mr. White goes?

The result is a film with similar characters but a wholly different plot. No different than the earlier Bond films, or the novels, or any other franchise for that matter. The interesting notion was the continuance of the emotional thread - yet that's just logic. And at the same time, don't forget, the producers are bound to always do something unexpected, and original! Well, for Bond, the continuance of that thread under the pretense of actually developing Bond's character - I think - can be considered a first.

What approach would people have preferred, instead?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say they "cashed in," either. It's a Bond film. They don't need to rely on anything but themselves.

It seemed there was a legitimate need to address what the filmmakers (and I would assume the audience) perceived as unfinished. I mean, CR ends with a cliffhanger. At least, by my reading it always has. How can they not be expected to address where the story with Mr. White goes?

That's where I strongly disagree, CR didn't end with a cliffhanger, according to Campbell- the director of the film- in the last scene of his movie appears the Bond "that we all know and love"; the producers and later Forster were the ones that tried to make look that sequence as a cliffhanger, to make way for a direct sequel like QOS.

While it's true that the confrontation with Mr. White gives space for further development, that space is for the whole future of the EON series or at least for the Craig era (just like it was with the introduction of SPECTRE in DN) and not for one particular movie as a direct continuation. In fact, that kind of finale for Craig's debut, as I have said earlier, is the equivalent and carrying-out of the line that said that Bond "would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy" in the novel Casino Royale, which opened the way for the literary series without the need of a direct continuation in the follow up Live And Let Die book

[sorking]

That's where I strongly disagree, CR didn't end with a cliffhanger, according to Campbell- the director of the film- in the last scene of his movie appears the Bond "that we all know and love"; the producers and later Forster were the ones that tried to make look that sequence as a cliffhanger, to make way for a direct sequel like QOS.

I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger, but it's certainly the creation of a new story thread - MI6 capture a key link to The Organisation - in the last minute of the movie. Along with the tangle of other hanging threads, it's requiring of a continuation.

That the continuation happens minutes later, rather than months or years, doesn't change anything. The next film would still have been a direct, immediate follow-up to the story elements. Still a continuation, still part of the same overall story.

As I say, QoS for me functions as a coda to CR. Bond has been formed, sure, but given recent events will his own people believe that he's a mission-orientated agent when that mission relates to what made him what he is? And when you do hand your soul over to the job, doesn't you have to make some kind of peace with that?

Again, if that doesn't work for some people, fair enough. But, for me, it's as creatively legitimate as Godfather II's continuation of the 'lose your soul, become more alone, never escape the family' ending that part one had already conveyed. QoS is a three-day story, it's Bond making peace with who he has had to become. Sure it's not the whizz-bang 'now he's the guy and can be cool and stuff' follow-up some wanted based on the CR ending, but it's not suddenly rendered illegitimate because of that.

[MattofSteel]

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say they "cashed in," either. It's a Bond film. They don't need to rely on anything but themselves.

It seemed there was a legitimate need to address what the filmmakers (and I would assume the audience) perceived as unfinished. I mean, CR ends with a cliffhanger. At least, by my reading it always has. How can they not be expected to address where the story with Mr. White goes?

That's where I strongly disagree, CR didn't end with a cliffhanger, according to Campbell- the director of the film- in the last scene of his movie appears the Bond "that we all know and love"; the producers and later Forster were the ones that tried to make look that sequence as a cliffhanger, to make way for a direct sequel like QOS.

While it's true that the confrontation with Mr. White gives space for further development, that space is for the whole future of the EON series or at least for the Craig era (just like it was with the introduction of SPECTRE in DN) and not for one particular movie as a direct continuation. In fact, that kind of finale for Craig's debut, as I have said earlier, is the equivalent and carrying-out of the line that said that Bond "would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy" in the novel Casino Royale, which opened the way for the literary series without the need of a direct continuation in the follow up Live And Let Die book

How is that not a cliffhanger? In my book that's...the definition of one. Is it any less of a cliffhanger than the Empire Strikes Back, or Pirates of the Caribbean 2? And so far as "setting the space for the Craig era, but not for one particular movie," that's EXACTLY what it does! The Quantum story isn't over, the plot has only thickened...

The very point of Quantum of Solace, in my mind, was a definitive statement that the Vesper thread will NOT be continued. They just looked at it logically. Yes, I agree that Bond could have moved on after "The Names Bond, James Bond," as a totally formed, Goldfinger-esque character and none of us probably would have blinked. But would that have been right?

What's to say we all wouldn't be whining, "Vesper is supposed to shape him so much, and he deals with her death for all of 5 minutes!" And it's not like Quantum, the film, is bogged down by it. That emotional thread only serves to deepen the film, and fully round out Bond's motives - and it contributes MASSIVELY to the picture of his character and his relationship with the institution. It's a necessary thing.

[sorking]

While I agree with a lot of Matt's take, I have to dispute the term 'cliffhanger'. The entire origin of the term indicates it's nature - it's an 'ending' which leaves a character (usually the hero) hanging from a cliff. It's immediate in its jeopardy.

Han Solo needs rescuing - that's what makes Empire's ending a cliffhanger. Marty is trapped in 1955 - that makes Back to the Future II's ending a cliffhanger. Where BTTF part one's ending isn't one; rather it's a promise, like CR, of more adventures to follow. (Either written or unwritten. They made a sequel, but they didn't have to. CR left too much unresolved not to.)

So I'd call the conclusion of CR a promise. A statement that there's more to tell, that the story will continue. So it's neither a direct cliffhanger (though much story remains unresolved) nor an complete ending (though key themes and events are tied neatly up).

[MattofSteel]

I guess it comes down to subjective definition. For me, it's when there's obviously some unresolved element burning on your mind - not necessarily the protagonist in jeopardy. Initially the whole Han Solo/carbonite thing was a product of Harrison Ford not wanting to return for a third film - in which case that same ending could have been used, but it would somehow not be classified a cliffhanger if Ford never returned?

'Cliffhanger' to me just means leaving something in a state where the audience intensely needs to see a situation (any situation) resolved. There are plenty of sitcoms, etc. on television that end seasons with what you'd call "cliffhangers" that in no way involve death or danger.