220 replies to this topic

[rb1harpo]

You love the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. So do I. I like their work because the camerawork does not compete with the action. When Bond is chasing the villain in the streetrunning sequence at the beginning, we are with him vicariously, running with him. When Bond fights the African warlord and his henchman on a hotel stairway, we are there for every bone crunching moment. Not so for QOS, which suffers from the same trendy, shaky, camerawork and confusing editing as Batman Begins and the second and third Bourne entries. If Bond is jumping, moving, bobbing and weaving for his life and the camera starts moving frantically also, most of the action is lost. So much of the great fight scenes and chase sequences of recent action thrillers are lost because of this trendy documentary or NYPD (the camera is always moving!) style. These DP's dress their protagonists in dark clothing or in dark vehicles, film them in dark rooms or dark tunnels with shaky hand held camerawork and frenetic editing so much,that we might as well be listening to a radio program instead of watching a film, imagining the visuals. Casino is a beautifully shot and edited film in the tradition of classics such as OHMSS and Goldfinger. QOS is a well written story that is not seen onscreen because of confusing visuals that are poorly edited. I am sad to see that the Bond films have fallen prey to this trendy, noisy, ugly looking type of cinematography that so many other films are being shot in as of late. No wonder Sir Sean was upset with his last director and quit starring and producing films after League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I can imagine Sir Sean having a fit after seeing the dailies from the sword fighting sequence by Captain Nemo in LXG: "The man's moves his sword like the best of Errol Flynn and kicks like Bruce Lee and all your cameraman can focus on is his belt buckle!!"

[rb1harpo]

You love the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. So do I. I like their work because the camerawork does not compete with the action. When Bond is chasing the villain in the streetrunning sequence at the beginning, we are with him vicariously, running with him. When Bond fights the African warlord and his henchman on a hotel stairway, we are there for every bone crunching moment. Not so for QOS, which suffers from the same trendy, shaky, camerawork and confusing editing as Batman Begins and the second and third Bourne entries. If Bond is jumping, moving, bobbing and weaving for his life and the camera starts moving frantically also, most of the action is lost. So much of the great fight scenes and chase sequences of recent action thrillers are lost because of this trendy documentary or NYPD (the camera is always moving!) style. These DP's dress their protagonists in dark clothing or in dark vehicles, film them in dark rooms or dark tunnels with shaky hand held camerawork and frenetic editing so much,that we might as well be listening to a radio program instead of watching a film, imagining the visuals. Casino is a beautifully shot and edited film in the tradition of classics such as OHMSS and Goldfinger. QOS is a well written story that is not seen onscreen because of confusing visuals that are poorly edited. I am sad to see that the Bond films have fallen prey to this trendy, noisy, ugly looking type of cinematography that so many other films are being shot in as of late. No wonder Sir Sean was upset with his last director and quit starring and producing films after League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I can imagine Sir Sean having a fit after seeing the dailies from the sword fighting sequence by Captain Nemo in LXG: "The man's moves his sword like the best of Errol Flynn and kicks like Bruce Lee and all your cameraman can focus on is his belt buckle!!"

[rb1harpo]

You love the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. So do I. I like their work because the camerawork does not compete with the action. When Bond is chasing the villain in the streetrunning sequence at the beginning, we are with him vicariously, running with him. When Bond fights the African warlord and his henchman on a hotel stairway, we are there for every bone crunching moment. Not so for QOS, which suffers from the same trendy, shaky, camerawork and confusing editing as Batman Begins and the second and third Bourne entries. If Bond is jumping, moving, bobbing and weaving for his life and the camera starts moving frantically also, most of the action is lost. So much of the great fight scenes and chase sequences of recent action thrillers are lost because of this trendy documentary or NYPD (the camera is always moving!) style. These DP's dress their protagonists in dark clothing or in dark vehicles, film them in dark rooms or dark tunnels with shaky hand held camerawork and frenetic editing so much,that we might as well be listening to a radio program instead of watching a film, imagining the visuals. Casino is a beautifully shot and edited film in the tradition of classics such as OHMSS and Goldfinger. QOS is a well written story that is not seen onscreen because of confusing visuals that are poorly edited. I am sad to see that the Bond films have fallen prey to this trendy, noisy, ugly looking type of cinematography that so many other films are being shot in as of late. No wonder Sir Sean was upset with his last director and quit starring and producing films after League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I can imagine Sir Sean having a fit after seeing the dailies from the sword fighting sequence by Captain Nemo in LXG: "The man's moves his sword like the best of Errol Flynn and kicks like Bruce Lee and all your cameraman can focus on is his belt buckle!!"

[sorking]

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?

I think that's a bit of production myth-making there - no way they end the film saying 'we're searching for Han' thinking that maybe they'll have to go without finding him. No way they'd have written and shot it that way if the odds of picking up on the thread was only 50/50.

But it IS a cliffhanger, a hero is left in jeopardy, and there's literally no way it could have gone unresolved. With no Ford options would have been limited - they find him dead would be most likely - but there's simply no way Jedi would have ignored the situation entirely. Not when you left the protagonists mid-search.

So no, it remains a cliffhanger. Limited resolution options don't change the fact that you have to deliver a resolution. But as I say, there's likely some myth-making there in the behind the scenes story.

'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.

Oh sure, but there's emotional jeopardy, too. Finding out you're pregnant can be an actual ending (if the story includes a hope to one day begin a family) or a cliffhanger (if it's an unplanned or unwanted surprise). Rachel in Friends finding she's pregnant is a cliffhanger because it's clearly the start of problems. It's just another form of jeopardy, but jeopardy it remains.

In screenwriting, it's all the same thing - just as when we talk about 'threats to the character' they don't have to be men with guns - could be financial pressures, emotional issues, anything. The basics of storytelling don't distinguish. Jeopardy is the return of a long-lost son in the final scene if that's not what the hero expected/wanted every bit as much as it's him literally dangling off a cliff.

Edited by sorking, 01 August 2009 - 09:03 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Fair enough, I can accept your definition. But I'm still comfortable with mine.

I thought for a moment you were going for the recent season of The Office (US) where Pam finds out she's pregnant in the dying minutes. And I recalled the end of Season 2, when Jim walks in and kisses her, and then they stop, and stare at each other - cut to black. No immediate danger. No "problems" readily obvious from it. Just a promise of change. And given the level of fan hype around the issue - no one had any problems calling it an amazing cliffhanger.

When I think of something "ending on a cliffhanger," I'm always thinking the specific situation, not so much the overall one. And yet the definition still goes both ways.

Empire, I'd certainly call a cliffhanger - even though the ending is just a bunch of people staring out the window of a hospital ship. Pirates 2 - Barbossa walks down the steps, everyone wonders where the hell did he come from, that's the cliffhanger, not JUST the promise that Jack Sparrow can be rescued.

And at the same time, CR also works as a definitive statement of ending. The first time I saw it, admittedly, it didn't FEEL like a cliffhanger. I mean, I obviously wanted to see the continuation, but I figured it would be general and in no way anticipated it would be specific to starting 20 minutes later on the exact same plot thread (as opposed to Jedi beginning with the rescue of Han Solo, I figured White would pop up halfway through Quantum or something). It was only in retrospect I kind of came to realize, yeah, that fits the criteria of being a cliffhanger, and kind of came to re-evaluate it.

[The Shark]

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.

Well he only dealt with it for "5 minutes" in the novels, due to the fact that Vesper didn't shape him fundamentally.
Since unlike Purvis, Wade and Haggis's script - Fleming's Bond in CR, was not a rookie-adolescent/38 year old spy, with an overbearing attention seeking mother "M", who falls like a love struck puppy for a girl he works with for 5 days.
He was already a world-weary agent, Vesper simply cemented his resolve, and allowed him to relax - hardly the "Bond begins" scenario the writers have concocted.

Quantum of Solace is simply an over-extended epilogue, with messages contradictory to that of Fleming's (even killing off his own characters and turning Vesper's boyfriend into a honeypot agent). It doesn't round out Bond's character arc - just merely reverts him to an even more brutish bloke, with little hint that he's progressed.

Edited by The Shark, 02 August 2009 - 01:07 AM.

[blueman]

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.

Well he only dealt with it for "5 minutes" in the novels, due to the fact that Vesper didn't shape him fundamentally.
Since unlike Purvis, Wade and Haggis's script - Fleming's Bond in CR, was not a rookie-adolescent/38 year old spy, with an overbearing attention seeking mother "M", who falls like a love struck puppy for a girl he works with for 5 days.
He was already a world-weary agent, Vesper simply cemented his resolve, and allowed him to relax - hardly the "Bond begins" scenario the writers have concocted.

Quantum of Solace is simply an over-extended epilogue, with messages contradictory to that of Fleming's (even killing off his own characters and turning Vesper's boyfriend into a honeypot agent). It doesn't round out Bond's character arc - just merely reverts him to an even more brutish bloke, with little hint that he's progressed.

Wow, not the read I get from Bond's journey in QOS, but whatevs.

As to Vesper in CR: Fleming wrote a rather paper-thin character IMO, Haggis did a lot with it but yeah, even still the Bond/Vesper story still isn't what Bond/Tracy is. The idea of it is strong, but neither execution really makes it sing. IMHO. (nothing like the superlative shower scene in the novel, yet all the fleshing-out the film did makes her choice at the end even more unbelievable, IMO, points for effort and great stuff along the way but the source material is what it is)

[jamie00007]

The Vesper of the cinematic Bond is basically the Tracy of the novels, and Bond's reaction to her death in the films is similar (though nowhere near as extreme) as Bond's reaction to Tracy's death in the books. Bond certainly didnt get over her in "5 minutes", by the next book he was a broken down drunk obsessed with revenge. I see Bond's reaction to Vesper's death as making up for the movies completely skipping over his reaction to Tracys death the first time around.

[MattofSteel]

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.

Well he only dealt with it for "5 minutes" in the novels, due to the fact that Vesper didn't shape him fundamentally.
Since unlike Purvis, Wade and Haggis's script - Fleming's Bond in CR, was not a rookie-adolescent/38 year old spy, with an overbearing attention seeking mother "M", who falls like a love struck puppy for a girl he works with for 5 days.
He was already a world-weary agent, Vesper simply cemented his resolve, and allowed him to relax - hardly the "Bond begins" scenario the writers have concocted.

Quantum of Solace is simply an over-extended epilogue, with messages contradictory to that of Fleming's (even killing off his own characters and turning Vesper's boyfriend into a honeypot agent). It doesn't round out Bond's character arc - just merely reverts him to an even more brutish bloke, with little hint that he's progressed.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52345

I don't want to type it all again, but that's my take. So you can see why I disagree

The Vesper of the cinematic Bond is basically the Tracy of the novels, and Bond's reaction to her death in the films is similar (though nowhere near as extreme) as Bond's reaction to Tracy's death in the books. Bond certainly didnt get over her in "5 minutes", by the next book he was a broken down drunk obsessed with revenge. I see Bond's reaction to Vesper's death as making up for the movies completely skipping over his reaction to Tracys death the first time around.

I agree! The Fleming books are treated with such reverance that everyone assumes strict adherence is the only possible approach. Don't get me wrong. I love them - and that spirit is crucial. But Fleming was by no means perfect - and even more, what's to be said for the idea that diverting in the past hasn't worked wonderfully?

FRWL and GF are my co-favourite Bond films, as they seem to be for many. And yet they are altered FUNDAMENTALLY from their counterpart novels, while the main idea, structure, characters, and voice tend to be retained. And the films are, in my opinion, THAT much cinematically better for it.

[Dekard77]

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.

Well he only dealt with it for "5 minutes" in the novels, due to the fact that Vesper didn't shape him fundamentally.
Since unlike Purvis, Wade and Haggis's script - Fleming's Bond in CR, was not a rookie-adolescent/38 year old spy, with an overbearing attention seeking mother "M", who falls like a love struck puppy for a girl he works with for 5 days.
He was already a world-weary agent, Vesper simply cemented his resolve, and allowed him to relax - hardly the "Bond begins" scenario the writers have concocted.

Quantum of Solace is simply an over-extended epilogue, with messages contradictory to that of Fleming's (even killing off his own characters and turning Vesper's boyfriend into a honeypot agent). It doesn't round out Bond's character arc - just merely reverts him to an even more brutish bloke, with little hint that he's progressed.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=52345

I don't want to type it all again, but that's my take. So you can see why I disagree

The Vesper of the cinematic Bond is basically the Tracy of the novels, and Bond's reaction to her death in the films is similar (though nowhere near as extreme) as Bond's reaction to Tracy's death in the books. Bond certainly didnt get over her in "5 minutes", by the next book he was a broken down drunk obsessed with revenge. I see Bond's reaction to Vesper's death as making up for the movies completely skipping over his reaction to Tracys death the first time around.

I agree! The Fleming books are treated with such reverance that everyone assumes strict adherence is the only possible approach. Don't get me wrong. I love them - and that spirit is crucial. But Fleming was by no means perfect - and even more, what's to be said for the idea that diverting in the past hasn't worked wonderfully?

FRWL and GF are my co-favourite Bond films, as they seem to be for many. And yet they are altered FUNDAMENTALLY from their counterpart novels, while the main idea, structure, characters, and voice tend to be retained. And the films are, in my opinion, THAT much cinematically better for it.

I think the idea was to continue Bond's jounrney in becoming 007 with it perfectly closing with QOS. If CR just closed in and QOS not dealing with it would have confused the audience the main characters' motives and would have made him seem more cruel. What a lot of people said to me after watching the movie was that there was too much action. Which I have to agree as CR had a slightly slower pace.
That said I love QOS and it's cinematography. The sets were also a vast improvement from the previous Bonds and Forster's vision is perfectly articulated. What I did expect was a bit of slower pace with a more thinking,deep thought Bond than an angry bull.

[MattofSteel]

I remember the day the first teaser for QOS came out. I was blown away by the thoughtfulness and classiness of the design, and thought "my god, this is going to be quite the experience," but for some reason the pace of the film just didn't contribute in a positive way.

The sets are truly amazing. I'd love to see what Gassner could do with some more, shall we say, romanticized locales. I liked the locations for their narrative purpose (the whole desert metaphor thing was indeed, very cool), but I'd love to see him tackle something a little more conventionally Bond. An alpine retreat, a beach front property, or a villain's lair. Something like that.

[The Shark]

I agree! The Fleming books are treated with such reverence that everyone assumes strict adherence is the only possible approach. Don't get me wrong. I love them - and that spirit is crucial. But Fleming was by no means perfect - and even more, what's to be said for the idea that diverting in the past hasn't worked wonderfully?

FRWL and GF are my co-favourite Bond films, as they seem to be for many. And yet they are altered FUNDAMENTALLY from their counterpart novels, while the main idea, structure, characters, and voice tend to be retained. And the films are, in my opinion, THAT much cinematically better for it.

In all honesty I think CR and QOS were WORSE OFF for there fundamental changes, particularly of Bond's character arc.

I personally think the films you mentioned - particularly FRWL would be even stronger, if they stuck closer to the source material - not necessarily in the Grant-centric build-up in the first half, but other elements - the ending in particular comes to mind as bleak as it is.

To be honest I saw the same cold hearted spy at the beginning of QOS (who looked like he'd eaten a bad clam) as I did with the end. More at ease with the world (something Fleming's Bond hardly was) but still a far cry from the witty, charming, charismatic spy at the Ocean Club in CR.

Fleming's Bond never found any Quantum of Solace, which allowed him to remain as a solitary individual devoid of any meaningful relationships.

Like Fleming himself wrote: "The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."

He would remain a counter-intelligence agent, a problem eliminator not an informer. Bond would work at eliminating threats, whether that require demolition, assassination or occasionally high risk intelligence gathering.

[Mr. Blofeld]

In all honesty I think CR and QOS were WORSE OFF for there fundamental changes, particularly of Bond's character arc.

In all honesty, I think you're in the minority here, Shark.

[Dekard77]

Do we really need to see who Bond is on the inside? I do think Craig to some extent confused the casual fans who don't really want to see Bond Begins.

[MattofSteel]

Do we really need to see who Bond is on the inside? I do think Craig to some extent confused the casual fans who don't really want to see Bond Begins.

I guess if that's what you'd prefer, there are about 15 other films in the series which in no way illuminate or advance his character. Plenty to choose from!

[Dekard77]

I meant as an on going series...... reboot.

[JimmyBond]

You love the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. So do I. I like their work because the camerawork does not compete with the action. When Bond is chasing the villain in the streetrunning sequence at the beginning, we are with him vicariously, running with him. When Bond fights the African warlord and his henchman on a hotel stairway, we are there for every bone crunching moment. Not so for QOS, which suffers from the same trendy, shaky, camerawork and confusing editing as Batman Begins and the second and third Bourne entries. If Bond is jumping, moving, bobbing and weaving for his life and the camera starts moving frantically also, most of the action is lost. So much of the great fight scenes and chase sequences of recent action thrillers are lost because of this trendy documentary or NYPD (the camera is always moving!) style. These DP's dress their protagonists in dark clothing or in dark vehicles, film them in dark rooms or dark tunnels with shaky hand held camerawork and frenetic editing so much,that we might as well be listening to a radio program instead of watching a film, imagining the visuals. Casino is a beautifully shot and edited film in the tradition of classics such as OHMSS and Goldfinger. QOS is a well written story that is not seen onscreen because of confusing visuals that are poorly edited. I am sad to see that the Bond films have fallen prey to this trendy, noisy, ugly looking type of cinematography that so many other films are being shot in as of late. No wonder Sir Sean was upset with his last director and quit starring and producing films after League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I can imagine Sir Sean having a fit after seeing the dailies from the sword fighting sequence by Captain Nemo in LXG: "The man's moves his sword like the best of Errol Flynn and kicks like Bruce Lee and all your cameraman can focus on is his belt buckle!!"

You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack. But come on man, if you expect people to read that remember this. Paragraphs are your friend. Please use them.

I'm not signaling you out here bud, it's just that I've noticed you do this in other posts too.

[jamie00007]

Do we really need to see who Bond is on the inside? I do think Craig to some extent confused the casual fans who don't really want to see Bond Begins.

The last two Bond films have generated far more interest and excitement in the general movie-going public than any other Bond film in years, since GoldenEye at least. So I dont think thats at all true.

[Dekard77]

Curiosity yes, but taking Bond away from Bond's world does make you ask is that all necessasry. Kind of like watching Bourne Ultimatum, I mean we know about the whole organisation yet the third film deals with the same subject with better stunts and a clever ending.
I really the style of QOS but talk back with people who saw the film wasn't that positive.

[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

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?

YES, absolutely!!

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

[The Shark]

In all honesty I think CR and QOS were WORSE OFF for there fundamental changes, particularly of Bond's character arc.

In all honesty, I think you're in the minority here, Shark.

I know, sorry. Give the "LOLZ" generation endless action scenes, terrible Haggis dialogue, a generic synth beat score, and they'll love.

However I rate Craig's Bond only 2/3rd to Connery, as I still think he delivers fantastic performances despite the mediocre films and substandard writing. Hopefully with the dropping of Haggis, the inevitable Arnold firing can occur soon and Craig can get the Bond film he truly deserves.

The Shark

[JimmyBond]

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

I'm getting a tad tired of this double standard you're applying here. Since when have the movie's adhered to the novels in the first place? Sure we'll get an adaption here and there, some more faithful than others. But nowhere in the past 20 films did the cinematic Bond ever follow the developement of the literary Bond, so why all of a sudden is that a big deal for you?

Ok, maybe Campbell did intend for the arc to be completed with Casino Royale...but so what? The producers saw a story that could be built upon the ending that CR gave us and went from there. And as I said earlier, just because they havent followed Fleming before why is it all of a sudden a crime that they havent this time?

[Dekard77]

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?

YES, absolutely!!

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

Yes you make a good point here. I guess with that we can come to the conclusion Bond is Bond but at the same time they gave us a glimpse into the organisation and the Bonds ability to handle a mission as an eliminator. I also didn't like the rooftop chase sequence in Sienna. Never truly enjoyed the NYPD/Bourne style camera work.

[Mr. Blofeld]

In all honesty I think CR and QOS were WORSE OFF for there fundamental changes, particularly of Bond's character arc.

In all honesty, I think you're in the minority here, Shark.

I know, sorry. Give the "LOLZ" generation endless action scenes, terrible Haggis dialogue, a generic synth beat score, and they'll love.

However I rate Craig's Bond only 2/3rd to Connery, as I still think he delivers fantastic performances despite the mediocre films and substandard writing. Hopefully with the dropping of Haggis, the inevitable Arnold firing can occur soon and Craig can get the Bond film he truly deserves.

The Shark

Why so negative, mate? Do you see anything positive in Craig's films?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

I'm getting a tad tired of this double standard you're applying here. Since when have the movie's adhered to the novels in the first place? Sure we'll get an adaption here and there, some more faithful than others. But nowhere in the past 20 films did the cinematic Bond ever follow the developement of the literary Bond, so why all of a sudden is that a big deal for you?

Ok, maybe Campbell did intend for the arc to be completed with Casino Royale...but so what? The producers saw a story that could be built upon the ending that CR gave us and went from there. And as I said earlier, just because they havent followed Fleming before why is it all of a sudden a crime that they havent this time?

Because... QOS happens to be a direct sequel to a pretty faithful adaptation of the first Fleming Bond novel. And it's not just the case that Campbell "maybe did intend for the arc to be completed with Casino Royale", he stated that clearly in the audio commentaries of that film.

[JimmyBond]

Indeed he did, but he's not the Bond producers. He doesnt have final say in these types of things. The producers felt there was still a story to tell, so they decided to tell it.

[The Shark]

In all honesty I think CR and QOS were WORSE OFF for there fundamental changes, particularly of Bond's character arc.

In all honesty, I think you're in the minority here, Shark.

I know, sorry. Give the "LOLZ" generation endless action scenes, terrible Haggis dialogue, a generic synth beat score, and they'll love.

However I rate Craig's Bond only 2/3rd to Connery, as I still think he delivers fantastic performances despite the mediocre films and substandard writing. Hopefully with the dropping of Haggis, the inevitable Arnold firing can occur soon and Craig can get the Bond film he truly deserves.

The Shark

Why so negative, mate? Do you see anything positive in Craig's films?

Yes. Craig himself, the acting, the cinematography and compared to the Brosnan films - the scripts.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Indeed he did, but he's not the Bond producers. He doesnt have final say in these types of things. The producers felt there was still a story to tell, so they decided to tell it.

...and, indeed, it turned out to be a beautiful story, rich in parallels to Bond films past, so I'm glad they told it.

[Safari Suit]

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

So are you saying you think Bond 22 should have be a re-adaptation of Live and Let Die?

[Tybre]

If it was right for the Bond of the second 007's novel Live And Let Die, why it shouldn't be for the follow up to the movie that was based on the first Ian Fleming's book. In the literature, the character of Bond choose to shut his feelings about Vesper's death, and focus further in his job going after "the threath behind spies", which is exactly what 007 starts to doing when he avoids killing for vengeance to Mr.White, to allow a complete interrogation by MI6. So, already in the last scene of CR, Bond has proven that he was totally professional about his duty- even when this implies a personal subject-.

So are you saying you think Bond 22 should have be a re-adaptation of Live and Let Die?

Pretty sure he's just saying he wanted Bond to forget about Vesper, like Bond apparently did in LALD. Really it's not until OHMSS that we learn the truth.