103 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

Also, Bond leaving Greene to die in the desert is much more horrendous than anything Bond could have done to him himself. Greene's demise was, most likely, slow and agonizing, whereas anything that Bond could have done to him would have been seen as quick and merciful by comparison.

Yes, it's great to see such a nasty end for a slimy villain like Greene.

[Jeao007]

Excellent post, DaveBond. Now that I think of it, it makes perfect sense as to why the gun barrel sequence is placed at the end of the film, rather than the beginning. Although this was probably self-evident for most of you. I suppose I'm just a tad bit slow.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Does anybody else think it was meant to echo Dr. No, where the red sihouette of the gunbarrel lies on top of the credits, meaning the gunbarrel bookends the entire story, both in Dr. No and the first two Craig films?

[darthbond]

Interesting.

The final scene of QoS is the finest ending I have seen since OHMSS. I loved how even though there was no action nor music, it still kept you on your toes. You never would have known that Bond would leave this man alive. I also love the final exchange with M. The "I never left" line was just fantastic.

darthbond

[00Twelve]

Also, Bond leaving Greene to die in the desert is much more horrendous than anything Bond could have done to him himself. Greene's demise was, most likely, slow and agonizing, whereas anything that Bond could have done to him would have been seen as quick and merciful by comparison.

Yes, it's great to see such a nasty end for a slimy villain like Greene.

Absolutely. It's a demise of which I can't believe Fleming didn't conceive.

[Trident]

Also, Bond leaving Greene to die in the desert is much more horrendous than anything Bond could have done to him himself. Greene's demise was, most likely, slow and agonizing, whereas anything that Bond could have done to him would have been seen as quick and merciful by comparison.

Yes, it's great to see such a nasty end for a slimy villain like Greene.

Absolutely. It's a demise of which I can't believe Fleming didn't conceive.

It owes actually a lot, perhaps all(?) to Trevanian. His Hemlock disposes of an adversary in a similar manner, and even with a more gruesome touch. The guy is left in the desert, with his dog keeping him company.

In both cases we learn about the further fate of these individuals by a later conversation with a third party. Greene, judging by the remains of his body, has decided that he would finally have one of those famous Tia Juana Light cocktails before moving on to further spheres.

Hemlock's adversary? Well, what he did is not described in every last detail. It's just mentioned that his body was found in the end and that he must have survived for a time, feeding on his dog apparently. It's a horrible enough idea, but if you come to think of it you will doubtlessly find that it becomes even a great deal more horrific if you consider that starvation in a desert isn't your first problem, is it?

[The Shark]

> Perfect Ending - Becoming Bond, Love the ending of QOS

No, Bond became Bond in the brilliant coda of Casino Royale, not Quantum of Solace, that was just a stiff assed thug/robot walking though the gun barrel, not Bond.

And yes, if you're asking, I forgot my medication today.

Edited by The Shark, 15 September 2009 - 10:18 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know. Which is why the ending of QoS is the perfect ending to the best Bond film in my book.

[sharpshooter]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know.

Well said.

[00Twelve]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know.

Well said.

Indeed.

[00Nothing]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know.

Well said.

Indeed.

Well said, I wholeheartedly agree. Why everybody seemed to think that Craig's Bond was going to become another Pierce Brosnan clone in QoS annoys me so much. QoS is a continuation of what has come before, a darker, grieving Bond, struggling with his violent impulses , his grief and his emotions. It's what makes his performance and the film so good in my opinion. Anybody who thought that things were going to return to the way they were in the 1990's should realise that we are in a new era, a new Bond, one complicated by emotions, grief and love.

[tdalton]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know.

Well said.

Indeed.

Well said, I wholeheartedly agree. Why everybody seemed to think that Craig's Bond was going to become another Pierce Brosnan clone in QoS annoys me so much. QoS is a continuation of what has come before, a darker, grieving Bond, struggling with his violent impulses , his grief and his emotions. It's what makes his performance and the film so good in my opinion. Anybody who thought that things were going to return to the way they were in the 1990's should realise that we are in a new era, a new Bond, one complicated by emotions, grief and love.

Very well said, both of you.

[The Shark]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know. Which is why the ending of QoS is the perfect ending to the best Bond film in my book.

Pretty much an auto-pilot responce there.

The truth is, fine, Bond is damaged, hence unemotional, stiff, underweight and unstable. Probably the closest we've had to a druggy Bond so far, which is a interesting change.

However, Bond doesn't "become Bond" at the end. He's still the same robot the we had at the start, the editing is still hyperfast and nauseatingly metronomic (I'm talking non-actoin scenes here), there's a definitive lack of chemistry between actors, with most of the energy coming from Craig's excellent performance alone.

After the watching the film again last night, there is very odd about the direction, and somehow stifles any development in Bond's character, maybe due to the shooting schedule I don't know. The dialogue scenes not scored by Arnold, often show up the clunky dialogue, awkward acting, and a lack of momentum, and a lack of one of the most important factors in producing any Bond film - irony.
It takes itself far too seriously, when the subject it's dealing with isn't that serious at all, almost like a robot directed the film. Going through the motions and hesitantly ticking off the Bond formula (unsuccessfully), action sequences, and bare script without even knowing why.

Edited by The Shark, 18 September 2009 - 10:13 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

First, you say Bond's a robot, then you say that Craig gave an excellent performance? Sounds like somebody is on autopilot, and it isn't dee-bee-five...

[Safari Suit]

Robots are capaable of giving excellent performances.
"Why, why was I programmed to feel pain?"

[Loomis]

Bond was not a thug or robotic in QoS, but a damaged human being doing a dirty job while having to find his own moral compass against the emotional backdrop of feeling grief for, mixed with a sense of betrayal by, the first woman he truly loved. He finds it by the end of the film and "becomes" the Bond we know. Which is why the ending of QoS is the perfect ending to the best Bond film in my book.

Pretty much an auto-pilot responce there.

The truth is, fine, Bond is damaged, hence unemotional, stiff, underweight and unstable. Probably the closest we've had to a druggy Bond so far, which is a interesting change.

However, Bond doesn't "become Bond" at the end. He's still the same robot the we had at the start, the editing is still hyperfast and nauseatingly metronomic (I'm talking non-actoin scenes here), there's a definitive lack of chemistry between actors, with most of the energy coming from Craig's excellent performance alone.

After the watching the film again last night, there is very odd about the direction, and somehow stifles any development in Bond's character, maybe due to the shooting schedule I don't know. The dialogue scenes not scored by Arnold, often show up the clunky dialogue, awkward acting, and a lack of momentum, and a lack of one of the most important factors in producing any Bond film - irony.
It takes itself far too seriously, when the subject it's dealing with isn't that serious at all, almost like a robot directed the film. Going through the motions and hesitantly ticking off the Bond formula (unsuccessfully), action sequences, and bare script without even knowing why.

Superb post, The Shark.

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I really hope he does.

[Harmsway]

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

Me too. But I don't think it at all likely that he'll return.

[Trident]

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

I really hope he does.

I'm really more than a bit astonished how much QOS seems to polarize the fanbase. I expected some disagreement, as QOS quite boldly went into spheres we've not expected, at least not with this kind of daring consequence. But that it would end up struggling with DAD for first place of the most delighting/annoying entry I wouldn't have dreamed.

Now, what about a comeback of Forster? As with Tamahori, I have to ask here: what would be different in a second film under his direction? Was there something he was prevented from showing in QOS? I really don't think so, quite as Tamahori had his way in DAD.

So, of course I would be happy with a return of Forster and would cringe about a return of Tamahori. But from a 'professional' point of view, with the aim to see as many good directors as possible have their go at Bond, and in light of the polarizing potential of a return of either Forster or Tamahori, I have to champion other, fresher names for future Bonds. It's good to shake up audiences once in a while, kick some of those fat comfy half-brains out of their semi-coma, but I can't see an advantage in estranging and annoying a great part of the audience as a standard operation procedure.

[Loomis]

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

Me too. But I don't think it at all likely that he'll return.

I wish I shared your optimism.

[Harmsway]

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

Me too. But I don't think it at all likely that he'll return.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Well, I do suspect EON will try to court him again. It's my guess, however, that he has very little interest in doing another one at the current time.

[Loomis]

Man, I really hope Marc Forster won't direct BOND 23.

Me too. But I don't think it at all likely that he'll return.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Well, I do suspect EON will try to court him again.

Indeed. I reckon Eon doesn't actually want a revolving door of directors, even though it's pretty much had just that since the start of the Brosnan era. I suspect Broccoli and Wilson would like to have a "house director" who'd be a sort of more critically-acclaimed John Glen. Or, in today's parlance, the Greengrass of the Bond series.

What do I base this on? Well, Campbell was invited to direct every Bond film between GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE, and was doubtless also offered BOND 22. Tamahori was offered BOND 21 (not sure whether it was CASINO ROYALE at that point), although Eon presumably made overtures to Campbell first. And wasn't Apted offered DIE ANOTHER DAY? Also, Forster has stated that he was offered BOND 23 (even before QUANTUM OF SOLACE opened).

As for Forster having no interest in doing another Bond right now, well, who knows? For all I know, he may ultimately embrace the chance of pushing his idiosyncratic vision of the world of 007 a little further. He's not a box office giant outside of Bond, and BOND 23 would at the very least guarantee him another blockbuster, which could only help him in his more personal future plans, just as Greengrass gained quite a bit of clout after two Bourne smashes in a row. A hit is a hit, and it's always needed. And Forster is still very young (for a director). He can afford to do another Bond largely for commercial reasons in the belief that it'd go some way to helping him get more "serious" and "worthy" projects off the ground.

[Trident]

And Forster is still very young (for a director). He can afford to do another Bond largely for commercial reasons in the belief that it'd go some way to helping him get more "serious" and "worthy" projects off the ground.

Is/was there any evidence Forster looked down on Bond as 'not-serious' or 'unworthy'? I'd be very surprised if there was, as I thought Forster quite a professional director, tackling every project with the necessary seriousness, if perhaps with a different approach, as would fit a genre project.

I also don't see EON cajoling and begging a director to take the next project, whose attitude towards Bond was somehow condescending. If Broccoli/Wilson experienced any such thing with a director (regardless of the name), they'd certainly do the sensible thing and turn to other names. It's not as if there aren't other contenders.

[Harmsway]

I also don't see EON cajoling and begging a director to take the next project, whose attitude towards Bond was somehow condescending.

I don't know about that. With the past two Bond films, EON has pursued people who originally turned their noses up at the offer of Bond (both Craig and Forster) and eventually convinced them to come on board despite their initial reservations.

[Trident]

I also don't see EON cajoling and begging a director to take the next project, whose attitude towards Bond was somehow condescending.

I don't know about that. With the past two Bond films, EON has pursued people who originally turned their noses up at the offer of Bond (both Craig and Forster) and eventually convinced them to come on board despite their initial reservations.

I didn't mean that anybody involved, be that actor or director, wouldn't give the project deep and hard thought; having initial worries is only natural for any newcomer to the party. What I doubt is that a director who feels Bond is really 'beyond him' would be begged to return. Why ever would Broccoli/Wilson do something like that? To be sneered at by their employee, to satisfy a hidden masochistic need? Sorry, but I'd find that a little hard to believe and I also can't find substantial facts to support such a condescending attitude of Forster.

[The Shark]

I also don't see EON cajoling and begging a director to take the next project, whose attitude towards Bond was somehow condescending.

I don't know about that. With the past two Bond films, EON has pursued people who originally turned their noses up at the offer of Bond (both Craig and Forster) and eventually convinced them to come on board despite their initial reservations.

I didn't mean that anybody involved, be that actor or director, wouldn't give the project deep and hard thought; having initial worries is only natural for any newcomer to the party. What I doubt is that a director who feels Bond is really 'beyond him' would be begged to return. Why ever would Broccoli/Wilson do something like that? To be sneered at by their employee, to satisfy a hidden masochistic need? Sorry, but I'd find that a little hard to believe and I also can't find substantial facts to support such a condescending attitude of Forster.

I don't even think Forster knew Bond films well enough to really look down on them. According to the producers, they gave several films they selected to give him a feel of the series. He hadn't read any of the books, and was still reluctant to go ahead and direct a Bond film. However it was Craig who suggested him, and Forster's main incentive to direct the film as because he was a fan of him.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Only seen QOS twice (still holding out for the super blu-ray edition) and I recall it being a very fitting ending indeed.

[ProblemEliminator]

I have to agree the ending was perfect, and leaving Greene to rot in the desert is classic, particularly with an axe-damaged foot, but I do have a problem with someone, even in a desert with no survival knowledge, voluntarily drinking motor oil. Just never made sense to me.

[volante]

Just suppose, for one moment QOS is the last ending we ever get !!!!!

"I never left"

How fitting

[Stuart]

I have to agree the ending was perfect, and leaving Greene to rot in the desert is classic, particularly with an axe-damaged foot, but I do have a problem with someone, even in a desert with no survival knowledge, voluntarily drinking motor oil. Just never made sense to me.

One of the symptoms of severe dehydration is a complete breakdown of rational thought and the ability to reason.

So, at some point, that black gold might have looked very refreshing to Greene.