141 replies to this topic

[blueman]

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.

I think Fleming would've instantly recognized an updated - from his writings of half a century ago - thriller sensability in QOS. And appreciated it, much more so than 90-odd percent of EON's Bond product, including CR: "I don't, I don't understand the exploding lavatories, I've been drunk and fallen against a lav many many times, and never once has one crumbled to bits beneath me - here, see this, that scar is from '32, fell in a shower stall in Cairo and this damn pokey-outy pipe thing nearly took my leg off!" etc. etc. The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell. 2 cents.

[The Shark]

I would have to think, though, that he would prefer QOS over other "adaptations" of his work, such as MOONRAKER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, etc.

Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Fleming's novel, though, so I can't imagine that he'd have been too happy with it. Roger Moore may have a couple of moments in the film where he is very close to portraying Fleming's Bond, but the rest of the film is about as un-Fleming as it gets (Bond being saved by the two schoolgirls, flying car, the characterizations of M and Major Boothroyd, and all of the other endless unfunny "comedic" bits in the film).

No. It's pulp-like style, twisted comedy, exotic setting, and most importantly - a cold, charming, Bond who'll stop at nothing to get what he wants.
Again the "dark" edge to the film, combined with the strange fantasy elements, capture the spirit of Fleming's novels pretty well, compared to other Bond films.
Fleming's comedy was never particularly funny either, mainly dry, sardonic and occasionally sadistic, captured well in the film.

Personally I find LTK about as Fleming as Tomorrow Never Dies, but there you go. So much for "gritty realism".

[Tybre]

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.

I think Fleming would've instantly recognized an updated - from his writings of half a century ago - thriller sensability in QOS. And appreciated it, much more so than 90-odd percent of EON's Bond product, including CR: "I don't, I don't understand the exploding lavatories, I've been drunk and fallen against a lav many many times, and never once has one crumbled to bits beneath me - here, see this, that scar is from '32, fell in a shower stall in Cairo and this damn pokey-outy pipe thing nearly took my leg off!" etc. etc. The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell. 2 cents.

Would make life a lot more interesting if urinals exploded every time you bumped into one, though. I say bring on the Martin Campbell reality.

[tdalton]

I would have to think, though, that he would prefer QOS over other "adaptations" of his work, such as MOONRAKER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, etc.

Disagree with you there, TMWTGG is one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films ever made, compared to the likes of LTK, QOS or FYEO.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Fleming's novel, though, so I can't imagine that he'd have been too happy with it. Roger Moore may have a couple of moments in the film where he is very close to portraying Fleming's Bond, but the rest of the film is about as un-Fleming as it gets (Bond being saved by the two schoolgirls, flying car, the characterizations of M and Major Boothroyd, and all of the other endless unfunny "comedic" bits in the film).

No. It's pulp-like style, twisted comedy, exotic setting, and most importantly - a cold, charming, Bond who'll stop at nothing to get what he wants.
Again the "dark" edge to the film, combined with the strange fantasy elements, capture the spirit of Fleming's novels pretty well, compared to other Bond films.
Fleming's comedy was never particularly funny either, mainly dry, sardonic and occasionally sadistic, captured well in the film.

Personally I find LTK about as Fleming as Tomorrow Never Dies, but there you go. So much for "gritty realism".

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. For me, none of that is there in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. The only thing I see when I watch it is a very bad film that is completely lacking in just about every area. I certainly don't see anything that would even be remotely Fleming in that film, other than a few scenes where Moore really succeeds.

To be fair, none of the films are really all that faithful to Fleming anyway (not even CASINO ROYALE). I just think that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER are significantly further away from being faithful to Fleming than are the rest of the films.

[blueman]

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.

I think Fleming would've instantly recognized an updated - from his writings of half a century ago - thriller sensability in QOS. And appreciated it, much more so than 90-odd percent of EON's Bond product, including CR: "I don't, I don't understand the exploding lavatories, I've been drunk and fallen against a lav many many times, and never once has one crumbled to bits beneath me - here, see this, that scar is from '32, fell in a shower stall in Cairo and this damn pokey-outy pipe thing nearly took my leg off!" etc. etc. The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell. 2 cents.

Would make life a lot more interesting if urinals exploded every time you bumped into one, though. I say bring on the Martin Campbell reality.

Sure sure, big fun. But not very Bond.

[sharpshooter]

The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell.

In my book, nothing in Casino Royale compares to the freefall scene in Quantum of Solace. Now, that's really the stuff of superheroes.

[The Shark]

Disagree - it's one of the most Fleming films EON has yet produced.

In some respects, that may be true. But in a lot of ways, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't capture the spirit of Fleming's novels, which were often preoccupied with setting and atmosphere over the thrust of the narrative. And I daresay Fleming himself would probably have found QUANTUM OF SOLACE a bit on the pretentious side.

I think Fleming would've instantly recognized an updated - from his writings of half a century ago - thriller sensability in QOS. And appreciated it, much more so than 90-odd percent of EON's Bond product, including CR: "I don't, I don't understand the exploding lavatories, I've been drunk and fallen against a lav many many times, and never once has one crumbled to bits beneath me - here, see this, that scar is from '32, fell in a shower stall in Cairo and this damn pokey-outy pipe thing nearly took my leg off!" etc. etc. The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell. 2 cents.

Would make life a lot more interesting if urinals exploded every time you bumped into one, though. I say bring on the Martin Campbell reality.

Sure sure, big fun. But not very Bond.

If you've read the novels you'd know Bond had a thing for Sado-Masochism as did Fleming himself.

There should be a scene with Bond whipping/being whipped by the Bond girl in the next film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And sorking, CR is pretty faithful adaptation of the novel, even with its last scene which is a development of the line that says that Bond "would after the threath behind the spy, the threat that made them spy", that threath in this case as far as Bond and we as audience knew- until 2006- was Mr. White. So, I would have expected a coherent sequel with the way that Bond deals with (or should I say neutralize) the facts from his Casino Royale's adventure.

I assume that word is 'threat'...

Your assumption is correct, what is wrong is complaining about a simple typo mistake in a forum that's not only visited for people that have english as their native language, which is my case.

Since Bond does go after the threat that made Vesper do what she did, and does indeed end emotionally concluding what was begun with CR - as well as expanding on the organisation set-up in the previous film - I'm not sure I see an argument there against anything I said.

Beyond 'I didn't like Quantum of Solace', which I'd never argue your right to insist.

Still, being a faithful adaptation of the facts of the novel doesn't change the differing sensibilities and priorities different creative talents bring. Yes, card game, casino, blah blah blah. But the Bond of the novels didn't have a catchphrase and a theme tune. The Bond of the novels didn't operate in a post-2000 culture but rather the emotionally stifled British idiom of the 50s.

To suggest that having the story from the book means the film's emotional and psychological content is derived wholly from that same text is ridiculous. It undermines almost every creative effort - writing, directing, performance - that goes into a production, and certainly ignores things that took place in CR.

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 17 August 2009 - 03:47 PM.

[rb1harpo]

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

I wonder why he wasn't in anywhere near that state of mind in Casino Royale.

That's being deliberately obtuse. Different directors make different choices for different reasons. Otherwise, every film would be shot and edited the same, they'd all look like carbon copies of one another, and the artform would go nowhere.

You may not like the choices this director made, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind the decisions made. Campbell made different choices in "Casino Royale" and on it goes. Different people are going to like different things for different reasons. Personally I'm not crazy about the editing in the car- and boat-chase sequences, but have come to accept it over time to the point that now I can't imagine them being done any differently. Not in this film, anyway.

Why don't we just admit that they were trying to copy the Bourne films, the producers of which can simulate putting an equivalent product to a Bond film on screen without the cash outlay by this choppy MTV editing which conceals so much.

If that were the case, then the flash-editing style would have continued throughout the film. HR and others are correct in noting that, as the film progresses, the editing smooths out. I'm inclined to believe that didn't happen by accident.

The editing doesn't really smooth out that much later on. Besides, a Bond film is not just an artistic choice, it is a product, an event that is meant to be experienced by millions. QOS was like paying for a roller coaster ride that you don't really get to experience or ride on; the amusement park crew (QOS) played some sound effects and showed us poorly composed pictures of the ride. I'm not the only one who is disappointed with this choppy editing style. QOS didn't do very well at the U.S. box office by the way. Nobody was standing in line for QOS like they did for Thunderball.
Artistic choice isn't always right by the way, John Barry admitted that his slide whistle effect on the soundtrack of Golden Gun undermined the tremendous astro spiral car jump sequence after seeing the completed film. He admitted that Cubby was right and he was wrong.

Edited by rb1harpo, 17 August 2009 - 08:06 PM.

[blueman]

The sort of heightened realism that springs up in CR again and again (Campbell with no reality filter, bless him) is more appropriate in a superhero film than a Bond thriller IMO, and about as appropriate as a Tarzan yell.

In my book, nothing in Casino Royale compares to the freefall scene in Quantum of Solace. Now, that's really the stuff of superheroes.

Oh, I can buy into the movie physics of Bond's shute opening 6 feet above the ground and arresting his drop enough so that the resultant fall is like falling off a ladder, more than I can buy a bathroom fixture crumbling to pieces cuz somebody fell against it... total cartoon in the latter case IMO, might as well have been Bugs Bunny in that bathroom fight (up to the point Campbell lingers on Craig's face after drowning the goon in the sink, that's an awesome moment even if it is counter-intuitive to all the cartoony action that precedes it).

[tdalton]

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

In terms of faithfulness to Fleming's view on the Bond character and how quickly he was able to get over Vesper from CASINO ROYALE to LIVE AND LET DIE, I'm willing to buy Bond's anguish over her in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because I think of QOS as an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE rather than an all-out sequel (something I hadn't thought of before until I recently read it in either this thread or another one, but a position that I think makes a lot of sense). I think that, had the events of Fleming's novel been extended out through another few chapters to include the immediate aftermath of Vesper's betrayal of Bond (or his discovery of it, anyway), that he would have anguished over her a bit. I would almost have to think that he would have had some reflection on the issue before moving on, as he was seriously considering leaving the service for her (if I'm remembering the novel correctly, it's been a while).

I think that BOND 23 should probably be viewed more as BOND 22 whereas QUANTUM OF SOLACE is really more of a BOND 21.5 film (if that makes any sense). In BOND 23, Bond probably would be back to something closer to normality in terms of his mental state regarding Vesper and his quest to go after QUANTUM. I think that it makes sense for him to deal with those issues in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it's really more of an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE than it is a straight-up sequel.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

In terms of faithfulness to Fleming's view on the Bond character and how quickly he was able to get over Vesper from CASINO ROYALE to LIVE AND LET DIE, I'm willing to buy Bond's anguish over her in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because I think of QOS as an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE rather than an all-out sequel (something I hadn't thought of before until I recently read it in either this thread or another one, but a position that I think makes a lot of sense). I think that, had the events of Fleming's novel been extended out through another few chapters to include the immediate aftermath of Vesper's betrayal of Bond (or his discovery of it, anyway), that he would have anguished over her a bit. I would almost have to think that he would have had some reflection on the issue before moving on, as he was seriously considering leaving the service for her (if I'm remembering the novel correctly, it's been a while).

I think that BOND 23 should probably be viewed more as BOND 22 whereas QUANTUM OF SOLACE is really more of a BOND 21.5 film (if that makes any sense). In BOND 23, Bond probably would be back to something closer to normality in terms of his mental state regarding Vesper and his quest to go after QUANTUM. I think that it makes sense for him to deal with those issues in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it's really more of an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE than it is a straight-up sequel.

Sorry mate, but that's just your view, and doesn't really make much sense, because the reality is different. The facts indicates that QOS is Bond 22 indeed, not an epilogue for CR but a sequel that "extend" for an entire movie a behaviour that Bond only showed for a few seconds in the novel. I mean, for a good reason Fleming put his character with a fast reaction to swallow Vesper's death instead of keeping him for more chapters dealing with this situation.

[tdalton]

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

In terms of faithfulness to Fleming's view on the Bond character and how quickly he was able to get over Vesper from CASINO ROYALE to LIVE AND LET DIE, I'm willing to buy Bond's anguish over her in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because I think of QOS as an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE rather than an all-out sequel (something I hadn't thought of before until I recently read it in either this thread or another one, but a position that I think makes a lot of sense). I think that, had the events of Fleming's novel been extended out through another few chapters to include the immediate aftermath of Vesper's betrayal of Bond (or his discovery of it, anyway), that he would have anguished over her a bit. I would almost have to think that he would have had some reflection on the issue before moving on, as he was seriously considering leaving the service for her (if I'm remembering the novel correctly, it's been a while).

I think that BOND 23 should probably be viewed more as BOND 22 whereas QUANTUM OF SOLACE is really more of a BOND 21.5 film (if that makes any sense). In BOND 23, Bond probably would be back to something closer to normality in terms of his mental state regarding Vesper and his quest to go after QUANTUM. I think that it makes sense for him to deal with those issues in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it's really more of an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE than it is a straight-up sequel.

Sorry mate, but that's just your view, and doesn't really make much sense, because the reality is different. The facts indicates that QOS is Bond 22 indeed, not an epilogue for CR but a sequel that "extend" for an entire movie a behaviour that Bond only showed for a few seconds in the novel. I mean, for a good reason Fleming put his character with a fast reaction to swallow Vesper's death instead of keeping him for more chapters dealing with this situation.

But given the fact that CASINO ROYALE isn't all that faithful to the novel anyway, I don't think that it really matters all that much what Fleming's intent for the character's dealing with the loss of Vesper was in relation to what was actually put on the screen. It's something that EON decided to add to the film, much like virtually everything else in the film (very little of Fleming's CASINO ROYALE actually appears in EON's CASINO ROYALE. It's really a film that takes the very bare bones structure of the novel and changes everything else). If it's OK to change the film into Bond's first assignment, or to add an entire terrorism subplot to the film, or to add any of the action sequences that really had no place in a faithful adaptation of CASINO ROYALE, then I don't see any reason why Bond's motivations couldn't be changed slightly, seeing as how everything else was changed from the novel to the film. A film that was completely faithful (or even just bordering on close to faithful) to the novel would look completely different from the film that EON delivered.

[danslittlefinger]

Forster wanted it to be disorientating?

Well he achieved it for me.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

In terms of faithfulness to Fleming's view on the Bond character and how quickly he was able to get over Vesper from CASINO ROYALE to LIVE AND LET DIE, I'm willing to buy Bond's anguish over her in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because I think of QOS as an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE rather than an all-out sequel (something I hadn't thought of before until I recently read it in either this thread or another one, but a position that I think makes a lot of sense). I think that, had the events of Fleming's novel been extended out through another few chapters to include the immediate aftermath of Vesper's betrayal of Bond (or his discovery of it, anyway), that he would have anguished over her a bit. I would almost have to think that he would have had some reflection on the issue before moving on, as he was seriously considering leaving the service for her (if I'm remembering the novel correctly, it's been a while).

I think that BOND 23 should probably be viewed more as BOND 22 whereas QUANTUM OF SOLACE is really more of a BOND 21.5 film (if that makes any sense). In BOND 23, Bond probably would be back to something closer to normality in terms of his mental state regarding Vesper and his quest to go after QUANTUM. I think that it makes sense for him to deal with those issues in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it's really more of an epilogue to CASINO ROYALE than it is a straight-up sequel.

Sorry mate, but that's just your view, and doesn't really make much sense, because the reality is different. The facts indicates that QOS is Bond 22 indeed, not an epilogue for CR but a sequel that "extend" for an entire movie a behaviour that Bond only showed for a few seconds in the novel. I mean, for a good reason Fleming put his character with a fast reaction to swallow Vesper's death instead of keeping him for more chapters dealing with this situation.

But given the fact that CASINO ROYALE isn't all that faithful to the novel anyway, I don't think that it really matters all that much what Fleming's intent for the character's dealing with the loss of Vesper was in relation to what was actually put on the screen. It's something that EON decided to add to the film, much like virtually everything else in the film (very little of Fleming's CASINO ROYALE actually appears in EON's CASINO ROYALE. It's really a film that takes the very bare bones structure of the novel and changes everything else). If it's OK to change the film into Bond's first assignment, or to add an entire terrorism subplot to the film, or to add any of the action sequences that really had no place in a faithful adaptation of CASINO ROYALE, then I don't see any reason why Bond's motivations couldn't be changed slightly, seeing as how everything else was changed from the novel to the film. A film that was completely faithful (or even just bordering on close to faithful) to the novel would look completely different from the film that EON delivered.

Well, I disagree. For me CR it's pretty faithful to the novel, as I said earlier, of course the movie updated the plot, but it's still very close to the depiction of Bond's personality in the book, unlike QOS. It isn't just Bond's "motivations", it is 007's behaviour what is changed in Bond 22.

[tdalton]

Well, I disagree. For me CR it's pretty faithful to the novel, as I said earlier, of course the movie updated the plot, but it's still very close to the depiction of Bond's personality in the book, unlike QOS. It isn't just Bond's "motivations", it is 007's behaviour what is changed in Bond 22.

I think that the argument completely comes down to how faithful one finds CASINO ROYALE to be to the novel. Taken on its own and not considering the novel, I really like CASINO ROYALE as a film (just to put that out there since I know that when I compare it to the novel it sounds as though I'm really bashing the film). But when stacked up against the novel, I think that the novel wins out in every possible way. I don't particularly find the film faithful, which is why I just accept the other changes that are in the film because I reason it out as being just another change in a sea of many, many changes to the novel.

Now, were they to start a completely new series (and assuming that the other 20 films dont' exist at all), then I'd want them to be as close to the novels as is possible, including what we're discussing here. But, since I don't really see CASINO ROYALE as being faithful to the novel in any way, I don't think that it really matters that they didn't follow Fleming's intentions for the end of the story when they completely disregarded the rest of the novel when going about "adapting" it. IMO, a truly faithful (yet updated) CASINO ROYALE would look very different from EON's film.

Edited by tdalton, 18 August 2009 - 03:11 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

I really only see the latter half of Casino Royale as near-faithful adaptation. The first half is just a necessary backstory. I really don't think any of the current movies would be truly faithful to the novels, only if they were a period piece.

Saying that though, I would've loved to see a scene involving Bond walking down the street and being the centre of a bomb blast. It was a great scene in the novel, but alas, didn't get screen treatment.

[byline]

The more the film went on the less frenetic the editing became, echoing Bond's state of mind. Bond is confused in the begining but has greater clarity as the ending nears...the editing reflects this. Why people fail to understand this parrallelling of Bond's mental situation and the editing techniques is beyond me.

I wonder why he wasn't in anywhere near that state of mind in Casino Royale.

That's being deliberately obtuse. Different directors make different choices for different reasons. Otherwise, every film would be shot and edited the same, they'd all look like carbon copies of one another, and the artform would go nowhere.

You may not like the choices this director made, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind the decisions made. Campbell made different choices in "Casino Royale" and on it goes. Different people are going to like different things for different reasons. Personally I'm not crazy about the editing in the car- and boat-chase sequences, but have come to accept it over time to the point that now I can't imagine them being done any differently. Not in this film, anyway.

Why don't we just admit that they were trying to copy the Bourne films, the producers of which can simulate putting an equivalent product to a Bond film on screen without the cash outlay by this choppy MTV editing which conceals so much.

If that were the case, then the flash-editing style would have continued throughout the film. HR and others are correct in noting that, as the film progresses, the editing smooths out. I'm inclined to believe that didn't happen by accident.

The editing doesn't really smooth out that much later on.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, it clearly does smooth out as the film progresses. I had decided that was the case as I was watching the film a second time and, without having discussed it yet with my husband, he made that very observation shortly after his second viewing.

Besides, a Bond film is not just an artistic choice, it is a product, an event that is meant to be experienced by millions.

True, but you know -- as you described later in your post -- that artistic choices are made within that model. Some work for the audience, others don't. It doesn't mean the choices had no sound reasoning behind them; it simply means that they either work for people or they don't. In "Quantum"'s case, it's clear that some/many/all of these choices (depending on the individual) work, while for others -- on the same sliding scale -- they don't. I have no doubt that the folks at EON are taking a look at all of this and will make subsequent decisions accordingly. In the meantime, for me, "Quantum of Solace" stands as a thoroughly enjoyable second act to "Casino Royale." That doesn't mean I consider it flawless, but for for me, the flaws are not enough to diminish my enjoyment of the film as it is.

Edited by byline, 18 August 2009 - 06:48 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

it (the editing) clearly does smooth out as the film progresses.

Interesting. I've just thought of something. The editing at the beginning of the movie is very frantic, showing Bonds emotional state over losing Vesper. Bonds mind is a blur, he only has bloodshed on his mind. Throughout the course of the movie, when we see Bond meet Camille, Uncover Quantum's plans etc.. Bond realizes that Quantum are more dangerous than he thought. The editing becomes a lot clearer, as we see Bonds mind move on from revenge and war, he has a mission to do, and his mind is on that, as well as Ms Lynd.

[byline]

it (the editing) clearly does smooth out as the film progresses.

Interesting. I've just thought of something. The editing at the beginning of the movie is very frantic, showing Bonds emotional state over losing Vesper. Bonds mind is a blur, he only has bloodshed on his mind. Throughout the course of the movie, when we see Bond meet Camille, Uncover Quantum's plans etc.. Bond realizes that Quantum are more dangerous than he thought. The editing becomes a lot clearer, as we see Bonds mind move on from revenge and war, he has a mission to do, and his mind is on that, as well as Ms Lynd.

I think this is pretty much what HR and others are suggesting, and I agree with your take on it. Is it reaching? Heck, any interpretation of any piece of fiction could probably be characterized as such. But I think it's at least plausible that that's what Forster intended, and why it came across that way to at least some of us in the audience. I believe that the film's visual quality is intended to reflect Bond's state of mind.

[DamnCoffee]

Agreed. Even though I think Forster could've handled it a lot better, imo.

[byline]

Agreed. Even though I think Forster could've handled it a lot better, imo.

Yup, I can see that, and even agree with it to some extent. Maybe he even wishes he'd handled it better. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Agreed. Even though I think Forster could've handled it a lot better, imo.

Yup, I can see that, and even agree with it to some extent. Maybe he even wishes he'd handled it better. Hindsight is always 20/20.

True, but I did love the style of how the film handled the smoothing-out, starting from, oh, about Talamone on; it really made QOS seem longer and more elegant.

[byline]

Agreed. Even though I think Forster could've handled it a lot better, imo.

Yup, I can see that, and even agree with it to some extent. Maybe he even wishes he'd handled it better. Hindsight is always 20/20.

True, but I did love the style of how the film handled the smoothing-out, starting from, oh, about Talamone on; it really made QOS seem longer and more elegant.

Once I caught on to that, I certainly did appreciate it a lot more. On first viewing, I just felt sort of confused and underwhelmed. But then, on second viewing, it all came together for me, and I did a complete 180 in my opinion of the film. For me, the film's structure is wonderful. Yet, given how much I love "Casino Royale," and how differently it was paced, I can see why others wouldn't like it.

[sorking]

One thing is to change the political context to update it like they did in 2006's Casino Royale, and other is to alter an essential element of Bond's personality (which is showed in the novel of the same name, through his ability to close his feelings about Vesper's death to concentrate in his work in mere minutes- after utter a blasphemy-), like they did in QOS.

Let's get this straight: Fleming ain't God.

Just because it was done a certain way in the novels - and you seem to be completely avoiding the flaws about credible human psychology and audience acceptance - doesn't mean it's the best and only way to do something. Given Flemings shortcomings as a dramatist of the human condition - he was a thriller writer first and most - and the new films' focus on telling a more rounded human story, how hard is it to understand that fluctuations are bound to occur? And be for the good of the project.

If you want the 'Keep churning them out, keep them shallow' 007, you've got plenty of films to choose from that do that.

Sorry mate, but that's just your view, and doesn't really make much sense, because the reality is different. The facts indicates that QOS is Bond 22 indeed, not an epilogue for CR but a sequel that "extend" for an entire movie a behaviour that Bond only showed for a few seconds in the novel. I mean, for a good reason Fleming put his character with a fast reaction to swallow Vesper's death instead of keeping him for more chapters dealing with this situation.

Yes, his reason was that he doesn't really do character depth. Fleming couldn't have written three days of credible character evolution if his life depended on it. Just because Fleming didn't do it, doesn't make it wrong. Particularly when it's not even something he was capable of.

You're clearly struggling to comprehend a reasonable point here - that QoS functions as a coda to CR. It's a follow on film - literally a new film - of course it is, but it absolutely has the narrative qualities of a coda. Just as Godfather II merely extends Michael's internal conflict already stated at the end of the first film. Anybody who knows writing (and, since script and story analysis is my profession, I'm comfortable asserting as such) can divine these aspects - it's in no way contentious to posit QoS as a film which is as much epilogue as it is sequel.

Certainly it' is part of 'the reality' and stating otherwise when people have noticed it is personal opinion run amok.

Writing is always about a choice of focus. What part of events to look at. After 20 films focussing on narrative - on the reveals and double-crosses - and action - both literal and figurative, such as the use of so many Bond girls - these two draw on some of the qualities of drama. For a change.

To miss that that happened in CR - in direct defiance of Fleming, frankly - before QoS went that way is to miss a major reason for the last two films' critical success. Going beyond the books and delving deeper is no kind of crime.

Well, I disagree. For me CR it's pretty faithful to the novel, as I said earlier, of course the movie updated the plot, but it's still very close to the depiction of Bond's personality in the book, unlike QOS. It isn't just Bond's "motivations", it is 007's behaviour what is changed in Bond 22.

You seem to be ignoring the points that have been made about the ways in which CR the film is clearly different from the book - not least in its drawing of the 007 character. It's only the same emotional writing as the book if you didn't understand the film and instead sat in the audience ticking off narrative checkpoints.

Edited by sorking, 22 August 2009 - 02:25 PM.

[The Shark]

Let's get this straight: Fleming ain't God.

Just because it was done a certain way in the novels - and you seem to be completely avoiding the flaws about credible human psychology and audience acceptance - doesn't mean it's the best and only way to do something. Given Flemings shortcomings as a dramatist of the human condition - he was a thriller writer first and most - and the new films' focus on telling a more rounded human story, how hard is it to understand that fluctuations are bound to occur? And be for the good of the project.

If you want the 'Keep churning them out, keep them shallow' 007, you've got plenty of films to choose from that do that.

I disagree completely here.

One of Fleming's main driving talents was his characterisation, his ability to create living, palpable characters, with their own arcs and urges, often larger than life, but still able to conceivably function within the world we live(ed) in.
I'd agree that dialogue wasn't Fleming's best ability, but he excelled at the down-time between the speech, often internal monologues in Bond's head, observations, neuroses, epiphanies etc... That's what made his writing so fascinating. Along with his mastery of the English languish, and fluid almost acrobatic use of prose to describe events, objects and characters.

He's a very underrated writer in literary circles, and many often dismiss his work as 2 dimensional pulp, and nothing more. What Fleming did was take the style of 40s pulp adventures and turn into an art form, and combine with the form and function of a dramatic thriller. Something that hasn't been rivalled since. And one of the reasons why it took so long to be adapted for film, in a decade time when films based onbooks where practically being churned out every second.

Still, he never went too far with character, in order to avoid succumbing to sappy melodrama and pop psychology, something Haggis and co have been dwelling on with their recent scripts. Almost as if they've tried to reach too far and have fallen, when it comes to character and relationships. Fleming rarely did that, because he set out perimeters for how far he'd in go in terms of those aspects. And perhaps he was also a better judge of himself and his own work, than the current writers are of theirs.

I find Fleming's works anything but shallow.

Let's get this straight: Fleming ain't God.

In my opinion when it comes to the world of Bond and everything he stands for he is, and that's what we're discussing.

Yes, his reason was that he doesn't really do character depth. Fleming couldn't have written three days of credible character evolution if his life depended on it. Just because Fleming didn't do it, doesn't make it wrong. Particularly when it's not even something he was capable of.

We that's pure opinion isn't it. Personally I find his work full of it, even it's almost entirely about Bond, considering his works are completely Bond-centric with a few exceptions here and there - MR, FRWL, TSWLM.

In my option they haven't gone beyond the books and delved deeper, they missed the point of the books and entirely and drilled somewhere to the left, next to Harry Palmer and Bourne.

Though don't get me wrong, I still love Craig's Bond, most of the supporting performances, and think CR's a very good Bond film. However there's still a lot of room for improvement in terms of writing.

Edited by The Shark, 22 August 2009 - 03:24 PM.

[blueman]

Still, he never went too far with character, in order to avoid succumbing to sappy melodrama and pop psychology...

Wow, completely disagree, Fleming was the king of sappy pop pyscho-analyzing his characters, does it with the girls, with the henchmen, with M, with Bond, with everybody practically. But it's what elevated his thrillers IMO, if that's not too weird of a thing to say.

[The Shark]

Still, he never went too far with character, in order to avoid succumbing to sappy melodrama and pop psychology...

Wow, completely disagree, Fleming was the king of sappy pop pyscho-analyzing his characters, does it with the girls, with the henchmen, with M, with Bond, with everybody practically. But it's what elevated his thrillers IMO, if that's not too weird of a thing to say.

Hardly sappy at all. Most of it was sensualist, and fantastical - in other words pealing to every males secret misogynistic fantasy. The part of us we quell.

Different from "You're so blinded by inconsolable rage that I can't TRUST you" crap, at least his work wasn't self important or portentous.

[JimmyBond]

If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.

However, his point stands still.