Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

How would you direct Quantum of Solace? What would you change?


187 replies to this topic

#151 Bondesque

Bondesque

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 428 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 03:41 AM

Although it was a good film, QOS could have been so much more. It needed to slow down and let the story unfold naturally and fully. Another 30 minutes would suffice. The interogation scene was too short and underutilized. Imaging Bond going medival on Mr. White to the extent that M. has the other Agent pull him off, but then he makes his play to free Mr. White.

Everything seemed rushed in order to prove that the Director could handle an action film.

Most of all Bond should be character/plot driven rhather than action driven. Its a fine wine not a shot of Red Bull and vodka.

#152 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 24 December 2009 - 04:14 AM

I think I see what you mean, though. It doesn't hit me as being as obvious as NBN -> FRWL. When I see the latter anymore, I frequently find myself thinking, "Wow. They really didn't think of that first."

Again, I seriously remember reading somewhere that Paul Dehn was inspired by that first tracking-shot sequence in Touch of Evil for the PTS of Goldfinger; I'm not hallucinating this, am I? B)

#153 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 24 December 2009 - 04:36 AM

I think I see what you mean, though. It doesn't hit me as being as obvious as NBN -> FRWL. When I see the latter anymore, I frequently find myself thinking, "Wow. They really didn't think of that first."

Again, I seriously remember reading somewhere that Paul Dehn was inspired by that first tracking-shot sequence in Touch of Evil for the PTS of Goldfinger; I'm not hallucinating this, am I? :tdown:


Yes. Give up the weed Blofeld. B)

#154 Jose

Jose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1020 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 December 2009 - 11:25 PM

The interogation scene was too short and underutilized. Imaging Bond going medival on Mr. White to the extent that M. has the other Agent pull him off, but then he makes his play to free Mr. White.

I remember reading a review of some sort before QoS was released. It said that during the interrogation scene, White taunted Bond by talking about Vesper or something, at which M and the others left the room. At that point, Bond punches White really hard. I was really expecting to see that. I guess if I really had to tweak QoS, that would be the only thing. Maybe the original ending at Haines' estate. But definitely the interrogation scene punch.

#155 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 28 December 2009 - 05:41 AM

Less CG in the plane crash/skydiving scenes. Maybe tweak the fall to be more "believable" (i.e. 'chute opens earlier).

I was also thinking the boat fight could be replaced with a more stealth-oriented underwater segment, a la Thunderball or LTK. Doing so would not only do away with the boat flip confusion/hysteria, but would be truer to Forster's "elemental" approach.

Or I would leave it all as is. Whatever. B)

#156 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 05:44 AM

I remember reading a review of some sort before QoS was released. It said that during the interrogation scene, White taunted Bond by talking about Vesper or something, at which M and the others left the room. At that point, Bond punches White really hard. I was really expecting to see that. I guess if I really had to tweak QoS, that would be the only thing. Maybe the original ending at Haines' estate. But definitely the interrogation scene punch.

That's from the IMDb "preview" review, which was proven to be blatantly false months ago; you can't change something that never was.

No way, Jose. B)

#157 Jose

Jose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1020 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 06:12 AM

That's from the IMDb "preview" review, which was proven to be blatantly false months ago; you can't change something that never was.

Aw, damn. :tdown: I suppose I would add that, or expand the interrogation scene a bit to include that.

No way, Jose. B)

It's actually been years since anyone has said that to me.

#158 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 06:40 AM

That's from the IMDb "preview" review, which was proven to be blatantly false months ago; you can't change something that never was.

Aw, damn. :tdown: I suppose I would add that, or expand the interrogation scene a bit to include that.

I dunno; I kinda like it the way it is now.

No way, Jose. B)

It's actually been years since anyone has said that to me.

Well, glad I could help you relive the past, then... :tdown:

#159 Angel of Death

Angel of Death

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 9 posts

Posted 04 January 2010 - 08:19 AM

wouldn't change a thing like the back cover of the dvd says 'the perfect bond movie'.

#160 supernova

supernova

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 209 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 06:13 PM

Change the Director and man in charge of the action shots. Change all the quick edit shots. Take out most of the CGI and resort to regular stunts. Cut out the aerial scene. Make the movie longer with more narrative. PUT CAMILLE IN DIFFERENT CLOTHES -- I mean really the orange top was okay -- but who made the decision to match it with such a repulsive skirt? A gorgeous girl who the costume department tried to make as frumpy as possible.

#161 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:42 PM

One major problem with the film is that IT DOES NOT WORK when viewed immediately after watching CASINO ROYALE. There's an issue with the timeline that never gets resolved (perhaps because Haggis went on strike and the rest of the team couldn't figure out how to address the timeline problems so they just ignored it).

I haven't seen QOS in a while, so I may be off a bit on my facts here, but didn't Mathis receive a luxury villa in Italy by the British government for all the hell they put him through (and for being put in jail?)? How could that have happened if QOS picks up w/in one hour after CASINO ROYALE? How did he go from jail cell to luxury Italian villa in a matter of a day, or two, at most?

M is talking to Bond at the end of CASINO ROYALE from London (Bond is in Italy) when Bond picks up the location of Mr.White in Italy and, presumably, goes after Mr. White immediately. He shoots Mr.White in the knee, puts him in the trunk, and an hour or two later, after dodging bad guys in a car chase, delivers Mr.White to M from Lake Como, Italy, to Siena, Italy. The trek can't take THAT long, yet M is in Siena before Bond gets there.

If you accept that QOS starts one hour after Casino Royale, then you also accept that Bond was able to completely get over Vesper's death just two or three days before and was able to shag Agent Fields in Bolivia rather quickly.

One reviewer wrote (I think it was Harry Knowles over at Aintitcool.com) that QOS was best viewed as the second half of Casino Royale, and should be watched as a double-bill. Yeah, that could kind of make sense if the film didn't tie itself so explicitly to a certain timeline.



Actually, it doesn't. You are assuming CR depicts Bond's reconvalescence as taking a mere few days. What if it was months? The time spend in the private hospital could have been considerably longer. Bond informs SIS on his suspections about Mathis right after coming back to senses and SIS nicks him. The time Mathis spent in detention can be quite long. And apart from that, if he really was tortured a mere five minutes would already be most inconvenient, as Bond can attest to.

#162 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 January 2010 - 02:04 PM

Plus there is the matter that at the beginning of his career or not, someone who was madly in love with Vesper or not, he is still James Bond, so him sleeping with Fields is hardly shocking nor does it seem out of character.

#163 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 January 2010 - 04:29 PM

Actually, it doesn't. You are assuming CR depicts Bond's reconvalescence as taking a mere few days. What if it was months?


Actually, I factored in a month. It could have been two months, but the timeline still would not hold up very well because we KNOW that Bond puts Mr.White in the trunk of his car and takes off for Siena and delivers him to M an hour (and I'll even be generous and throw in an extra hour) after the events of CASINO ROYALE. It doesn't seem plausible that she left London and flew into Rome and somehow managed to get a ride into Siena before Bond who was already in the country and only about 2 hours south of Lake Como.


Oh, but it holds perfectly fine, no problem with it! Bond's conversation with M may be anything up to three days from the last line of the film. If you can swallow Bond laying hands on an SIS-equipped Aston Martin in Venice and a sniper rifle and staking out White's place in time to meet him arriving there, why do you have a problem with M being in place in Siena after the operation? I surely don't.






As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.



Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? B)

#164 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 04:36 PM

One reviewer wrote (I think it was Harry Knowles over at Aintitcool.com) that QOS was best viewed as the second half of Casino Royale, and should be watched as a double-bill.


For me, a much larger strike against the double bill idea is that CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE are simply too different from a stylistic point of view. On paper, QUANTUM continues the story of CASINO, but the look and feel of Forster's film just doesn't chime with Campbell's, making it hard to take them as a single entity. CASINO and QUANTUM seem to take place in two utterly distinct universes.

#165 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 January 2010 - 06:00 PM

For me, a much larger strike against the double bill idea is that CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE are simply too different from a stylistic point of view. On paper, QUANTUM continues the story of CASINO, but the look and feel of Forster's film just doesn't chime with Campbell's, making it hard to take them as a single entity. CASINO and QUANTUM seem to take place in two utterly distinct universes.



I think you have a point there, although I would argue that both CR and QOS are two sides of the same medal. QOS is working hard to play a lot of CR's themes, sometimes inversely, sometimes mixed up, sometimes plainly. But what QOS deliberately avoided is being a 'CR Part II', a '00-Agent Strikes Back' or anything of the like. For the first outright sequel of the series it's practically fighting with claws and teeth for its own turf. I think with such aspirations QOS ultimately had to turn out in a distinctively different manner.

Still, aside from this, I really have little difficulty watching both CR and QOS in one single session. Actually, I think it would be harder for me watching OHMSS and DF as the latter disappointed me far more than QOS ever could have done.

#166 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 09:06 PM

As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.

Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? B)

Then if he must have sex, eliminate Fields from the film (she's rather extraneous anyway, no matter how much the film wants to pretend she's not), develop his relationship with Camille, and then have the sex mean something in terms of his character arc.

#167 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 09:20 PM

But what QOS deliberately avoided is being a 'CR Part II', a '00-Agent Strikes Back' or anything of the like. For the first outright sequel of the series it's practically fighting with claws and teeth for its own turf. I think with such aspirations QOS ultimately had to turn out in a distinctively different manner.


I don't see why Eon felt the need to deliberately avoid "CR PART II". The most widely-praised mainstream action movie of the past decade, alongside CASINO ROYALE, is probably THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, yet Greengrass stuck to the look and feel established in IDENTITY, retaining the same cinematographer and even the same closing credits song. Greengrass' "shakycam" was a notable innovation, of course, but otherwise his SUPREMACY is very much cut from the same cloth as IDENTITY - and rightly so. Yet a good film is a good film, so SUPREMACY was rightly praised and put Greengrass on the map. But Greengrass achieved all this without having to make a great big song and dance of fighting with claws and teeth for his own turf.

Indeed, much of Forster's work on QUANTUM strikes me as empty stylistics for the sake of it. He's practically shouting: "Look at me! I'm the director! See how unique and different this Bond film is, and how it turns its back on CASINO ROYALE!" But, obviously, you can't have it both ways - QUANTUM was, as you say, the first outright sequel of the series, and was publicised as such. But the film sadly seems to be pulling in two different directions, as though Forster was on the one hand making CASINO 2 and on the other hand almost desperate to avoid being seen making a dreaded sequel.

#168 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 09:36 PM

But what QOS deliberately avoided is being a 'CR Part II', a '00-Agent Strikes Back' or anything of the like. For the first outright sequel of the series it's practically fighting with claws and teeth for its own turf. I think with such aspirations QOS ultimately had to turn out in a distinctively different manner.


I don't see why Eon felt the need to deliberately avoid "CR PART II". The most widely-praised mainstream action movie of the past decade, alongside CASINO ROYALE, is probably THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, yet Greengrass stuck to the look and feel established in IDENTITY, retaining the same cinematographer and even the same closing credits song. Greengrass' "shakycam" was a notable innovation, of course, but otherwise his SUPREMACY is very much cut from the same cloth as IDENTITY - and rightly so. Yet a good film is a good film, so SUPREMACY was rightly praised and put Greengrass on the map. But Greengrass achieved all this without having to make a great big song and dance of fighting with claws and teeth for his own turf.

Indeed, much of Forster's work on QUANTUM strikes me as empty stylistics for the sake of it. He's practically shouting: "Look at me! I'm the director! See how unique and different this Bond film is, and how it turns its back on CASINO ROYALE!" But, obviously, you can't have it both ways - QUANTUM was, as you say, the first outright sequel of the series, and was publicised as such. But the film sadly seems to be pulling in two different directions, as though Forster was on the one hand making CASINO 2 and on the other hand almost desperate to avoid being seen making a dreaded sequel.

QFT.

#169 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 10:34 PM

WTY.

Spoiler


B)

#170 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:08 PM

As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.

Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? B)

Then if he must have sex, eliminate Fields from the film (she's rather extraneous anyway, no matter how much the film wants to pretend she's not), develop his relationship with Camille, and then have the sex mean something in terms of his character arc.


I disagree. While Arterton obviously isn't much of an actress, I found her more interesting, charming, and engaging than Camille ever was. I would have preferred it if Field's character was completely re-written and replaced Camille's function within the story, however drastic that seems.

Or at least re-cast Camille.

#171 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 18 January 2010 - 12:21 AM

As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.

Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? :tdown:

Then if he must have sex, eliminate Fields from the film (she's rather extraneous anyway, no matter how much the film wants to pretend she's not), develop his relationship with Camille, and then have the sex mean something in terms of his character arc.


I disagree. While Arterton obviously isn't much of an actress, I found her more interesting, charming, and engaging than Camille ever was. I would have preferred it if Field's character was completely re-written and replaced Camille's function within the story, however drastic that seems.

Or at least re-cast Camille.

While I'm sure there are those who will disagree, I don't think it was a mistake at all to have a one night stand with Fields. If there's anything I would change, it would be the traditional smooth Bondian seduction. He needed to get off, nothing more, and it could have done to have felt a little more raw. It's understandable for Bond to want to get his rocks off with a random girl. It's a form of escape from the emotional baggage from Vesper. How is it odd that he would turn off his heart and just want to B) someone? Makes total sense to me in his situation, whether it makes for a fun movie or not.

#172 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 18 January 2010 - 02:07 AM

As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.

Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? :tdown:

Then if he must have sex, eliminate Fields from the film (she's rather extraneous anyway, no matter how much the film wants to pretend she's not), develop his relationship with Camille, and then have the sex mean something in terms of his character arc.


I disagree. While Arterton obviously isn't much of an actress, I found her more interesting, charming, and engaging than Camille ever was. I would have preferred it if Field's character was completely re-written and replaced Camille's function within the story, however drastic that seems.

Or at least re-cast Camille.

While I'm sure there are those who will disagree, I don't think it was a mistake at all to have a one night stand with Fields. If there's anything I would change, it would be the traditional smooth Bondian seduction. He needed to get off, nothing more, and it could have done to have felt a little more raw. It's understandable for Bond to want to get his rocks off with a random girl. It's a form of escape from the emotional baggage from Vesper. How is it odd that he would turn off his heart and just want to B) someone? Makes total sense to me in his situation, whether it makes for a fun movie or not.


Agreed. Personally I would have liked to have seen Craig show his rougher side with Fields, sort of like Dekard's seduction of Rachael.

The Fields segment seems to shy away from exploiting Bond's festering attitude towards women, particularly after Vesper's death, which was supposed to change Bond into the womanising, misogynist, woman-slapping, if mostly chivalrous character he was intended to be.

Hopefully Craig gets a chance to develop that side of Fleming's character we haven't seen since 1974, in future films.

#173 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 18 January 2010 - 02:10 AM

Hopefully Craig gets a chance to develop that side of Fleming's character we haven't seen since 1974, in future films.

1974? At the very least, he was beating the crap out of women back in 1989...

#174 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 18 January 2010 - 02:12 AM

While I'm sure there are those who will disagree, I don't think it was a mistake at all to have a one night stand with Fields.

In theory, no. In execution, it doesn't really work though (and given that she's more or less extraneous as presented, well...). If Fields was to be kept, their encounter should have been handled with a bit of a roughness. It was too... well, elegant and nice. It should have been more matter-of-fact, no strings attached. It would have also been a bonus character moment if Craig had been rather cold to Fields after the act itself, having selfishly gotten what he needed and having no interest in anything more.

#175 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:58 AM

While I'm sure there are those who will disagree, I don't think it was a mistake at all to have a one night stand with Fields.

In theory, no. In execution, it doesn't really work though (and given that she's more or less extraneous as presented, well...). If Fields was to be kept, their encounter should have been handled with a bit of a roughness. It was too... well, elegant and nice. It should have been more matter-of-fact, no strings attached. It would have also been a bonus character moment if Craig had been rather cold to Fields after the act itself, having selfishly gotten what he needed and having no interest in anything more.

That is [a much more eloquent way of putting] what I meant to say. Precisely.

The Fields segment seems to shy away from exploiting Bond's festering attitude towards women, particularly after Vesper's death, which was supposed to change Bond into the womanising, misogynist, woman-slapping, if mostly chivalrous character he was intended to be.

Indeed.

#176 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:48 AM

As for Safari Suit's assertion that Bond sleeping with Fields was not out of character...well, I totally disagree. If the man can turn it on and off that easily, what exactly is the point of THIS MOVIE? He's supposed to be getting revenge on the organization that blackmailed the love of his life (up to this point) and pushed her into suicide. Did she mean so little to him that he can already be screwing another broad when the body isn't even cold yet? She's barely been dead 72 hours and he's already shagging another bird, and it wasn't a necessary shag; he didn't have to have sexy times with Agent Fields in order to get information, gain trust, or switch loyalties like Bond has done in YOLT, GF, or MR. His romance explosion with Fields was totally callous and out-of-character for the character that EON was trying to establish with this actor in this series of films.

Oh, I shiver to think of what QOS's critics would have made of it had Bond not had sex with at least one woman in that film. Shame that Forster didn't give that frontline, you could have had such a lovely time, isn't it? B)

Then if he must have sex, eliminate Fields from the film (she's rather extraneous anyway, no matter how much the film wants to pretend she's not), develop his relationship with Camille, and then have the sex mean something in terms of his character arc.


This is the by far more valid point in my opinion. Fields actually is superflous in my reading of the film. But translating the sex theme to Camille would mean to sacrifice her distinctive meaning in the film. Camille is special because she is related to Bond by something different then sex and also something different than love.

Camille might be able to love Bond, now that she is rid of her nightmare Medrano (speaking of the last scene together with Bond in the car here). But she also realises Bond isn't able to love her. She ultimately can do nothing for him. Introducing sex into this relationship would completely change it, and not in a way favourable for the plot or subtext.

#177 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 January 2010 - 08:16 AM

But what QOS deliberately avoided is being a 'CR Part II', a '00-Agent Strikes Back' or anything of the like. For the first outright sequel of the series it's practically fighting with claws and teeth for its own turf. I think with such aspirations QOS ultimately had to turn out in a distinctively different manner.


I don't see why Eon felt the need to deliberately avoid "CR PART II". The most widely-praised mainstream action movie of the past decade, alongside CASINO ROYALE, is probably THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, yet Greengrass stuck to the look and feel established in IDENTITY, retaining the same cinematographer and even the same closing credits song. Greengrass' "shakycam" was a notable innovation, of course, but otherwise his SUPREMACY is very much cut from the same cloth as IDENTITY - and rightly so. Yet a good film is a good film, so SUPREMACY was rightly praised and put Greengrass on the map. But Greengrass achieved all this without having to make a great big song and dance of fighting with claws and teeth for his own turf.

Indeed, much of Forster's work on QUANTUM strikes me as empty stylistics for the sake of it. He's practically shouting: "Look at me! I'm the director! See how unique and different this Bond film is, and how it turns its back on CASINO ROYALE!" But, obviously, you can't have it both ways - QUANTUM was, as you say, the first outright sequel of the series, and was publicised as such. But the film sadly seems to be pulling in two different directions, as though Forster was on the one hand making CASINO 2 and on the other hand almost desperate to avoid being seen making a dreaded sequel.


To me QOS would have been a serious let down if they hadn't tried to go a different route with it. Ask yourself, would you really have wanted a film in the exactly same fashion, the same stylistic approach? Ok, now that you've discovered QOS is such a disappointment for you, you of course answer 'yes'. But before your disappointment has set in? I bet you also wanted to see something else, some developement or distinctive mark for the follow up. At least I know I wanted it that way.

But even if you were honestly of the opinion you could be perfectly content with CR Part II (making the whole affair a kind of giant LOTR-Bond extravaganza), what would you have wanted to do if you were in the director's seat? For the first outright sequel of EON's Bond, history's longest running and most successful series of films? Would you have wanted to be the guy who just delivered 'CR Reloaded'?
(Always presuming you are not Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Paul Greengrass or some other director/demi-god in reality; if you are I beg your pardon! B) )

My point here is obviously that every director would have tried for more than just a bloody brainless ordinary sequel like the industry produces them in tons each year. This may have been the most important film of the entire series since the FRWL/GF break through. I'm actually still awed and astonished how boldly EON avoided the playing-it-safe route. For one thing is certain IMO, however far Forester went with QOS, every single inch of it has been planned and approved by EON first.

#178 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:56 PM

Well, such a thing would certainly have chimed somewhat with Fleming's Bond. (In DR. NO, Honey asks 007 whether he's ever slept with a call girl, and he replies that it's not something he's done in a long time.)

I agree, though, that: "It seems as if Strawberry Fields was included in the script solely to serve as a sperm receptacle for Bond, because no Bond film dare show Bond not getting "his rocks off" at least once. It was gutsy and bold for Bond to have a leading lady he didn't sleep with, but somewhat of a cop-out that EON felt the need to go ahead and include at least one disposable broad anyway." Fields' use a spunkbucket for 007 does rather undercut the whole "point" of his not sleeping with Camille.

But then, I'm one of only a handful of Bond fans for whom QUANTUM OF SOLACE is actually overlong, as opposed to a film that's woefully short. I think it would have worked much better at 90 minutes or so, with much less action (the boring boat chase and silly dogfight/freefall being dropped). At an hour and a half, QUANTUM could truly have been the lean, mean bullet of a film its supporters claim it to be (since when is 106 minutes a lean running time?).

But, just as Bond MUST be seen getting his rocks off, a Bond film MUST have "audience-pleasing" action sequences that don't serve the story.

#179 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 January 2010 - 05:14 PM

Well, such a thing would certainly have chimed somewhat with Fleming's Bond. (In DR. NO, Honey asks 007 whether he's ever slept with a call girl, and he replies that it's not something he's done in a long time.)

I agree, though, that: "It seems as if Strawberry Fields was included in the script solely to serve as a sperm receptacle for Bond, because no Bond film dare show Bond not getting "his rocks off" at least once. It was gutsy and bold for Bond to have a leading lady he didn't sleep with, but somewhat of a cop-out that EON felt the need to go ahead and include at least one disposable broad anyway." Fields' use a spunkbucket for 007 does rather undercut the whole "point" of his not sleeping with Camille.

But then, I'm one of only a handful of Bond fans for whom QUANTUM OF SOLACE is actually overlong, as opposed to a film that's woefully short. I think it would have worked much better at 90 minutes or so, with much less action (the boring boat chase and silly dogfight/freefall being dropped). At an hour and a half, QUANTUM could truly have been the lean, mean bullet of a film its supporters claim it to be (since when is 106 minutes a lean running time?).

But, just as Bond MUST be seen getting his rocks off, a Bond film MUST have "audience-pleasing" action sequences that don't serve the story.


I have to say that, after some water now went under the bridge, I actually share this sentiment, too. QOS might indeed profit from cutting the airplane part, Fields character and some of the motorboat chase. The framework of the plot doesn't really call for them, doesn't need neither the second girl for the 'sacrifice death' (that's already covered with Mathis) nor the after all unconvincing air battle (especially as it's not clear what Bond hoped to find out by flying over a patch of landscape that didn't offer any chance for him landing the plane).

#180 ChristopherZ22

ChristopherZ22

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 103 posts
  • Location:Sherman Oaks, California

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:43 PM

The original poster came up with a good question.

Here is a list of things I would change.

1. I would make the villain interesting.

2. I would make the story interesting, especially the villain's scheme.

3. I would have fun locations and great cinematography.

4. I would direct the action scenes in a way that would allow the viewer to see what is happening.

5. I would add Q and some gadgets.

6. A better theme song.

7. I would give Olga a more interesting name and make her Bond's new love interest.

8. I would try and top Casino Royale, and develop some confidence that it could be done.

9. I would add a fun henchman/henchwoman in the grand tradition of Red Grant, Jaws, or Zenia Onatopp.

10. Last but not least, I would make a f___ing Bond movie.