902 replies to this topic

[Trident]

'Block' is a very useful little tool. If you don't want to see someone's posts you just block them and they don't appear. I expect it has saved me from responding unnecessarily to a few posts that would only have ended up in arguments.

Now you tell me!

Right... how do you do it?!

Any advice would be much appreciated... (!)

Visit the suspect's dossier, klick the options menue on the left; then you see the option 'ignore user'; klick that and it's done. Posts are shown as 'you've chosen to ignore this user'. It's very useful and you can even single out particular posts you do want to read in spite of your initial decision.

Actually, I suspect most gentlemen's clubs are run this way, with all parties present at the meals, the card room or the library, yet none taking notice of the other(s).

[stromberg]

'Block' is a very useful little tool. If you don't want to see someone's posts you just block them and they don't appear. I expect it has saved me from responding unnecessarily to a few posts that would only have ended up in arguments.

Now you tell me!

Right... how do you do it?!

Any advice would be much appreciated... (!)

Never tried this myself, even though I'm tempted to, several dozen times a day (alas, it's not recommended for mods ). Go to the respective member's profile, click on 'Options' on the left, upon which a menu should appear, with the top point 'Ignore user'. Click on it. As I said, I've never tried this, so I can't tell you what happens next, but if you follow the yellow brick road...

Edit: Ah, I see Trident has already explained what exactly happens, while I was still checking it out and typing.

[Odd Jobbies]

Mr White has, however, become something of an asset to the Bond films - is there anyone here who doesn't like Jesper Christensen's Mr. White? I certainly don't want him to be the evil chimp at the top of the tree, but I'd love to see him swing round again.

Absolutely. I’d like him to feature in all of the Craig films in some fashion.

I don’t think Quantum has an individual person in charge. I think it’s basically a consensus deal, with Mr. White being a very respected member. He does represent Quantum quite a bit on high level tasks. Introducing Le Chiffre to Obanno, shooting Le Chiffre and his convoy, etc. He seems to have the smarts and calm that others lack, too. Staying put while other members panicked at the Tosca interruption, and escaping MI6 custody, for example.

I have to disagree - the thought of Quantum without a puppet-master would be a huge anti-climax.

IMO this kind of drama needs it's antagonist personified, or it ends in a whimper, instead of a bang (thematically speaking).

Such an ending is perhaps deeper and truer (people don't need to be told to do bad things - they often need to be told not to), but it would be incredibly dull in the context of Bond.

Perhaps the idea of an absolutely democratic evil could work in the hands of a Kubrick, but it's a tall order, even for Mendes, and one that i don't think Eon need to stretch to

Are there any historical/current examples of a 'consensus of evil' without a leader in the real world?

I can't think of any in which there hasn't been a figure at the root pushing the agenda; Hitler, Mao, Starlin, Nixon, Thatcher, Jim Jones....

Perhaps the leader could be a creation of this equilateral group - a work of fiction to act as a smoke screen and to scare the competition, like The Wizard of OZ, or Dr No's dragon, or Osama Bin Laden!

When Bond finally pulls back the curtain he finds.... a consensus of corporate presidents! Hmmm.... I'm starting to like your idea now!

More likely he'll find Kevin Spacey.


EDIT: Stromberg, a twilight Zone moment here, as i was writing about the Wizard of Oz in this post, you posted your 'yellow brick road' reference! This can mean only one thing... I spend far too much time on CBN and need to get out more.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 08 January 2010 - 11:49 AM.

[Trident]

Mr White has, however, become something of an asset to the Bond films - is there anyone here who doesn't like Jesper Christensen's Mr. White? I certainly don't want him to be the evil chimp at the top of the tree, but I'd love to see him swing round again.

Absolutely. I’d like him to feature in all of the Craig films in some fashion.

I don’t think Quantum has an individual person in charge. I think it’s basically a consensus deal, with Mr. White being a very respected member. He does represent Quantum quite a bit on high level tasks. Introducing Le Chiffre to Obanno, shooting Le Chiffre and his convoy, etc. He seems to have the smarts and calm that others lack, too. Staying put while other members panicked at the Tosca interruption, and escaping MI6 custody, for example.

I have to disagree - the thought of Quantum without a puppet-master would be a huge anti-climax.

IMO this kind of drama needs it's antagonist personified, or it ends in a whimper, instead of a bang (thematically speaking).

Such an ending is perhaps deeper and truer (people don't need to be told to do bad things - they often need to be told not to), but it would be incredibly dull in the context of Bond.

Perhaps the idea of an absolutely democratic evil could work in the hands of a Kubrick, but it's a tall order, even for Mendes, and one that i don't think Eon need to stretch to

Are there any historical/current examples of a 'consensus of evil' in the real world?

I can't think of any in which their hasn't been a figure at the root pushing the agenda; Hitler, Mao, Starlin, Nixon, Thatcher, Jim Jones....

Perhaps the leader could be a creation of the equilateral group - work of fiction to act as a smoke screen and to scare the competition, like The Wizard of OZ, or Dr No's dragon, or Osama Bin Laden!

When Bond finally pulls back the curtain he finds.... a consensus of corporate presidents! Hmmm.... I'm starting to like your idea now!

More likely he'll find Kevin Spacey.


EDIT: Stromberg, a twilight Zone moment here, as i was writing about the Wizard of Oz in this post, you posted your 'yellow brick road' reference! This can mean only one thing... I spend far too much time on CBN and need to get out more.

I think any revelation regarding Quantum's head would come as an anticlimax now. I mean, what would really shock the audience, scare them? Dench's M? Certainly not, not after the idea lurked through the interweb for some time now. The Queen? Well, she would not be terribly amused, would she?

The only real dramatic surprise at the Quantum-CEO desk I can think of would be Vesper. And that's not very likely, is it?

[Pierce - Daniel]

Am I the only one who things the whole Mendes thing isn't going to work out? He's either going to pull out or something or the deal won't close leading, the June start won't happen. And we'll still be filming at the end of the year with another director?

[Quantumofsolace007]

Am I the only one who things the whole Mendes thing isn't going to work out? He's either going to pull out or something or the deal won't close leading, the June start won't happen. And we'll still be filming at the end of the year with another director?

i'm also fearing Mendes will become another Roger Mitchell.


Shame

I kuinda liked a june start date and the implications that would mean

[HildebrandRarity]

So, Haggis is out, then?

Er...I think that Haggis was out back when they, you know, gave the job to Peter Morgan. ...

Um...I think the topic is about directing, not writing. Haggis was a FanBoi rumour for the movie which ultimately became Quantum Of Solace.

...but I suppose the North American out-stayed his Eon Welcome when he said (paraphrasing) "Er...Um...I really don't know what Quantum Of Solace means..."

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Mr White has, however, become something of an asset to the Bond films - is there anyone here who doesn't like Jesper Christensen's Mr. White? I certainly don't want him to be the evil chimp at the top of the tree, but I'd love to see him swing round again.

Absolutely. I’d like him to feature in all of the Craig films in some fashion.

I don’t think Quantum has an individual person in charge. I think it’s basically a consensus deal, with Mr. White being a very respected member. He does represent Quantum quite a bit on high level tasks. Introducing Le Chiffre to Obanno, shooting Le Chiffre and his convoy, etc. He seems to have the smarts and calm that others lack, too. Staying put while other members panicked at the Tosca interruption, and escaping MI6 custody, for example.

I too would love to see White return, and I like your idea of him featuring in all of Craig's movies. Perhaps he could be seen checking his wine bottle every now and again

Seriously though, I would like to see the situation regarding White continued in Bond 23. I don't think seeing him alive and well at the opera and then leaving that unresolved is satisfactory. We need more White!

[sharpshooter]

I have to disagree - the thought of Quantum without a puppet-master would be a huge anti-climax.

I don’t think so. I think the big boss thing is all a bit too predictable. Have Quantum be something else. It’s own thing.

I think any revelation regarding Quantum's head would come as an anticlimax now. I mean, what would really shock the audience, scare them? Dench's M? Certainly not, not after the idea lurked through the interweb for some time now. The Queen? Well, she would not be terribly amused, would she?

Agreed.

[MattofSteel]

Perhaps the shock could be the organization's reach as opposed to identity? Find out a prominent world leader is a secret member, someone of greater importance than even Guy Haines - 'special advisor' to the Prime Minister.

Who knows where they'll go. I'd love it even if we ended up in an arctic submarine base's circular conference room table at the end of Bond 23.

[sharpshooter]

Perhaps the shock could be the organization's reach as opposed to identity? Find out a prominent world leader is a secret member, someone of greater importance than even Guy Haines - 'special advisor' to the Prime Minister.

Exactly. I think the best thing about such a concept is the organization is not personified. It’s a mysterious sleeper cell network that stretches across the globe. They are very difficult to dismantle and put a finger on because they are nebulous. It’s like, how long is a piece of string?

[Lazenby]

i'm also fearing Mendes will become another Roger Mitchell.


Shame

I kuinda liked a june start date and the implications that would mean
[/quote]


I also share that same fear that Mendes will recues himself because of scheduling or continuing legal issues. Hope EON has another name in mind if this happens. Bigelow, Noyce, Baird.

[jaguar007]

My dream is to see Craig in a somewhat updated and faithful adaptation of YOLT. Have Bond go after Dr. Shatterhand who actually turns out to be Mr White.

I'd find the revelation of Quantum's leader to be very anticlimactic if it was White. A better idea would be an original character developed like Blofeld in the novels.

Except in a modern adaptation of YOLT the character to be reveled to be Dr. Shatterhand's true identity would have to be a villian the audience is already familiar with and Bond has tangled with before. That leaves Mr. White.

[Dr.Fell]

My dream is to see Craig in a somewhat updated and faithful adaptation of YOLT. Have Bond go after Dr. Shatterhand who actually turns out to be Mr White.

I'd find the revelation of Quantum's leader to be very anticlimactic if it was White. A better idea would be an original character developed like Blofeld in the novels.

Except in a modern adaptation of YOLT the character to be reveled to be Dr. Shatterhand's true identity would have to be a villian the audience is already familiar with and Bond has tangled with before. That leaves Mr. White.

I am saying we start off with a villian and develop him over the course of three films like Fleming did with Blofeld. Mr.White is a fine villian, a real shadow figure but the head of Quantum ? Nah.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Interesting to ponder what a Mendes Bond film would be like, but surprisingly I don't have a very strong reaction to this either way...

[Odd Jobbies]

I have to disagree - the thought of Quantum without a puppet-master would be a huge anti-climax.

I don’t think so. I think the big boss thing is all a bit too predictable. Have Quantum be something else. It’s own thing.

What exactly does that mean though. Point taken that 'big bosses' are old hat, but what do you replace that with - a bureaucracy, perhaps the NHS? Perhaps a 'super computer' like Superman 3... Maybe not.

Is it 2 villains instead of one, maybe Siamese twins?! Or 3 villains, or 4 - or a group? Isn't this just a watered down variation of the 'big boss'?

Without someone specific to search out and destroy is it still Bond? Is Rumplestiltskin still a Grimm story if it's a group of anonymous ugly dwarfs, instead of the one 'big bad'?

I'm not saying Bond is a Grimm fairytail, but it is a kind of modern equivalent - they both represent things we feel strongly about: Good & evil, innocence, sin, crime & punishment. They've both been very successful because their story structures portray these issues very directly - Bond is after all a latter day Knight in shinning armor when all's said and done.

I'm loving the new realism in Craig's movies - it tells us it's really happening. But i don't want realism to the extent that we lose the most crucial of motifs - the villain - leaving no illusion and reward at the end of the story. What's great about bond and Grimm is the non-realism of there being a personification of evil that we can defeat, because in real life most of the crappy things we deal with day to day have no single personification that we can behead to fix the problem. That fantasy is a major element of Bond that makes it Bond, IMO.

Bond's is certainly different from Grim in the consistent, complex character of Bond himself, who reflects the complexities of modern life unknown in the middle ages. But in terms of Story, they are still fairly similar. I'd rather see Morgan hang the modern complex trappings of his script on a back-to-basics fairytale - i think it was this approach in Goldeneye that rescued the franchise after it got bogged down in some tedious melodrama posing as depth in Dalton's films.

I'm not saying the narrative, or telling of the story should be old fashioned, just that some of the archetypes are crucial to Bond. I loved QoS' no nonsense approach to the stories telling, never sacrificing pace for clarity. With a polished script it wouldn't have had to make those minor sacrifices.

This time round i welcome the complexities of Quantum's conspiracy, but hang them on the traditional framework - give us the dramatic big reveal and make the big boss thoroughly bad; in my book greed is a more horrendous motivation than power, since power suggests insecurity, weakness and pity. That's what made Goldfinger so despicable - there was nothing to pity - he didn't want power/respect/affirmation, just a higher value for his gold.

I definitely don't mean to poo-poo this idea of there being no villain - it's an interesting approach. But we'd ceratinaly need a worthy alternative if we're losing the 'big boss' - something equally compelling and satisfyfing. It's all very well us complaining about the predictability of 'big bosses', but try sitting down and writing that. You can quickly find you've hit a brick wall when it comes to the climax.

Conspiracies are great fun in drama and i love the one Eon are currently cooking up with Quantum, but they have to resolve somewhere exciting. Take the X-Files - a great pot-boiling conspiracy, but how satisfying was the resolution? Didn't come up to scratch for most people. The old 'hive' / 'faceles consortium' deal never really delivers as well as a good old Blofeld.

IMO, it's not what they do, but how they do it. I don't see the 'big boss' as a defunct device, it simply hasn't been done well since, say, Goldfinger, or perhaps Brando's Don Corleone & Colonel Kurtz characters. I thought Paul McGuigan had a good stab at it with his unscrupulous 'Bosses', Freeman & Kingsley in Lucky number Slevin.

As much as it seems old hat-cliche right now, it just takes a great script, actor and director to give us a cracking version of the 'big boss' and suddenly it seems cutting edge again. With Morgan & Mendes that could indeed be the case.


Edit: Sorry about the ramble - still trying to get my head around the idea of Bond without a villain.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 08 January 2010 - 06:15 PM.

[Trident]

I have to disagree - the thought of Quantum without a puppet-master would be a huge anti-climax.

I don’t think so. I think the big boss thing is all a bit too predictable. Have Quantum be something else. It’s own thing.

What exactly does that mean though. Point taken that 'big bosses' are old hat, but what do you replace that with - a bureaucracy, perhaps the NHS? Perhaps a 'super computer' like Superman 3... Maybe not.

Is it 2 villains instead of one, maybe Siamese twins?! Or 3 villains, or 4 - or a group? Isn't this just a watered down variation of the 'big boss'?

Without someone specific to search out and destroy is it still Bond? Is Rumplestiltskin still a Grimm story if it's a group of anonymous ugly dwarfs, instead of the one 'big bad'?

I'm not saying Bond is a Grimm fairytail, but they are a kind of modern equivalent - they both represent things we feel strongly about (good & evil, innocence, sin, crime & punishment. They've both been very successful because their story structure portray these issues very directly. Bond's character is may well separate the Grimm's from Fleming as he reflects the complexities of modern life, but in terms of Story, they are still fairly similar - very successful. I'd rather see Morgan hang the complex trappings of his script on a back to basics fairytale - i think it was this approach that rescued the franchise after it got bogged down in melodrama posing as depth in Dalton's films.

I loved QoS' no nonsense approach to the stories telling, never sacrificing pace for clarity. With a polished script it wouldn't have had to make sacrifices. This time round i welcome the complexities of Quantum's conspiracy, but hang them on the traditional framework - give us the big reveal and make the big boss thoroughly bad (in my book greed is a horrendous motivation than power, since power suggests insecurity, weakness and pity. That's what made Goldfinger so despicable - there was nothing to pity - he didn't want power, just a higher value for his gold.

Don't mean to poo-poo your idea, Just playing devil's advocate - debating the problem might lead us to an interesting alternative. But we ceratinaly need an interesting alternative if we're losing the 'big boss' - something equally compelling and satisfyfing. It's all very well us complaining about the predictability of 'big bosses', but try sitting down and writing that. You can quickly find you've hit a brick wall when it comes to the climax.

Conspiracies are great fun in drama and i love the one Eon are currently cooking up with Quantum, but they have to resolve somewhere exciting. Take the X-Files - a great pot-boiling conspiracy, but how satisfying was the resolution? The old 'hive' / 'faceles consortium' deal never really delivers as well as a good old Blofeld.

IMO, it's not what they do, but how they do it. I don't see the 'big boss' as a defunct device, it simply hasn't been done well since, say, Goldfinger, or perhaps Brando's Don Corleone/Kurtz characters. I thought Paul McGuigan had a good crack at it with 2 'Bosses', Freeman & Kingsley in Lucky number Slevin.

As much as it seems old hat cliche right now, it just takes a great script, actor and director to give us a cracking version of it and suddenly it seems cutting edge again. With Morgan & Mendes that could indeed be the case

Some very good points there. Personally, I'd prefer Quantum to be a more modern device and I even think the depiction in QOS hints more at a conglomerate than at a strict hirarchy.

But that doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of 'section/operation chiefs' does it? My personal preference would be a very charming, friendly father/uncle figure who on several occasions helps Bond with his assignment; an assignment not necessarily connected to Quantum. Perhaps even thew father/uncle of Bond's love interest. Only to turn out at the end of the film to have pursued his own goals.

[Dr.Fell]

, it simply hasn't been done well since, say, Goldfinger, or perhaps Brando's Don Corleone/Kurtz characters.

The reason is because they just went overboard. Goldfinger was such as great villian for three reasons. First of all he actually had a plausiable style of life and what he owned seemed realistic. Many millionaires, or billionaires, own what Goldfinger has like a luxury car, private plane, and a factory. You couldn't believe let's say what Hugo Drax had. He could buy the Effiel tower ? A giantic lair in Brazil that could house five space shuttles ? It was just too much. The secound reason that made Goldfinger great was that he realized he had boundaries, he conducted his illegal enterprises in private. You'd have to be dectective in order to find out his Rolls was solid gold. Jill Masterson was killed in an extraordinary way but no one could finger Goldfinger for that crime. Then again going back to Drax, he kills Connie on his own property. Also Stromberg, he can summons a vast army of soldiers, motorcycles, and a helicopter to wipe out Bond. That was too much to believe. Last and certaintly not least Goldfinger had a genuine passion for something. The death of Jill, Goldfinger's clothing, how he missed that put when he saw the gold bar Bond dropped at his feet, his speech to Bond about his passion of gold, and the awe he had in his eyes when he entered the bullion depository. Drax and Stromberg felt the world was corrupt and it had to change ? Why ? Neither them had a reason to believe the world was such an awful place, especially when they could simply isolate themselves from it. So basically, that is how a villian billionaire works, plausiable resources, brains, and a passion.

[Germanlady]

http://movie-critics...ets-sam-mendes/

[The Dove]

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

[Dr.Fell]

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

I will for ever be baffled as to why anyone would. No I am not inviting a debate about it.

[Trident]

http://movie-critics...ets-sam-mendes/

Thanks for the link, interesting read. Although I found the usual suspects of directors mentioned, Nolan so on, not very inspired.

[The Shark]

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

A lot of us would.

[blueman]

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

Yeah, and he trashed QOS too! Dufus.

[Harmsway]

There's fun to be had reading the novels, but cuz of the fantastical and noir-esque and pulpy yet gritty edge to them. In that regard QOS arguably comes closest to the tone Fleming set in the novels, but doubt 23 goes that extreme, audiences just don't seem to take to it quite as well as to a lighter approach.

Except QUANTUM OF SOLACE never really presents the absurd, fantastical, more outlandish side of Fleming's Bond. It's very Flemingesque in many aspects, but it's hardly the full package.

[The Shark]

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

Yeah, and he trashed QOS too! Dufus.

Then most of the world's population are dufusses, and proud.

[blueman]

There's fun to be had reading the novels, but cuz of the fantastical and noir-esque and pulpy yet gritty edge to them. In that regard QOS arguably comes closest to the tone Fleming set in the novels, but doubt 23 goes that extreme, audiences just don't seem to take to it quite as well as to a lighter approach.

Except QUANTUM OF SOLACE never really presents the absurd, fantastical, more outlandish side of Fleming's Bond. It's very Flemingesque in many aspects right, but it's hardly the full package.

I know, I know - where's the giant squid in the underground lake??? Missed opportunity.

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

Yeah, and he trashed QOS too! Dufus.

Then most of the world's population are dufusses, and proud.

$500 mil+ would seem to counter that take...

[Harmsway]

http://movie-critics...ets-sam-mendes/

"And second-guessed themselves. Quantum of Solace (2008), the disappointing sequel, wasn’t just a misfire — it was positioned, cynically, to be a shallower action antidote to the heady, indelible intrigue of Casino Royale. It played like a mediocre Roger Moore opus intercut with faux-Bourne chase sequences, and the new cutthroat charisma that Craig had brought to the role mostly got left on the cutting-room floor."

Yes, exactly. Though I don't quite buy his previous statement in the article that the producers somehow got "scared." With QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they were trying for a film that was every bit as bold as its predecessor. They were certainly trying to move forward. Sadly, they ended up stepping backwards.

I hope he's right about what Mendes can bring to BOND 23, though, and that my own gut-level apprehension about Mendes' selection is almost entirely unfounded.

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

Yeah, and he trashed QOS too! Dufus.

Then most of the world's population are dufusses, and proud.

$500 mil+ would seem to counter that take...

How so? Box-office success does not necessarily indicate audience satisfaction. See the success of the third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film. It's fair to say, I think, that for most, the film missed the mark, but it still made gobs and gobs of cash.

Still, I don't think the majority of the audience disliked QUANTUM OF SOLACE outright. I do, however, think it would be fair to say that the majority of the audience was, to some degree, disappointed with the film.

I know, I know - where's the giant squid in the underground lake??? Missed opportunity.

Of course, you pick the element of Flemingesque outlandish narrative that's perhaps least adaptable to the cinema without being laughable. But I submit other elements, from Spectreville to the Garden of Death to Odd Job, so forth and so on. Obviously, the Fleming novels have a bit of a spectrum to them (CASINO ROYALE is certainly more "grounded" than some of the others), but I daresay that QUANTUM OF SOLACE could have afforded a greater touch of the bizarre than it had, particularly where the villains are concerned.

I'll maintain that DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE are truer to the overall picture of "Fleming's Bond" than QUANTUM OF SOLACE manages to be.

[Dr.Fell]

but I daresay that QUANTUM OF SOLACE could have afforded a greater touch of the bizarre than it had, particularly where the villains are concerned.

Yes exactly. Greene was TOO mild. He smart but he was too meek and too quiet for a Bond film, he would have worked better in another thriller. I would have actually have excused the lackluster scheme if Greene had more flamboyance.


Also I am glad you broughtup Spectreville because I always imagined Bond going down to Texas to fight a pride southern played by Bruce Mcgill with that whole secnario from Diamonds Are Forever.


I also miss a henchman with some sort presence. The last two films were just thugs with knifes.

Edited by Dr.Fell, 09 January 2010 - 01:21 AM.

[blueman]

http://movie-critics...ets-sam-mendes/

"And second-guessed themselves. Quantum of Solace (2008), the disappointing sequel, wasn’t just a misfire — it was positioned, cynically, to be a shallower action antidote to the heady, indelible intrigue of Casino Royale. It played like a mediocre Roger Moore opus intercut with faux-Bourne chase sequences, and the new cutthroat charisma that Craig had brought to the role mostly got left on the cutting-room floor."

Yes, exactly. Though I don't quite buy his previous statement in the article that the producers somehow got "scared." With QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they were trying for a film that was every bit as bold as its predecessor. They were certainly trying to move forward. Sadly, they ended up stepping backwards.

I hope he's right about what Mendes can bring to BOND 23, though, and that my own gut-level apprehension about Mendes' selection is almost entirely unfounded.

Thanks for that link, Germanlady..though I stopped reading the article the minute I read the bit about the author perferring Quentin Tarantino directing!!

Yeah, and he trashed QOS too! Dufus.

Then most of the world's population are dufusses, and proud.

$500 mil+ would seem to counter that take...

How so? Box-office success does not necessarily indicate audience satisfaction. See the success of the third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film. It's fair to say, I think, that for most, the film missed the mark, but it still made gobs and gobs of cash.

Still, I don't think the majority of the audience disliked QUANTUM OF SOLACE outright. I do, however, think it would be fair to say that the majority of the audience was, to some degree, disappointed with the film.

I know, I know - where's the giant squid in the underground lake??? Missed opportunity.

Of course, you pick the element of Flemingesque outlandish narrative that's perhaps least adaptable to the cinema without being laughable. But I submit other elements, from Spectreville to the Garden of Death to Odd Job, so forth and so on. Obviously, the Fleming novels have a bit of a spectrum to them (CASINO ROYALE is certainly more "grounded" than some of the others), but I daresay that QUANTUM OF SOLACE could have afforded a greater touch of the bizarre than it had, particularly where the villains are concerned.

I'll maintain that DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE are truer to the overall picture of "Fleming's Bond" than QUANTUM OF SOLACE manages to be.

Oh I think the squid can be done, but agree with you QOS was a more-grounded (like Fleming sometimes wrote) Bond, and for Craig that ain't a bad choice IMO. I also think that for a modern era Bond, QOS will likely be the most Flemingesque we'll get.

As for projecting your disappointment onto all those QOS ticket buyers, I prefer to project my enthusiasm onto them, so there. I think QOS did exactly the biz it should have, it wasn't trying to be a Spiderman 2, it was a very different beast (but get that some aren't wholly appreciative of that choice). I think the only way to have bettered CR's take was to go all Spidey 2 on it and cookie-cutter it and especially try to tell another Bond love story, which back-to-back with CR wouldn't have sat well with me I guess. Darker revenge tales aren't usually the crowd-pleasers tragic love stories are, doesn't necessarily make them any better or worse just different, which is also different than saying audiences were disappointed with said revenge tale IMO ("Tosca's not for everyone" lol).

Anyhoo, I suspect Morgan/Mendes will bring in more of that fantastic Fleming element (hopefully a squid too!).