902 replies to this topic

[Dr.Fell]

Another thing that they also desperately need to do is to step up the sexual appeal of the films. Bond only seduced Fields but you barely even see it; They stopped at "Where is the sationary ?" for god's sake we cut to them in bed ! He dosen't have to a hard-on throughout the film but c'mon, James is a bit of a horny dude. Again Casino Royale does things better, he didn't shag Solange but at least you saw the seduction.

[Harmsway]

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I think CASINO ROYALE was more Flemingesque than QUANTUM OF SOLACE in a good number of aspects (in the end, I think that it's something of a draw between them in terms of fidelity to the source material), and it's very possible that BOND 23 could strike a balance between the two of them that captures more of what Fleming's Bond was abound than either of them. Not that it's as simple as "More Flemingesque Elements = Better Film," since I think filmmakers need to use source material judiciously, and Fleming's novels were hardly perfect.

As for projecting your disappointment onto all those QOS ticket buyers, I prefer to project my enthusiasm onto them, so there.

I think there's more support for my projection than yours.

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.

I very much disagree. If QUANTUM OF SOLACE had taken its cues from the final scene of CASINO ROYALE, I think it could have bettered CASINO ROYALE's take. I see no reason to believe that audiences were disappointed or irritated with the concept of a revenge story, just with the way it was presented.

[Dr.Fell]

since I think filmmakers need to use source material judiciously, and Fleming's novels were hardly perfect.

I think two were down right duds, The Spy Who Loved Me and The Man With The Golden Gun.

[The Shark]

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I think CASINO ROYALE was more Flemingesque than QUANTUM OF SOLACE in a good number of aspects (in the end, I think that it's something of a draw between them in terms of fidelity to the source material), and it's very possible that BOND 23 could strike a balance between the two of them that captures more of what Fleming's Bond was abound than either of them. Not that it's as simple as "More Flemingesque Elements = Better Film," since I think filmmakers need to use source material judiciously, and Fleming's novels were hardly perfect.

Of course not, though I don't see why the Giant Squid scene could only be laughable, since it was never laughable in the source. It was fantastical and incredibly far-out, yes, but thanks to the conviction and verisimilitude Fleming gave to the scene, it managed to be one of his best written "suspense" passages.

[00Twelve]

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.

Thus AVATAR's current box office take.

There's all sorts of room for the fantastic in a Flemingesque Bond story (it's taken me years to confess that). As Harms said, though, it's all about the presentation. I daresay a skilled enough storyteller could even credibly bring Spectreville to light, were the producers willing to go out on that limb.

Regarding Tarantino, he's proven himself as a gifted filmmaker. Now there's still an air of immaturity to his stuff that might not jibe well with numerous views on how Bond should be presented, but I will say this much: He's the only filmmaker I can think of that could do a pin-straight adaptation of Live And Let Die and people would still love it.

[Dr.Fell]

He's the only filmmaker I can think of that could do a pin-straight adaptation of Live And Let Die and people would still love it.

Yes with Samuel L. Jackson cursing about 50,000,000 times as Mr.Big and Uma Thurman as Solitare, no thank you.

[blueman]

As for projecting your disappointment onto all those QOS ticket buyers, I prefer to project my enthusiasm onto them, so there.

I think there's more support for my projection than yours.

That stance would only make sense if QOS had done LTK-type box office. QOS put a lot of butts in seats, anything beyond that - did audiences like the story-telling more/less than CR's - is speculation IMO. The minor drop-off in attendance CR-to-QOS seems more likely due to the darker storyline in the latter film than anything else.

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.

I very much disagree. If QUANTUM OF SOLACE had taken its cues from the final scene of CASINO ROYALE, I think it could have bettered CASINO ROYALE's take. I see no reason to believe that audiences were disappointed or irritated with the concept of a revenge story, just with the way it was presented.

When it comes to Bond, I think audiences want to see Bond in bed move than Bond out for revenge. Just a hunch.

[Dr.Fell]

When it comes to Bond, I think audiences want to see Bond in bed move than Bond out for revenge. Just a hunch.

That dosen't mean they won't watch Bond taking revenge, which I hardly saw complaints from the critics. Most of the complaints came from the smaller then life plot and annoying quit cuts.

[blueman]

I try to stay away from what critics think of Bond films, as most (all?) don't share my sense of what a Bond film should be.

As for audiences, again makes more sense to me that the slight drop-off CR-to-QOS has far more to do with the type of story being told than the way in which the story was told. 2 cents.

[Dr.Fell]

I try to stay away from what critics think of Bond films, as most (all?) don't share my sense of what a Bond film should be.

As for audiences, again makes more sense to me that the slight drop-off CR-to-QOS has far more to do with the type of story being told than the way in which the story was told. 2 cents.

Well I have to disagree. The trend was catering to darker themes in the most popular action heros and comic book heros alike. Quantum of Solace was no darker then the current trend.

[blueman]

I try to stay away from what critics think of Bond films, as most (all?) don't share my sense of what a Bond film should be.

As for audiences, again makes more sense to me that the slight drop-off CR-to-QOS has far more to do with the type of story being told than the way in which the story was told. 2 cents.

Well I have to disagree. The trend was catering to darker themes in the most popular action heros and comic book heros alike. Quantum of Solace was no darker then the current trend.

There's also a quick-cut trend, would seem to cancel out maybe?

[00Twelve]

He's the only filmmaker I can think of that could do a pin-straight adaptation of Live And Let Die and people would still love it.

Yes with Samuel L. Jackson cursing about 50,000,000 times as Mr.Big and Uma Thurman as Solitare, no thank you.

By "pin-straight," I meant pin-straight.

The novel is pulpy as can be. Tarantino knows how to make that appeal to people. That's all I'm saying. Also, there was some superb casting in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS which didn't include Ms. Thurman nor more than a voiceover cameo from Mr. Jackson.

Didn't even say I wanted that movie. But...I kinda do. It'll never happen, though, so there's nothing for anybody to worry about.

[Dr.Fell]

I try to stay away from what critics think of Bond films, as most (all?) don't share my sense of what a Bond film should be.

As for audiences, again makes more sense to me that the slight drop-off CR-to-QOS has far more to do with the type of story being told than the way in which the story was told. 2 cents.

Well I have to disagree. The trend was catering to darker themes in the most popular action heros and comic book heros alike. Quantum of Solace was no darker then the current trend.

There's also a quick-cut trend, would seem to cancel out maybe?

Yes this quick cutting stuff was really annoying.

He's the only filmmaker I can think of that could do a pin-straight adaptation of Live And Let Die and people would still love it.

Yes with Samuel L. Jackson cursing about 50,000,000 times as Mr.Big and Uma Thurman as Solitare, no thank you.

By "pin-straight," I meant pin-straight.

The novel is pulpy as can be. Tarantino knows how to make that appeal to people. That's all I'm saying. Also, there was some superb casting in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS which didn't include Ms. Thurman nor more than a voiceover cameo from Mr. Jackson.

Didn't even say I wanted that movie. But...I kinda do. It'll never happen, though, so there's nothing for anybody to worry about.

He would never adopt a Bond novel pin-straight, not without adding his annoying quirks.

I know people love Tarantino because he is hip and he adds alot of blood and guts to his films. I think he could be capable of making good films but that dosen't seem to be the case ever IMO.

[Harmsway]

Of course not, though I don't see why the Giant Squid scene could only be laughable, since it was never laughable in the source. It was fantastical and incredibly far-out, yes, but thanks to the conviction and verisimilitude Fleming gave to the scene, it managed to be one of his best written "suspense" passages.

Sure. But something being effective in words and effective on screen are two very different things. There are many literary moments which crackle which would look absolutely ludicrous when filmed. I can't imagine a cinematic version of the squid moment that would play well.

That stance would only make sense if QOS had done LTK-type box office.

No, it wouldn't. Financial success and audience satisfaction are two different things, and while they're connected, one doesn't necessarily reflect the other.

QOS put a lot of butts in seats, anything beyond that - did audiences like the story-telling more/less than CR's - is speculation IMO.

It's not just "speculation." Undoubtedly I can't make any specific remarks regarding percentages of the audience and their exact attitude, but you're outright deluding yourself if you think the audience was generally just as satisfied with QUANTUM OF SOLACE as it was with CASINO ROYALE.

When it comes to Bond, I think audiences want to see Bond in bed move than Bond out for revenge. Just a hunch.

It depends on how that revenge is handled. With the very dark, glum, joyless tone of QOS, yes, I don't think the audience is going to be as enthusiastic about a revenge story. It was a very dark approach to vengeance, and that kind of dark approach is generally a harder one by which to win an audience.

But if the film had taken the tone of CR's wonderful final scene--the start of Bond's quest for vengeance, incidentally--then QUANTUM OF SOLACE would have played very, very differently, and arguably been considerably more "audience friendly." CASINO ROYALE's final scene is a brilliant cocktail of different qualities; humor, fun, brutality, style, simultaneously celebrating Bond while somewhat subverting everything he's come to stand for. QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't continue that balance. Not that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. I'm just pointing out that QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't have to be so glum just because it was tackling a tale of revenge.

[00Twelve]

He would never adopt a Bond novel pin-straight, not without adding his annoying quirks.

I know people love Tarantino because he is hip and he adds alot of blood and guts to his films. I think he could be capable of making good films but that dosen't seem to be the case ever IMO.

There's a world of things you missed if that's all you saw in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

To quote myself,

It'll never happen, though, so there's nothing for anybody to worry about.

[Dr.Fell]

He would never adopt a Bond novel pin-straight, not without adding his annoying quirks.

I know people love Tarantino because he is hip and he adds alot of blood and guts to his films. I think he could be capable of making good films but that dosen't seem to be the case ever IMO.

There's a world of things you missed if that's all you saw in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

To quote myself,

It'll never happen, though, so there's nothing for anybody to worry about.

I am not talking about IB.


Personally I am just sick of this man's name poping up on Bond forums. He should never direct a Bond, ever. I think even the suggestion is offensive.

[00Twelve]

Personally I am just sick of this man's name poping up on Bond forums. He should never direct a Bond, ever. I think even the suggestion is offensive.

Good thing I'm just musing on a film that doesn't stand a chance of being made. Certainly wouldn't want to offend.




Sam Mendes.

[blueman]

That stance would only make sense if QOS had done LTK-type box office.

No, it wouldn't. Financial success and audience satisfaction are two different things, and while they're connected, one doesn't necessarily reflect the other.

With nothing else to go by, $500 mil+ box office persuades me it was a hit.

QOS put a lot of butts in seats, anything beyond that - did audiences like the story-telling more/less than CR's - is speculation IMO.

It's not just "speculation." Undoubtedly I can't make any specific remarks regarding percentages of the audience and their exact attitude, but you're outright deluding yourself if you think the audience was generally just as satisfied with QUANTUM OF SOLACE as it was with CASINO ROYALE.

What can you point to to back your opinion as fact? Opinion is opinion, nothing more or less and fine to have one way or the other.

When it comes to Bond, I think audiences want to see Bond in bed move than Bond out for revenge. Just a hunch.

It depends on how that revenge is handled. With the very dark, glum, joyless tone of QOS, yes, I don't think the audience is going to be as enthusiastic about a revenge story. It was a very dark approach to vengeance, and that kind of dark approach is generally a harder one by which to win an audience.

But if the film had taken the tone of CR's wonderful final scene--the start of Bond's quest for vengeance, incidentally--then QUANTUM OF SOLACE would have played very, very differently, and arguably been considerably more "audience friendly." CASINO ROYALE's final scene is a brilliant cocktail of different qualities; humor, fun, brutality, style, simultaneously celebrating Bond while somewhat subverting everything he's come to stand for. QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't continue that balance. Not that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. I'm just pointing out that QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't have to be so glum just because it was tackling a tale of revenge.

See, we have very different opinions of how QOS handled itself, but that's exactly what they are, opinions. C'est la vie. And as for the squid, that could totally be done well, likely even more effectively than how Fleming wrote it.

And, Sam Mendes.

[Ambler]

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...

Profit is what counts not turnover; Quantum of Solace has a very poor Profit-Earnings Ratio (PE_R).

Quantum of Solace cost between 200-400 million (precise figures have yet to be released) and took $168 million at the US box office. Even with the worldwide gross of $586 million, QoS's PE-R is not one many investors would be willing to accept, particularly in a global recession.

If you want to see real box office success, look at Slumdog Millionaire. It took US400m on a budget of just $15m.

Edited by Ambler, 09 January 2010 - 11:11 AM.

[Trident]

Even with the worldwide gross of $586 million, QoS's PE-R is not one many investors would be willing to accept, particularly in a global recession.

If you want to see real box office success, look at Slumdog Millionaire. It took US400m on a budget of just $15m.

Don't agree there. The recession makes a (relatively speaking) smaller but more secure profit/investment even more attractive to investors. And the PE-R of 'Slumdog Millionaire' is absolutely no bechmark. For each SM-like hit there are roughly 600 plus films not making the break even, let alone reach the profit zone. This is sheer gambling and no investor can count on landing such a hit.

[Zorin Industries]

Well, whatever happens... this will be Mendes first film in 3-D.

[Trident]

Well, whatever happens... this will be Mendes first film in 3-D.

Are you serious??? What makes you think so?

[Bucky]

Well, whatever happens... this will be Mendes first film in 3-D.

i like the sound of that

[Pierce - Daniel]

Mendes has spokern out against 3d, saying it sin't the future, and film is about character. I think he'll stand his ground, I hope at least.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Zorin is just messing with everyone Bond 23 WILL NOT BE IN 3D

Eon doesn't want it and Sam Mendes doesn't want it.


outside of that I'm excited for a mendes directed bond 23

[Safari Suit]

Well, whatever happens... this will be Mendes first film in 3-D.

If he is lucky (and if we are lucky) it will also be his first film with a range of tie-in slurpee cups. Unless I missed that Revolutionary Road promotion.

[jaguar007]

Profit is what counts not turnover; Quantum of Solace has a very poor Profit-Earnings Ratio (PE_R).

Quantum of Solace cost between 200-400 million (precise figures have yet to be released) and took $168 million at the US box office. Even with the worldwide gross of $586 million, QoS's PE-R is not one many investors would be willing to accept, particularly in a global recession.

The big factor you are forgetting is that much of QoS production cost was subsidized by product placement.

Well, whatever happens... this will be Mendes first film in 3-D.

If he is lucky (and if we are lucky) it will also be his first film with a range of tie-in slurpee cups. Unless I missed that Revolutionary Road promotion.

No but there were those Road to Perdition Happy Meals

[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.

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

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

Profit is what counts not turnover; Quantum of Solace has a very poor Profit-Earnings Ratio (PE_R).

Quantum of Solace cost between 200-400 million (precise figures have yet to be released) and took $168 million at the US box office. Even with the worldwide gross of $586 million, QoS's PE-R is not one many investors would be willing to accept, particularly in a global recession.

If you want to see real box office success, look at Slumdog Millionaire. It took US400m on a budget of just $15m.

P-ER is the studio's worry, the discussion was whether people went to see it (and the entirely subjective take of whether they liked it or not). Obviously it got the business it should have, in line with Bond at the box office lately, give or take (and apart from some fans, seems to have satisfied audiences, $500 mil+ speaks to that just fine IMO).

[Quantumofsolace007]

What i found extrwemly interesting is this hasn't been denied. everyone (Mi6.co.uk included) is treating this as gospel we'll be interesting to see if this is true or not.


I'm really hoping this is true and mendes delivers us a grteat bond film similar to his road to Perdition (dark and interesting)

[stromberg]

What i found extrwemly interesting is this hasn't been denied. everyone (Mi6.co.uk included) is treating this as gospel we'll be interesting to see if this is true or not.


I'm really hoping this is true and mendes delivers us a grteat bond film similar to his road to Perdition (dark and interesting)

It hasn't been denied because it brings Bond and MGM back to the headlines, which is good with MGM curently being up for sale. I just don't get why Mi6's take on it puts any weight to the story.