151 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I still Love The Living Daylights *gulp* 22.5 years later...I see no reason why I won't love Quantum in 10...especially if the next few are dissapointments. *perish the thought*

I can't see them being disappointments. I don't think Craig would allow it to go down that path...and if he did end up being in a stinker, I think it would be a "Moore" type stinker, in that there's other things to enjoy about it.

[Jim]

The umpteenth James Bond film. Probably one of the Daniel Craig ones.

[Genuine Felix Leiter]

Mmm, it would interesting to see what future generations will think of this film. Great box office, mixed reviews and splitting the opinions of the fanbase, but compare to Licence to Kill which had middling box office to go with the mixed reviews from critics and fans but which has seen its stock rise as the years have went on (ditto OHMSS) and what we might see here is a film that might be regarded very highly by the newly developing generation of Bond fans as something of a classic, in the way certain age groups do with LTK and OHMSS.

[Lachesis]

I don't think QoS will age well, its filmed style is very much a current trend, obviously heavily derivative of Spotiswood and Bourne, something that will date it badly and is already showing signs of wearing thin among critics. It also lacks any charismatic or unique figures, there just doesn't seem any material that has the scope to become iconic or seperate it from the crowd. Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

License to Kill does have the benefit of showing Bond as more cunning and ruthless than ever before, (that rarity - a thinking action man) QOS doesnt really demonstrate any aspect of his character other than his fists which is the staple of the genric american action genre.

[DaveBond21]

I still Love The Living Daylights *gulp* 22.5 years later...I see no reason why I won't love Quantum in 10...especially if the next few are dissapointments. *perish the thought*

I agree with you, and I think many Bond fans would. However, if we're talking about the general public, then they do not even know what TLD is, and many of them would omit Timothy Dalton when listing the actors who played Bond.

I should also add that when I came out of the theater having seen QOS for the 2nd time (at a charity screening) there were many comments from only casual Bond fans (ie the general public) along the lines of "I like my Bond movies with tank chases and bungee jumps, not moping about after a dead girlfriend"

[s.a.s. Malko]

I honestly think that Q0S will be seen as a fine film by the greatest James Bond actor of all time - an actor of quality, an actor with chops before he started looking old and while he was still in sensational physical form.

In due time the young people who multi-task on several levels - and process information faster than any other generation before it - will see the film as the one that "moves likes a bullet" and has "proper editing for it's genre" instead of all the boring, glacial and childish/jokey ones.

They'll say "that's the one with the awsome Aston Martin chase and the riveting Opera scene and the cool building in the desert...the one without the corny dialogue...the one which made you want to hit the gym and be totally fit!"

It will be Number 1, until a better Craig film comes along...or a greater actor comes along.

Already, GoldenEye - along with it's hideous score and an actor which was frail-looking and out of his depth - is unwatchable...as, indeed, are a fair few of them, especially the ones where either the flabby belly, man boobs, old age, lipstick, wig or ghastly fashion sense of the Bonds makes you want to wince in embarrassment.

Sadness for all those types of Bonds which won't be able to live up to the Bond of Quantum.

I agree with you on every point about QoS, it has on of the best car chases ever made, great dialogue, beautiful cinematography, etc., etc. But in my opinion we came so far, you can´t compare the Bond-Movies anymore. It would be unfair to compare for example Dr. No with LaLD, or TMWTGG with TLD, etc. There are so many years and so much money between them, even moviemaking is different today (HD, 3D...). They always tried to make the best possible film, imo. I like them all, some more than others (TB, FYEO, NSNA, TLD, GE, CR and QOS) like every Bondfan, but they where always ahead of their time with the stunts, the music and the girls, or at least head to head with the best. So I say: Nobody does it better than Bond and just can´t wait for: Daniel Craig is James Bond in The Hildebrand Rarity directed by Sam Mendes, with Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Ray Stevenson and Ciaran Hinds as M :-).

[Publius]

Of course the general public can't name, much less is willing to take the time to rank the Bond films 1-23. My meaning/implication, is that Quantum Of Solace will be seen as one of the lesser entries in the series, but not the worst.

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that an opinion such as "one of the worst in the series" is meaningless when you can't fill out the spots between the top five and bottom five because you haven't seen them.

And although some casual moviegoers were nevertheless brave enough to hold such inane opinions, "10 years from now" (per the thread topic) people of that mental caliber won't even be familiar with QOS. It will only be known by people who actually have some passing interest in the franchise and will have seen their fair share of Bond films, not just the most recent one or two.

I kind of agree with DaveBond's assessment in that it will be seen in a similar manner to what Licence To Kill has been. Whether it's seen as slightly better or worse, I'm not sure, but as I am a big fan of LTK, I hope worse.

I think it will be seen as better than LTK primarily for its better production values, since they're so substantively similar. Like it or not, it matters that the powers that be put a lot more confidence and muscle behind QOS - not enough to keep LTK from being a great movie in my book, but enough to make me (and countless others) prefer QOS.

As for your opinion of QOS being viewed better than Tomorrow Never Dies in 10 years, Publius, I'm afraid I have to disagree. TND is a fun, action-packed romp with a James Bond who is fun to watch and go on an adventure with. QOS, on the other hand, has plenty of action and little of the rest. I have no doubt that in a decade TND will be looked upon a lot more favorably by the general public than QOS.

QOS is far deeper and more intellectual than TND, and you and I both know it, so it obviously has "more" to offer than TND. And it's not exactly like the depth of QOS is exhausting either, although I can see why one would be more of an escape than the other.

That said, I and many others (including casual fans, believe it or not) find QOS the better, more gripping adventure. We have a Bond who we care about, who we're invested in and can relate to, thus making it all the more satisfying and, well, fun.

Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

CR didn't really return to basics, just in comparison to Brosnan's last three (especially DAD). It returned to focusing on Bond, on putting him back in our world, but it didn't strip away the bells and whistles so much as build them up from scratch.

QOS, on the other hand, was indeed the first ever Spartan take on a James Bond movie.

[tdalton]

Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

CR didn't really return to basics, just in comparison to Brosnan's last three (especially DAD). It returned to focusing on Bond, on putting him back in our world, but it didn't strip away the bells and whistles so much as build them up from scratch.

QOS, on the other hand, was indeed the first ever Spartan take on a James Bond movie.

Completely agreed.

CASINO ROYALE, as good as it was, wasn't the return to basics that it's often heralded as being. Like you said, it's that way because it's immediate predecessors were so far out there in terms of realism that anything that pulled Bond back to a world that was even remotely like the real world would be viewed as a return to basics.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Of course the general public can't name, much less is willing to take the time to rank the Bond films 1-23. My meaning/implication, is that Quantum Of Solace will be seen as one of the lesser entries in the series, but not the worst.

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that an opinion such as "one of the worst in the series" is meaningless when you can't fill out the spots between the top five and bottom five because you haven't seen them.

And although some casual moviegoers were nevertheless brave enough to hold such inane opinions, "10 years from now" (per the thread topic) people of that mental caliber won't even be familiar with QOS. It will only be known by people who actually have some passing interest in the franchise and will have seen their fair share of Bond films, not just the most recent one or two.

I kind of agree with DaveBond's assessment in that it will be seen in a similar manner to what Licence To Kill has been. Whether it's seen as slightly better or worse, I'm not sure, but as I am a big fan of LTK, I hope worse.

I think it will be seen as better than LTK primarily for its better production values, since they're so substantively similar. Like it or not, it matters that the powers that be put a lot more confidence and muscle behind QOS - not enough to keep LTK from being a great movie in my book, but enough to make me (and countless others) prefer QOS.
If I have to side one way or the other, I'm inclined to agree with you that QOS will be seen by the general public as a better film than LTK in a decade if for no other reason than Daniel Craig is a more popular and well-known 007 than Timothy Dalton and consequently the general public would tend to like his serious, revenge-minded Bond film more than Dalton's. Although, again, I would hope not.

As for your opinion of QOS being viewed better than Tomorrow Never Dies in 10 years, Publius, I'm afraid I have to disagree. TND is a fun, action-packed romp with a James Bond who is fun to watch and go on an adventure with. QOS, on the other hand, has plenty of action and little of the rest. I have no doubt that in a decade TND will be looked upon a lot more favorably by the general public than QOS.

QOS is far deeper and more intellectual than TND, and you and I both know it, so it obviously has "more" to offer than TND. And it's not exactly like the depth of QOS is exhausting either, although I can see why one would be more of an escape than the other.

That said, I and many others (including casual fans, believe it or not) find QOS the better, more gripping adventure. We have a Bond who we care about, who we're invested in and can relate to, thus making it all the more satisfying and, well, fun.

More intellectual or not, I'll take Tomorrow Never Dies any day of the week over Quantum Of Solace. TND is a lot more fun and I find there to be many more problems with QOS than TND, and although QOS has a number of good parts, there are just about as many things I hate about it. As a result, no Bond film has ever angered me more.

And I do not believe one bit that casual fans/general public find or will find QOS to be a better more gripping adventure than TND. TND was well-liked when it was released and remains a positively received adventure, certainly more so than QOS which is beloved by some hardcore fans but far from all and which received a lukewarm response from casual fans. Additionally, TND received/receives nowhere near the negative feelings that QOS has generated. As a result, I have no doubt that more people like and consider TND better than QOS and will continue to do so in a decade.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

CR didn't really return to basics, just in comparison to Brosnan's last three (especially DAD). It returned to focusing on Bond, on putting him back in our world, but it didn't strip away the bells and whistles so much as build them up from scratch.

QOS, on the other hand, was indeed the first ever Spartan take on a James Bond movie.

Well, at the very least, the most Spartan James Bond film since OHMSS (and, of course, I only say this because Dalton's films had their share of ludicrous gadgets).

[JimmyBond]

Additionally, TND received/receives nowhere near the negative feelings that QOS has generated.[/color]

Really? Were you on the internet when TND was released? Because I was, and I remember numerous fans citing it as one of the worst Bond film's in a long while. That it was too much action, etc. etc. Basically similar to the odd comment you'll hear around here.

It's only with the passage of time that fans have reevaluated the film and seen it in a new light.

[sharpshooter]

It's only with the passage of time that fans have reevaluated the film and seen it in a new light.

And I’m glad. Even though it’s the first Bond film I saw in cinemas at the age of eight, I’ve always seen it in a good light. I think it’s a good Bond film to this day, and I don’t see how it can be classed equal or worse to Brosnan's following two.

[plankattack]

[quote name='Publius' date='3 February 2010 - 21:06' post='1087027']
QOS is far deeper and more intellectual than TND, and you and I both know it, so it obviously has "more" to offer than TND. And it's not exactly like the depth of QOS is exhausting either, although I can see why one would be more of an escape than the other.

[/quote

So much in Pub's post that I agree with but I'll stick to this stuff. I've never been a fan of TND, and I how I felt coming out of it over a decade ago, underwhelmed and disappointed, helps me understand how so many feel about QoS.

But to compare the two as coming from the same place is, IMHO, a disingenuous argument, and clearly the sign of a double-standard. TND always gets kudos for being a "stripped-down action movie," a straightforward Bond that we all enjoy now and again. Yet QoS doesn't get that break from its detractors - it's criticized for being a Bourne-esque action flick.

They say that some don't want Bond "moping about after his lost girlfriend" yet we seem more than happy to give the Paris "you upped and left me" backstory a free pass, even though it's unconvincingly wedged in as little more than a plot device and an excuse to peel onions. To be honest, Bond seemed to show more genuine emotion over Paula's death in TB, a plot-device character if there ever was one, if that at all.

My point is that if they are both action-films, then why will the fake window-dressing about Bond loving, losing, etc in TND, hold up better over time than QoS, where the whole point of the movie is about Bond's state of mind? The motivation for all the running and chasing is that, whereas after Paris bites the bullet, it's back to business-as-usual in TND.

I do tend to buy the LTK-QoS comparisons more easily.

[Lachesis]

Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

CR didn't really return to basics, just in comparison to Brosnan's last three (especially DAD). It returned to focusing on Bond, on putting him back in our world, but it didn't strip away the bells and whistles so much as build them up from scratch.

QOS, on the other hand, was indeed the first ever Spartan take on a James Bond movie.

Well, at the very least, the most Spartan James Bond film since OHMSS (and, of course, I only say this because Dalton's films had their share of ludicrous gadgets).

By return to basics I was refering to the elements that made Bond unique rather than just his dispensing with gadgets. I am puzzled as to why QoS is regarded as in any way intellectual, never has a Bond Movie more relentlessly and determinedly relied on pure brute force as a means to every end, Bond's wit, charisma and guile are all redeered redundant by his superhuman physical prowess.

[plankattack]

By return to basics I was refering to the elements that made Bond unique rather than just his dispensing with gadgets. I am puzzled as to why QoS is regarded as in any way intellectual, never has a Bond Movie more relentlessly and determinedly relied on pure brute force as a means to every end, Bond's wit, charisma and guile are all redeered redundant by his superhuman physical prowess.

Lach - welcome to CBn!

I don't want to speak for the poster who claimed that QoS is intellectual (think it was Double O Agent) but I do want to put it this way. QoS is different from the bulk of the series, in that it is an attempt at a character study of the lead. What makes the man he is, his motivations, does he evolve in any way, etc. Most of the rest of the series, the central character is who he is, and he serves as the focal point for the plot that unfolds around him.

QoS is different, in that the two things are merged - CR & OHMSS are two other examples of this where the story is as much about the man as "the mission." For example YOLT say, is about some baddies hijacking space rockets. Bond's mission moves the story - he himself, his motivations (no jokes about SC looking bored please! ) etc really have no effect on the outcome.

Does this make QoS more intellectual? I'll let more knowledeable folks chew that one. But QoS, like CR and OHMSS are different from the standard Bond-film.

[I never miss]

People judged it based on The Dark Knight???

Which, by the way, is the single most over-rated film since Paul Haggis' Crash. I truly cannot see what all the fuss was about. And Christian Bale's voice as Batman - argghh! He sounded like a 3rd former who is desperately trying to convince the world that his 'Niagra Falls' have dropped.

Apologies for going off topic.

[The Shark]

Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

CR didn't really return to basics, just in comparison to Brosnan's last three (especially DAD). It returned to focusing on Bond, on putting him back in our world, but it didn't strip away the bells and whistles so much as build them up from scratch.

QOS, on the other hand, was indeed the first ever Spartan take on a James Bond movie.

Well, at the very least, the most Spartan James Bond film since OHMSS (and, of course, I only say this because Dalton's films had their share of ludicrous gadgets).

OHMSS still had several elements that QOS lacks:

- Sophistication and glamour
- The fantastical nature of Blofeld's "Angels of Death" plot, along with hypnosis
- Slow, luxurious pacing
- Beautiful girls
- Lots of sex
- More gadgets

[Lachesis]

By return to basics I was refering to the elements that made Bond unique rather than just his dispensing with gadgets. I am puzzled as to why QoS is regarded as in any way intellectual, never has a Bond Movie more relentlessly and determinedly relied on pure brute force as a means to every end, Bond's wit, charisma and guile are all redeered redundant by his superhuman physical prowess.

Lach - welcome to CBn!

I don't want to speak for the poster who claimed that QoS is intellectual (think it was Double O Agent) but I do want to put it this way. QoS is different from the bulk of the series, in that it is an attempt at a character study of the lead. What makes the man he is, his motivations, does he evolve in any way, etc. Most of the rest of the series, the central character is who he is, and he serves as the focal point for the plot that unfolds around him.

QoS is different, in that the two things are merged - CR & OHMSS are two other examples of this where the story is as much about the man as "the mission." For example YOLT say, is about some baddies hijacking space rockets. Bond's mission moves the story - he himself, his motivations (no jokes about SC looking bored please! ) etc really have no effect on the outcome.

Does this make QoS more intellectual? I'll let more knowledeable folks chew that one. But QoS, like CR and OHMSS are different from the standard Bond-film.

Hi and thank you

I understand what you are saying and appreciate QoS is indeed different from the rest of the series...although I have to confess the description you use to explain the films purpose/achievement is how I personally regard Casino Royale, all relevent character development and justification seems to stem from that movie. By comparison QoS isn't suitable of being viewed in isolation and is more an epilogue, a straighforward revenege episode with Bond's face set to 'aaarrrd! ^^ (The film Diamonds Are Forever should have been?) Ultimately the place we are led to believe Bond 'is' at the end of QoS is actually where I felt he was at the end of CR.

[plankattack]

Hi and thank you

I understand what you are saying and appreciate QoS is indeed different from the rest of the series...although I have to confess the description you use to explain the films purpose/achievement is how I personally regard Casino Royale, all relevent character development and justification seems to stem from that movie. By comparison QoS isn't suitable of being viewed in isolation and is more an epilogue, a straighforward revenege episode with Bond's face set to 'aaarrrd! ^^ (The film Diamonds Are Forever should have been?) Ultimately the place we are led to believe Bond 'is' at the end of QoS is actually where I felt he was at the end of CR.

I'll give you that - QoS is the first expression of the Bond at the end of CR? Calling QoS an epilogue is a good way of putting it, and if the film has a structural weakness (I'm definitely not looking to start a debate on editing or what have you!!!) it might be just that, and one and a half is a bit long for an epilogue. If anything, an entirely seperate story, with the loose ends from CR appearing in the story to add depth, might have changed things considerably, in the way that OHMSS, both novel and film, are really two seperate stories than entwine perfectly.

All that aside, I do like QoS, and will always rate high up there because of the fact that is different.

[Jack Rapace]

I don't think QoS will age well, its filmed style is very much a current trend, obviously heavily derivative of Spotiswood and Bourne, something that will date it badly and is already showing signs of wearing thin among critics. It also lacks any charismatic or unique figures, there just doesn't seem any material that has the scope to become iconic or seperate it from the crowd. Nor can it be seen as a return to basics, because that was Casino Royale's trick.

License to Kill does have the benefit of showing Bond as more cunning and ruthless than ever before, (that rarity - a thinking action man) QOS doesnt really demonstrate any aspect of his character other than his fists which is the staple of the genric american action genre.

Agree with you. QoS in 10 years... It will be at the bottom rank. Moonraker in 10 years will be certainly cult.

[Publius]

If I have to side one way or the other, I'm inclined to agree with you that QOS will be seen by the general public as a better film than LTK in a decade if for no other reason than Daniel Craig is a more popular and well-known 007 than Timothy Dalton and consequently the general public would tend to like his serious, revenge-minded Bond film more than Dalton's. Although, again, I would hope not.

Yes, good point about that. Unfortunately it seems that the more Bond films an actor does, the more popular he is in the role, probably in large part because it increases the likelihood that people will associate that actor with how Bond is "supposed" to be.

And I do not believe one bit that casual fans/general public find or will find QOS to be a better more gripping adventure than TND. TND was well-liked when it was released and remains a positively received adventure, certainly more so than QOS which is beloved by some hardcore fans but far from all and which received a lukewarm response from casual fans.

But TND received no better an initial response from fans or (especially) critics, and to be perfectly honest I have seen no indication it is viewed more favorably nowadays, whether one bases it on personal anecdote or online reviews/ratings.

And I say that as someone who considers it Brosnan's best and regularly defends it as such.

By return to basics I was refering to the elements that made Bond unique rather than just his dispensing with gadgets. I am puzzled as to why QoS is regarded as in any way intellectual, never has a Bond Movie more relentlessly and determinedly relied on pure brute force as a means to every end, Bond's wit, charisma and guile are all redeered redundant by his superhuman physical prowess.

Yes, the Bond of QOS relies on brute force - but also physical agility, "street" smarts, and sheer willpower, and is constantly propelled by a sense of duty and justice. These elements only replace the gadgets, which far too often served as Bond's "brain" (or even deus ex machina) in missions past.

And while QOS is not exactly impenetrably cerebral, it is certainly among the most (if not THE most) intellectual Bond movie yet in how it handles not only Bond's swirling emotions and conflicting moral obligations, but also his dawning battle against a shadowy international crime syndicate -- made sinister by its ruthless pragmatism -- that has its tentacles securely planted in the very government he uses as legal (and perhaps spiritual?) cover for his righteous crusading.

All that, or what plankattack said.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate QoS is indeed different from the rest of the series...although I have to confess the description you use to explain the films purpose/achievement is how I personally regard Casino Royale, all relevent character development and justification seems to stem from that movie. By comparison QoS isn't suitable of being viewed in isolation and is more an epilogue, a straighforward revenege episode with Bond's face set to 'aaarrrd! ^^ (The film Diamonds Are Forever should have been?) Ultimately the place we are led to believe Bond 'is' at the end of QoS is actually where I felt he was at the end of CR.

I think CR only got us started on the adventure that was to be QOS. "The name's Bond, James Bond" wasn't about Bond having fully arrived, it was about a wiser and somehow (considering how he marched around early in CR) more confident Bond ready to get his answers. He still had to experience indirectly causing the death of a complete innocent (Fields), he still had to sort out the personal revenge (for Vesper) from the professional revenge (for M, and what was being done to MI6), he still had to impart his knowledge to a mirror image of himself (Camille) and thereby learn firsthand the dangerous repercussions of the path he was tightrope walking.

Agree with you. QoS in 10 years... It will be at the bottom rank. Moonraker in 10 years will be certainly cult.

What continuously keeps MR from fully vaulting into cult status is not how outlandish it is (that's precisely what would make it a cult classic), it's how frankly embarrassing it gets with the Jaws romance subplot and the laser beam space battle and the "no place for freaks in my new world" turn of events in Bond's favor. It doesn't stumble to the finish line, it flat-out careens off the rails. Some people like that, but far too many are lost by it for MR to get any better a reevaluation than it has after all these years.

IMHO, of course.

[Double-Oh Agent]

By return to basics I was refering to the elements that made Bond unique rather than just his dispensing with gadgets. I am puzzled as to why QoS is regarded as in any way intellectual, never has a Bond Movie more relentlessly and determinedly relied on pure brute force as a means to every end, Bond's wit, charisma and guile are all redeered redundant by his superhuman physical prowess.

Lach - welcome to CBn!

I don't want to speak for the poster who claimed that QoS is intellectual (think it was Double O Agent) but I do want to put it this way. QoS is different from the bulk of the series, in that it is an attempt at a character study of the lead. What makes the man he is, his motivations, does he evolve in any way, etc. Most of the rest of the series, the central character is who he is, and he serves as the focal point for the plot that unfolds around him.

QoS is different, in that the two things are merged - CR & OHMSS are two other examples of this where the story is as much about the man as "the mission." For example YOLT say, is about some baddies hijacking space rockets. Bond's mission moves the story - he himself, his motivations (no jokes about SC looking bored please! ) etc really have no effect on the outcome.

Does this make QoS more intellectual? I'll let more knowledeable folks chew that one. But QoS, like CR and OHMSS are different from the standard Bond-film.

Hey, watch it. I find my association with that line to be offensive. Actually, it was Publius who mentioned Quantum Of Solace being an intellectual film. Personally, I find its intellectualness to be overrated.

If I have to side one way or the other, I'm inclined to agree with you that QOS will be seen by the general public as a better film than LTK in a decade if for no other reason than Daniel Craig is a more popular and well-known 007 than Timothy Dalton and consequently the general public would tend to like his serious, revenge-minded Bond film more than Dalton's. Although, again, I would hope not.

Yes, good point about that. Unfortunately it seems that the more Bond films an actor does, the more popular he is in the role, probably in large part because it increases the likelihood that people will associate that actor with how Bond is "supposed" to be.

And I do not believe one bit that casual fans/general public find or will find QOS to be a better more gripping adventure than TND. TND was well-liked when it was released and remains a positively received adventure, certainly more so than QOS which is beloved by some hardcore fans but far from all and which received a lukewarm response from casual fans.

But TND received no better an initial response from fans or (especially) critics, and to be perfectly honest I have seen no indication it is viewed more favorably nowadays, whether one bases it on personal anecdote or online reviews/ratings.

And I say that as someone who considers it Brosnan's best and regularly defends it as such.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate QoS is indeed different from the rest of the series...although I have to confess the description you use to explain the films purpose/achievement is how I personally regard Casino Royale, all relevent character development and justification seems to stem from that movie. By comparison QoS isn't suitable of being viewed in isolation and is more an epilogue, a straighforward revenege episode with Bond's face set to 'aaarrrd! ^^ (The film Diamonds Are Forever should have been?) Ultimately the place we are led to believe Bond 'is' at the end of QoS is actually where I felt he was at the end of CR.

I think CR only got us started on the adventure that was to be QOS. "The name's Bond, James Bond" wasn't about Bond having fully arrived, it was about a wiser and somehow (considering how he marched around early in CR) more confident Bond ready to get his answers. He still had to experience indirectly causing the death of a complete innocent (Fields), he still had to sort out the personal revenge (for Vesper) from the professional revenge (for M, and what was being done to MI6), he still had to impart his knowledge to a mirror image of himself (Camille) and thereby learn firsthand the dangerous repercussions of the path he was tightrope walking.

But that's rewriting history after the fact. At the end of Casino Royale, James Bond had become the 007 we all know and love as the film's director Martin Campbell has stated which is exemplified by Bond uttering his immortal introductory line at the end of the film. It was only due to Casino Royale's success that EON decided to continue with a revenge-seeking Bond desperate for answers in a direct sequel. I'm not saying that before Casino Royale's release that EON wouldn't have had Bond chase after Quantum in Bond 22, but I'm sure they weren't thinking of a direct sequel that so heavily drew on Vesper's death and Bond's dourness and revenge-seeking motives until after they had seen Casino Royale's massive success. It was only then that they decided that Bond's "journey" wasn't complete and added all these "personal growth" moments and lessons in Quantum Of Solace.

[Lachesis]

I certainly can't question that Bond shows determation, but I have to say I dont see much in the way of street smarts going on in QoS, Bond is presented as a superhuman killing machine, even courage is irrelevent when you can so obviously steamroller everything in your path. There is never a sense of a credible threat because Craig is a physical monster here, nor is there any competition for Bond in the charimsa department in this case (and even in poorer Bonds there is generally electricity in the air when Bond meets his main rival). As mentioned above Martin Cambell delivered 'Bond' to us at the end, it was the point of that movie to do so, QoS had nowhere to go and nothing to do emotionally, it didnt engender Bond to HMSS either as he was compromised by his emotions (and at this early stage in his career there is no evidence M can call on to suggest he deservess another chance in turth). Hence the only contribution QoS brings to CR is to diminish what it achieved - and that is where some of the ire comes from imho.

All modern Bonds do action, some well (Casino Royale) some poorly (Die another Day) but those scenes are de rigor, the norm, and are directly comparable with generic action fare - its those other Bond elements that indentify a particular movie, and I struggle to see what QoS has to single it out when some future Bond Tome is written - other than perhaps a re-evaluation of the real quality of those action scenes. (OOI I wonder if the latest craze for 3D will kill these fast cut products.)

Now in LTK Bond, is a manipulator and a spy (something seen too rarely in the movies), he sows the seeds of mistrust and fear, he divides and conqueurors (gah spelling??), its clear he can't take 50 'baddies' all on and its his guile and wits that come to the fore. These are the cerebral element I would have liked to see in QoS

OHMSS is a complete movie it develops the relationship and propels the plot, the action sequences are logical and never forced, the villians are memorable, its a totally different beast from QoS or indeed most other Bonds, the emotional journey never compromises the relentless action or the diverse and charismatic support roles, Blofeld, Draco, Irma Bunt, M and Moneypenny are all pivotal here which is again rather rare.

TND, is not one of my favourties (Brosnan+Hatcher=zero chemistry) but there are scenes and ideas that I think will be looked at positively in the future and although it will gall many there are those gadgets of course.

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo). LTK is flawed but uniquely Bond in the skills he displays, OHMSS is the total package but QoS sadly for me is just another action film, well made perhaps, but unlike ANY Bond before, including ones I have enjoyed far less, its disturbingly forgettable.

Edited by Lachesis, 05 February 2010 - 01:16 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

[The Shark]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

Agreed, don't forget Derek Meddings's miniatures, Ken Adam's sets and John Barry's ethereal score. Like you said it's also surprisingly dark yet romantic in places (i.e. The centrifuge, Corinne's death etc....), but it also never takes itself too seriously. There's a sense of irony, and that self-awareness helps the film.

[00Twelve]

There's a sense of irony, and that self-awareness helps the film.

Indeed, and that's how I reply to those who ask why I like the Moore era but generally dislike the Brosnan era.

[Jack Rapace]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

Moonraker a dark film ? When ? Where ?

[00Twelve]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

Moonraker a dark film ? When ? Where ?

Well, a girl does get hunted down and mauled to death by dogs, and it ain't played for laughs...

[Jack Rapace]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

Moonraker a dark film ? When ? Where ?

Well, a girl does get hunted down and mauled to death by dogs, and it ain't played for laughs...

It makes me laugh when we can see perfectly the fisherman's boots that she wears for running into the woods...

Edited by Jack Rapace, 05 February 2010 - 07:10 PM.

[The Shark]

Moonraker is camp and spoofable, I dont think it will ever be well regarded quality wise (though Michael Lonsdales Drax is exccelent and there are some beautiful location shots imo).

By who? MOONRAKER - like all the Bond films - is what it is and rewards your time. I personally love the Campari glamour of the whole thing and feel - despite its wide ambitions - it is a very successful and, in places, dark film.

Moonraker a dark film ? When ? Where ?

Well, a girl does get hunted down and mauled to death by dogs, and it ain't played for laughs...

It makes me laugh when we can see perfectly the fisherman's boots that she wears for running into the woods...

Really? I never saw that. Though I don't go pointlessly looking out for goofs and mistakes like some do.