151 replies to this topic

[Jack Rapace]

The boots are blue with a white stripe. You can see them clearly without a problem.

[The Shark]

I'm her looking at her boobs, the scenery, and listening to John Barry's score. Not her shoes.

[Jack Rapace]

I'm her looking at her boobs, the scenery, and listening to John Barry's score. Not her shoes.

I'm fetishist. For Corinne Clery's boobs, look at "Histoire d'O" by Just Jaekin.

[The Shark]

I'm her looking at her boobs, the scenery, and listening to John Barry's score. Not her shoes.

I'm fetishist. For Corinne Clery's boobs, look at "Histoire d'O" by Just Jaekin.

Thank you my friend!

[Safari Suit]

It is also about a man who is such a misanthrope he wants to see the back of the whole human race bar a select few who meet his standards. That's quite dark

[DamnCoffee]

I'm her looking at her boobs, the scenery, and listening to John Barry's score. Not her shoes.

I'm fetishist. For Corinne Clery's boobs, look at "Histoire d'O" by Just Jaekin.

I'm sure I've seen this! I watched in on late night TV ages ago!

I seem to remember Corrine Clery sitting at a table naked with loads of other women. She was forbidden to look at her Master or something.

I'm sure it was this!

[Royal Dalton]

Perv.

[DamnCoffee]

Yeah, I've just re read my post, and It sounds quite perverted..

But that IS what I remember, I assure you.

[JimmyBond]

Yeah, I've just re read my post, and It sounds quite perverted..

But that IS what I remember, I assure you.

In this...*ahem* film, were you her master?

[DamnCoffee]

Damn! You caught me out!



Nahh, I'm positive that this movie is the one I think it is. Maybe I should er... see it again.

[JimmyBond]

Sounds like you saw "The Story of O" I did some reasearch at the Celebrity Nudity database and came across this descripition:

the movie is about a french photographer who accepts to be taken by her lover to a castle near Paris, where she will be torture, raped and humillated.The movie is very strong, almost a pørno. Corinne is whipped, raped and burned.You will get tired of seeing her naked, she is completely naked in about an 80 % of the movie.

Text found here (along with a full rundown of every movie she's appeared nude in).

[Publius]

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.

What the director says and what the film says are two different things. While that may be Campell's opinion, all we know for certain is that Bond has been considerably affected by the events of CR, become wiser for them, and has at least one moment (his confrontation of Mr. White) where he's much more recognizable as the classic superspy we all know and parody.

And even if Campbell's word is that strong, Forster's word was that QOS exists in a world where CR happened exactly as we saw it with the only difference being that Bond wasn't 100% "complete" by film's end. Or his vision may be that the Bond W.A.K.A.L. has indeed arrived, but is too in flux emotionally and has to fight his demons in order to be in that state of mind by default.

However you want to look at it, it seems clear to me that Bond as we saw him at the end of CR (starting with his realizing Vesper's betrayal all the way through his final conversation with M) is someone who very plausibly, and probably logically, would think and act as he did in QOS. The "Bond, James Bond" scene was more a way of going out on a high note, of saying Bond is ready to kick butt and take names, of tying together all the Bond Begins stuff (at least as far as the cliches are concerned) and setting the stage for Bond to go on his next adventure without any obligations to the traditional trappings.

You might be right that EON didn't plan on a "revenge" follow-up, but given how close they stuck to the source material (aside from all the action) they must have known the next movie had an obvious built-in direction if they wanted to go there. Obviously it's a theme they kept touching upon in the Brosnan era, and here more than anywhere else they could actually do it justice by committing to it fully.

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,

I think his quick thinking is evident in the way he rolls with Camille's initial assumptions about who he is, the way he handled Quantum's "executive board" in Bregenz, the way he eluded MI6 in the hotel, just to name a few examples. But like I said, Bond here is largely propelled by sheer willpower, conviction, and yes the physical prowess that comes with being a former military man. He does seem superhuman... but his glaring weakness is his out-of-place righteousness, his being the rare "stupid policeman" in a world colored in dark shades of gray. A much darker and much more mortal take on Superman, in a way.

[plankattack]

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,

I think his quick thinking is evident in the way he rolls with Camille's initial assumptions about who he is, the way he handled Quantum's "executive board" in Bregenz, the way he eluded MI6 in the hotel, just to name a few examples. But like I said, Bond here is largely propelled by sheer willpower, conviction, and yes the physical prowess that comes with being a former military man. He does seem superhuman... but his glaring weakness is his out-of-place righteousness, his being the rare "stupid policeman" in a world colored in dark shades of gray. A much darker and much more mortal take on Superman, in a way.

I know there were some QoS-LTK comparisons earlier in the thread - that TD Bond had more sophistication with how he went about things, setting up his enemies against each other etc - and that DC-Bond in QoS didn't have much of that about him. He was brute force rather than the Bond We-all-know-and-love.

But to me that's the point. If we're to buy in completely that CR is Bond at the beginning of his career, Bond Begins so to speak, than it goes without saying that LTK Bond is the older, wiser agent. QoS Bond is a rawer bloke, all physical action, even when perhaps it's not necessary, which may be something that he will pick up, depending how much attention the next installment pays to his development as a character.

I guess my view is that we can't judge DC-QoS-Bond until we see what the next film brings us. The decision was made for QoS to follow on immediately, timeline-wise, so CR and QoS are both the beginning. The final scene in CR is misleading in that it isn't the final moment in the character's cinematic start. If anything, the last moments of QoS are.

This notion of the character growing and becoming what we-all know etc, could be the most fascinating thing about DC's tenure as Bond, and I'll hazard a guess that the chance to grow a character over a few installments was a real attraction for the actor, for any actor. Maybe we're the ones in too much of a rush to see the Bond we-all-know, rather than enjoying the journey there, however short it may be. Heck, the series is 22 films old, and who's to say it won't last another 22 - I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I know this much - when it comes to revenge, both QoS-Bond and LTK-Bond weren't going to let anything get in their way. That bullishness along tells me it's the same guy - without a doubt, in the same way I can see the self-assuredness of SC-Bond, and the young cocksureness of Laz-Bond in what DC has put up there thus far.

By the way, I also think Corinne Clery was naked in Humanoid, which also starred Richard Kiel.......can't be sure, but like everyone else, I do remember seeing her with her top off somewhere........

[Publius]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I couldn't agree more... and I even wonder if I want to see "business as usual" again, considering what the powers that be might take that to mean. I hope they don't have a timetable for Craig's Bond and they let him evolve naturally.

[The Shark]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I, and the majority of the public, are already tired of this "diversion".

Thank you.

[JimmyBond]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I, and the majority of the public, are already tired of this "diversion".

Thank you.

I see no proof of that.

[The Shark]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I, and the majority of the public, are already tired of this "diversion".

Thank you.

I see no proof of that.

Have you not read any of QOS's negative reviews?

[Publius]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I, and the majority of the public, are already tired of this "diversion".

Thank you.

I see no proof of that.

Have you not read any of QOS's negative reviews?

Have you not read any of QOS's positive reviews?

You do realize that, by all objective accounts, it was received well by the majority? It was a letdown only in comparison to CR, GE, and the most popular Connery and Moore films (and The Dark Knight, if you want to get into that argument).

We all know what you're getting at, but don't speak for large swaths of the population when the numbers don't agree with you.

[The Shark]

I don't mind a short diversion of a couple of films before it's back to business as usual.

I, and the majority of the public, are already tired of this "diversion".

Thank you.

I see no proof of that.

Have you not read any of QOS's negative reviews?

Have you not read any of QOS's positive reviews?

You do realize that, by all objective accounts, it was received well by the majority? It was a letdown only in comparison to CR, GE, and the most popular Connery and Moore films (and The Dark Knight, if you want to get into that argument).

We all know what you're getting at, but don't speak for large swaths of the population when the numbers don't agree with you.

The numbers don't have anything to do with it. My point is that even with the more positive reviews, they seem to be want to have a more business-as-usual Bond film next, and not another QoS.

Both the negative and positive reviews seem to have pointed towards the same thing - Bond needs to lighten up.

[JimmyBond]

I'm sorry Shark, but I still don't see any evidence of that. Just because a hand full of people say one thing doesn't make it so.

Besides, the public has generally only accepted a serious Bond for so long before wanting a return to basics. So it's not like this is the first time it's ever happened.

[The Shark]

I'm sorry Shark, but I still don't see any evidence of that. Just because a hand full of people say one thing doesn't make it so.

Doesn't make it what - A fact? Of course not. It's pure opinion.

Besides, the public has generally only accepted a serious Bond for so long before wanting a return to basics. So it's not like this is the first time it's ever happened.

That's my point, I never said implied that it was first. Bond films are cyclic, and this "dark" point on the polarity has peaked, and subsequently ended.

[plankattack]

I get where Shark is coming from, and I do see his point about overdoing the "dark" Bond. I guess my thought is just that a few more "character Bonds" I could live with, where it's as much about him the bloke, rather than just him on an adventure. I like FYEO - to me that's what I'm talking about. It's a standard Bond-adventure, but Sir Rog plays it a little older and wiser so the lead character has something about it rather than just being the centre of the action.

Sure the franchise is cyclical - it seems that cycles seem to match up with tenure of the lead. I'm like everyone else - I'd love to see DC in a film where it isn't all about him. I guess my point is that the best tenure would be one where we've got everything over four or five films. In that way that TD never got to do a GF-type adventure. If he had, would the general public have taken to him differently?

But this is the thing about judging QoS in ten years - how will be judged will depend on the film that follows, and maybe the one after that. If the franchise were to end now, sure there'd be a proportion of people who will say "too much of that dark stuff." But if the next couple follow a SC-type cycle (FRWL spy thriller followed by lighter romp, followed by epic TB for example) then QoS gets judged as part of a whole.

Of course I realise a lot of people just think QoS is crap, so it doesn't really matter what happens next or in ten years. I get that too - we all have films that we think are rubbish.

[Publius]

That's my point, I never said implied that it was first. Bond films are cyclic, and this "dark" point on the polarity has peaked, and subsequently ended.

But how do we know that? Could it have just been execution that made QOS less popular than CR? After all, "darkness" has been very popular for a few years now, from Bourne to Batman.

Remember, there is the "light-dark" axis and then there's the separate "realistic-outlandish" axis, in addition to "emotional-unemotional" and many others. Do audiences like the relative darkness (and really, it's not all that dark) but just want Bond to get more epic again, and/or get over his broken heart, and/or something else entirely?

Even within each axis there is nuance. Moonraker was often "light" (not entirely, though, as has been discussed before) but in a family-friendly way, especially by the end, whereas Goldfinger and Thunderball were light in a more adult way (despite being a lot more "realistic" than we remember). And while generally not light, CR and QOS had plenty of humor, just usually subtle or very dry.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is a lot more complicated than just turning some dial up or down every few years.

[Lachesis]

I hear the arguments for QoS and understand why people enjoy the film even if I cannot myself. Its not just the execution however its somewhat deeper and I do worry at the precedents set and the motivations of the producers in allowing it to be delivered in the way it was.

Martin Cambell as the director of CR envisaged a complete emotional arc for Bond, that much is clear from the movie and his comments....the idea to extend that plot appears more motivated by the unprecedented success (critcally and comercially) of CR...the need to get in quick, and capitalise not just with the Bond series but specifically with the vibe driving CR onward. This is really the first Bond Sequel and more a direct sequel - as such is the first Bond film that cannot be viewed in isolation.

We assume Bond to be wiser and smarter for the bitter experience of CR, but imo QoS doesn't really show this - it relies on our memory of the preceeding and stylistically different events to perpetuate the motivation, Bond does employ a brute force solution to everything and he is demonstrably compromised emotionally, what he does achieve is largely the result of his superhuman physical prowess (a la bourne sadly) and any use to HMSS is more by accident than design....if we continue the idea he is 'new to the 00's then the only real conclusion M can really draw is to see him as a liability, its only our knowledge of the character (and the older films) that justifies her acceptance of his deviation and is the only way the line 'I never left' can be believed.

A stripped down Bond is by definition a Joe Anybody becoming Bond, we believed we got there at the end of CR but effectively that is reset by QoS and that film uses the sole motivation of Bond's revenge to perpetuate the plot, it doesn't draw on his secret service or espionage skills (as LTK employed). This is the stuff of the generic Hollywood action star....and to my mind at least the central character in QoS could have been anyone, by no means did it have to be James Bond (this is even more true if the film is viewed in isolation).

Now I love a Hollywood actioner as much as anyone, Taken, Die Hard 4, Bourne 1 & 2 (not 3 however - it was a shake too far ^^) but I do look for the Bond film to be more than just an action fix, raw charisma, lager than life characters and plot, wit, ingeniuty, guile the Bond film is its own genre in my book and in its for those reasons I question the way history will remember this entry. Unlike any other Bond film before it QoS is 'just' an action movie...it can't even broaden its horizon to be termed an 'adventure' given the motivations involved, and without the additional elements to hook myself as a viewer, it all comes down to the quality of that action. This is purely opinion though I am trying to look beyond my own dissapointment as best as possible and see how 10 years and another incumbent actor in the lead might see it remembered.

Edited by Lachesis, 06 February 2010 - 11:40 PM.

[Publius]

Martin Cambell as the director of CR envisaged a complete emotional arc for Bond, that much is clear from the movie and his comments....the idea to extend that plot appears more motivated by the unprecedented success (critcally and comercially) of CR...

Huh? Almost everyone believed the ending of CR meant that Bond's work was far from over. In fact, it was pretty widely thought that QOS would start not long after Craig captures Mr. White. I don't know how you can see Bond's reaction to Vesper's death, to his powerlessness to save her, to his conversation with M that did not tie up many loose ends and think that the decision to make a sequel was totally after the fact based on the success of CR. The seeds were firmly planted in the hopes that they could pick up where they left off.

We assume Bond to be wiser and smarter for the bitter experience of CR, but imo QoS doesn't really show this - it relies on our memory of the preceeding and stylistically different events to perpetuate the motivation, Bond does employ a brute force solution to everything and he is demonstrably compromised emotionally, what he does achieve is largely the result of his superhuman physical prowess (a la bourne sadly) and any use to HMSS is more by accident than design....

He follows leads, tries to piece together information to stay a step ahead of the enemy, uses his network of allies, assumes alternate identities when it suits him, employs stealth where necessary, and yes, frequently perseveres through sheer force of will and the belief that he is fighting for some measure of objective good. That's a little different than punching your way to solutions.

if we continue the idea he is 'new to the 00's then the only real conclusion M can really draw is to see him as a liability, its only our knowledge of the character (and the older films) that justifies her acceptance of his deviation and is the only way the line 'I never left' can be believed.

Or maybe M is a relic of the Cold War struggling to get a handle on a sudden surge of inside betrayals, and as reckless as Bond can be and as simple-minded his take on morality might seem to her she respects his unwavering determination enough that she might as well trust him if anyone. He's experienced severe trauma yet is still around, and that speaks volumes more than anything else could. Oh, and he's already proven that he finishes the mission and gets results.

A stripped down Bond is by definition a Joe Anybody becoming Bond, we believed we got there at the end of CR but effectively that is reset by QoS and that film uses the sole motivation of Bond's revenge to perpetuate the plot, it doesn't draw on his secret service or espionage skills (as LTK employed).

No, CR didn't wrap everything up. It tacked a cool high-note ending onto a stretch of film that clearly showed us Bond was far from okay or done with had just happened to him. There is a thirst for revenge in QOS, but it's also about unmasking and taking on the shadowy powers behind Le Chiffre, not just righting the wrongs done to Vesper.

This film is about juggling those two "revenge" missions, with Bond ultimately putting his personal pain behind him and choosing to stay on the path of his profession, hence his talk with Camille before infiltrating Greene's base, his leaving Greene in the desert for his own organization to find him, his putting nothing more than a scare in Vesper's lover.

[Lachesis]

@Publius
Yes I concede to your reasoning on the end of CR, I guess I percieved Bond's path to closure actually as being 'the rest of his life' (or at least till he finds Tracy). I think a continuation was possible but it wasn't essential to pick up so directly - I would have preferred to see him 'try' to purge his demons without the ability to tackle them so directly, once purged the mechanism to evolve or change the character has less impetus - in QoS we set the 'stiff upper lip' and bludgeon everyone in the way to get that closure.

In terms of your assesment of Bond's skills as glimpsed in QoS I am less convinced and if valid, glimpsed is indeed the appropriate word, there is such a relentless and overbearing reliance on brute force and superhuman survival that nothing and noone comes accross as a threat, there is no need to employ a diversity of skill when you are so evidently capable. Modern filmaking makes Physical stunts very convicing, they are all too often all that you can enjoy in an action movie. Equally all efforts are to one conscious end, personal revenge, the elements that make the threat of interst to other agencies, or offer any option to consider alternate motivation, are stumbled upon by accident. The real structure on display here is less a Bond Film but more the generic Hollywood revenge actioner. In the end it seems to me what makes this film 'Bond' is either superficial or superfluous.

I agree that your alternate take of M's reaction could be the case, however given the stage in development we are led to believe the character is at, and the length of relevent service, its really only our knowledge of the franchise that gives any credence or credibility to such an assertion. In real terms the cold war was every bit as morally ambiguous, its just that the labels were easier to read and you had more discretion in the action you could take.

CR did wrap up everything I felt it was nescessary to wrap up, but I concede that is a personal assesment, from the point of view of character development I saw as much value in the reality of not being able to gain direct closure, as the film viewer might see from him gaining it. As for his choosing to stay on path, its a rather easy choice when you are patently oncourse to finish your own business first, it's less a descision based on character development and more a means to ensure the film ends with an explosion.

I do respect that many enjoyed this movie and it may well be more highly regarded in the midst of time... My problems come with its, imo, generic approach to storytelling and the lack of charisma or thought but if I am off base you'll have to forgive an 46yo fuddy duddy. Casino Royale proved that a Bond film can both be modernised and still retain the spirit of the character that fans old and new recognise, I would humbley suggest QoS is less successful in this regard, the next film is really going to be important in how the future series judges both.

[MrKidd]

This is what I think...
QoS was a disappointment - not for some fans here but I believe the general consensus is that it disappointed. No, I haven't asked everybody who has ever watched the movie and I haven't spoken to Babs or Mike or DC or Dame J or anyone associated with the film. But what I think is that it disappointed - that's the general vibe I get. If you don't, fine - but I definately do. Now, my 'proof' will become evident when the next one comes out. It'll be far more humorous, far more flamboyant and much more in the tone of CR than QoS. I have no idea this will be the case but I bet it is Hats off for trying something different - now give (most) of us back what we want. I betcha this happens! And I'll only be proved wrong when 23 comes out... Quantum of Grittyness - this time Bond is really angry.. (which breaks all Bond BO records because the audience just loves a gritty, realistic bond movie)

Edited by MrKidd, 07 February 2010 - 04:54 PM.

[byline]

No, CR didn't wrap everything up. It tacked a cool high-note ending onto a stretch of film that clearly showed us Bond was far from okay or done with had just happened to him. There is a thirst for revenge in QOS, but it's also about unmasking and taking on the shadowy powers behind Le Chiffre, not just righting the wrongs done to Vesper.

This film is about juggling those two "revenge" missions, with Bond ultimately putting his personal pain behind him and choosing to stay on the path of his profession, hence his talk with Camille before infiltrating Greene's base, his leaving Greene in the desert for his own organization to find him, his putting nothing more than a scare in Vesper's lover.

As much as I enjoyed "Quantum of Solace," initially I agreed with many of the points Lachesis made, yet I find myself convinced by your rebuttals. I think that on first viewing, my overall impression was much like Lachesis', yet second and subsequent viewings revealed more to me that goes along with what you describe. So I can see why this film leaves such distinctly different impressions on people; either you pick up those additional details and take them away with you, or you don't. Failing to pick up on them isn't a failure; it's more, I think, based in what we expect of the Bond character. And that's going to differ from one individual to the next.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It will never be as good as Casino Royale for me. Neither will it ever be the worst Bond film in my eyes. I expect I'll have the same views in 10 years time.

Me too.

Me three.

Me five.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 07 February 2010 - 06:41 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

I disagree. This thing (this new appreciation) has happened with OHMSS, but certainly NOT with LTK- unless you're a fan of Miami Vice, Die Hard and that eighties american action flicks era-.