151 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

[Sigma7]

Qos is a fresh turd, 10 years from now the turd will have turned white

[DaveBond21]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

I actually think Quantum of Solace still had plenty of movie cliches.

I mean, how many times have we seen a man and a woman escape a fire at the end of a movie. And the double-duel was filmed in exactly the same way as the DAD finale. There was also an improvised escape from a runaway plane - like Goldfinger, Moonraker, Octopussy, TLD.....and DAD.

Sacrificial lambs, aeroplane dogfights and boat chases have all been done before too.

[Guy Haines]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

I actually think Quantum of Solace still had plenty of movie cliches.

I mean, how many times have we seen a man and a woman escape a fire at the end of a movie. And the double-duel was filmed in exactly the same way as the DAD finale. There was also an improvised escape from a runaway plane - like Goldfinger, Moonraker, Octopussy, TLD.....and DAD.

Sacrificial lambs, aeroplane dogfights and boat chases have all been done before too.

It certainly did include some stuff in the action scenes that we've seen before. To an extent that can't be helped. A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles. The point that has been made above is that CR and QoS, rightly in my view, didn't include certain "obligatory" scenes, such as the flirting with Moneypenny or time spent with Q and his gadgets, just because they are somehow "expected" to appear in the film.

Such scenes are only needed if they add something to the story, not because they are part of the traditional "recipe" that can never be changed. The same could also be said for the "homage" scenes that have appeared also. Did the oil covered death of Miss Fields - in a homage to a similar scene in GF - add anything to the movie? Debatable - there's a whole thread on this site devoted to that argument!

Having said all this, there's one item I missed in QoS - the gunbarrel at the start. It adds nothing at all to the story, but its a nice link to the past!

[The Shark]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

[jaguar007]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

true, but unfortunately movies have changed quite a bit since the 60s. In these times I would not expect to see a James Bond movie (or any action/adventure movie) without big set action scenes, vehicular or not. It is a way of the times and it is what todays movie audience expect.

[Lachesis]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

true, but unfortunately movies have changed quite a bit since the 60s. In these times I would not expect to see a James Bond movie (or any action/adventure movie) without big set action scenes, vehicular or not. It is a way of the times and it is what todays movie audience expect.

I find myself agreeing with both Guy and Shark on this...in the end its all about balance, the problem occurs when action becomes the overwhelming method of propagating a plot and/or when character and story take a back seat or tertiary role to the intrusion of another adrenalin injection. In the 60's the Bond film wasn't just considered an action film, it was an adventure, it was a thriller, it was a travelogue, wish fulfillment etc...while some of these elements are perhaps less pertinent to us today today its been that rich diversity that makes the films (and the books imo) so unique and essential a form of entertainment.

Pigeon-holing Bond as action is something we do at our peril imo

[The Shark]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

true, but unfortunately movies have changed quite a bit since the 60s. In these times I would not expect to see a James Bond movie (or any action/adventure movie) without big set action scenes, vehicular or not. It is a way of the times and it is what todays movie audience expect.

You know, I think myself and many others would be pleasantly surprised if there weren't many action sequences.

[Guy Haines]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

Edited by Guy Haines, 12 April 2010 - 10:54 PM.

[Guy Haines]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

I'm not suggesting "vehicular chases galore", just pointing out that the Bond films are primarily action adventure movies. In any case, DN featured a high speed car chase involving a Sunbeam Alpine and a hearse, FRWL a duel between Bond and a helicopter, followed by a boat chase featuring probably the least compentent bunch of villains ever to board a boat, TB a jet pack, and a chase involving two cars and a rocket armed motorbike, to say nothing of the fastest hydrofoil you've ever seen! (courtesy of rather dodgy editing!).

Incidentally, I don't have the attention span of an amoeba. My favourite medium is still the printed page, and I tend to read books from start to finish. I watch the Bond films to the end, and since January I've even taken the trouble to read some of these posts!

[Guy Haines]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

true, but unfortunately movies have changed quite a bit since the 60s. In these times I would not expect to see a James Bond movie (or any action/adventure movie) without big set action scenes, vehicular or not. It is a way of the times and it is what todays movie audience expect.

I find myself agreeing with both Guy and Shark on this...in the end its all about balance, the problem occurs when action becomes the overwhelming method of propagating a plot and/or when character and story take a back seat or tertiary role to the intrusion of another adrenalin injection. In the 60's the Bond film wasn't just considered an action film, it was an adventure, it was a thriller, it was a travelogue, wish fulfillment etc...while some of these elements are perhaps less pertinent to us today today its been that rich diversity that makes the films (and the books imo) so unique and essential a form of entertainment.

Pigeon-holing Bond as action is something we do at our peril imo

These films are primarily action adventure films -please see my other comment offered a few minutes ago - but it does depend on balance and what one defines as an action movie. I wouldn't want to see the series descend to the level of the typical "crash bang wallop" Hollywood actioner, and I don't think either CR or QoS did.

Edited by Guy Haines, 12 April 2010 - 11:02 PM.

[The Shark]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

I'm not suggesting "vehicular chases galore", just pointing out that the Bond films are primarily action adventure movies. In any case, DN featured a high speed car chase involving a Sunbeam Alpine and a hearse, FRWL a duel between Bond and a helicopter, followed by a boat chase featuring probably the least compentent bunch of villains ever to board a boat, TB a jet pack, and a chase involving two cars and a rocket armed motorbike, to say nothing of the fastest hydrofoil you've ever seen! (courtesy of rather dodgy editing!).

It's largely about quality, that I'd say draws the line. I'd argue Bond films at their best, particularly the 3 I mentioned there, are primarily pulpy thrillers. I'd say they simply don't have enough action sequences, and their plots are based too heavily around spying, intrigue, and investigations to be merely straight-forward action adventure films. That's not to say that they're are action-adventure Bond films, but they come much later in the time-line, probably starting with The Spy Who Loved Me.

Incidentally, I don't have the attention span of an amoeba. My favourite medium is still the printed page, and I tend to read books from start to finish. I watch the Bond films to the end, and since January I've even taken the trouble to read some of these posts!

Oh no, please. That wasn't meant as a jibe towards you or anyone in particularly. It was a just a comment made toward one of the so-called and highly vague 'target demographics' EON caters to, when conceiving these action sequences.

[DaveBond21]

The point that has been made above is that CR and QoS, rightly in my view, didn't include certain "obligatory" scenes, such as the flirting with Moneypenny or time spent with Q and his gadgets, just because they are somehow "expected" to appear in the film.

Such scenes are only needed if they add something to the story, not because they are part of the traditional "recipe" that can never be changed

Casino Royale and QOS still had the ultimate recent Bond cliche - the traitor from within. It's been part of Bond for a while now, featuring in Goldeneye, TWINE and DAD. It also featured Bond being admonished by M - again. I don't really see how such scenes with M (and there are at least four in QOS) are that much different from the Q and Moneypenny scenes.

[tdalton]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

I actually think Quantum of Solace still had plenty of movie cliches.

I mean, how many times have we seen a man and a woman escape a fire at the end of a movie. And the double-duel was filmed in exactly the same way as the DAD finale. There was also an improvised escape from a runaway plane - like Goldfinger, Moonraker, Octopussy, TLD.....and DAD.

Sacrificial lambs, aeroplane dogfights and boat chases have all been done before too.

I was referring more to items that could be considered part of the "Bond checklist", such as the gun barrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", deformed villain, larger-than-life lair, etc. Sure, both still had some other movie cliches, but at this point, I would think that most action-adventure films are going to contain some cliches simply because just about every action scene that can be done has been done, and each successive boat/car/plane/foot chase or shootout is just going to be another variation on something that has come before. Now, CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has some of those things, but what I think helped to make them feel more fresh than many of the other recent Bond films was that they did away with a lot of the Bond checklist items, so that the film didn't feel as though it was just going along a preset path that was laid out in order to be able to easily check certain things off in order to have the film qualify as a Bond film.

[Guy Haines]

A Bond movie would be a pretty dull affair without chases involving various types of vehicles.

Only if one has the attention span of an amoeba. DN, FRWL and TB didn't have to rely on vehicular chases galore.

I'm not suggesting "vehicular chases galore", just pointing out that the Bond films are primarily action adventure movies. In any case, DN featured a high speed car chase involving a Sunbeam Alpine and a hearse, FRWL a duel between Bond and a helicopter, followed by a boat chase featuring probably the least compentent bunch of villains ever to board a boat, TB a jet pack, and a chase involving two cars and a rocket armed motorbike, to say nothing of the fastest hydrofoil you've ever seen! (courtesy of rather dodgy editing!).

It's largely about quality, that I'd say draws the line. I'd argue Bond films at their best, particularly the 3 I mentioned there, are primarily pulpy thrillers. I'd say they simply don't have enough action sequences, and their plots are based too heavily around spying, intrigue, and investigations to be merely straight-forward action adventure films. That's not to say that they're are action-adventure Bond films, but they come much later in the time-line, probably starting with The Spy Who Loved Me.

Incidentally, I don't have the attention span of an amoeba. My favourite medium is still the printed page, and I tend to read books from start to finish. I watch the Bond films to the end, and since January I've even taken the trouble to read some of these posts!

Oh no, please. That wasn't meant as a jibe towards you or anyone in particularly. It was a just a comment made toward one of the so-called and highly vague 'target demographics' EON caters to, when conceiving these action sequences.

No offence taken, Shark, or that smiley emoticon wouldn't have been at the end of my post. I was quite amused in fact. Seriously, I can't understand some of the vitriol being poured in certain threads - on one in particular, and over really trivial stuff. Life's too short.

Point taken about "action" movies, although I still don't think that the recent Bonds are in the same "all action and nothing else" category as more typical Hollywood blockbusters. Unfortunately, they do have to compete with the "crash bang wallop" school of movie, so nods in that direction seem inevitable. I just hope the Bonds don't jump on the Avatar 3-D bandwagon.

[I never miss]

In a way I think CR and QOS resemble Daniel Craig's physique in these two movies (bare with me here):

In CR Craig was big, bulky and had the 'wow' factor.
In QOS he was smaller, leaner and less impressive.

Just my tuppence worth.

I think that you can only really judge how good a Bond film is when it is not the 'current' film. CR is 4 years old now but we still love it. Will we like QOS as much when B23 is out? I think that QOS will generally become a top 8/top 10 entry for most fans. That fact that Daniel Craig is in it helps the film gain a more respectable place in the 'top 22'.

Babs and Mickey aren't silly - they will be aware that people preferred CR to QOS and I think they are likely to revert to more of a classic CR feel in B23.

[The Shark]

I was referring more to items that could be considered part of the "Bond checklist", such as the gun barrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", deformed villain, larger-than-life lair, etc. Sure, both still had some other movie cliches, but at this point, I would think that most action-adventure films are going to contain some cliches simply because just about every action scene that can be done has been done, and each successive boat/car/plane/foot chase or shootout is just going to be another variation on something that has come before. Now, CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has some of those things, but what I think helped to make them feel more fresh than many of the other recent Bond films was that they did away with a lot of the Bond checklist items, so that the film didn't feel as though it was just going along a preset path that was laid out in order to be able to easily check certain things off in order to have the film qualify as a Bond film.

Personally I consider those action movie you're taking a preference to over Bond clichés to be just as harmful to the franchise as any other check-list. The difference between the two seems rather arbitrary at best, and the choice seems emblematic of someone who doesn't understand Fleming's idiom.

[tdalton]

[deleted]

[Lachesis]

Maybe us Bond fans have been spoiled but the staple Bond checklist was always unique to Bond, it made a Bond film or a Bond Book unique and distinct. Ok I think we could all agree that some staples are intrusive and/or repetitive and/or clumsily done in certain films (DAD has a stab at getting them all wrong imo, but I admire it for trying ^^) but there can also be overcompensation and over simplification of the formula and in that case what we get is a Bond film that is in all but name just another geneirc action film..... it might be a corking action film, the 'best evar', but imo its still less unique and less individual than what has traditionally been the ambition. Its obviously a personal assessment where that line is crossed but if it has not been crossed as yet the path of travel in the last two Bonds has certainly been in that direction imo.

While QoS is the 'current' or 'latest' Bond it is burdened by the unknown responsibility of how its success/failure in certain areas will influence the series moving forward..... remove that burden and reveal its influence and suddenly it will look different and be percieved by fans differently - in essence it seems to me the film we are least able to accurately assess for its position in 10 years time is this one ^^.

[Bucky]

I don't feel like the checklist of bond elements makes the bond films more unique because i may be wrong but it did not seem like they were trying to go through a checklist and include everything until the brosnan era. before them it seemed like the story would include the elements if they were necessary but would never force them.

sometimes they even avoided some of them, if i remember correctly roger moore never asked for a vodka martini shaken not stirred. basically i dont enjoy the bond films and think they are unique because of a checklist of certain elements that should be included. usually i find myself enjoying them more just because of their style which is what i feel sets them apart from other "action" films.

Edited by Bucky, 13 April 2010 - 04:51 PM.

[Lachesis]

The checklist I refer to is rather more esoteric "than did he say 'my names Bond, James Bond'" its the way the films juggle thrills, adventure, espionage, spectacle, character, fun, wish fulfillment, exotica, locations etc etc there has always been a consistent and rather individual mix to be found in a Bond Film, one that the archetype Hollywood action movies can't generally match and theres only really original Indiana Jones' that I feel pushed the same set of entertainment centres.

[Sigma7]

The problem is QOS was an action movie, nothing made it a bond movie... what elements were bondian? Thats what set apart Bond movies from the "generic" action movie, QOS had no class or sophistication, just a mish mash of light year speed editing with hint of coherence *yawn* Please try again for Bond 23 thats all i ask

[DaveBond21]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

I actually think Quantum of Solace still had plenty of movie cliches.

I mean, how many times have we seen a man and a woman escape a fire at the end of a movie. And the double-duel was filmed in exactly the same way as the DAD finale. There was also an improvised escape from a runaway plane - like Goldfinger, Moonraker, Octopussy, TLD.....and DAD.

Sacrificial lambs, aeroplane dogfights and boat chases have all been done before too.

I was referring more to items that could be considered part of the "Bond checklist", such as the gun barrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", deformed villain, larger-than-life lair, etc. Sure, both still had some other movie cliches, but at this point, I would think that most action-adventure films are going to contain some cliches simply because just about every action scene that can be done has been done, and each successive boat/car/plane/foot chase or shootout is just going to be another variation on something that has come before. Now, CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has some of those things, but what I think helped to make them feel more fresh than many of the other recent Bond films was that they did away with a lot of the Bond checklist items, so that the film didn't feel as though it was just going along a preset path that was laid out in order to be able to easily check certain things off in order to have the film qualify as a Bond film.

Well explained, tdalton. I see your point.

I honestly don't think that if they had inserted Moneypenny and Q scenes, the gunbarrel, and the line "Bond, James Bond" that anyone would have groaned in the cinema. I don't think the movies would have been worse because of those scenes; indeed they may have been applauded. But I do see your point that they didn't need to be there.

I always think of the comments I hear from casual Bond fans, which is the demographic that these movies are aimed at anyway, and one in particular:-

"I want my James Bond in tank chases and bungee jumps; not getting all brooding and vengeful over some girl..."

[Skudor]

Why not? I see no reason why a Bond film has to stick to a particular routine . . . over and over again. Some of the best or more interesting Bond movies have been those that atypical of the franchise's traditions.

Agreed. That was part of what had made a lot of the preceding Bond films so weak was that it was basically the exact same thing over and over again, as each film had to mark each item off the checklist in pretty much the same fashion over and over. Both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have elements of the checklist in them, but they jettisoned many more of those things (especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE) than any of the previous films could have ever hoped to, and they're much more exciting and much more original films for it. Hopefully we'll see a similar approach to future Bond films. For me, the only necessary requirement for it to actually be a Bond film is the presence of the James Bond character. Everything outside of that can be, and most often should be, different each and every time out.

I actually think Quantum of Solace still had plenty of movie cliches.

I mean, how many times have we seen a man and a woman escape a fire at the end of a movie. And the double-duel was filmed in exactly the same way as the DAD finale. There was also an improvised escape from a runaway plane - like Goldfinger, Moonraker, Octopussy, TLD.....and DAD.

Sacrificial lambs, aeroplane dogfights and boat chases have all been done before too.

I was referring more to items that could be considered part of the "Bond checklist", such as the gun barrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", deformed villain, larger-than-life lair, etc. Sure, both still had some other movie cliches, but at this point, I would think that most action-adventure films are going to contain some cliches simply because just about every action scene that can be done has been done, and each successive boat/car/plane/foot chase or shootout is just going to be another variation on something that has come before. Now, CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has some of those things, but what I think helped to make them feel more fresh than many of the other recent Bond films was that they did away with a lot of the Bond checklist items, so that the film didn't feel as though it was just going along a preset path that was laid out in order to be able to easily check certain things off in order to have the film qualify as a Bond film.

Well explained, tdalton. I see your point.

I honestly don't think that if they had inserted Moneypenny and Q scenes, the gunbarrel, and the line "Bond, James Bond" that anyone would have groaned in the cinema. I don't think the movies would have been worse because of those scenes; indeed they may have been applauded. But I do see your point that they didn't need to be there.

I always think of the comments I hear from casual Bond fans, which is the demographic that these movies are aimed at anyway, and one in particular:-

"I want my James Bond in tank chases and bungee jumps; not getting all brooding and vengeful over some girl..."

I get why some people hate Quantum of Solace - I just love it for the same reasons. It has its flaws, just like every Bond film, but it is also a truly unique entry, with some classic moments (the PTS, the Opera scene, the locations - to name a few).

I think QOS will eventually be in most people's top ten list, we just need to get a bit of distance from the usual internet/forum cycle of hype to ridicule.

[blueman]

I think QOS will eventually be in most people's top ten list, we just need to get a bit of distance from the usual internet/forum cycle of hype to ridicule.

Yep, much like the maligned and reviled OHMSS has risen in standings since its release. The differences were appreciated given some distance, understandable.

[AliasTheJester]

I think all the concern about whether or not it was an appropriate follow up to CASINO ROYALE, lived up to EON publicity schpiel about "reinventing the character" etc. will be forgotten in ten years and it will be seen as no more or less than "a Bond film"; something that amounts to a couple of hours entertainment. It was one I personally enjoyed very much.

[DaveBond21]

I think all the concern about whether or not it was an appropriate follow up to CASINO ROYALE, lived up to EON publicity schpiel about "reinventing the character" etc. will be forgotten in ten years and it will be seen as no more or less than "a Bond film"; something that amounts to a couple of hours entertainment. It was one I personally enjoyed very much.

I agree. In 10-15 years' time, not only will the James Bond character have been re-invented once more, but they will also have made a Bond movie that was more gritty and darker than CR & QOS.

[Publius]

The problem with Bond movies is that they used to rip off other things happening around them, but eventually started ripping off themselves as well. QOS is not exactly the most original or jaw-dropping plot in the genre's history, but it is by Bond standards and still manages to be a damn good movie (in my estimation and that of at least half the fans).

Casino Royale and QOS still had the ultimate recent Bond cliche - the traitor from within.

I get what you're saying, but that's more a cliche of the spy genre. And considering what espionage is all about even in the real world, it's not exactly a stretch to include it more often than not.

[DaveBond21]

The problem with Bond movies is that they used to rip off other things happening around them, but eventually started ripping off themselves as well. QOS is not exactly the most original or jaw-dropping plot in the genre's history, but it is by Bond standards and still manages to be a damn good movie (in my estimation and that of at least half the fans).

Casino Royale and QOS still had the ultimate recent Bond cliche - the traitor from within.

I get what you're saying, but that's more a cliche of the spy genre. And considering what espionage is all about even in the real world, it's not exactly a stretch to include it more often than not.

Don't get me wrong. I love QOS. I just don't think it's as groundbreaking as some may suggest. And it's not a patch on Casino Royale.

[Jim]

In ten years' time, it may still be the latest Bond film.