85 replies to this topic

[MrKidd]

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

That's right - at least to a certain extent. An interesting barometer is the total take to opening weekend i.e. the 'legs' of a movie. Massive opening weekends followed by sharp drop offs indicate fan-boy rush. Twilight is an example of this. And so is QoS.

Whilst I am not a movie financial expert I do know that if a film makes - for example - 200 million dollars in its opening weekend only or at the end of a three month run, it has still made 200 million dollars (I use 'made' loosely here). That is all that matters to the money men. And a drop-off in business after a busy initial rush cannot be used as a mark of quality of the film in question, but rather spectatorship patterns (eg. Bond has an 'event' stamp on it still and people like to be part of that early on, not a month down the line), distribution patterns (what else is released that month, how many prints are available in the subsequent roll outs, what is the relationship between the theatre chains and the distributors.... ask Mr Burton how the quality of his work is redundant if exhibitors are not going to show your film), economic patterns (eg. has a film been released near pay-day, school holidays, Christmas, bank holiday?) and societal patterns (is cinema going in vogue?).

I'm not arguing QoS made money. Lots of it (although underperformed in US!). I'm saying that that's no indicator of a decent film or that most people who saw it liked it.

[Zorin Industries]

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

That's right - at least to a certain extent. An interesting barometer is the total take to opening weekend i.e. the 'legs' of a movie. Massive opening weekends followed by sharp drop offs indicate fan-boy rush. Twilight is an example of this. And so is QoS.

Whilst I am not a movie financial expert I do know that if a film makes - for example - 200 million dollars in its opening weekend only or at the end of a three month run, it has still made 200 million dollars (I use 'made' loosely here). That is all that matters to the money men. And a drop-off in business after a busy initial rush cannot be used as a mark of quality of the film in question, but rather spectatorship patterns (eg. Bond has an 'event' stamp on it still and people like to be part of that early on, not a month down the line), distribution patterns (what else is released that month, how many prints are available in the subsequent roll outs, what is the relationship between the theatre chains and the distributors.... ask Mr Burton how the quality of his work is redundant if exhibitors are not going to show your film), economic patterns (eg. has a film been released near pay-day, school holidays, Christmas, bank holiday?) and societal patterns (is cinema going in vogue?).

I'm not arguing QoS made money. Lots of it (although underperformed in US!). I'm saying that that's no indicator of a decent film or that most people who saw it liked it.

Okay. Fine. I'm not going to argue into the night with people about one film that came out two years ago when their agendas are based on one opinion and mine are on another. The only opinion that matters is that of Mr Washington on the green notes. Though I would be careful in proclaiming SOLACE "underperformed" in the US. Didn't it take more than ROYALE?

[MrKidd]

Box Office means absoloutely nothing. People pay for the film tickets before they even see the movie. Even if they're dissapointed with the finished product, they've still payed to see it. This is why I find Box Office takings a stupid excuse to determine the overall quality of a movie.

That's right - at least to a certain extent. An interesting barometer is the total take to opening weekend i.e. the 'legs' of a movie. Massive opening weekends followed by sharp drop offs indicate fan-boy rush. Twilight is an example of this. And so is QoS.

Whilst I am not a movie financial expert I do know that if a film makes - for example - 200 million dollars in its opening weekend only or at the end of a three month run, it has still made 200 million dollars (I use 'made' loosely here). That is all that matters to the money men. And a drop-off in business after a busy initial rush cannot be used as a mark of quality of the film in question, but rather spectatorship patterns (eg. Bond has an 'event' stamp on it still and people like to be part of that early on, not a month down the line), distribution patterns (what else is released that month, how many prints are available in the subsequent roll outs, what is the relationship between the theatre chains and the distributors.... ask Mr Burton how the quality of his work is redundant if exhibitors are not going to show your film), economic patterns (eg. has a film been released near pay-day, school holidays, Christmas, bank holiday?) and societal patterns (is cinema going in vogue?).

I'm not arguing QoS made money. Lots of it (although underperformed in US!). I'm saying that that's no indicator of a decent film or that most people who saw it liked it.

Okay. Fine. I'm not going to argue into the night with people about one film that came out two years ago when their agendas are based on one opinion and mine are on another. The only opinion that matters is that of Mr Washington on the green notes. Though I would be careful in proclaiming SOLACE "underperformed" in the US. Didn't it take more than ROYALE?

Let's agree not to get into all that again, hey?! If you want that discussion there's a thread re over- under-performance. And I'm done with it But for the record, I don't have an 'agenda' - honestly don't. Our opinions on Q0S obviously differ but I'm not data-mining just to 'prove' a point.. But I am surprised that a genuine film lover as yourself would decree the only thing that matters is BO!? I love loads of movies that did badly and don't like many that did well..Amen

Edited by MrKidd, 05 March 2010 - 03:09 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Of course. I don't give a toss about box office per se. But some folk pick up that baton and run with it in some thinly veiled rant against one film or another - and use rubbish fifth generation box office data from internet sites to back themselves up (not that you have done that, Mr Kidd).

[Lachesis]

Just checking Boxoffice Mojo

DaD managed $161M from an opening gross of $47M
CR managed $167M from an opening gross of $40M
QOS managed $168M from an opening gross of $68M

All these figure represent a 30% increase over previous 3 entries, though adjusted for ticket price inflation the real 'bums on seats figure' is somewhat less. Opening grosses are often more a reflection of the previous film and its notable that QoS was rushed to ride the momentum of CR and to a large degree (much larger than previous Bonds) marketed itself on that one film, its opening grosses were the highest ever but the fall off was more marked.

Like any other fact you can apply assumption and presumtion to infer what that means.....what we can safely say is that boxoffice is very influential in studio descsions yet in no way proportional to a film actual quality - external factors and trends are very influential and the reception of the previous entry in a franchise can be critical (witness Matrix Reloaded).

Considering the relatively significant increase in monetary terms of DaD over TWINE the decision to change direction with CR doesn't seem to arise from Bond's own box office at all but rather a reaction to the fact that BOURNE managed to outgross each and every Bond in comparable years.....There may be dispute among Bond fans of the Bounification of the role but its more than indicative here.

Bond can and should move with the times, but here we have something else happening, Bond being brought into line with someone else entirely, someone far far less interesting in his own right...least thats how I see the current state of play, till the next film arrives I reserve the selfish right to remain pessimistic.

[Zorin Industries]

Just checking Boxoffice Mojo

DaD managed $161M from an opening gross of $47M
CR managed $167M from an opening gross of $40M
QOS managed $168M from an opening gross of $68M

All these figure represent a 30% increase over previous 3 entries, though adjusted for ticket price inflation the real 'bums on seats figure' is somewhat less. Opening grosses are often more a reflection of the previous film and its notable that QoS was rushed to ride the momentum of CR and to a large degree (much larger than previous Bonds) marketed itself on that one film, its opening grosses were the highest ever but the fall off was more marked.

Like any other fact you can apply assumption and presumtion to infer what that means.....what we can safely say is that boxoffice is very influential in studio descsions yet in no way proportional to a film actual quality - external factors and trends are very influential and the reception of the previous entry in a franchise can be critical (witness Matrix Reloaded).

Considering the relatively significant increase in monetary terms of DaD over TWINE the decision to change direction with CR doesn't seem to arise from Bond's own box office at all but rather a reaction to the fact that BOURNE managed to outgross each and every Bond in comparable years.....There may be dispute among Bond fans of the Bounification of the role but its more than indicative here.

Bond can and should move with the times, but here we have something else happening, Bond being brought into line with someone else entirely, someone far far less interesting in his own right...least thats how I see the current state of play, till the next film arrives I reserve the selfish right to remain pessimistic.

The Bond management went in a different direction post DIE ANOTHER DAY for a variety of reasons. Way down on the list (if it was even there) was the Bourne franchise. Some of these reasons were in-house and not factors that get reported (and rightly so), others were a bit more external.

[MattofSteel]

I've always viewed some aspects as a give-and-take relationship with the studio, as well. They're putting up the money, they certainly get a say. For the most part I don't think the series has strayed too dangerously far from ideal creatively - although aspects of Die Another Day were pushing it.

I get the impression that, like you've said Zorin, the folks at EON are far more interested in producing a quality emulation of Fleming time in and time out than they get credit for. I look at a film like DAD and even see an honest attempt, perhaps misdirected by tangents of style.

[Guy Haines]

the director tried too hard to be different and a sizable number of fans and neutral film goers didn't like it.

Really? The box office suggested otherwise.

I agree about the plot. Quantum should be in the business of threatening the civilised world, not turning off the taps in the middle of South America.

We are not in that era of Bond or cinema anymore where a faceless villain threatens faceless westerners. Bond simply cannot keep retreading old water (excuse the reference here). There needs to be a humanity and a reason for what is being threatened - and personally I found a band of homeless South Americans forced to move on far more effective a story device than the death of another stuntman goon in a boiler suit. Motivation of the main character and his political world is the key now in Bond. Has no-one noticed that yet?

And if the likes of Sam Mendes are allowed to direct what could be the next Bond film finally made he too will no doubt hone in on the personal tragedies of the story rather than sweeping notions of "threatened civilizations".

We certainly aren't in an era of faceless villains threatening civilisation any more, are we? We think we know who they are and what they are capable of. When the book "Thunderball" was written, the idea of an independent organisation stealing atom bombs might have seemed far fetched. It isn't now. To say nothing of "conventional terrorism" and even cyber warfare. There are plenty of real life situations and potential crises going on to provide source material for future Bond adventures. Including an attempt to control natural resources such as water.

Very good as Quantum Of Solace was, I just don't think that aspect of the story was developed as well as it could have been. Greene bankrolls Medrano's coup d'etat. Medrano signs off on the Bolivian water board. That's it. To me at least there didn't seem any real sense of the threat of dire consequences from Greene and Quantum if their demands weren't met - since it seemed from watching the film and the scenes of drought stricken Bolivians that Greene had effectively achieved his aim in that country and just needed Medrano to sign on the bottom line.

[MrKidd]

Of course. I don't give a toss about box office per se. But some folk pick up that baton and run with it in some thinly veiled rant against one film or another - and use rubbish fifth generation box office data from internet sites to back themselves up (not that you have done that, Mr Kidd).

Kool - understood

[JBOO71970]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

[Guy Haines]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

Good point. In the opera house scene there was talk of controlling the world's most precious resource, but in practice it all boiled down to the resources of one country. There was no sense that control of water elsewhere was at stake. If it had been clearly shown that Greene's project was just one part - the final part? - of a global project, it would seem like something that only a global syndicate could have undertaken.

Old style Bond as this may seem, maybe a scene involving a wall map pointing out various other Quantum water control schemes around the world would have helped. Greene pointing out to all and sundry that Bolivia was just one part among many of a global conspiracy. Instead, once we are in Bolivia, it comes across as something of a parish pump project - appalling for that country, but no great threat to anyone else.

(on re-reading this contribution, apologies in advance for "boiling down" and "parish pump project"!)

[JBOO71970]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

Good point. In the opera house scene there was talk of controlling the world's most precious resource, but in practice it all boiled down to the resources of one country. There was no sense that control of water elsewhere was at stake. If it had been clearly shown that Greene's project was just one part - the final part? - of a global project, it would seem like something that only a global syndicate could have undertaken.

Old style Bond as this may seem, maybe a scene involving a wall map pointing out various other Quantum water control schemes around the world would have helped. Greene pointing out to all and sundry that Bolivia was just one part among many of a global conspiracy. Instead, once we are in Bolivia, it comes across as something of a parish pump project - appalling for that country, but no great threat to anyone else.

(on re-reading this contribution, apologies in advance for "boiling down" and "parish pump project"!)

Exactly. Like I've said before, OO7 doesn't need to "save the world" per se. But the master plot should fit the villain involved. A single man controlling the water of Bolivia and Bond comes across the plot and stops him, sure. We've seen similair Bond movies before. But a global organization like Quantum needs to be a global threat. That's my take on it.

I really wanted to like QoS. I wanted to love it. Instead, to me, it came across as another DAD or TMWTGG--a potentially great film that ends up being wasted.

BTW, for those applaudding it's alleged creativity, it pulls the same trick DAD did with the references to other films in the series (the guy holding on to Bond's tie on the roof, Fields's death aping Shirley Eaton's, etc). At least DAD let us know that that's what it was planning on doing from the get-go.

[jamie00007]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

Is it really any different than the introduction of SPECTRE? What was Dr No doing? Just harassing the US space program? And it wasnt really until Thunderball that SPECTRE ever really become a major threat to the world.

It was implied that this is just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to Quantum. Just one of their operations. The more important aspects of Quantum that we learn about in QoS is how far their reach extends - they topple governments and replace them with their own puppets, they have their own people in all the intelligence services, as high up as M's own personal bodyguard, and even have influence over the British PM. That to me makes them a far bigger threat than SPECTRE ever was.

[Guy Haines]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

Is it really any different than the introduction of SPECTRE? What was Dr No doing? Just harassing the US space program? And it wasnt really until Thunderball that SPECTRE ever really become a major threat to the world.

It was implied that this is just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to Quantum. Just one of their operations. The more important aspects of Quantum that we learn about in QoS is how far their reach extends - they topple governments and replace them with their own puppets, they have their own people in all the intelligence services, as high up as M's own personal bodyguard, and even have influence over the British PM. That to me makes them a far bigger threat than SPECTRE ever was.

While I still think the villain's plot in QoS could have been developed and presented differently, I agree with you completely about Quantum. Potentially it is a bigger threat than SPECTRE. The latter was made up of big time criminals who had kept their records clean. This new outfit is a collection of individuals already in positions of influence, including, as you point out, the British PM's top advisor (and the character whose name I'm using on this site! I'll be interested to see that missing end scene from QoS just to find out his fate.)

SPECTRE was a group of outlaws, whereas Quantum's top membership stalk the corridors of power. Just one problem though. Due to their attendance at a certain performance of Tosca in Bregenz (one of the best scenes in the film, I thought), haven't they been compromised? Even the PM's top advisor is on MI6's most wanted list after that. And didn't Dominic Greene spill the beans about them as well, before being left to his fate in the desert with just a can of motor oil for company? I'd hate to think this new global conspiracy is over before Bond can really start taking it on.

I hope that Quantum returns in the next film and future films, but it will be without some of its senior people. That said, I'm sure it can find replacements. They have "people everywhere"!

[SecretAgentFan]

Honestly, I think part of my problem with the plot of QoS is that you had a big organization behind the water plot. Now, had Greene acted alone to do this--like a Goldfinger for instance--I would have had less problem with it. But again, if you're going to have a SPECTRE-like organization, give them a SPECTRE-like plot.

Good point. In the opera house scene there was talk of controlling the world's most precious resource, but in practice it all boiled down to the resources of one country. There was no sense that control of water elsewhere was at stake. If it had been clearly shown that Greene's project was just one part - the final part? - of a global project, it would seem like something that only a global syndicate could have undertaken.

Old style Bond as this may seem, maybe a scene involving a wall map pointing out various other Quantum water control schemes around the world would have helped. Greene pointing out to all and sundry that Bolivia was just one part among many of a global conspiracy. Instead, once we are in Bolivia, it comes across as something of a parish pump project - appalling for that country, but no great threat to anyone else.

(on re-reading this contribution, apologies in advance for "boiling down" and "parish pump project"!)

Actually, I never had a problem with that. I always got the impression the QUANTUM can remain in the shadows because they send out employees like Greene out to carry out operations on their own. And the water plot, I thought, was in the early stages. Had Bond not stopped Greene it would have been take to the next phase.

[Mr_Wint]

Had Bond not stopped Greene it would have been take to the next phase.

Tripled water rates in Bolivia!!!

[JBOO71970]

I watched this again last night to see if perhaps I missed something the first time out. Yes, it was the first time since seeing it in the movies in November, 2008 that I watched QoS.

There are some very well done sequences in it: The Opera House, the scenes with Mathis, the scene in the sink hole. However, I'm still not happy with the cutting of the action scenes. They are cut like the scenes in the Christopher Nolan Batman movies and while such cutting may work to an extent in those Batman movies, they don't work with Bond. The Bond movies have a distinct style to them and have had that style for nearly 50 years now. This, by the way, is why DAD fails, too--it deviates too wildly from what a Bond movie is by adding in elements (bad CGI, the over-dramatic John Woo-like slow motion shots) that aped other action movies. Bond was always the trend-setter, not the imitator.

Now someone is gonna pop on to this thread and say, "oh, you're just living in the past! Catch up to the 21st Century!" What they miss is that the elements of any particular series are what makes me a fan or not a fan. I have no problem with CGI in movies--I really enjoyed Avatar among others--but seeing the CGI Bond parasailing away from the CGI iceberg ticked me off. Bond is about real people doing real and spectacular stunts. Look at the fight at the construction site in CR for an example. Similarly, I don't have a particular problem with the way Nolan has the Batman movies cut--I love both of them in fact--but in Bond we've always been able to see the action and follow the action and know exactly who is doing what at all times. It's part of what makes them exciting. I feel the same way about Indiana Jones--the fourth film is a failure to me because it overdoes the CGI and to me, Indiana Jones should not have that much CGI. What I'll accept in a series like Spider-Man or Batman I'll be less tolerant of in a well established series that has done it right throughout the years and doesn't need to imitate whatever is hot at the Box Office.

And yes, Bond has over the years, in particular during the 70s, imitated trends, but it did so while retaining it's identity as James Bond. LALD is a blaxploitation film, sure, but it's a James Bond blaxploitation film, not strictly a Shaft or Superfly. Actually, LALD is one of the more sucessful attempts to imitate a trend.

Frankly, I don't get why people harsh on the older films. Is it that people are just showing love for the current Bond--as was the case while Pierce was Bond and people flipped when he got replaced--at the expense of those that came before him? I frankly like them all. Yes, there are definitely weaker films, but almost all of them work on one level or another. None of them--even QoS--out and out stink the way a movie like Tomb Raider stinks. I've seen all of them more than once now and will continue to watch them as I have for the past 32 years. Each actor in the role had their own interpretation and each one had merits. Each one had really good movies (GF, TSWLM, GE for instance) and each one had lesser films (DAF, TMWTGG, DAD). Okay, Lazenby only had the one and he kinda tried too hard to be Connery, but OHMSS is a pretty good entry. And honestly, there's always been a variety among the films between the over the top and the suble. Not ALL of Moore's movies were MR (though I kinda like MR), you know. FYEO had no gadgets and was as straight as Connery's first two. OP has some silly moments, but it too was fairly serious and well done. And I truly love LALD and TSWLM. Incidentally, for all the complaints about poor Roger, his Bond was often as brutal as Connery's and indeed, arguably more brutal than Brosnan's. So Roger does deserve far more credit than he gets. Besides, without him, we might not have gotten up to Craig. His Bond kept the series going after Connery left no matter what fans may think of him now. And for the people who feel that "living in the past" where the films are concerned is nuts, it's worth pointing out that things worked well enough all those years that they were able to keep making them.

[jamie00007]

But how can Bond be still be any kind of trendsetter without making any changes or utilizing new techniques? It seems people dont want their Bond movies to ever change but still want them to be trendsetters and ahead of the pack. How does that work?

I would also say that its been a long time since "Bond was always the trend-setter, not the imitator." Bond in the 70's, starting from DAF, was definately more imitator than trendsetter, and by the 80's was well and truly lagging behind other movies in the genre. Compare the action scenes in AVTAK or TLD to those made several years earlier in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

Frankly, I don't get why people harsh on the older films.

Its just being fair. Examining them with the same critical eye we examine the new films with, Its very easy to just accept the older films as they are as most of us have grown up with them and are very familiar with them. But what if a forum like this existed when Moonraker or AVTAK was released?

[Zorin Industries]

And for the people who feel that "living in the past" where the films are concerned is nuts, it's worth pointing out that things worked well enough all those years that they were able to keep making them.

And it is worth remembering too that the likes of ROYALE and SOLACE were not bankrolled on the back of the 1960's Bond films, but the audience response to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY. The latter was a major reason why CASINO ROYALE was greenlit. The Bond films are not funded and made on the back of what the films used to be.

And on your thoughts about fast editing and quick cuts - the likes of Peter Hunt and Terence Young pioneered that style from day one. SOLACE is more akin to those years than any other. You only need to look at the machine gun editing work on OHMSS (the hotel brawl, the bobsleigh chase, the stock car pile up) to see where the templates for SOLACE are firmly rooted.

And since when did "fast cuts" equal bad cuts?

And another "and"....(!).... editors on - for example - a Bond film such as ROYALE or SOLACE have a massive wealth of influences. Just because the Bourne and BATMAN films are in your consciousness when you discuss film editing and clearly a lot of people's far too easy reference points when trying rather lazily to knock the likes of SOLACE, does not mean that the filmmakers have remotely been influenced by them too. Good and professional editors will be aware of all sorts of film editing styles garnered and showcased from the likes of European cinema, Asian cinema, Mexican cinema and independent thrillers that no-one sees or reports on but that make their stamp on the industry. As an example, no-one will say how BOND 23 feels like the French film THE PROPHET but editors I know are mentioning the finesse and achievements of that film's editing style already. But because no-one will see the likes of that film it is easier to throw in "Bourne", "Batman" etc without understanding where those films get their influences from.

The likes of Dan Bradley were not solely hired because of his work on Bourne alone, but by his professional acumen, contacts, working relationships with directors, crew and actors alike as well as notions of availability, work visa issues, what unions the stunt crews will fall under as they work the globe and does that tie with the stunt coordinator's backgrounds...etc. But "they wanted it to look like Bourne" is an easier all-encompassing sentiment. Did Spielberg want CRYSTAL SKULL to look like The Bourne trilogy? No, of course he didn't.

Just my thoughts...

[Mr_Wint]

Compare the action scenes in AVTAK or TLD to those made several years earlier in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

Why not compare the action scenes in ROTLA with the action scenes in FYEO, made in the same year...? I've seen tons of movies made during the 80's but I don't see your point.

[JBOO71970]

Actually, the style of editing, at least for fights, in the 1960s films may have been more influenced by the fights directed by William Witney in the movie serials of the 1930s and 40s. Indeed, the fight on the Orient Express is done very much in the Witney style. Here's the thing: you can still clearly see who is doing what to whom in those scenes. The cuts in QoS are so quick you can barely tell what is going on. This is especially true in the first two action scenes. Frankly, a lot of fans that I've talked to of action movies--especially fans who have seen movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, the old movie serials, and all the older Bond films--feel that movies are done this way now specifically because the director does not know how to stage an action scene and figures if he makes the cuts fast enough, audiences will automatically think it's exciting. CR, on the other hand, had excellently staged action scenes where you COULD tell what was going on. If you want to hold CR up as the way a Bond movie should be, you might have an argument. But definitely not QoS.

It also bothers me that a lot of people here are fawning over QoS because they say it's not like the older films while blissfully ignoring the fact that it blatantly rips scenes directly out of the films people are professing to hate now. If GF and TSWLM are such god-awful movies and QoS is so perfect, why does it rip scenes out of them? QoS is not as creative or inventive as people are making it out to be.

As far as Bond as trendsetter, let's put it this way--to this day there are people desperately attempting to duplicate Bond. There are elements to the movies--elements that people here are harshing on (Q, Moneypenny, etc)--that to this day people are sticking in their own action movie. Don't believe me? Go watch VAN HELSING some day and tell me that's not Q and Q's lab in the film. And that sort of nonsense has been going on since the 1960s. Hell, even Feldman and McClory realized there were elements that were discintly Bond and stuck them in their offshoots.

Again, it's not that QoS is a total piece of garbage. Like all the Bond movies it has things that work and things that don't. I'd argue that the worst Bond movie is still better than a lot of it's contemporaries. Though I do wonder what we would have got if Martin Campbell had directed it. He at least seems to have an understanding of what makes the series work while still managing to give us a slightly different take on the series. GE is Brosnan's best Bond movie and so far CR outshines it's sequel in every way. I doubt that that's a coincidence.

[JBOO71970]

But how can Bond be still be any kind of trendsetter without making any changes or utilizing new techniques? It seems people dont want their Bond movies to ever change but still want them to be trendsetters and ahead of the pack. How does that work?

Martin Campbell showed how with both GE and CR. Both films made changes to the formula to an extent but both were recognizably Bond movies. Both, consequently, were excellent Bond movies--the best of their decades, in fact. Campbell may be the best director the series has had since Terrence Young and one of the only ones to truly get what the series is about. Mind you, Guy Hamilton wasn't a slacker, either. But Campbell managed to bring Bond first into the 1990s then into the 21st Century in a big way. Both films have incredible action scenes and stunts, but both also have good stories and performances. He also did this without ripping scenes out of earlier films or shooting the thing that you can't tell what goes on. And both of his films retain a sense of humor to them that works without being too much. Campbell hit the nail on the head both times. The other directors in his wake have not and each Bond actor under them has truly suffered a law of diminishing returns. We'll have to see what happens next with Craig, and hopefully he doesn't go the route of Brosnan with each film being worse than the one before it. Only time will tell.

[Lachesis]

But how can Bond be still be any kind of trendsetter without making any changes or utilizing new techniques? It seems people dont want their Bond movies to ever change but still want them to be trendsetters and ahead of the pack. How does that work?

I would also say that its been a long time since "Bond was always the trend-setter, not the imitator." Bond in the 70's, starting from DAF, was definately more imitator than trendsetter, and by the 80's was well and truly lagging behind other movies in the genre. Compare the action scenes in AVTAK or TLD to those made several years earlier in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

Frankly, I don't get why people harsh on the older films.

Its just being fair. Examining them with the same critical eye we examine the new films with, Its very easy to just accept the older films as they are as most of us have grown up with them and are very familiar with them. But what if a forum like this existed when Moonraker or AVTAK was released?

I'm inclined to say your comments are contradictory here in that if you expect the movies to move with the times (as they always have - this aint a new trend in Bond at all) then any critique has to be mindful of the past circumstances. Make the films timeless and such consideration doesn't have to be made.

To suggest that people dislike QoS because they dont like change is more than a little unfair, the Bond films have always moved with the times and reflected the attitudes of the moment - but they have done so and also managed to retained their identity, that is something I, and others it seems, feel has been dangerously eroded in QoS. QoS is not something you describe as escapist adventure, but rather straighforward actioner, its this simplification of the formula that makes the film far more comparable with Bourne than say TWINE, Bonds aspire to more (not saying they are always successful but you can see the efforts made...at least till QoS.)

I am unsure what difference being on the forum when AVTAK or MR were released would make, unless you are listing them as lows in the series (many would argue that - though perhaps not I)...tbh QoS is far less enteratining for me than either of those films....so perhaps you can appreciate my need to express concern for the series (selfishly motivated though that may be).

And on your thoughts about fast editing and quick cuts - the likes of Peter Hunt and Terence Young pioneered that style from day one. SOLACE is more akin to those years than any other. You only need to look at the machine gun editing work on OHMSS (the hotel brawl, the bobsleigh chase, the stock car pile up) to see where the templates for SOLACE are firmly rooted.

And since when did "fast cuts" equal bad cuts?

Indeed fast editing is not automatically bad, but imho what QoS presents is, simply bad editing, indeed more than one source has spoken of fact that the film was being rushed during post production and that seems very evident. However I feel the divisive effect that is emphasised in QoS moreso than probably any other Bond is a result of the lack of alternate avenues to appreciate it (which is why I termed earlier as a pure action flick) it really only functions on that one level for me...whereas I can cringe at elements of MR but enjoy other parts, I just can't see what else there is to enjoy in QoS.

I am not claiming the producers should change direction to accomodate me, nor that QoS is doing anything other than trying to survive the 00's (though I do question that there is only one way to do so) but I do believe that the diverse and broad appeal Bond has delivered from the 50's through to CR's 2005 release is absent in the latest venture and the critical point will be - is that a one off occurence or has the production dispensed with the unique property fans of the Bond series previous was able to rely on.

Edited by Lachesis, 06 March 2010 - 05:35 PM.

[byline]

Good point. In the opera house scene there was talk of controlling the world's most precious resource, but in practice it all boiled down to the resources of one country. There was no sense that control of water elsewhere was at stake.

I disagree. Why else mention shifting the group's focus to the Canadian? Of course, Greene immediately stepped in to oppose that because Bolivia was his baby, and he didn't want to lose it. But I thought it was pretty clear that Bolivia was only one part of the Tierra Project, which would have included more freshwater sources than just that one.

[Dekard77]

Hmm some interesting points. But I have to ask, is it such a big deal to add some scenes into movie? What's wrong with doing some changes to a movie if it can be done? Technology has made things easier.

We never thought we will see deleted scenes from Bond movies or special features until much later on. Thunderball was the only exception as they had a making of on VHS.

Bond films always got the appeal from the audience because they had a little bit of other action movies and some new tricks. Even GE had a Die Hard 2 like ejector seat and CR had some Bourne film references.

[jamie00007]

Why not compare the action scenes in ROTLA with the action scenes in FYEO, made in the same year...? I've seen tons of movies made during the 80's but I don't see your point.

My point is that in the 80's Bond movies could hardly be called a trendsetters. Movies by the likes of Spielberg were making Bond at the time look very stale and crusty. Which is why I used AVTAK and TLD as examples - they were made several years after Raiders and on a bigger budget yet they look like they were made ten years earlier. Look at the firetruck chase in AVTAK next to the terific truck chase in Raiders for example. Bond must have been starting to look very old hat to 80's cinema-goers.

I am unsure what difference being on the forum when AVTAK or MR were released would make, unless you are listing them as lows in the series (many would argue that - though perhaps not I)...tbh QoS is far less enteratining for me than either of those films....so perhaps you can appreciate my need to express concern for the series (selfishly motivated though that may be).

My response was about the idea that people are putting down the older films to promote their like of the new ones, which I completely disagree is happening. Movies like MR and AVTAK, like them or not (and I do a lot) are seriously flawed films. And had message boards like this been around when those movies were released they would have been torn to shreds. Can you even imagine the response to a character like Dolly or Jaws' romantic subplot or Bond going into battle in space had there been forums like this around at the time?

But those movies generally get a pass, with most of us growing up with them and having fond memories of them and just accepting them as we are so used to them. Nostalgia goes a long way. But if people want to compare the new to the old, then its only fair that the old films are examined in the same critical light that we look at the new ones with.

[Mr. Blofeld]

But those movies generally get a pass, with most of us growing up with them and having fond memories of them and just accepting them as we are so used to them. Nostalgia goes a long way.

That really explains a lot of the animosity towards QOS; a bunch of fuddy-duddies rooted in the past want Bond to go back to "fun", whether it results in a good film, or not -- they just want their kicks.

[Guy Haines]

Good point. In the opera house scene there was talk of controlling the world's most precious resource, but in practice it all boiled down to the resources of one country. There was no sense that control of water elsewhere was at stake.

I disagree. Why else mention shifting the group's focus to the Canadian? Of course, Greene immediately stepped in to oppose that because Bolivia was his baby, and he didn't want to lose it. But I thought it was pretty clear that Bolivia was only one part of the Tierra Project, which would have included more freshwater sources than just that one.

We are not actually told what this Canadian project is. Just a hint that Quantum's money might be better spent on it. I just thought it was a pity that, having muttered (he couldn't do anything else given the way that meeting was being conducted) "this is the world's most precious resource, and we need to control as much of it as we can", Greene didn't lay it on thick later in the movie that this is what he was up to. Maybe some way of showing his partners, and the audience, just what an appalling example of "globalisation" Quantum was planning.

I think what I missed in QoS is a typical "villain explains it all" scene in the last quarter of the film. What we got instead was the meeting in that desert hotel when Greene gets Medrano to sign some legal documents, including signing over control of, I think it was, 60% of Bolivia's water - not even total control in one country.

Its not that I need a plot spelling out in large friendly letters. I've followed more convoluted stuff than this in Bond films and other novels and movies without too much trouble. I just missed one or two plot conventions that would have laid on the line just what was supposed to be at stake.

[Guy Haines]

But those movies generally get a pass, with most of us growing up with them and having fond memories of them and just accepting them as we are so used to them. Nostalgia goes a long way.

That really explains a lot of the animosity towards QOS; a bunch of fuddy-duddies rooted in the past want Bond to go back to "fun", whether it results in a good film, or not -- they just want their kicks.

I could have done without some of the "fun" of the 70s and 80s Bond films, believe me. I actually rank CR in my top two or three, and QoS is in my top ten Bond film list. For me, the main problem with Solace is the jerky filming and editing of one or two action scenes - but not all (I thought the aerial combat and the final battle scenes were well done - by contrast the Bond -v- Mitchell chase was a mess). But I am quite happy with the overall direction the movies have taken since CR - modern in tone but for this old fan at least a reminder in parts of the 60s films. As for nostalgia, well, it ain't what it used to be!

[Lachesis]

But those movies generally get a pass, with most of us growing up with them and having fond memories of them and just accepting them as we are so used to them. Nostalgia goes a long way. But if people want to compare the new to the old, then its only fair that the old films are examined in the same critical light that we look at the new ones with.

Hmm while I kinda expected it miht be the case I really don't get the impression any film gets a free pass, not here among what you'd anticipate were biassed fans (I am staggered by the animosity in many cases) and certaining not out there in the cold world of the internets. Obviously some people grew up with some of these movies but given medium of TV, DVD, and cinema which and in what order is likely to be increasingly random. There is a rather recent impetus to register extremes ie 'best thing evar' or 'total garbage' when in fact life is rarely so simple. The real problem for the older films is the degree of exposure (you cannot enjoy a film the same way on the 10th viewing or seeing its second half 3 weeks before the first because of how you caught it etc), the number of once new ideas and images that subsequently become cliches (as you say Bond of the 60's did set trends moreso than later), our techincal savvy is also prone to making us less generous in looking back.. ironically where the films bias is to action and spectacle the ravages of time are more evident than those that focus on character (to which our perception changes less).

But those movies generally get a pass, with most of us growing up with them and having fond memories of them and just accepting them as we are so used to them. Nostalgia goes a long way.

That really explains a lot of the animosity towards QOS; a bunch of fuddy-duddies rooted in the past want Bond to go back to "fun", whether it results in a good film, or not -- they just want their kicks.

Casino Royale manages doesn't draw anything like the same level of division among fans so this kind of simplistic thinking really doesn't hold water.

I will concede that QoS position as the 'most recent' film does intensify things to a degree. In my personal case its the lack of charisma, the lack of ambition and the lack of diversity that impacts on my enjoyment most...as stated most Bond's I find if they dont work on one level there are still others with which to appreciate it - but QoS is so linear and simplistic, so just about the action scene I struggle to find anything else to enjoy. Equally the character of Bond is too much the mindless thug (Hollywoods fear of the percieved 'smart englishman' seems to have consigned them to villian roles these days)...now this matters far less if these are just 'for this episode', but if they are precedents set for the series ahead I have a problem....not sure if that explains other folks' distaste for the film but while I may be a fuddy duddy, I would like to think I am still able to see a bit beyond that. *bangs stick on the floor waving my fist "clear off from my films!"*

Edited by Lachesis, 07 March 2010 - 02:08 PM.