198 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

The most curious aspect of this debate is the few folks who only see extremes, a fun Bond has to be a parody,

Oh I realize a fun Bond film doesn't have to be a straight up parody of the series. I'm merely saying that's the kind of Bond film I'd love to see again. To be honest if/when Craig returns I'd love for his third film to be similar in spirit to Thunderball.

[The Shark]

With the Craig films, a lot of money has obviously been spent putting the story on screen, rather than indulging in smutty gags, and I applaud EON for doing so; it's what they'd forgotten about since 1969.

Is 'story' a euphemism for morose, humourless, cartoonish, Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping, paying Judi Dench's check, or filming in 6 (!!!) bloody locations per film?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

Do you have a problem with the "morose humorless" ending of OHMSS as well?

No, since there's plenty of good humour in the rest of the film. It's a damn moving ending, unlike the stone cold approach and aesthetics of QoS.

Prior to the ending, CR had a better balance of seriousness and humor than any Bond film in decades.

That I agree with, though my qualms are mostly with QoS, not CR.

As far as the "Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping", name a BOnd film since Thunderball that has NOT had 1 or 2 over the top action scenes.

My problem was with the excessive, Bourne-influenced, dour, gritty, unrealistic, action sequences requiring superhuman stamina and strength, not "over the top" actions sequences in general.

Probably best described as Forster's individual style and sensibilities. That is, everything from his faux-cinéma vérité approach of incoherent fast cutting for action sequences, muted/distorted sounds accompanied by precious visual flourishes, to unnecessary shots of impoverished locals.

They were neccessary; they provided local colour, as well as made a statement that Greene's plans were having a local effect as well as a worldwide one.

Yes, but that could been expressed in a multitude of ways. That's the beauty of film. The thing is that I didn't like the arch and rather meretricious approach he decided to talk.

At times it even feels like a parody of Marc Forster's style.

Shark and Loomis never get it, do they?

No. We don't get your incessant bitching and QoS apologism.

Please, calm down.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series, now that we've hit a dry patch -- it's all we ever bitch about on here, anymore, whether it be the editing, the acting, or the supposed "fact" that "Baldy ruined the series".

Oh, really? Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint; I'll give you Peter Hunt and Martin Campbell, but Lewis Gilbert? John Glen? Guy Hamilton? Come on, I'm waiting...

[The Shark]

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series, now that we've hit a dry patch -- it's all we ever bitch about on here, anymore, whether it be the editing, the acting, or the supposed "fact" that "Baldy ruined the series".

Oh, really? Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint; I'll give you Peter Hunt and Martin Campbell, but Lewis Gilbert? John Glen? Guy Hamilton? Come on, I'm waiting...

Terence Young and Guy Hamilton.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series, now that we've hit a dry patch -- it's all we ever bitch about on here, anymore, whether it be the editing, the acting, or the supposed "fact" that "Baldy ruined the series".

Oh, really? Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint; I'll give you Peter Hunt and Martin Campbell, but Lewis Gilbert? John Glen? Guy Hamilton? Come on, I'm waiting...

Terence Young and Guy Hamilton.

Terence Young, while a great Bond director (just look at the beach scene in Thunderball), never really had to deal with the big-scope world politics that QOS latched onto, did he? When Guy Hamilton did, in DAF, he turned it into a farce, complete with "burning Chinamen".

I'll say it again: Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint. I'm only being as fair as you, y'know...

[The Shark]

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series, now that we've hit a dry patch -- it's all we ever bitch about on here, anymore, whether it be the editing, the acting, or the supposed "fact" that "Baldy ruined the series".

Oh, really? Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint; I'll give you Peter Hunt and Martin Campbell, but Lewis Gilbert? John Glen? Guy Hamilton? Come on, I'm waiting...

Terence Young and Guy Hamilton.

Terence Young, while a great Bond director (just look at the beach scene in Thunderball), never really had to deal with the big-scope world politics that QOS latched onto, did he?

The scope (of lack) of Quantum of Solaca's "geo-politics" is comparable to Thunderball's. The thing is, with QoS, most of the world affairs you nebulously refer to, are said rather than shown. I don't think Young would have had any problems with that. You don't think he could have shot the CIA Learjet scene, or rendezvous at the Bolivian bar?

If anything I'd say he'd more of a problem with QoS's post-modern, relativist, Realpolitik (being close to Fleming in his global outlook), though clearly that's another discussion.

I'll also back Lewis Gilbert. There's a considerable amount of 'restraint' he shows in YOLT with regards to the scenes at the UN geodesic dome (PTS) and the Pentagon.

If anything. Most of those directors would show far more restraint, in they probably wouldn't opt for the supercilious 'artistic flourishes' of the Opera shootout, Palio race buildup, shots of poor dehydrated locals and decide to construct a ridiculous, physically impossible and incompressible Cirque du Soleil acrobatic fight in an art gallery.

Give me burning Asian man over that rot any day.

[Mr. Blofeld]

How is the Art Gallery fight impossible? You've got guys being tossed around on ropes, not laser battles in space or ninja fights in volcanoes...

I rather think the Thunderball briefings, though sumptuous, are very... well, Anglo-philic; they reflect the view of "back then" that the English commanded a noble empire they could track nuclear weapons across, not the second-raters who're scrambling to get a lead over the CIA, as depicted in QOS (and even YOLT, the novel!).

As for YOLT, the film, I feel those briefings in the "American war room" are rather stuffy and inconceivable; as well, the geodesic domes in the Artic, as meeting places, is absolutely ludicrous... as is the entire concept of "stealing spaceships", so obviously cribbed and expanded from the similarly Space-Aged concept of "toppling" in Dr. No.

Compared to QOS, YOLT the movie's entire plot seems like something out of Flash Gordon, and DAF is merely a farsical re-rendering of it.

[The Shark]

How is the Art Gallery fight impossible?

Physically impossible, in that Bond (and likely Mitchel too) would end up with a dislocated pelvis, broken neck, numerous and possibly lethal cuts from the shards of glass, broken ribcage etc.... That and the level of acrobatic expertise required without any kind of safety support for two nearly 40 year old operatives. Even as athletic as Craig's Bond.

I rather think the Thunderball briefings, though sumptuous, are very... well, Anglo-philic; they reflect the view of "back then" that the English commanded a noble empire they could track nuclear weapons across, not the second-raters who're scrambling to get a lead over the CIA, as depicted in QOS).

Which is why Thunderball sensibility and Young's is light-years closer to Fleming than Forster's.

Either way, it's mostly down to the script, and various re-writes.

As for YOLT, the film, I feel those briefings in the "American war room" are rather stuffy and inconceivable; as well, the geodesic domes in the Artic, as meeting places, is absolutely ludicrous... as is the entire concept of "stealing spaceships", so obviously cribbed and expanded from the similarly Space-Aged concept of "toppling" in Dr. No.

... Again. You're talking about Roal Dahl's script, not Gilbert's direction. IIRC, those geodesic domes were shot in Whitby, North Yorkshire, possibly doubling for Canada. Not sure where you got the Arctic from.

Compared to QOS, YOLT the movie's entire plot seems like something out of Flash Gordon, and DAF is merely a farsical re-rendering of it.

Plot-wise, I give you that. However, in terms of tone and mood, I'd argue Diamonds Are Forever is a great deal closer to Fleming than QoS.

[JimmyBond]

I really wish you hadn't pulled this debate into my thread. Which I felt was having some great discussions. But for the record:

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series,

I don't think that's entirely true. I certainly love QoS, I still consider it to be one of my favorite Bond films. But I don't see the need to debate it's merits every time someone pops in and says something disparaging about it. The only thing that matters to me is I liked it. If others didn't, oh well, life goes on.

[Guy Haines]

I'm beginning to wish I'd never mentioned "Desert Island Discs". It looks as if I may have stirred up a hornets nest, and drawn in that favourite topic of on-line debate - is QoS any good?

(my two penny's worth, in brief - it is, because of Craig, and the film's hard hitting style, and inspite of some questionable directing and editing decisions.)

I maintain that I'd have no problem with the next film keeping the current style, or being an update of the typical Bond film of the Connery era, but I wouldn't welcome a return to the style of film we saw from the mid 1970s to the mid 80s - I'm not against "grand scale", but I'm not happy with a slide into self parody, which we came close to at times in that era.

[jamie00007]

People just carry on way too much. QoS is one movie. I love it, but those who dont need to settle down a bit. They carry on like QoS has somehow set in stone the direction of the series and all future films and every Bond film is now going to be some serious, gritty, humourless (which I very much disagree that QoS is) film and that Marc Forster has somehow ruined the series. Which is absolute rubbish. If theres one thing we can be guaranteed with Bond films its variety, the movies never stick with a single style very long.

Its that very variety that has kept me coming back to Bond films. In ten years time when theres (hopefully) been a few more films of whatever style, I'll be glad that when Im in the mood for a hard-hitting, fast paced action thriller of a Bond film, QoS is there waiting. The same way that when I'm in the mood for a fun caper I can put in LALD.

With the next film, I'm more than ready for a more traditional, big scale Bond epic with all the trimmings. But hopefully more in the style of Thunderball or The Living Daylights than some of the Moore and Brosnan movies. Bond films can be big, colorful and epic without having to be smutty, cheesy and over-the-top.

Edited by jamie00007, 26 June 2010 - 07:12 AM.

[JimmyBond]

People just carry on way too much. QoS is one movie. I love it, but those who dont need to settle down a bit. They carry on like QoS has somehow set in stone the direction of the series and all future films and every Bond film is now going to be some serious, gritty, humourless (which I very much disagree that QoS is) film and that Marc Forster has somehow ruined the series.

Just playing devils advocate here, I can certainly understand how the QOS detractors feel. After TND came out, I was very worried that the series was going to continue down that path (this is before I came to love that film), and it really didn't. My fears were unfounded. While I do have my issues with TWINE, now, at the time I felt it was a nice turn around from TND.

[jamie00007]

Funny you should say that, I used to hate TND and love TWINE. Now its the opposite.

Bond films will always just follow whatever the current trend is. In the late 00's, everything was about gritty thrillers with tortured anti-heroes. That trend has already starting to peter out and more fantastic, fun movies like Iron Man are in. I'd have been very surprised if Bond 23 had continued on the same path as QoS even if QoS was unanimously loved. Even some of Craig's quotes around the time of QoS's release hinted that the next film would be a little lighter.

Now is the perfect timing for a fun Bond film but one that still retains some of the edge and soul of the last two. One of the reasons Im so disappointed with the delay.

[Loomis]

The thing is, with QoS, most of the world affairs you nebulously refer to, are said rather than shown.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE all too often tells instead of shows. Consider, for instance, the acres of ripe and pointless dialogue between Greene and Camille at the Haiti dock. Even the villainous organisation, Quantum, is revealed to us primarily through talk - we never actually see them doing anything, other than convening for a meeting at an opera house, where they just, erm, talk.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE primarily features characters who wander around doing nothing, burdened down by backstory conveyed through dialogue. "So the Haitians elected a priest, who raised the minimum wage to one dollar, blah blah blah...." "Do you know General Ernesto Montez? Well, way back in 1971, yadayadayada...." "But the land was sold to the logging company after Greene Planet acquired it, dronedrone...."

[BoogieBond]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I'm a fan of Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond, but most of all Fleming's Bond. Without wishing to wallow too much in nostalgia, I do think that the books and the films of the classic Bond books produced in the 1960s provide enough of a guide as to what does and does not work (or belongs) in a Bond film that the film makers ought to keep these in mind when writing and producing future Bond films.

There are those that would ditch eveything that make Bond, for fresh originality(e.g. get rid of the bond theme, get rid of the gunbarrel, get rid of Q and money, no gadgets etc. But using the novels(themselves some pretty fun adventures LALD, Thunderball, OHMSS) with Bond having a bit more fun. And Flemings novels had some gadgets and bit of the bizarre and meglomaniac villians such as Blofeld. Bonds turbo switch on his car in OHMSS, Mr Big's trick "Gun" desk and Bonds Geiger counter watch in Thunderball. I don't see why some of that can't come back.
I could see Craig smiling wrying at a member of Q-Branch shows him some relevant, but clever gadget. In Craigs world I think it would be played down as in the Q moments in FRWL.

The "Fun" movies of the 70s I don't think they can go back to at the moment. Although I could see the whole "Navy" aspect of Bonds "Commander" element being highlighted as they did in "Spy" with the submarine hijack, I particurarly like that element of Spy. And Bond investigations to find the microfilm in Egypt are great elements. Hell, they somewhat ripped off the Pyramids sequence is QOS with the Opera sequence, one of the best of QOS for me, that bit of QOS was top class.

Edited by BoogieBond, 26 June 2010 - 02:13 PM.

[Lachesis]

I'm a little upset that nobody supports QOS anymore, that's all; it's the friggin' black sheep of the series, now that we've hit a dry patch -- it's all we ever bitch about on here, anymore, whether it be the editing, the acting, or the supposed "fact" that "Baldy ruined the series".

Oh, really? Give me one moment from QOS that you think another Bond director could have handled with the same restraint; I'll give you Peter Hunt and Martin Campbell, but Lewis Gilbert? John Glen? Guy Hamilton? Come on, I'm waiting...

Well as one who perhaps see the opposite side of the QoS coin it always appears to me that if you make anything other than a superlative comment about QoS someone accuses you of being a hater or makes a beeline to attack some other film in direct response....it appears QoS is more marmite than most other Bonds ie you love it or you hate it and theres only a few of us inbetween...but in all honesty the is equal gusty and exageration on both sides, its no dark sheep at least to one half of the fanbase.

As to your second point Terrence Young certainly and Guy Hamilton could if he was required to do so...with all due respect I believe even Lewis Gilbert and John Glen could have done so, but the producers were happy to let them have at it (or perhaps actively encouraged them to do so - certainly in the case of YOLT the edict was Bond is now a phenomena lets loose all the brakes etc).

Edited by Lachesis, 26 June 2010 - 02:24 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE primarily features characters who wander around doing nothing, burdened down by backstory conveyed through dialogue. "So the Haitians elected a priest, who raised the minimum wage to one dollar, blah blah blah...." "Do you know General Ernesto Montez? Well, way back in 1971, yadayadayada...." "But the land was sold to the logging company after Greene Planet acquired it, dronedrone...."

What, you want a flashback? Unless you're a lamebrained movie goer who only comes "for the 'splosions", you ought to pay the dialogue a little heed; besides, Bond has only done flashbacks once.

So, I suggest you retract your rather inflammatory opinion, before somebody else does it for you...

[Loomis]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE primarily features characters who wander around doing nothing, burdened down by backstory conveyed through dialogue. "So the Haitians elected a priest, who raised the minimum wage to one dollar, blah blah blah...." "Do you know General Ernesto Montez? Well, way back in 1971, yadayadayada...." "But the land was sold to the logging company after Greene Planet acquired it, dronedrone...."

What, you want a flashback?

No, I want visual storytelling, not an illustrated radio play.

A certain amount of exposition through dialogue is unavoidable, but there is far too much of it in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

This is particularly true with regard to Quantum. We need to see and feel the threat, not just be told about it through dialogue. The film merely tells us how dangerous this organisation is, which is boring. We get plenty of on-the-nose lines like M's "How come we've never even heard of this organisation that has people everywhere - even in the same room as us?", but the viewer has no emotional sense of Quantum as a force to be reckoned with.

Compare and contrast all these reams of clunky dialogue with the simple but iconic image of SPECTRE's electric chair in THUNDERBALL. That one brief moment communicated far more about an evil organisation, and did so far more visually, emotionally and effectively than all the balls-aching dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[The Shark]

Compare and contrast all these reams of clunky dialogue with the simple but iconic image of SPECTRE's electric chair in THUNDERBALL. That one brief moment communicated far more about an evil organisation, and did so far more visually, emotionally and effectively than all the balls-aching dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Bravo! Spot on mate.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE primarily features characters who wander around doing nothing, burdened down by backstory conveyed through dialogue. "So the Haitians elected a priest, who raised the minimum wage to one dollar, blah blah blah...." "Do you know General Ernesto Montez? Well, way back in 1971, yadayadayada...." "But the land was sold to the logging company after Greene Planet acquired it, dronedrone...."

What, you want a flashback? Unless you're a lamebrained movie goer who only comes "for the 'splosions", you ought to pay the dialogue a little heed; besides, Bond has only done flashbacks once.

No, Loomis isn't asking for a flashback. Merely for the camera to provide more of the storytelling, as opposed to rather lifeless dialogue.

So, I suggest you retract your rather inflammatory opinion, before somebody else does it for you...

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

[Mr. Blofeld]

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days...

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08?

[The Shark]

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days...

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08?

Just to let you know, I was a certified fan back in '08, believe it or not. Loomis wasn't, I think, but I know many other now QoS-haters liked it a year and a half ago.

[Mr. Blofeld]

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days...

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08?

Just to let you know, I was a certified fan back in '08, believe it or not. Loomis wasn't, I think, but I know many other now QoS-haters liked it a year and a half ago.

Was that back when you were on MI6, then? What changed your attitude?

[Matt_13]

I quite like Quantum, largely because I can follow the editing. Many can't (understandably). Fast paced with a great sense of motion and geography. Not a pretty looking film but it isn't trying to be.

[The Shark]

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days...

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08?

Just to let you know, I was a certified fan back in '08, believe it or not. Loomis wasn't, I think, but I know many other now QoS-haters liked it a year and a half ago.

Was that back when you were on MI6, then? What changed your attitude?

Yep. I think it was buying the DVD in March '09 that seriously changed my perspective. Believe it or not, before that I actually preferred it to CR (!). Now, the more viewings I watch, the more I despise it.

I quite like Quantum, largely because I can follow the editing. Many can't (understandably). Fast paced with a great sense of motion and geography. Not a pretty looking film but it isn't trying to be.

I have to say, while I find the editing to be irritating and jarring, that's the least of the films problems.

[Matt_13]

As a film, it's weakest element is the underdeveloped relationship between Bond and Camille, a missed opportunity for there to be a proper foil in the Bond universe. It's among the many tragic losses of the writers guild strike that year. The fact that the film came out as well as it did is a credit to Forster, because I think we can be pretty certain there wasn't at any point during the production a proper, complete script. The Bregenz scene is all Marc, a far more creative aspect of the film when compared to it's original conception on the printed page (a UN style meeting). Crafting something as enormous as a Bond film is hard enough, but when you couple that with a rushed script and production schedual, the outcome will likely not be what it could have been. I think if anyone is to blame for the film's shortcomings it's the studio, who saw dollar signs and rushed the movie into production. When all is said and done, however, I still find it to be a respectable entry in the series, even among the best. When Bond 23 gets fired up, I think we can expect something a bit more polished and grand.

[Guy Haines]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I'm a fan of Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond, but most of all Fleming's Bond. Without wishing to wallow too much in nostalgia, I do think that the books and the films of the classic Bond books produced in the 1960s provide enough of a guide as to what does and does not work (or belongs) in a Bond film that the film makers ought to keep these in mind when writing and producing future Bond films.

There are those that would ditch eveything that make Bond, for fresh originality(e.g. get rid of the bond theme, get rid of the gunbarrel, get rid of Q and money, no gadgets etc. But using the novels(themselves some pretty fun adventures LALD, Thunderball, OHMSS) with Bond having a bit more fun. And Flemings novels had some gadgets and bit of the bizarre and meglomaniac villians such as Blofeld. Bonds turbo switch on his car in OHMSS, Mr Big's trick "Gun" desk and Bonds Geiger counter watch in Thunderball. I don't see why some of that can't come back.
I could see Craig smiling wrying at a member of Q-Branch shows him some relevant, but clever gadget. In Craigs world I think it would be played down as in the Q moments in FRWL.

The "Fun" movies of the 70s I don't think they can go back to at the moment. Although I could see the whole "Navy" aspect of Bonds "Commander" element being highlighted as they did in "Spy" with the submarine hijack, I particurarly like that element of Spy. And Bond investigations to find the microfilm in Egypt are great elements. Hell, they somewhat ripped off the Pyramids sequence is QOS with the Opera sequence, one of the best of QOS for me, that bit of QOS was top class.

Regarding the "Navy" element you mention, this rebooted Bond doesn't strike me as being Royal Navy so much as Royal Marines Special Boat Squadron. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a future Craig Bond film features him in battle fatigues. The film makers wrote a "background" for the rebooted Bond, and once he had entered the military it was all covert operations stuff - First Gulf War, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on.

[bondrules]

The PTS in QoS is quite good, but unfortunately is in many ways what for American Beauty's Lester Burnham's first shower (wink wink) in the morning is. The cusp. Then all goes downhill from there.

The dialogue is atrocious. The lines in Bolivia especially. Horrible dialogue. It's boring and punchless. I posted on these forums the Greene fundraiser speech from memory a few weeks before the movie came out. And even way back when we shot those scenes I thought it was horrible.

Please, bring the banter back. Connery and Largo. That's fun!!!

[The Shark]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I'm a fan of Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond, but most of all Fleming's Bond. Without wishing to wallow too much in nostalgia, I do think that the books and the films of the classic Bond books produced in the 1960s provide enough of a guide as to what does and does not work (or belongs) in a Bond film that the film makers ought to keep these in mind when writing and producing future Bond films.

There are those that would ditch eveything that make Bond, for fresh originality(e.g. get rid of the bond theme, get rid of the gunbarrel, get rid of Q and money, no gadgets etc. But using the novels(themselves some pretty fun adventures LALD, Thunderball, OHMSS) with Bond having a bit more fun. And Flemings novels had some gadgets and bit of the bizarre and meglomaniac villians such as Blofeld. Bonds turbo switch on his car in OHMSS, Mr Big's trick "Gun" desk and Bonds Geiger counter watch in Thunderball. I don't see why some of that can't come back.
I could see Craig smiling wrying at a member of Q-Branch shows him some relevant, but clever gadget. In Craigs world I think it would be played down as in the Q moments in FRWL.

The "Fun" movies of the 70s I don't think they can go back to at the moment. Although I could see the whole "Navy" aspect of Bonds "Commander" element being highlighted as they did in "Spy" with the submarine hijack, I particurarly like that element of Spy. And Bond investigations to find the microfilm in Egypt are great elements. Hell, they somewhat ripped off the Pyramids sequence is QOS with the Opera sequence, one of the best of QOS for me, that bit of QOS was top class.

Regarding the "Navy" element you mention, this rebooted Bond doesn't strike me as being Royal Navy so much as Royal Marines Special Boat Squadron.

The 2006 dossier written for Craig's new reboot Bond describes him as being ex-Royal Navy Special Boat Service (SBS - Navy's equivalent of the SAS) as well being a Navy Commander.

No need to switch him from being ex-Navy all of a sudden to ex-army. The nautical background is a key and necessary staple of the character.

[JimmyBond]

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days...

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08?

Just because you're the only one jumping to defend the film doesn't mean it doesn't have it's fans. I just don't feel the need to jump in and defend it every time someone says something negative about it.

[Guy Haines]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I'm a fan of Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond, but most of all Fleming's Bond. Without wishing to wallow too much in nostalgia, I do think that the books and the films of the classic Bond books produced in the 1960s provide enough of a guide as to what does and does not work (or belongs) in a Bond film that the film makers ought to keep these in mind when writing and producing future Bond films.

There are those that would ditch eveything that make Bond, for fresh originality(e.g. get rid of the bond theme, get rid of the gunbarrel, get rid of Q and money, no gadgets etc. But using the novels(themselves some pretty fun adventures LALD, Thunderball, OHMSS) with Bond having a bit more fun. And Flemings novels had some gadgets and bit of the bizarre and meglomaniac villians such as Blofeld. Bonds turbo switch on his car in OHMSS, Mr Big's trick "Gun" desk and Bonds Geiger counter watch in Thunderball. I don't see why some of that can't come back.
I could see Craig smiling wrying at a member of Q-Branch shows him some relevant, but clever gadget. In Craigs world I think it would be played down as in the Q moments in FRWL.

The "Fun" movies of the 70s I don't think they can go back to at the moment. Although I could see the whole "Navy" aspect of Bonds "Commander" element being highlighted as they did in "Spy" with the submarine hijack, I particurarly like that element of Spy. And Bond investigations to find the microfilm in Egypt are great elements. Hell, they somewhat ripped off the Pyramids sequence is QOS with the Opera sequence, one of the best of QOS for me, that bit of QOS was top class.

Regarding the "Navy" element you mention, this rebooted Bond doesn't strike me as being Royal Navy so much as Royal Marines Special Boat Squadron.

The 2006 dossier written for Craig's new reboot Bond describes him as being ex-Royal Navy Special Boat Service (SBS - Navy's equivalent of the SAS) as well being a Navy Commander.

No need to switch him from being ex-Navy all of a sudden to ex-army. The nautical background is a key and necessary staple of the character.

It was Craig's performance which made me think of his Bond as more of a special forces type than regular Royal Navy. And as a member of the SBS, he'd still be in the Navy, as you point out. Even with a "Marine" background, the naval element would still be present, as the Royal Marines are a part of the UK's naval service, not a branch of the army.

It is Special Boat Service these days. I was thinking of the Special Boat Squadron, which is what they were called during the Second World War. I guess the Bond of the books might, just might, have served with them!