153 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie?

You could just as easily argue the reverse: why are some fans so intent on defending it as the greatest Bond ever? The film inspires strong feelings on both sides. That's better than being relegated to the "meh" pile, I reckon.

I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

I think it purported to be a lot more than that. Would you have been satisfied with two hours of Bond sipping tea and playing pinochle as long as he said stuff like, "Boy I miss Vesper" and "Do you mind if I stand for a while, it still hurts to sit down."?

I certainly didn't say it was the best film ever. Just trying to understand why so many fans suposedly hated it in the face of being such a financial success.

Most people didn't hate it, but were dissappointed with QOS, particularly, after the high expectations left with CR. And the good- but not great- result at the BO, had a lot to do with being promoted as a direct sequel of the really successful CR, that's why QOS didn't have big legs at the BO (unlike CR) after the first weeks.

Most people liked it about as much as they did CR, hardly much difference in the amount of money each made. If QOS did good but not great BO, then CR did too I guess. One could also say, QOS had about the same draw as CR, just audiences went to see it sooner instead of trickling in.

... And you're entitled to keep with that wishful thinking as long as you want

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 July 2011 - 11:51 PM.

[Napoleon Solo]

There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008.

My personal explanation for the time lag is this:

We don't know how long it took MI6 to track down Mr. White from the clue Vesper left. Presumably it was enough time to sweat Mathis, clear him and set him up in a villa in Italy. Presumably it was long enough for Bond to grow a little objectivity (which he abandons the minute he delivers White to the safe house). So I say the last scene in CR takes place a good 18 months after Bond returned from Venice.

As for going from a 3-piece suit to a 2-piece, so he took off his vest - so what? (Let's just forget that the remaining ensemble went from being Brioni to Tom Ford in the blink of an eye, 'kay?)

Howzat?

A cell phone is like a GPS device. If you know the number (and Bond knew Mr. White's courtesy of Vesper), you can track it down within days, if not hours.

Either Mr. White was a complete idiot for holding on to his cell phone for two years. Or, White was an complete idiot *and* Bond was a complete idiot for taking two years to track him down. Drug gangs use disposable cell phones. Would the mighty and powerful Quantum orgnaization not know this? If not, they're a bunch of idiots as well.

Stan Lee had better explanations when he was caught in continuity gaffes in Marvel comic books in the 1960s.

A single line of dialog hardly makes FRWL a sequel to DN. As Eon spokespeople have said, the Bond films are a series, not a single film with 22 sequels.

Two lines. Syliva says (in FRWL), "The last time you said that, you went off to Jamaica. I haven't seen you in six months..."

Also, as noted on the commentary track of FRWL (at least on my copy), Terence Young staged the two respective "Bond arrives at airport" scenes in very similar ways. If you had seen Dr. No when it first came out, then saw From Russia With Love the next year, you would be reminded of the earlier film. Young switches it up on the audience in FRWL when the man approaching Bond is a genuine ally. But the angles, mood, etc., are very similar.

FRWL has enough referneces to Dr. No to establish it as following the first Bond. You can't brush that off by saying there's only a "single line." Even if were, that single line, including how SPECTRE will have the opportunity to have a personal revenge for "the killing of our operative, Dr. No," is pretty conclusive. Put another way, FRWL does more with less in tying itself to Dr. No than Quantum did with Casino Royale.

[doublenoughtspy]

Put another way, FRWL does more with less in tying itself to Dr. No than Quantum did with Casino Royale.

There are references to previous films throughout the series. Homages, little bits of dialog, etc.

But while those little references reward the viewer for being a fan/having seen the other films, I think QOS is a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't have empirical data, but I think someone plopping down and seeing QOS without having seen CR would lose a decent amount of understanding what is going on - pretitles, Vesper's necklace, why Bond wants revenge, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone seeing FRWL without having seen Dr No is going to be confused, at all, do you?

[DaveBond21]

It all comes down to the editing, in the end.

Otherwise, I like Quantum of Solace. It's just there's a much better Bond movie lying on the cutting room floor, and unfortunately, it has all been swept away now.


-------

[Napoleon Solo]

Put another way, FRWL does more with less in tying itself to Dr. No than Quantum did with Casino Royale.

There are references to previous films throughout the series. Homages, little bits of dialog, etc.

But while those little references reward the viewer for being a fan/having seen the other films, I think QOS is a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't have empirical data, but I think someone plopping down and seeing QOS without having seen CR would lose a decent amount of understanding what is going on - pretitles, Vesper's necklace, why Bond wants revenge, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone seeing FRWL without having seen Dr No is going to be confused, at all, do you?

With Quantum of Solace, the film makers made a lot of promises/hype about how it'd be a direct sequel. But the end result was very sloppy. It was as if they made few attempts to actually follow through on the promises/hype. The fact they couldn't be consistent on year/Bond's clothing from one scene (end of CR) to the next (start of Quantum)/M's office/Mathis's status (he's still being "sweated" at the end of CR, has been bought off early in Quantum). If you're going to make the "direct sequel" angle one of our main marketing points, you should make *some* attempt at following through.

In addition, you have sloppy editing. Watch Quantum (as I did recently) and you'll see that Judi Dench squints her eyes and moves backwards as if she had been shot (sequence after the titles), but then we're told later she never had been shot.

Finally, at the end of CR, our hero really now is James Bond, fully formed. Oops, except he's not at the start of Quantum. We were told how this was the most true vision of the novels. Except, at the start of Fleming's second novel, he has recovered from Vesper's death. At the start of Bond 2.2 (Quantum), he's still moping around. This isn't based on anything from Fleming. But that doesn't stop the hype machine about how this is true to Fleming's vision.

[Guy Haines]

I think some of the criticism stems from Casino Royale having set the standard, and a high standard it was. Any follow up film would have struggled to top CR, I think. Some who criticise were probably expecting QoS to exceed CR's standard and felt it didn't. I had my criticisms of the direction and editing, but as a Bond story on film it is in my top 10.

[SecretAgentFan]

The fact they couldn't be consistent on year/Bond's clothing from one scene (end of CR) to the next (start of Quantum)/M's office/Mathis's status (he's still being "sweated" at the end of CR, has been bought off early in Quantum).

You´re too fast with your dismissal. We don´t really know how much time has elapsed between the end of CR and the beginning of QOS. Sure, Wilson has been quoted with "20 or 30 minutes" - but even in that time Bond could have taken off his vest.

Also, you assume that the time between Mathis´ arrest in CR and Bond´s visit in QOS is only a matter of a day or two. And we did not see M´s whole office building in CR - only parts of it. Other parts are in QOS.

In addition, you have sloppy editing. Watch Quantum (as I did recently) and you'll see that Judi Dench squints her eyes and moves backwards as if she had been shot (sequence after the titles), but then we're told later she never had been shot.

That´s not sloppy. Bond is moving her out of the way, he has rescued M.

Finally, at the end of CR, our hero really now is James Bond, fully formed. Oops, except he's not at the start of Quantum. We were told how this was the most true vision of the novels. Except, at the start of Fleming's second novel, he has recovered from Vesper's death. At the start of Bond 2.2 (Quantum), he's still moping around. This isn't based on anything from Fleming. But that doesn't stop the hype machine about how this is true to Fleming's vision.

No. You assume that Bond is fully formed at the end of CR, probably because of the theme played over the end credits (and several press musings about that). In fact, he has just learned that Vesper maybe has not really betrayed him. He goes after the people behind Vesper´s death... and that is the arc of QOS. At the end of that one Bond does not decide to kill but to arrest. Now he is "fully" formed.

As for the "most true vision of the novels"... well, it is. The "most" true. Not a literal one. But as far as EON wants their movies to be - at this stage.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The fact they couldn't be consistent on year/Bond's clothing from one scene (end of CR) to the next (start of Quantum)/M's office/Mathis's status (he's still being "sweated" at the end of CR, has been bought off early in Quantum).

You´re too fast with your dismissal. We don´t really know how much time has elapsed between the end of CR and the beginning of QOS. Sure, Wilson has been quoted with "20 or 30 minutes" - but even in that time Bond could have taken off his vest.

Also, you assume that the time between Mathis´ arrest in CR and Bond´s visit in QOS is only a matter of a day or two. And we did not see M´s whole office building in CR - only parts of it. Other parts are in QOS.

In addition, you have sloppy editing. Watch Quantum (as I did recently) and you'll see that Judi Dench squints her eyes and moves backwards as if she had been shot (sequence after the titles), but then we're told later she never had been shot.

That´s not sloppy. Bond is moving her out of the way, he has rescued M.

Finally, at the end of CR, our hero really now is James Bond, fully formed. Oops, except he's not at the start of Quantum. We were told how this was the most true vision of the novels. Except, at the start of Fleming's second novel, he has recovered from Vesper's death. At the start of Bond 2.2 (Quantum), he's still moping around. This isn't based on anything from Fleming. But that doesn't stop the hype machine about how this is true to Fleming's vision.

No. You assume that Bond is fully formed at the end of CR, probably because of the theme played over the end credits (and several press musings about that). In fact, he has just learned that Vesper maybe has not really betrayed him. He goes after the people behind Vesper´s death... and that is the arc of QOS. At the end of that one Bond does not decide to kill but to arrest. Now he is "fully" formed.

We're not only "assuming by several press musings" that Bond is fully formed at the last scene of CR, there's nothing to think otherwise if you only take that movie (and not see QOS), especially if you have in mind that even the director Martin Campbell stated that at the finale he showed the character fully formed.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 07 July 2011 - 03:04 PM.

[Lachesis]

Its the age old conciet confusing opinion as truth.

I like this film therefore criticism is unfair.
I dislike that film therefore praise is undeserved.

What we need to do is respect peoples opinions and the reasons they arrive at them, at the end of the day what you feel yourself is independent and irrelevant to the greater conscensus, but it is never anything more than your own opinion - life and indeed fact may have completely different idea's and we need to be humble enough to accept them.

[mttvolcano]

I thoroughly enjoyed QoS, no doubt has I do with every Bond movie and I didn't find it one of my least favorite by no means. What i disliked though, was how fast paced it was. Unless you had some background info on the characters, I don't think their stories were quite developed. For instance, Greene's background came about once when he said "he took an iron," indicating he had an anger problem, obviously; but it never really came about again, per se, at least through words, and some action, mainly toward the end with the fight of Bond. Also, what about elvis' backstory? Agent Fields?
So in my opinion, if they took some more time and not rush the film, it could have been as good as Casino Royale was, instead of making it look like the story was built around the action scenes (I am not saying they were, but it kinda felt like it at times since it was fast paced).
That's the only problem I had with it.

Edited by mttvolcano, 07 July 2011 - 04:01 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

We're not only "assuming by several press musings" that Bond is fully formed at the last scene of CR, there's nothing to think otherwise if you only take that movie (and not see QOS), especially if you have in mind that even the director Martin Campbell stated that at the finale he showed the character fully formed.

I disagree. Even if Bond is dressed in a suit at the end of CR and the theme is on the soundtrack I would only assume that Bond now is really pissed and will look for revenge.

And what Campbell said or didn´t say - well, it doesn´t count as all knowing truth. IMO.

But I also agree with Lachesis - let´s just agree with opposite opinions on this.

And mttvolcano - yes! Although I do like QOS I also think that some parts would have benefitted from MORE.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Agreed with mttvolcano. We needed MUCH more background of the characters - as we had with Le Chiffre and Dimitrios in Martin Campbell's Quantum of Solace, directed by MARTIN CAMPBELL.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

We're not only "assuming by several press musings" that Bond is fully formed at the last scene of CR, there's nothing to think otherwise if you only take that movie (and not see QOS), especially if you have in mind that even the director Martin Campbell stated that at the finale he showed the character fully formed.

I disagree. Even if Bond is dressed in a suit at the end of CR and the theme is on the soundtrack I would only assume that Bond now is really pissed and will look for revenge.

And what Campbell said or didn´t say - well, it doesn´t count as all knowing truth. IMO.

Well, you're entitled to assume whatever you like to think, but that doesn't change CR's original aim of showing a fully formed Bond at its finale, beyond what the producers and the next director- Forster- have decided afterwards.

[univex]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

I'm going to answer your questions for all the nameless, faceless, moviegoers without a voice (or free time to spend on CBn debating James Bond)....

#1 QUANTURD OF SOLACE feels like one of those roller coaster rides at the major theme parks around the country where you sit idle in the station for a few seconds before rocketing out of the gate from about 0 to 60 in five seconds. QUANTURD OF SOLACE is that ride. It starts off so fast that there is very little time for the viewer to catch their breath and try to remember what happened in CASINO ROYALE and how it factors into Bond's actions in this film. Despite assertions to the contrary, QUANTURD is not a stand-alone film. It helps to have seen CR, but is not totally necessary, and even if you have seen CR, even right before seeing QOS, there's no guarantee you're going to follow the story more betterer. Bond moves from location to location so quickly it is extremely difficult to know or understand why. The most egregious example is probably Bond getting into that ugly- car of Camille's. Why? How?

#2 QUANTURD's fight sequences look like they were edited together by someone suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, with an audience in mind that also suffers from ADD. The film is clearly not put together for anyone who wants action with a storyline and plot that engages the audience. This type of film DOESN'T HAVE to be pure popcorn fluff, but ultimately that's all that QUANTURD is.

#4 QUANTURD goes to dark places that I don't recall the other films going, i.e. the scene where Bond fleeces Mathis' pockets and then dumps his body in a trash bin. That was kind of a brutal act for a lot of viewers who don't have the investment in the series that we do, and don't have the time to sit around debate what Bond was doing and why. It confused a lot of viewers, who decided they didn't want second viewings.

#5 But most of those other problems could be forgiven were it not for QUANTURD's ***PRETENTIOUSNESS***. It tries to come off as artsy-fartsy, with a bunch of emotional bed-wetting and intellectual hand-wringing, where Bond has to spend an hour and 47 minutes lecturing the audience on what constitutes the difference between duty, honor, and straight-up revenge. Most people come into theatres with their own notions of right and wrong and what is revenge and what is justice, and they don't want, or need, a lecture from a fictional hero about how tough his job is or how much self-doubt he has. We want him to get on with his job. And Joe-the-Moviegoer probably doesn't want to hear Paul Haggis Gregg Beam whine about what a whore America/The CIA is.

# 6 The film is too short and is emotionally unsatisfying.

Blast! I knew there would come the day I would completely agree with you You know, I tried to like QOS, and I did, when I saw it at the cinema. Now, I can´t watch it. It´s like watching a robot aided by CSI screens, with a so so soundtrack, so so Bond girls, a dry feel to it,..., yeah, that´s it, the film feels dry, dry and shaken, very shaken. And it had potential, boy did it have potential... It´s a bit like cars you know?, you can have a very fast, very lean, say...mercedes with a big engine, silver. It´s a fast, solid car, probably, but is it fun? No! It´s boring. A robot of a car. And that´s why I drive an Alfa and like CR, FRWL, DN, TLD, OHMSS and yes, TB and TMWTGG. Do I like efficient? I do. But do I prefer fun? Most definatly. Was QOS fun? No! And before you say it, no, DAD and MR are not my idea of fun

So, in a nutshell, QOS is one of those hate it/love it Bond films. And, even though I loved it at first, I can´t find my quantum of solace in that relationship anymore (reference to the original meaning of it)

[blueman]

That vocal minority is awfully loud today. Fan polls have QOS ranked pretty high, box office was similar, anybody equating that to hate (or even not being satisfied) has an agenda that doessn't reflect reality.

CR and QOS are very different movies, if there's anything that sticks out about either it's the former being not only the first for the new Bond but a reboot - the first ever in the series. Novelty factor seems the most reasonable difference to assume (which is all any of us are doing) to explain any marginal difference in box office/fan polls/whatever. Like it or not some fans prefer QOS over CR; some don't, whatevs. (there's also the Brosnan-lovers contingent who I'm sure hate CR and QOS equally )

[blueman]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

And many didn't feel that way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

Now that's an opinion. But the specific continuity problems are factual. Quantum fans may enjoy the film anyway. To each their own.

Eh. There's worse continuity gaffs within most Bonds not even trying to followup from the last one, CR inclusive (my fav: just wtf is Bond doing in the middle of the poker game tracking Le Chiffre to his room - he couldn't ask at the desk? - with Vesper and a gun? he's gonna kill him?? really?? not complaining too much cuz that scene ends with the awesome stairwell fight, but jeez the writers/director must've been asleep scratching their balls coming up with that silly "spy" bit of business to get Bond and Vesper up to Le Chiffre's room, just dumb, feels like there must be a scene missing to explain it all but oh well, it's a movie even if there's slop it's pretty slop).

He isn't just "tracking" Le Chiffre, he's spying his conversation, that's why Bond put the bug (in case that you don't remember it or didn't notice).

Why? And why drag Vesper along? Why a gun to listen in? Too many whys there, sorry, bad writing/directing to set up an actiony bit, sloppy sloppy and the sort of thing that pulls me right out of a film's reality into "huh, why did they do it that way?" thinking.

Most action/suspence films have such moments, not really harping on CR's. But they are there, in case you missed them.

[Napoleon Solo]

The fact they couldn't be consistent on year/Bond's clothing from one scene (end of CR) to the next (start of Quantum)/M's office/Mathis's status (he's still being "sweated" at the end of CR, has been bought off early in Quantum).

You´re too fast with your dismissal. We don´t really know how much time has elapsed between the end of CR and the beginning of QOS. Sure, Wilson has been quoted with "20 or 30 minutes" - but even in that time Bond could have taken off his vest.

Also, you assume that the time between Mathis´ arrest in CR and Bond´s visit in QOS is only a matter of a day or two. And we did not see M´s whole office building in CR - only parts of it. Other parts are in QOS.

In addition, you have sloppy editing. Watch Quantum (as I did recently) and you'll see that Judi Dench squints her eyes and moves backwards as if she had been shot (sequence after the titles), but then we're told later she never had been shot.

That´s not sloppy. Bond is moving her out of the way, he has rescued M.

Finally, at the end of CR, our hero really now is James Bond, fully formed. Oops, except he's not at the start of Quantum. We were told how this was the most true vision of the novels. Except, at the start of Fleming's second novel, he has recovered from Vesper's death. At the start of Bond 2.2 (Quantum), he's still moping around. This isn't based on anything from Fleming. But that doesn't stop the hype machine about how this is true to Fleming's vision.

No. You assume that Bond is fully formed at the end of CR, probably because of the theme played over the end credits (and several press musings about that). In fact, he has just learned that Vesper maybe has not really betrayed him. He goes after the people behind Vesper´s death... and that is the arc of QOS. At the end of that one Bond does not decide to kill but to arrest. Now he is "fully" formed.

As for the "most true vision of the novels"... well, it is. The "most" true. Not a literal one. But as far as EON wants their movies to be - at this stage.

Eon, over and over, stressed how Quantum started anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes, to be maybe an hour caster Casino. It was a major talking point.

We see M in her office in Casino, we see her in her office in Quantum. Totally different.

Mathis was still being held at the end of Casino. He has moved lock, stock and barrel to a different country in Quantum.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You're ignoring the obvious. And please don't say, "Well two years could have passed." If two years passed, White was an idiot to keeping his cell phone and Bond was an idiot for taking TWO YEARS to find White whose cell phone acted like a GPS device to anybody who knew the number. Street gangs are smart enough to use disposable cell phones. Quantum isn't?

If you like the movie, fine. But one thing is true: Eon mentioned the whol;e "direct sequel" angle repeatedly. IMO, they were sloppy in the execution. To deny that, you have to twist and contort your arguments. When Stan Lee got caught in an inconsistency in a Marvel comic book, he made a joke about it and moved on. The fact that some posters here can't accept obvious continuity gaffes is interesting.

[blueman]

Sloppy in the execution? Is that what fully realized directorial vision is getting hit with now? Jeepers.

QOS follows CR just fine, if not for you okay. I'd expect worse "continuity gaffs" from Campbell had he directed QOS, just going on his Zorro films.

Dead issue.

[jamie00007]

Eon, over and over, stressed how Quantum started anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes, to be maybe an hour caster Casino. It was a major talking point.

We see M in her office in Casino, we see her in her office in Quantum. Totally different.

Mathis was still being held at the end of Casino. He has moved lock, stock and barrel to a different country in Quantum.

Yes, 20 - 30 minutes after the final scene of CR. We dont know how much time has elapsed between the scenes in Venice and that time. Obviously quite a bit since Bond's wounds are gone. Thats what people who keep bringing this up keep ignoring. Bond's capture of White at the end of CR might have been months after Bond's conversation with M on the boat for all we know. And as QoS later confirmed, since Mathis has been cleared and retired in that time and M has had time to get to Italy to take part in the operation we do know that significant time has passed between the final scene of CR and the rest of the film.

The only thing that doesnt fit perfectly is Bond's suit, but it is obviously supposed to be the same suit and the change is purely down to a different designer working on the film.

Edited by jamie00007, 08 July 2011 - 03:06 AM.

[Napoleon Solo]

Eon, over and over, stressed how Quantum started anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes, to be maybe an hour caster Casino. It was a major talking point.

We see M in her office in Casino, we see her in her office in Quantum. Totally different.

Mathis was still being held at the end of Casino. He has moved lock, stock and barrel to a different country in Quantum.

Yes, 20 - 30 minutes after the final scene of CR. We dont know how much time has elapsed between the scenes in Venice and that time. Obviously quite a bit since Bond's wounds are gone. Thats what people who keep bringing this up keep ignoring. Bond's capture of White at the end of CR might have been months after Bond's conversation with M on the boat for all we know. And as QoS later confirmed, since Mathis has been cleared and retired in that time and M has had time to get to Italy to take part in the operation we do know that significant time has passed between the final scene of CR and the rest of the film.

The only thing that doesnt fit perfectly is Bond's suit, but it is obviously supposed to be the same suit and the change is purely down to a different designer working on the film.

Once more....if you know a cellphone number, you can track down the location of that phone in a very short time. That's why street gangs use disposable cell phones. If street gangs are smart enough to do that, Quantum would be smart enough to do that.

If Mr. White actually held onto his cell phone for two years, he's an idiot. If it took Bond two years to track Mr. White down, he's an idiot. Neither is an idiot. What's more likely is the screenwriting team of Quantum hoped nobody would notice. Of course, on this message board, posters don't only willingly suspend disbelief, they react defensively to facts.

[Napoleon Solo]

My problem with is more with the childish behaviour of those who dont like it. Hard to go a single thread on here these days without reading oh-so-clever terms like "Quantum of Suckage".

My problem are with those who begin a response with, "Well you're saying..." followed by something the poster never said. It's often done in an insulting manner. If you're trying to say Quantum fans are classier than Quantum detractors, these message boards would indicate otherwise.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My problem are with those who begin a response with, "Well you're saying..." followed by something the poster never said. It's often done in an insulting manner. If you're trying to say Quantum fans are classier than Quantum detractors, these message boards would indicate otherwise.

Your response certainly would; it doesn't take a genius to realize that Bond probably guessed White would change his cell number while covertly tracking him... so, get the address from the cell phone provider (on cover of "national" or "world security"), and Bond can pass by White changing his number with ease.

I think what's tripped you is, there are large passages of time within the plot of Craig's two Bond films; large enough for the year to change, I think; probably too many to go into detail, but I assure you they're there.

[jamie00007]

Once more....if you know a cellphone number, you can track down the location of that phone in a very short time. That's why street gangs use disposable cell phones. If street gangs are smart enough to do that, Quantum would be smart enough to do that.

If Mr. White actually held onto his cell phone for two years, he's an idiot. If it took Bond two years to track Mr. White down, he's an idiot. Neither is an idiot. What's more likely is the screenwriting team of Quantum hoped nobody would notice. Of course, on this message board, posters don't only willingly suspend disbelief, they react defensively to facts.

Who says they only tracked down White then and there? He's obviously a rich and powerful man and not trying to keep a low profile. For all we know they used the phone to identify him straight after Bond found the number in Vesper's phone and have had him under surveillance for weeks before deciding to move on him. Which seems more likely anyway, they dont just want White, they want his organization. And why would it be two years? Just because the films are filmed that far apart doesnt mean thats the timeline in the films. I would say a matter of a few weeks between Vesper's death in Venice and Bond capturing Mr White is the most likely scenario.

These kind of complaints seem quite inane when we're talking about Bond films anyway. If the most illogical thing a villain in a Bond films that we need to "suspend disbelief" for is keep a cell phone for a few weeks thats pretty good I'd say.

My problem are with those who begin a response with, "Well you're saying..." followed by something the poster never said. It's often done in an insulting manner. If you're trying to say Quantum fans are classier than Quantum detractors, these message boards would indicate otherwise.

I'm saying that QoS detractors (not all) seem to be the most vocal and melodramatic. You'd think Marc Forster ran off with their wife or something. Most of us have a Bond movie or two we dont like but theres no need to carry on like that. These arent the IMDB boards. I think Die Another Day is completely horrible but I dont feel the need to make up cutesy names for it or bag out it or Lee Tamahori in every post I make.

Edited by jamie00007, 08 July 2011 - 04:29 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Why are so many people quick to trash Quantum of Solace as a lousy movie? I'm not just saying this because Martin Campbell thinks so. I feel that it lived up to exactly what it proported to be; a direct follow up to Casino Royale (Something that has never been done before since the days of FRWL, where Kronsteen mentions Dr. No directly.).

Any thoughts?

1. During roughly the first 20 minutes (excluding the titles), much of the film was shot by the second unit, which was directed by Dan Bradley, second unit director of the Bourne movies. Some fans felt this portion of the film was so similar to the Bourne style, it almost seemed like a Bourne ripoff. You can disagree whether thsi was so, but a portion of Bond fandom felt this way.

And many didn't feel that way.

2. One of the big marketing points of QoS was that it was a direct sequel. Yet, there were a lot of continuity issues. CR ended with Bond in a three-piece suit. He has a two-piece suit at the start of Quantum. There are references to CR being set in 2006. There are references to Quantum being in 2008. Mathis was still "being sweated" at the end of Casino. He's been set up in a villa by MI6 early in Quantum. M has had her office entirely redone in Quantum compared to Casino.

Now, you could say, it's just a movie and other Bond movies had shaky continuity (Thunderball, for example). But those other Bond movies weren't direct sequels. By stressing the direct sequel angle, Quantum invites this kind of examination. We were told repeatedly, Quantum took up minutes, or maybe an hour or so, after Casino. While any one point might be a little picky, the number of continuity gaffes combines suggest a bit of sloppiness.

Now that's an opinion. But the specific continuity problems are factual. Quantum fans may enjoy the film anyway. To each their own.

Eh. There's worse continuity gaffs within most Bonds not even trying to followup from the last one, CR inclusive (my fav: just wtf is Bond doing in the middle of the poker game tracking Le Chiffre to his room - he couldn't ask at the desk? - with Vesper and a gun? he's gonna kill him?? really?? not complaining too much cuz that scene ends with the awesome stairwell fight, but jeez the writers/director must've been asleep scratching their balls coming up with that silly "spy" bit of business to get Bond and Vesper up to Le Chiffre's room, just dumb, feels like there must be a scene missing to explain it all but oh well, it's a movie even if there's slop it's pretty slop).

He isn't just "tracking" Le Chiffre, he's spying his conversation, that's why Bond put the bug (in case that you don't remember it or didn't notice).

Why? And why drag Vesper along? Why a gun to listen in? Too many whys there, sorry, bad writing/directing to set up an actiony bit, sloppy sloppy and the sort of thing that pulls me right out of a film's reality into "huh, why did they do it that way?" thinking.

Most action/suspence films have such moments, not really harping on CR's. But they are there, in case you missed them.

Did you really saw CR? I'm not saying that CR was perfect, but the things that you're trying to arguing as mistakes,all of them have simple explanations if you actually paid a little degree of atention to the movie.

So, you ask why Bond needs to spy Le Chiffre with the bug, perhaps because 007 is a secret agent that has to defeat to the banker of terrorists to make him available to being interrogated by MI6, so maybe it could be useful for the british secret service to know everything about what Le Chiffre is in, in order to avoid any hiding of information in the future interrogation. Why he carries a gun whereas he's spyin? Did you notice that Bond almost always has a gun when he's working?. And "why drag Vesper along?"... Did you notice that he used Vesper as a cover in the Casino with the kiss and all that.

Now, I ask to you, do I really have to explain to you all these obviousness??
You're the only one that has those "why" with CR, unlike what happened with your beloved QOS, where many viewers saw inconsistences.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

That vocal minority is awfully loud today. Fan polls have QOS ranked pretty high, box office was similar, anybody equating that to hate (or even not being satisfied) has an agenda that doessn't reflect reality.

CR and QOS are very different movies, if there's anything that sticks out about either it's the former being not only the first for the new Bond but a reboot - the first ever in the series. Novelty factor seems the most reasonable difference to assume (which is all any of us are doing) to explain any marginal difference in box office/fan polls/whatever. Like it or not some fans prefer QOS over CR; some don't, whatevs. (there's also the Brosnan-lovers contingent who I'm sure hate CR and QOS equally )

You're entitled to enjoy QOS as much as you want, but pretending that QOS is similar or equal in popularity to CR is not being in touch with reality, to say the least... I wonder which poll ranked QOS "pretty high", oh, you mean the one of CBn that gives 70% to CR and 30% to QOS as the fauvorite Craig Bond movie- having in mind that this site is perhaps the only one that has some big defenders of QOS-, or the one from IMDb.com that shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position.

And yes, "some (few) fans prefer QOS over CR" that's the real vocal minority awfully loud here.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 08 July 2011 - 07:06 AM.

[blueman]

Wow, you dudes crack me up. Keep spinning!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Wow, you dudes crack me up. Keep spinning!

So, that's your answer when you don't have any argument to response...

And, let me add this: That is what fully arty directional ripoff, viewed by a few as "fully realized directorial vision", is getting hit with now.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 08 July 2011 - 07:14 AM.

[blueman]

You're funny cuz you give QOS no quarter, but are only too ready to make up every excuse possible for CR. On this issue, you cannot be trusted.

[Napoleon Solo]

Who says they only tracked down White then and there? He's obviously a rich and powerful man and not trying to keep a low profile. For all we know they used the phone to identify him straight after Bond found the number in Vesper's phone and have had him under surveillance for weeks before deciding to move on him. Which seems more likely anyway, they dont just want White, they want his organization. And why would it be two years? Just because the films are filmed that far apart doesnt mean thats the timeline in the films.

Except in Casino, there are references to the story taking place in 2006 (you see dates when Bond is checking out surveillance videos in the Nassau). Meanwhile, in
Quantum, there are refernces to the story taking place in 2010, such as this:

http://screenmusings...es/QoS_1165.htm

If you're going to make a film that starts only hours after another film, you might want to pay attention to details. Doesn't look like anybody was doing that on Quantum.

[sharpshooter]

QoS feels like an old school film in nature to me. Limited gadgets. Emphasis on using your own resources and grit. No "Bond, James Bond." Driving like a bat out of hell to escape pursuers. But they showed that in a different way. You know, the quick editing and the arty camera angles. I do agree that it's not the best sequel. And the editing does go too far in places. But overall, I think it gets over the line. I like the concept. Others don't, and that's fine. They are allowed to. I'm not concerned about that at all. It's just a movie at the end of the day.