153 replies to this topic

[Zographos]

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.

If you're being bothered so much by irrelevant minutiae that can only be noticed by pausing your DVD, why not save yourself the frustration and only pause for bathroom breaks? Honestly, fans sometimes. This isn't "criticism", it's nitpicking.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

"Make up every excuse"... do you really read my post?? I give you answer to all your why, actually anyone that has paid a little degree to atention to CR could have responded to your questions (I wonder if you really saw that movie). And then again, I have never stated that CR was perfect, of course there're mistakes in that film, but certainly not the ones that you obtusely try to point out.

And of course you don't comment anymore about the popularity of QOS that you intended to equal to CR's, after the facts that I give you- very wise move of yours-.

[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.

"Make up every excuse"... do you really read my post??

If I have to read your posts to understand any film, then that film definitely left something out.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

"Make up every excuse"... do you really read my post??

If I have to read your posts to understand any film, then that film definitely left something out.

That's funny, because if nobody else is asking about CR the same things that you do (unlike what happens with QOS, where severeal posters are asking the same questions here and in other forums), just perhaps the problem isn't in the film but in one specific viewer (I mean, you). Is it clear enough for you now??

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 July 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[blueman]

Always has been. Just curious about bias and criticism of Craig's two films, and how the two correlate.

[Napoleon Solo]

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.

If you're being bothered so much by irrelevant minutiae that can only be noticed by pausing your DVD, why not save yourself the frustration and only pause for bathroom breaks? Honestly, fans sometimes. This isn't "criticism", it's nitpicking.

Translation: don't bother me with facts.

Posters here could simply say "I like the film despite the gaffes." Instead, a number of posters denied there were continuity gaffes. My original point was a major marketing point for Quantum was the "direct sequel" angle but the execution wasn't the best. Thunderball also had continuity gaffes. But, IMO, the gaffes matter more because QOS was supposed to be special because it was such a "direct sequel." But, on this message board, you can't have such a discussion without people such as yourself engaging in putdowns.

[blueman]

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.

If you're being bothered so much by irrelevant minutiae that can only be noticed by pausing your DVD, why not save yourself the frustration and only pause for bathroom breaks? Honestly, fans sometimes. This isn't "criticism", it's nitpicking.

Translation: don't bother me with facts.

Posters here could simply say "I like the film despite the gaffes."

Funny, same dynamic is in effect with CR with the need to create elaborate defenses in play for its gaffes and silliness. Damn odd. Oh well, it's the movies, whatareyougonnado? I really think people are saying, in both cases, I like this one, I like that one. C'est la vie.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

If you're being bothered so much by irrelevant minutiae that can only be noticed by pausing your DVD, why not save yourself the frustration and only pause for bathroom breaks? Honestly, fans sometimes. This isn't "criticism", it's nitpicking.

Translation: don't bother me with facts.

Posters here could simply say "I like the film despite the gaffes."

I really think people are saying, in both cases, I like this one, I like that one.

Perhaps... But some people like you- and well, maybe only you- still doesn't accept some facts about their favourite movie and prefer to live in a world of constant denial, stating things like: "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR" or "fan polls have QOS ranked pretty high", without any decent argument to sustain that; unlike as I did to prove you wrong.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 July 2011 - 10:47 PM.

[blueman]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate. Majority of fans saying it's in the 7/10-8/10 range ain't hate - and if that's a tad lower than CR's, well there's that novelty factor, plus Campbell's lowest-common-denominator directing making things easier to digest. But that's slap-bang into the subjectivity realm again, so I'll go back and stick with a slightly lowered BO (non-novelty factor for QOS) telling me both films were very very close in viewer satisfaction. If most fans preferred CR over QOS, gosh, that's fine. I prefer TMWTGG over LALD, puts me in the minority on that one too, oh well (I actually think there's a lot between those two sets of films that are similar, but I'll leave that for another day).

For me to believe all that you say about QOS, it would have had to earn half as much as it did at the BO, and come in somewhere in the 4/10 range on fan polls assessing what they thought of it. It didn't, so deal.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Indeed; if fans hated QOS as much as the naysayers claim, it'd have had a much bigger drop-off in box office numbers compared to CR... sort of like the ginormous drop-off between LALD and TMWTGG, in fact.

Honestly, it's like the forums are changing from CB.n to CNB (Craig Not Bond) all over again...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Honestly, it's like the forums are changing from CB.n to CNB (Craig Not Bond) all over again...

And then again, as other poster said earlier... Can you QOS lovers understand, that many of us that criticize QOS, praise very high Craig debut in the role of Bond?? So it's not a case of CraigNotBond nonsense, is simply about distinguish between a great movie like CR and a disappointing direct sequel.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 July 2011 - 01:16 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate. Majority of fans saying it's in the 7/10-8/10 range ain't hate - and if that's a tad lower than CR's, well there's that novelty factor, plus Campbell's lowest-common-denominator directing making things easier to digest. But that's slap-bang into the subjectivity realm again, so I'll go back and stick with a slightly lowered BO (non-novelty factor for QOS) telling me both films were very very close in viewer satisfaction. If most fans preferred CR over QOS, gosh, that's fine. I prefer TMWTGG over LALD, puts me in the minority on that one too, oh well (I actually think there's a lot between those two sets of films that are similar, but I'll leave that for another day).

For me to believe all that you say about QOS, it would have had to earn half as much as it did at the BO, and come in somewhere in the 4/10 range on fan polls assessing what they thought of it. It didn't, so deal.

First of all I have never use the word hate about QOS, but one thing is not being the least popular movie of the EON series, and other very different is being among the more populars like CR. QOS is just average- "middle of the road"- according to popularity , thing that is proved, for instance (as I already stated) in IMDb.com's poll that shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position, I mean a tenth or eleven place out of 22 movies is like a 4/10 that you were looking for; and with Bond fans the CBn's poll gives 70% to CR and 30% to QOS as the fauvorite Craig Bond movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 July 2011 - 02:14 AM.

[coco1997]

Honestly, it's like the forums are changing from CB.n to CNB (Craig Not Bond) all over again...

A lot of people don't like "QoS". Deal with it.

[jamie00007]

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.

By that logic Bond in DAD Bond was operating 40 years after he took down Dr No. We all know by this stage that Bond timelines are irrelevant and make no sense. This is not something new or introduced by QoS.

You'd have us believe that White's location was tracked down using a cell phone number that any common street thug would have known to abandon after a few days of use, but apparently a figurehead of one of the world's most sinister and wealthy organizations held on to it in order to save on his weekend minutes? And that White not only allowed himself to be compromised through a cell phone, but stayed in the same location for months? I think not. I revert back to my previous point: Campbell didn't explain how much time had passed because he didn't think he'd need to (or he didn't think that far out ahead).

No, I never said anything of the sort. They dont need to track White down with the phone, they used it to establish his identity. White is not some street criminal or low rent gangster on the run. He is a rich, powerful and prominent man. Hes not trying to hide from anybody. Once they uncovered his identity it was simply a matter of putting him under surveillance. And this kind of nitpicking in a Bond film is just utterly ridiculous. All the massive plot holes and flaws of logic when it comes to nearly every other Bond villain in the series and you're bashing QoS over a villains use of a mobile phone?

And "Quanturd"? Word of advice, sounding like a 12 year old does not strengthen your argument.

[blueman]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate. Majority of fans saying it's in the 7/10-8/10 range ain't hate - and if that's a tad lower than CR's, well there's that novelty factor, plus Campbell's lowest-common-denominator directing making things easier to digest. But that's slap-bang into the subjectivity realm again, so I'll go back and stick with a slightly lowered BO (non-novelty factor for QOS) telling me both films were very very close in viewer satisfaction. If most fans preferred CR over QOS, gosh, that's fine. I prefer TMWTGG over LALD, puts me in the minority on that one too, oh well (I actually think there's a lot between those two sets of films that are similar, but I'll leave that for another day).

For me to believe all that you say about QOS, it would have had to earn half as much as it did at the BO, and come in somewhere in the 4/10 range on fan polls assessing what they thought of it. It didn't, so deal.

First of all I have never use the word hate about QOS, but one thing is not being the least popular movie of the EON series, and other very different is being among the more populars like CR. QOS is just average- "middle of the road"- according to popularity , thing that is proved, for instance (as I already stated) in IMDb.com's poll that shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position, I mean a tenth or eleven place out of 22 movies is like a 4/10 that you were looking for; and with Bond fans the CBn's poll gives 70% to CR and 30% to QOS as the fauvorite Craig Bond movie.

This poll was the one I was looking at. Fans rate it highly.

Box office is what it is. Not sure what else there is to debate, except personal likes/dislikes.

[SecretAgentFan]

By the way - if anyone really thinks that internet polls paint an acurate picture... oh, my.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate. Majority of fans saying it's in the 7/10-8/10 range ain't hate - and if that's a tad lower than CR's, well there's that novelty factor, plus Campbell's lowest-common-denominator directing making things easier to digest. But that's slap-bang into the subjectivity realm again, so I'll go back and stick with a slightly lowered BO (non-novelty factor for QOS) telling me both films were very very close in viewer satisfaction. If most fans preferred CR over QOS, gosh, that's fine. I prefer TMWTGG over LALD, puts me in the minority on that one too, oh well (I actually think there's a lot between those two sets of films that are similar, but I'll leave that for another day).

For me to believe all that you say about QOS, it would have had to earn half as much as it did at the BO, and come in somewhere in the 4/10 range on fan polls assessing what they thought of it. It didn't, so deal.

First of all I have never use the word hate about QOS, but one thing is not being the least popular movie of the EON series, and other very different is being among the more populars like CR. QOS is just average- "middle of the road"- according to popularity , thing that is proved, for instance (as I already stated) in IMDb.com's poll that shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position, I mean a tenth or eleven place out of 22 movies is like a 4/10 that you were looking for; and with Bond fans the CBn's poll gives 70% to CR and 30% to QOS as the fauvorite Craig Bond movie.

This poll was the one I was looking at. Fans rate it highly

Even if we don't take to account that the poll that you mentioned only register 55 votes, whereas the one that I brought out has 208 votes; I have to remind you, in case that suddenly you're convinently forgetting, that your point was that "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR" but the fact is that CBn's poll gives 70% to CR and 29% to QOS as the favourite Craig Bond movie.

[Santa]

Most people liked it about as much as they did CR, hardly much difference in the amount of money each made.

I'm confused. How does the amount of money made tell you how much people liked it? If I go to the cinema and watch two films, I can love one but hate the other, but I've spent the same amount of money on each, no?

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.


-------

Agreed.

[Santa]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate.

Again, people pay at the cinema upon entrance, before they see the film... That tells us nothing about how they feel on the way out.

BTW, I'm not saying everyone hated the film, I'm just always confused by the argument that people paid to see a film, ergo they must have liked it.

[blueman]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate.

Again, people pay at the cinema upon entrance, before they see the film... That tells us nothing about how they feel on the way out.

BTW, I'm not saying everyone hated the film, I'm just always confused by the argument that people paid to see a film, ergo they must have liked it.

Well the thinking is most everyone loved CR while most eveyone hated was dissatisfied with QOS. Yet they made about the same amount of money. Not saying everyone loved both films, just that the only actual measure we have puts them pretty equal.

The fan polls (which by definition only measure the reaction of, well, fans, which I think is a very small percentage of ticket-buyers), shows CR getting higher marks, in the 9/10 range, but QOS is still "liked" with majority of fans putting it about 7.5/10. Doesn't sound like many were dissatisfied with QOS, hence mine (and others') claim of a very vocal minority spinning a lot of trash talk about the latter film/fan and audience reaction to it.

Some people just hate the film, that's okay. Just think they should speak for themselves.

Side note: general public and fans were less satisfied with GF than they were TB. GF is simply an inferior film, Guy Hamilton didn't understand Bond, etc. etc. One could make any such case for any two films in the series released one after the other and directed by different directors. Generally speaking, Bond films make Bond-sized profits, some a bit more and a couple quite a bit less, and Bond fandom is such that favs are all over the place - some rank TLD as the best film in the series, I can't watch it even with Dalton in the role. After 50 years, is what it is, and vocal minorities come and go.

[larrythefatcat]

Side note: general public and fans were less satisfied with GF than they were TB. GF is simply an inferior film, Guy Hamilton didn't understand Bond, etc. etc. One could make any such case for any two films in the series released one after the other and directed by different directors. Generally speaking, Bond films make Bond-sized profits, some a bit more and a couple quite a bit less, and Bond fandom is such that favs are all over the place - some rank TLD as the best film in the series, I can't watch it even with Dalton in the role. After 50 years, is what it is, and vocal minorities come and go.

Things like this just continually prove that there are wildly differing opinions on what makes a good Bond film. Everyone goes into a Bond film looking for a little something different and comes away with a differing opinion and experience.

I, personally, don't see why more of the general public would have preferred Thunderball over Goldfinger, maybe it was the times and the intended perception of the tone of a Bond film at that point. I feel that it's such a disjointed film and goes back and forth between being exciting and frenetic to downright draggy and boring... at least "Quantum" didn't have the draggy boring parts... it didn't have (running) time!

As for the Dalton films, I personally prefer The Living Daylights... for a couple of reasons. One, I LOVE the short story, definitely my favorite Fleming short. Secondly, I found something ridiculously intriguing about Maryam D'Abo... but definitely not her "acting". Thirdly, some of the Afghanistani desert shots are amazing... the ones with the sunset, not the ones with the moon(s)... if you know what I mean. Then, fourthly, Licence to Kill was too much like every other action movie from the late 80's/early 90's... but maybe it's just the music that makes me feel that way.

Anyway, going back to Quantum... I definitely agree that a much better film was left on the cutting room floor. None of the shots were given any time to breathe and the whole film felt like a Michael Bay "ROCK!buster" ™ with any hint of "fat" cut from it. I really hope there's eventually a Special Super Duper edition on Blu-ray with a LOT of deleted/extended scenes just so people can see what the movie COULD HAVE been.

As for Bondophiles having favorites... as long as they don't HONESTLY place A View to a Kill as their top Bond film, they're alright in my book!

Edited by larrythefatcat, 10 July 2011 - 11:20 PM.

[blueman]

As for Bondophiles having favorites... as long as they don't HONESTLY place A View to a Kill as their top Bond film, they're alright in my book!

Ahem, there's one Bond fan I know of who actually does put AVTAK as his #1. Takes a village.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate.

Again, people pay at the cinema upon entrance, before they see the film... That tells us nothing about how they feel on the way out.

BTW, I'm not saying everyone hated the film, I'm just always confused by the argument that people paid to see a film, ergo they must have liked it.

Well the thinking is most everyone loved CR while most eveyone hated was dissatisfied with QOS. Yet they made about the same amount of money. Not saying everyone loved both films, just that the only actual measure we have puts them pretty equal.

The fan polls (which by definition only measure the reaction of, well, fans, which I think is a very small percentage of ticket-buyers), shows CR getting higher marks, in the 9/10 range, but QOS is still "liked" with majority of fans putting it about 7.5/10. Doesn't sound like many were dissatisfied with QOS, hence mine (and others') claim of a very vocal minority spinning a lot of trash talk about the latter film/fan and audience reaction to it.

So blueman... you keep on conviniently messing or changing your original statement, hence my duty is quote you again: "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR". The CBn's poll about the favourite Craig Bond movie gives 70% to CR and 29% to QOS, and if my maths are right, a 29% doesn't seems to be about as much as a 70%. And regarding general moviegoers; the IMDb.com's poll shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position.

Of course, you will ignore this post, because it destroy your dreamed reality about your favourite movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 11 July 2011 - 05:34 AM.

[Dekard77]

Just watched CR and QOS back to back, and I have to say the continuity didn't bother me so much. Bond flicks are known to hint past adventures without really connecting the dots. QOS is meant to be a stand alone movie for most part while finally bringing closure. Like Dave Bond said the best parts of the film are left in the cutting floor. Character development is very is kept at a minimum. Shame because the cast is really good enough to make an excellent spy movie, The only action scene I still can't watch is the dc-3 dogfight. Too loud and choppy.
Love the idea of moving the gun barrel to end and Camille makes a perfect ally. I wish there was more character development especially between Bond and Mathis and I have no idea why he was thrown in the bin. Felt disgusting.

[blueman]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate.

Again, people pay at the cinema upon entrance, before they see the film... That tells us nothing about how they feel on the way out.

BTW, I'm not saying everyone hated the film, I'm just always confused by the argument that people paid to see a film, ergo they must have liked it.

Well the thinking is most everyone loved CR while most eveyone hated was dissatisfied with QOS. Yet they made about the same amount of money. Not saying everyone loved both films, just that the only actual measure we have puts them pretty equal.

The fan polls (which by definition only measure the reaction of, well, fans, which I think is a very small percentage of ticket-buyers), shows CR getting higher marks, in the 9/10 range, but QOS is still "liked" with majority of fans putting it about 7.5/10. Doesn't sound like many were dissatisfied with QOS, hence mine (and others') claim of a very vocal minority spinning a lot of trash talk about the latter film/fan and audience reaction to it.

So blueman... you keep on conviniently messing or changing your original statement, hence my duty is quote you again: "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR". The CBn's poll about the favourite Craig Bond movie gives 70% to CR and 29% to QOS, and if my maths are right, a 29% doesn't seems to be about as much as a 70%. And regarding general moviegoers; the IMDb.com's poll shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position.

Of course, you will ignore this post, because it destroy your dreamed reality about your favourite movie.

What's changed? Both films did about the same at the BO. Money talks.

Fans ranking both films highly is different than choosing which they prefer, most prefer CR yet QOS still gets marks for being a quality Bond film, go figure. You want a preference for CR to mean QOS was a poor effort or something, but that's not shown in the fan poll measuring the film itself, QOS is thought os as a pretty decent Bond film by most Bond fans. There's a few that think extremely poorly of it, and clog threads like this - the point of the thread was why does QOS get such heat, it doesn't really just a few are loud about it, as you've demonstrated. Mission accomplished!

[Dustin]

I'd argue that judging on a film's popularity has become increasingly difficult by mere BO figures and DVD/BR sales. With the advent of home entertainment that comes remarkably close to the theater experience there appeared a growing number of consumers that needn't necessarily see a film at the theater, buy the DVD or even order with netflix or a similar service. Fact is, sooner or later most things turn up on free TV and if you're not the see-it-all/have-it-all type of fan you can easily wait till the time comes for whatever you want to see. So even decreasing box office numbers and sales do not necessarily reflect to which extent people liked or disliked a film. To find out about that I think you will just have to ask the audience.

Edited by Dustin, 11 July 2011 - 11:11 AM.

[Jim]

I'm not sure what this thread has actually achieved, save for making everyone a bit grumpy.

[larrythefatcat]

I've noticed a lot of people have mentioned the scene where Mathis is thrown into the bin.

I know it seems very heartless, but it seems like a necessary evil for Bond to have a chance to throw any reputable police off his trail... I'm sure there are some good cops in La Paz. If other police came upon dead colleagues and a dead man who had his effects stolen and was thrown into a garbage dumpster, I feel that they would be at least SLIGHTLY more likely to focus their search on a known thief in the area.

There's probably a much better way to lose a tail, but this is choice Bond made in this instance.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Half a billion at the box office ain't hate.

Again, people pay at the cinema upon entrance, before they see the film... That tells us nothing about how they feel on the way out.

BTW, I'm not saying everyone hated the film, I'm just always confused by the argument that people paid to see a film, ergo they must have liked it.

Well the thinking is most everyone loved CR while most eveyone hated was dissatisfied with QOS. Yet they made about the same amount of money. Not saying everyone loved both films, just that the only actual measure we have puts them pretty equal.

The fan polls (which by definition only measure the reaction of, well, fans, which I think is a very small percentage of ticket-buyers), shows CR getting higher marks, in the 9/10 range, but QOS is still "liked" with majority of fans putting it about 7.5/10. Doesn't sound like many were dissatisfied with QOS, hence mine (and others') claim of a very vocal minority spinning a lot of trash talk about the latter film/fan and audience reaction to it.

So blueman... you keep on conviniently messing or changing your original statement, hence my duty is quote you again: "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR". The CBn's poll about the favourite Craig Bond movie gives 70% to CR and 29% to QOS, and if my maths are right, a 29% doesn't seems to be about as much as a 70%. And regarding general moviegoers; the IMDb.com's poll shows QOS in the tenth place of the EON series (tied with other two movies) whereas CR appears in the first position.

Of course, you will ignore this post, because it destroy your dreamed reality about your favourite movie.

What's changed? Both films did about the same at the BO. Money talks.

Fans ranking both films highly is different than choosing which they prefer, most prefer CR yet QOS still gets marks for being a quality Bond film, go figure. You want a preference for CR to mean QOS was a poor effort or something, but that's not shown in the fan poll measuring the film itself, QOS is thought os as a pretty decent Bond film by most Bond fans. There's a few that think extremely poorly of it, and clog threads like this - the point of the thread was why does QOS get such heat, it doesn't really just a few are loud about it, as you've demonstrated. Mission accomplished!

The only thing that I have said is that CR is more popular with Bond fans (and probably with general moviegoers) than QOS- as every poll has demonstrated until now, and you were origanally saying, if my memory doesn't fail, that "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR"; if QOS is a poor effort or a quality film that's another story... but if you ask me, for what I have heard the reaction of the general moviegoer is that QOS is not really good as CR is, but not the worst of the EON series neither.

[DR76]

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.

Bond was still in Venice when he was conversing with M at her office. We don't know how much time had passed between the Bond/M phone conversation and Bond's visit to Mr. White's lakeside home. And a good deal of time had passed between the end of CR to Bond's visit to Mathis' home in Italy. QoS never made it explicit. In fact, Bond didn't visit Mathis until the middle of the movie. Does anyone know exactly how much time had passed between Bond's call to M (in which he advised to keep Mathis in custody), until Bond's visit to Mathis in the middle of QoS?

The only thing that I have said is that CR is more popular with Bond fans (and probably with general moviegoers) than QOS- as every poll has demonstrated until now, and you were origanally saying, if my memory doesn't fail, that "most people liked it (QOS) about as much as they did CR"; if QOS is a poor effort or a quality film that's another story... but if you ask me, for what I have heard the reaction of the general moviegoer is that QOS is not really good as CR is, but not the worst of the EON series neither.

I don't think that QoS is as good as CR. But I still think it's a pretty damn good movie, despite its flaws. It's ranked at #10 on my list, out of 22 Bond movies.