153 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

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?

Of course not, it's never mentioned as such. But even if we leave out QOS for the time being - which nobody had an idea what it would be like at the release of CR - there is indication that some time must have passed, probably at least a week, more probably a couple of weeks. Bond had to handle and/or avoid the Venice authorities, depending on his status with the Service, meanwhile giving his information to M and picking up the scent of White by Vesper's clue, which could have taken considerable time. He had to reconnoitre White's place, pick up a weapon, neutralise security and finally collar White. Even if the CR's film language gives the illusion of all that happening the same afternoon as the Venice shootout there is no way it could have if you think about it.

But Bond films are not exactly made to withstand logic scrutiny.

[blueman]

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

I blame Forster.

[blueman]

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.

Very salient point.

Asking Bond fans what they think of a markedly different type of Bond film after all these years of a certain type is bound to draw a lot more criticism than praise; OHMSS is a great example, Laz just wasn't the same as Connery, took a long time for a lot of fans to get on board with it (although I remember a fan poll in a mid-70s Bondage magazine if anyone remembers that publication, rankings had OHMSS either first, or second behind FRWL, but again and like this board, very small sample size even among the fanbase).

Going global: TB, by todays numbers, had BO in the TDK range (and admissions that likely dwarfed the Bat, ticket prices being so much lower back then). One would think, hands down, TB is considered the best Bond film ever by fans, damn thing was nearly a cult with all the merchandising and whatnot. Yet it generally ranks mid-range. Weird. I'd be very curious how fan popularity shakes out in a few years for Craig's films, that about a quarter (closing in on a third...) of the sounded-off fanbase prefer QOS to CR is telling IMO, also that much of the initial shock and disdain for it has settled down, judging by more recent posts about it. Time marches on.

[Dekard77]

TB is not midrange. Its probably one of the few Epic Bond films and the actual blue print for many other action movies which followed it successfully. I wasn't around when the film was released but I can certainly say it holds up pretty well. Speaking of QOS I wondered if it was entirely necessary to include slang like ,piss off and what the hell are you up to etc. I miss the sophistication in Bond films its not always about the action.

[Loomis]

The pre-Craig era was not meant to stand serious scrutiny, but when one goes out and hires Oscar-nominated writers and directors to be involved with your Bond films, you do kind of expect them to produce shinola instead of .

[SecretAgentFan]

Since everything (and therefore every movie) gets second-guessed after a while I guess the fast cutting of QOS will be judged like the blaxploitation- and the Kung Fu-influence during the 70´s.

As I tirelessly (and tiringly for some) have pointed out that the editing of QOS was not Michael Bay-ish but achieved something akin to visual ballet, I nevertheless look forward to a different approach for Bond 23.

Personally, I would love to have long continuous action shots as in CHILDREN OF MAN or HANNA.

[SecretAgentFan]

Since everything (and therefore every movie) gets second-guessed after a while I guess the fast cutting of QOS will be judged like the blaxploitation- and the Kung Fu-influence during the 70´s.

As I tirelessly (and tiringly for some) have pointed out that the editing of QOS was not Michael Bay-ish but achieved something akin to visual ballet, I nevertheless look forward to a different approach for Bond 23.

Personally, I would love to have long continuous action shots as in CHILDREN OF MAN or HANNA.

In 1986 the video to Wang Chung's song, Everybody Have Fun Tonight, was banned in Britain because the quick, split-second, frenetic screen shots were thought to induce seizures in epileptics. Flash forward 22 years to 2008 and QUANTUM OF SOLACE and....well, let's just say I look back fondly on the leisurely, sedentary editing of Everybody Have Fun Tonight.

Marc Forster has directed movies and actors/actresses that have been nominated for Oscars. The fact that you can even bring up Michael Bay and Marc Forster in the same sentence (as it relates to QUANTURD OF SOLACE) speaks to how breathlessly Marc Forster's prestige has fallen. And I boldly predict that next year we'll all be comparing Sam Mendes to Uwe Toilet-Bolle.

Bond films don't need auteurs directing them, or else Woody Allen would have been asked to direct already (with Soon Yi-Previn cast as Bond Girl/Chinese super agent Melove Yu-Longtime).

Well, Grav, I mentioned Michael Bay´s work not to degrade Forster but to express what some people (like you?) thought the editing of QOS would resemble. If I went too far, well then let´s just go back to the BOURNE editing.

I don´t understand why that would lead you to the Mendes/Boll comparison - but it surely reads very provocatively.

And to say that Bond films don´t need auteurs... aren´t you fond of TWINE? I am. But aside from Michael Apted, Forster seems to be the only director who really fits that mold. Shouldn´t we wait for more "auteurs" to direct Bond before jumping to the conclusion that this is not a good fit for Bond?

[right idea, wrong pussy]

I imagine that a lot of the vitriol being passed back and forth on this thread is less because QOS is really that polarizing a movie and more because it's the most recent movie we have to dissect. I am by nature and by training a historian, and so I make most of my posts in the forums dealing with past Bond actors. But I notice those forums always get much less activity than the threads dealing with recent films.

Another thing I've noticed is that the films of the last 25 years that seem to inspiring the most heated debates are the ones that come right before an unscheduled break in production - LTK, DAD and QOS. None are as good or as bad as people claim (I've come to like much about LTK and DAD, and while I like QOS, I can easily criticize aspects of its editing and overly brutal tone). So why all the fuss? I think that people either unconsciously blame these films for the breaks that follow them (even though all of them, like all Bond films, were box office successes), or it's an example of an even more primitive Freudian reaction. We're frustrated by the lack of a new Bond film, so we take out our aggression either on the last Bond film, or on the people who hate the last Bond film (or the people who defend it).

At least, I hope that's what going on here. I was mostly off the boards for the last two years and the tenor of discussion has indeed seemed to have gotten a lot nastier during that time. I hope I'm wrong, and the sniping passes.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, Grav, I mentioned Michael Bay´s work not to degrade Forster but to express what some people (like you?) thought the editing of QOS would resemble. If I went too far, well then let´s just go back to the BOURNE editing.

Michael Bay...Jason Bourne...whatever happened to the Bond films setting the standards?

And to say that Bond films don´t need auteurs... aren´t you fond of TWINE? I am. But aside from Michael Apted, Forster seems to be the only director who really fits that mold. Shouldn´t we wait for more "auteurs" to direct Bond before jumping to the conclusion that this is not a good fit for Bond?

You are correct that I'm a big fan of TWINE. However, I said the series "doesn't need" auteurs; didn't say they should never be hired. It worked with TWINE, but I appear to be in the minority of people who think it's a great movie. I guess my main point is that getting an autuer/"name" director isn't going to guarantee a great film, as QOS has shown.

Strange that we both love TWINE, isn´t it?

As for Bond films setting standards - we already had that discussion on another thread. Bond films stopped setting standards once the novelty factor wore off and dozens of imitations flooded the market. From the 70´s on, I guess, Bond was influenced heavily by others (blaxploitation, Kung Fu etc.)

Also, if it weren´t for NORTH BY NORTHWEST...

[Santa]

We're frustrated by the lack of a new Bond film, so we take out our aggression either on the last Bond film, or on the people who hate the last Bond film (or the people who defend it).

I think it's an interesting idea but a little too simplistic for this situation. My experience here is that most of those who dislike DAD and QOS, for example (including myself), disliked them from the start, when we didn't know how long the break would be. Over time some people's opinions have changed but in both directions - while some have come down off the high of a new Bond film to look more objectively at the product in a megative light, with time it has grown on others. There may be some who are thinking the way you have suggested but I would say they are a very small minority.

I was mostly off the boards for the last two years and the tenor of discussion has indeed seemed to have gotten a lot nastier during that time. I hope I'm wrong, and the sniping passes.

We are missing the calming influence of certain former members.

I want to *SEE* what I'm eating. I couldn't tell what the heck was going on in QOS.

This was my main, indeed pretty much my only issue with it. It was simply physically uncomfortable to watch. If I'm the princess, QOS is the pea.

[blueman]

I imagine that a lot of the vitriol being passed back and forth on this thread is less because QOS is really that polarizing a movie and more because it's the most recent movie we have to dissect. I am by nature and by training a historian, and so I make most of my posts in the forums dealing with past Bond actors. But I notice those forums always get much less activity than the threads dealing with recent films.

Another thing I've noticed is that the films of the last 25 years that seem to inspiring the most heated debates are the ones that come right before an unscheduled break in production - LTK, DAD and QOS. None are as good or as bad as people claim (I've come to like much about LTK and DAD, and while I like QOS, I can easily criticize aspects of its editing and overly brutal tone). So why all the fuss? I think that people either unconsciously blame these films for the breaks that follow them (even though all of them, like all Bond films, were box office successes), or it's an example of an even more primitive Freudian reaction. We're frustrated by the lack of a new Bond film, so we take out our aggression either on the last Bond film, or on the people who hate the last Bond film (or the people who defend it).

At least, I hope that's what going on here. I was mostly off the boards for the last two years and the tenor of discussion has indeed seemed to have gotten a lot nastier during that time. I hope I'm wrong, and the sniping passes.

I think for many fans, Bond represents a comfortable sameness that precludes coming at the character in a different way (note the many Brosnan - who ticked all the Bond actor boxes but none of them well - fans who left this and other fan boards when Craig was hired), or telling a Bond story in any way other than that prescribed by the grand old tradition (as someone said above, TB created the acknowledged Bond template, and woe to any director who strays from that hallowed path apparently).

If Bond were a TV show running for 7 or 8 seasons, they'd likely hit their stride then maintain it without such fluctuations that we've seen in nearly 50 years of the film series. What tends to get lost in all this is, at its core, early Bond on film pushed the boundaries of what could be done with a heroic character and how violence could be shown on the big screen (quick-cut editing inclusive). Both aspects of those early cinematic Bonds were clearly in Fleming's novels but even then leavened for mass (i.e. family) consumption. I like QOS so much (the way I like OHMSS so much) as it "feels" like a Bond novel, which is rather unique in the series IMO. Bond is a bit of an a-hole at times and Forster doesn't flinch from that; the violence is graphically brutal at times and there's no look-away there either. It's a thrilling film that embraces more Flemingness than any Bond film since OHMSS. But - it doesn't sound or feel or look like TB, it's not all that comfy (although I'm sure all those bits left on the cutting room floor would make it more so...), and it ticks off more Bond fans (the remaining ones) exactly because it's not identifiable as a TB-styled Bond film. Some may claim Campbell with CR created a perfect blend of Fleming and cinema, but for me there's too much cuteness: the stunt sequences are too cute, the Vesper interactions get way too cute, even M is cute. It's a cute film, and I enjoy it as such. I prefer my Bond to be more hard-edged, brutal sometimes but with a blind spot for a bird with a wing down, and with action that drops me next to Bond so I can practically feel it (as opposed to pretty stunts I can go ooh and aah at).

QOS gets criticism here and elsewhere mostly as it's a non-standard Bond film, to take a short stab at answering the thread topic question, just too different from EON's usual product. This Bond fan is tickled pink by those differences, and wishes the next few Bonds to follow in the Fleming-path Forster has blazed. Won't likely happen, so everyone else should rejoice.

Also to note: much of the initial criticism of QOS has mellowed, many fans have 180'd their opinion from strong dislike to very appreciative. There's a healthy percentage (not just one or two ) who prefer it over CR, and again most ranked it with the "better" Bonds. That's why it appears to me most fans like them about the same: CR as a very Bond-film Bond (and thus preferred), and QOS as a very different Bond.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Well, Grav, I mentioned Michael Bay´s work not to degrade Forster but to express what some people (like you?) thought the editing of QOS would resemble. If I went too far, well then let´s just go back to the BOURNE editing.

Michael Bay...Jason Bourne...whatever happened to the Bond films setting the standards?

And to say that Bond films don´t need auteurs... aren´t you fond of TWINE? I am. But aside from Michael Apted, Forster seems to be the only director who really fits that mold. Shouldn´t we wait for more "auteurs" to direct Bond before jumping to the conclusion that this is not a good fit for Bond?

You are correct that I'm a big fan of TWINE. However, I said the series "doesn't need" auteurs; didn't say they should never be hired. It worked with TWINE, but I appear to be in the minority of people who think it's a great movie. I guess my main point is that getting an autuer/"name" director isn't going to guarantee a great film, as QOS has shown.

Strange that we both love TWINE, isn´t it?

As for Bond films setting standards - we already had that discussion on another thread. Bond films stopped setting standards once the novelty factor wore off and dozens of imitations flooded the market. From the 70´s on, I guess, Bond was influenced heavily by others (blaxploitation, Kung Fu etc.)

Also, if it weren´t for NORTH BY NORTHWEST...

That's right. But there have been notable exceptions- that weren't heavily influenced by the current cinematic trend of its respective times-,that are usually claimed for fans and critics as the best of the EON series after the sixties: TSWLM, FYEO, TLD and CR.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I imagine that a lot of the vitriol being passed back and forth on this thread is less because QOS is really that polarizing a movie and more because it's the most recent movie we have to dissect. I am by nature and by training a historian, and so I make most of my posts in the forums dealing with past Bond actors. But I notice those forums always get much less activity than the threads dealing with recent films.

Another thing I've noticed is that the films of the last 25 years that seem to inspiring the most heated debates are the ones that come right before an unscheduled break in production - LTK, DAD and QOS. None are as good or as bad as people claim (I've come to like much about LTK and DAD, and while I like QOS, I can easily criticize aspects of its editing and overly brutal tone). So why all the fuss? I think that people either unconsciously blame these films for the breaks that follow them (even though all of them, like all Bond films, were box office successes), or it's an example of an even more primitive Freudian reaction. We're frustrated by the lack of a new Bond film, so we take out our aggression either on the last Bond film, or on the people who hate the last Bond film (or the people who defend it).

At least, I hope that's what going on here. I was mostly off the boards for the last two years and the tenor of discussion has indeed seemed to have gotten a lot nastier during that time. I hope I'm wrong, and the sniping passes.

I think for many fans, Bond represents a comfortable sameness that precludes coming at the character in a different way (note the many Brosnan - who ticked all the Bond actor boxes but none of them well - fans who left this and other fan boards when Craig was hired), or telling a Bond story in any way other than that prescribed by the grand old tradition (as someone said above, TB created the acknowledged Bond template, and woe to any director who strays from that hallowed path apparently).

If Bond were a TV show running for 7 or 8 seasons, they'd likely hit their stride then maintain it without such fluctuations that we've seen in nearly 50 years of the film series. What tends to get lost in all this is, at its core, early Bond on film pushed the boundaries of what could be done with a heroic character and how violence could be shown on the big screen (quick-cut editing inclusive). Both aspects of those early cinematic Bonds were clearly in Fleming's novels but even then leavened for mass (i.e. family) consumption. I like QOS so much (the way I like OHMSS so much) as it "feels" like a Bond novel, which is rather unique in the series IMO. Bond is a bit of an a-hole at times and Forster doesn't flinch from that; the violence is graphically brutal at times and there's no look-away there either. It's a thrilling film that embraces more Flemingness than any Bond film since OHMSS. But - it doesn't sound or feel or look like TB, it's not all that comfy (although I'm sure all those bits left on the cutting room floor would make it more so...), and it ticks off more Bond fans (the remaining ones) exactly because it's not identifiable as a TB-styled Bond film. Some may claim Campbell with CR created a perfect blend of Fleming and cinema, but for me there's too much cuteness: the stunt sequences are too cute, the Vesper interactions get way too cute, even M is cute. It's a cute film, and I enjoy it as such. I prefer my Bond to be more hard-edged, brutal sometimes but with a blind spot for a bird with a wing down, and with action that drops me next to Bond so I can practically feel it (as opposed to pretty stunts I can go ooh and aah at).

QOS gets criticism here and elsewhere mostly as it's a non-standard Bond film, to take a short stab at answering the thread topic question, just too different from EON's usual product. This Bond fan is tickled pink by those differences, and wishes the next few Bonds to follow in the Fleming-path Forster has blazed. Won't likely happen, so everyone else should rejoice.

Also to note: much of the initial criticism of QOS has mellowed, many fans have 180'd their opinion from strong dislike to very appreciative. There's a healthy percentage (not just one or two ) who prefer it over CR, and again most ranked it with the "better" Bonds. That's why it appears to me most fans like them about the same: CR as a very Bond-film Bond (and thus preferred), and QOS as a very different Bond.

That's funny, because the main criticism that recieve CR when premiered, was that it was a good movie but not a good Bond movie (however, I agree with you that CR is "a very Bond-film Bond"). Regarding your saying about QOS being "a very different Bond", I believe QOS is no more different that all the Bond movies that followed the current cinematic trend of its times since the seventies, which are majority in the EON series.

On the subject of QOS being very flemingesque, according to you... I think that is an excuse- I mean, argument- that it has been used too many times before with other movies, particularly with LTK, just to justify its shortcomings. Ironically, QOS story isn't based in any Fleming story, while TB is a close adaptation of the story of the same name penned by Fleming.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 13 July 2011 - 03:10 AM.

[israel.lopez217]

To me it is an excellent movie, surpassed only by a few, Casino Royale included. The only problems I have with Quantum of Solace are two:

1) The action sequences happen too fast and switch camera angles constantly, so if you don't pay attention you will miss details.
2) I don't like the way Bond lands when he launches open the parachute after dropping off the plane.

Other than that, it fully closes the chapter opened by Casino, it is an excellent sequel, and it has pretty memorable scenes, especially the "Tosca" one.

Edited by israel.lopez217, 13 July 2011 - 07:46 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

The action sequences happen too fast and switch camera angles constantly, so if you don't pay attention you will miss details.

Please don´t see this as an attack on you. I just would like to ask a general question: Why is it bad if one has to pay attention to a movie? Don´t you always miss details when you don´t pay attention? Why would you want to watch a movie when you don´t really want to pay attention to it?

Sorry. Three questions. But they are all the same, really.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

The problem I find with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that it is hard to comprehend several of the scenes even when devoting 100% of your attention to the film on your third viewing of it.

Some of the scenes and editing just don't work.

[SecretAgentFan]

Some of the scenes and editing just don't work.

Would you like to elaborate which scenes don´t work for you?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

All of the action scenes are hard to digest, but in particular the boat chase. This thread is a good example that the movie did not convey what was happening effectively to its audience. There is not enough visual information to make sense of what is going on. I feel the only action scene they pulled off was the opening car chase to be honest. With a like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, that is kind of a deal breaker.

[SecretAgentFan]

Some of the scenes and editing just don't work.

Would you like to elaborate which scenes don´t work for you?

Easy. Take the opening car chase for example. It's hard to follow Bond weaving in and out of the traffic because Forster won't settle on a camera angle or take that lasts longer than one second. Conversely, the car chase in A VIEW TO A KILL is so much better because not only can you follow the action more easier, but Glen does an excellent job of holding the shot so long that you can tell it's not Roger Moore driving the car at all. If the action moves so fast you can't tell it's a body double then the editing is probably too hectic.

I admit - I prefer action scenes in which I can clearly follow the geography of every movement.

But I always thought that the editing of QOS had an interesting impressionistic quality. And the faster, slower, faster, slower-rhythm (ew, that sounds weird) of the Tosca-Sequence is something that I really liked.

Well, for BOND 23 I don´t expect the same editing team. And wasn´t it reported that even Forster would have loved to have more time editing QOS?

[Simon]

Having just seen this film again, and in response to a zencat comment that I couldn't find in any thread;

I do like this film. That said, there are weaknesses which to my mind include;

1. Introduction of the Girl. Very weak, very unsure of itself and certainly not in keeping with her strength of character.

2. Introduction of the Villain. Again, very weak, very timid, very unimpressive. Maybe this was the intention but at the end of the day, this is (in this film) the main chap against whom Bond's intentions are aimed.

3. Killing of the Villain. The sequence of cuts between jumping out of the hotel to getting Greene in the car and in the desert are altogether too quick. He is picked up, chatted to and dispatched in all too quick a fashion. He enters and exits this film with no meaningful presence having been left upon us.

Coming back to zenca's comment which was something about the end of the film, I did find the Russian portion of the end to be quite poignant and moving. Dench was right in her moment, she leant poise to Craig's chopped words and the music was superb.

The rest of the film was a masterclass in shots and edits that were telling two actions or sequences at the same time - much was covered in its 105 minutes.

[DR76]

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?

Of course not, it's never mentioned as such. But even if we leave out QOS for the time being - which nobody had an idea what it would be like at the release of CR - there is indication that some time must have passed, probably at least a week, more probably a couple of weeks. Bond had to handle and/or avoid the Venice authorities, depending on his status with the Service, meanwhile giving his information to M and picking up the scent of White by Vesper's clue, which could have taken considerable time. He had to reconnoitre White's place, pick up a weapon, neutralise security and finally collar White. Even if the CR's film language gives the illusion of all that happening the same afternoon as the Venice shootout there is no way it could have if you think about it.

But Bond films are not exactly made to withstand logic scrutiny.

Thank you. You've answered my question perfectly.

By the way, I've discovered that the period between Bond's arrival in the Bahamas in CR and his encounter with Mr. White at the end of CR/beginning of QoS is at least five to six weeks. It also took him eleven to twelve days to track down Mr. White, following his conversation with M.

[Simon]

..and following on from my comment above;

If one were to separate the music from the title sequence, I sort of appreciated the efforts to make a dirty title song - if it was heard on its own merits; and I sort of appreciated the efforts of the title sequence - in its own right.

But the two products married together just did not at all, match each other's intentions, it seems.

If the song came first on the production line, then it is my contention that the title sequence should have been just as 'dirty' as the song. But it Wasn't. And Isn't.

[univex]

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

All threads do that nowadays I´m quite curious to see the reactions to the full blown production start of Bond 23, the hype is taking new and diverse forms of expression. You do remember don´t you Jim? How TWINE and DAD (bloody awful films IMHO)´build´ these forums and generated a new form of Bondfan hype? A decade later and we still feel the same sort of stuff from these younger folks and the forever positivists and hopeful But hey, It´s all fun and games I suppose ´

Here´s to the grumpiness, the hype and the forever anger and hunger of the forum inhabitants Cheers

[DR76]

The problem I find with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that it is hard to comprehend several of the scenes even when devoting 100% of your attention to the film on your third viewing of it.

Some of the scenes and editing just don't work.

I only have this complaint during the movie's first half hour, in which Marc Foster was trying to channel Paul Greengrass. But I still believe that QoS. However, it's only my opinion.

QOS isn't my favorite film, but I"d hardly rank it near the bottom (that honor goes to LICENSE REVOKED and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN).

There's a Bond movie called LICENSE REVOKED.

[Major Tallon]

The problem I find with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that it is hard to comprehend several of the scenes even when devoting 100% of your attention to the film on your third viewing of it.

Some of the scenes and editing just don't work.

I only have this complaint during the movie's first half hour, in which Marc Foster was trying to channel Paul Greengrass. But I still believe that QoS. However, it's only my opinion.

QOS isn't my favorite film, but I"d hardly rank it near the bottom (that honor goes to LICENSE REVOKED and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN).

There's a Bond movie called LICENSE REVOKED.

I'm a fan of QOS, but some of the editing is difficult to follow. Even if you slow it down and watch a frame at a time, you cannot follow all of Bond's moves in the restaurant gunbattle and, even more noticeably, in the elevator fight. That was doubtless in line with Forster's vision in presenting the action scenes, but I'd like to see more of how Bond handles himself in these sequences. As for "LICENCE REVOKED", Gravity often makes valid (or at least well-argued) points, but his persistence in mis-naming the films is a habit well past its sell-by date.

[blueman]

LTK: a well-intentrioned failure is still a failure. Tit for tat.

[Major Tallon]

As for "LICENCE REVOKED", Gravity often makes valid (or at least well-argued) points, but his persistence in mis-naming the films is a habit well past its sell-by date.

I simply refuse to buy into the stereotype that Americans would not understand what the title LICENSE REVOKED meant (that was a perfectly good title that was triple-bagged and thrown in a swamp like a discarded baby). Plus, I wish to honor the original title rather than the bland, sounds-like-a-straight-to-VHS-movie-starring-Michael-Dudikoff LICENSE TO KILL.

When I think the original idea was better than what we were given, I go with the unofficial version. A VIEW TO A KILL will always be FROM A VIEW TO A KILL for me. Gala Brand was in DIE ANOTHER DAY, not Miranda Frost. Brosnan's second Bond film was TOMORROW NEVER LIES, not TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

If you think my habit is well past its sell-date, pray that EON does not use titles such as THE HILDEBRAND RARITY, RISICO, or THE PROPERTY OF A LADY, because I will never be able to let that atrocity go without criticism.

The fact is, however, that a film often goes through multiple treatments, which may themselves be amended, before a script is written, and the script may have multiple drafts, and it may be amended, all before principal photography takes place, let alone before the film is released. In the course of that process, the story line, character names, and the name of the film itself may be changed, and none of it counts for anything until the film is finally released. In the case of "Licence to Kill" there were anywhere from three to six treatments, depending on how you count, and numerous revisions to the screenplay. The revisions may have been motivated by any number of factors, to include the potential marketability of the film in key areas. If the producers thought that "Licence to Kill" was a more marketable title in the United States than "Licence Revoked," it was almost certainly not the only decision they made with an eye on potential audience appeal. It hardly was an insult to the American people as a whole to believe that the American audience would not consider "License Revoked" as a particularly Bondian title. (Parenthetically, I agree with the producers' decision, but that's a decision for another thread!) It strikes me as an exercise in futility to continue referring to the film by a title other than the one under which it was released.

The case is even clearer with "Tomorrow Never Dies". The draft screenplay dealt with the handover of Hong Kong, the villain's name was Harmsway, and the heroine was named Sidney Winch. All of that was changed before release, so whay insist on the film's original title? I rather liked the original heroine's character, and I regretted that she'd never be brought to life, but I can't imagine insisting that Michelle Yeo's character forever afterwards be called Sidney, to honor her original name. If we're not to honor that crucial aspect of the original screenplay, why insist on using the film's original title (which, again parenthetically, I also think was not very good)?

Futhermore, I don't particularly want the next movie to be called by one of the short story names from FYEO, but I see little to be gained by refusing to recognize whatever choice the producers may make. They're certainly not immune from criticism, but to coin and continuously use other derrogatory titles strikes me as pointlessly provocative.

Even Ian Fleming himself was not averse to changing the titles of his manuscirpts before publication. Moonraker was to have been Mondays Are Hell, Goldfinger was to have been The Richest Man In The World, OHMSS was to have been The Belles of Hell, and "The Living Daylights" was to have been "Trigger-Finger". Fans may or may not have liked the original titles, and may or may not have cared for the reasons the changes were made, but, whether dealing with the movies or the books, I see little point in insisting, many years (or decades) after the fact, that the works be called by something other than their actual names. You've obviously made your decision, but it's a tactic that I think would better be left to rest.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

As for "LICENCE REVOKED", Gravity often makes valid (or at least well-argued) points, but his persistence in mis-naming the films is a habit well past its sell-by date.

I simply refuse to buy into the stereotype that Americans would not understand what the title LICENSE REVOKED meant (that was a perfectly good title that was triple-bagged and thrown in a swamp like a discarded baby). Plus, I wish to honor the original title rather than the bland, sounds-like-a-straight-to-VHS-movie-starring-Michael-Dudikoff LICENSE TO KILL.

When I think the original idea was better than what we were given, I go with the unofficial version. A VIEW TO A KILL will always be FROM A VIEW TO A KILL for me. Gala Brand was in DIE ANOTHER DAY, not Miranda Frost. Brosnan's second Bond film was TOMORROW NEVER LIES, not TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

And I would add that the main title theme was performed by Pulp, and not by Sheryl Crow.

[Major Tallon]

Ah well, Gravity, I tried.

Still, I enjoyed our discussion!

[univex]

But if I became respectable, who would everyone have to argue with?

Not me

In the past I've tried to be nice and decent

Who would want that? A critic should never be decent. And you, my friend, are one hell of a critic. (this from someone who only sometimes agrees with you, and even then ...)

A tiger never changes his spots.