35 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

Oooh, sorry Fox, I have to disagree. I'm a complete u-turn on the two leading ladies. I love Camille - every press conference for each new Bond, we hear an actress bleat on about how her character is "more of Bond's equal" etc etc. Now, I not suggesting that Camille is Bond's equal, but she does seem to be the first Bond girl whose arc really couldn't give a damn about Bond's presence. Now obviously that's not the case, but it does feel that her character has its own place in the "world" as opposed to nearly every other Bond-girl who should just wear a sign that says "I'm the Bond Girl!"

Unfortunately, I'm the about the only person on these boards who finds Fields a complete waste of time, nothing more than a poorly-written plot device, and a completely unbelievable love interest (well, compared to the usual level.....!!!). If it weren't for the actress playing her, Fields would have a Mary Goodnight-level of credibility, IMHO.

Happy New Year!

[seawolfnyy]

I think the script for QOS was quite good - it just needed one more rewrite to beef up the character development scenes so the movie could breathe a little more.  It needed another 5 or 10 minutes of character development stuff spread out throughout the movie.  A minute here, 90 more seconds there, etc.

 

Like I said before, re-edit the movie to make the action scenes more watchable (and cut down the quick cut editing style for much of the early part of the movie) and QOS is one of my 5 or 6 favorite Bond movies.  Add another 5 minutes of character development stuff and it's in my top 3 or 4.

That's pretty much what I think. Better editing and 10-15 more minutes of run-time could have really elevated QoS to the level of CR and SF.

[Turn]

Unfortunately, I'm the about the only person on these boards who finds Fields a complete waste of time, nothing more than a poorly-written plot device, and a completely unbelievable love interest (well, compared to the usual level.....!!!). If it weren't for the actress playing her, Fields would have a Mary Goodnight-level of credibility, IMHO.
 

No, I'm there with you. Unnecessasary, unmemorable and one of the few missteps, IMO, in the film. They didn't need another Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb, they already had one in Mathis. She was just there to be a plaything for Bond to show this is still the old Bond and for them to do a Goldfinger homage. Shows M's judgement was slipping back then as well.

 

And the name isn't as cute as they probably hoped it would be. Sounds rather forced.I rather like the Camille relationship as well as it shows Bond's mindset not to jump right in with someone emotionally and physically right after Vesper, but becoming something like a kindred soul instead. It's refreshing and makes the whole Fields thing seem that much more awkward.

[saint mark]

Miss Fields was indeed a waste in the story since she added nothing really, I do enjoy the actress she is a really lovely sight to look at.

 

Have seen QoS on dvd recently and was not impressed, the only thing that I find better was that the movie works better on the small screen than the large. Which is a first imho when it comes to the series.

 

QoS is just a bad movie by a fairly decent director that was totaly out of his comfort zone and it shows.

[Mallory]

QoS has proved how open the producers are to new ideas. And they have learned from their mistakes.

[saint mark]

QoS has proved how open the producers are to new ideas. And they have learned from their mistakes.

 

New ideas?? With the editor & stuntcoordinator as 2nd director from the succesfull Bourne movies in their team one can also claim that their idea was to copy from that competitive franchise as they did pretty good. I found QoS an inferiour copy of the Bourne movies (the last two anyhow).