It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This is an old post that I must have missed but I wholeheartedly agree. They decided on making QoS a sequel and then didn't have the balls to follow through. I don't have much else to say as you've summed up my POV exactly.
Another problem seemed to be Quantum Of Solace focused more on how Bond was feeling and coping with Vesper as the main plot (which was done well in my opinion) with Greene and co. as superfluous stuff on the side that was there just because it's expected in a Bond film which actually ended up as being very weak. It's characters suffered because of the film's main idea.
Heartily DISAGREE with you, but we all are entitled to our opinions.
How? When it made half a Billion at the box office? Or had an average rating of 7/10?
Pierce surfing on the CGI tsunami, Jinx and Sith Lord Graves weren't that much worse than too fast editing and too much action? Really?
=)) =))
So true.
The tosca scene alone is better then most Brosnans.
I've read that QOS is a great Bond film
QOS is the worst Bond film
QOS is 'easilly' the second worst Bond film since Dalton.
And every one written as if it's the generally accepted opinion. :-O
Qos was dark, but I like the dark gritty Bond's a lot. The biggest problem I have with the movie is that while it was sold as a sequelt o CR I don't think it properly dealt with the issues left by the film regarding Bond's mental state. But in the details i think its a good film.
I understand the basic premise of your post but I would disagree with the idea that the director is not to blame.
Forster is on record as having jettisoned the original script as it wasn't the story that he "wanted to tell". He was the one who wanted the smaller scale, corporations-are-the-enemy-and governments-let-them-get-away-with-it story. So for those who think the villain's scheme is too small or who think that QoS isn't enough of a direct continuation of CR...well, that is indeed Forster.
The other thing that a lot of people don't like is the confusing way in which scenes are edited. Sometimes it's beautiful and stylish, at other times it's just confusing. Again, this comes down to Forster. The director has the grand vision and it's he who tells the editor the way that he wants the film to look.
I've mentioned, perhaps up-thread, that I'd love to see a "non-director's cut" of QoS. Had Forster been a little more...restrained I think that a lot of people would like QoS more. Don't get me wrong, I like it and think that Forster did a lot of good things with it. I just think that he went too far with some things and would have benefited from the producers saving him (and the audience) from his excesses.
I realize many people hate it, and that’s fine – it’s all opinion. And heck, if we couldn’t argue about Bond movies, the world would be a little less fun!
Oh, and Forster has every right to defend his work, just as much as others have every right to criticize it.
I enjoyed it in the cinema. More so than CR actually.
It's a fast-paced and no-frills movie, more in the tradition of the earlier films than the bloated behemoths of the Brosnan era (or, frankly, CR).
The story is indeed weak and QoS is far from being a classic. But it's not the disaster some make it out to be.
As many have pointed out before, the Tosca scene is amongst the best, truly Bondian sequences for a VERY long time.
The editing is indeed often confusing and perhaps Greene could have benefited from ramping up the camp a little bit, but basically I think Forster did a decent job in difficult circumstances.
Indeed. Although I enjoyed Casino Royale's epic-ness. I was not bored, or felt CR had a set piece too far.
On the first time I saw QoS, I left the cinema, thinking; "that was it?". But on the second time, and on DVD later, I got accustomed to it. Strangely, QoS was the only film that I wanted to see again at the cinema; I had a feeling there was a hidden gem, inside of the editing.
I watched for the first time at the cinema (which was lucky, since I almost missed it), I didn't like it. I watched it on DVD, I didn't like it. I watched it on DVD again (although to be fair I was a bit drunk this time), and I didn't like it.
I saw it on TV this year, I didn't like it, and lastly just about a month ago I saw it as pat of my Bondathon and I didn't like it.
I think I've given it enough chances to be honest, I can see why some people like it and it has some great moments, but I don't think me and QOS will ever get along.
However, a few years removed now, I strongly believe that the film is a let down, a complete missed opportunity. I recognize its merits, just as some of you have. But I think we also have to stop wanting to like it so badly when in reality it doesn't really merit the appreciation. That type of reaction, if anything, reveals its true flaws. When something is great, it's very easy to like. Excuses or justifications need not be given. It's just a natural feeling of satisfaction. QOS is the opposite of that. That's just my opinion.
/And what if people get that "feeling of satisfaction" without having to want to like it? What if they make up their own mind about the film? Your projecting - you are deciding for yourself and them WHY they like it and are so off the mark it is unbelievable.
Just because you don't like it you don't seem to accept why people do.
Good post. A lot of posts about QoS are about how 'if this had happened' or 'if that had happened' (even Sandy's below does this) - fact is, they didn't! I feel pretty similar to you @wildjiveboon. I think it's flaws are accepted more readily on this forum than the flaws of any other Bond picture.
I, like you, want to love this film but it does disappoint. I stuck it on again last week and I really enjoy the first 20 minutes or so until we arrive in Haiti. After that it rattles along at such a pace that it's borderline incoherent, and even more so the story just seems to be, quite frankly, a bit boring. This film could have been outstanding had it been a 90min revenge film that centred solely on Bond's search for truth and justice at all costs.
They set it up as a direct sequel, which was a bold and clever move IMO, then totally dropped the ball. Quantum's plan was bollocks - rather than having one overarching narrative about eco-terrorism they should have exposed Quantum for what they are - a silent organisation who somehow have 'people everywhere'. There should have been a whole series of incidents kicking off around the world that MI6 were too late to stop. Not huge international incidents, smaller incidents with far reaching consequences involving commerce, banking etc. Bond should have been like a bullet smashing his way to the top of the organisation without a moment's thought for duty, just an unstoppable urge to avenge Vesper.
The only reason I have stated this is because, when reading threads about the appreciation of other films, I feel that what has been written has come across in a more simple, straight-forward manner. The sense of passion and support has been much more apparent and steamlined in the way it's been conveyed. That's just how it reads me.
Obviously some people like QOS, and they are certainly entitled to do so. My observation only stems from the fact that I've noticed that a lot of its supporters tend to point out all of its strong points while inevitably signaling its weaknesses. That doesn't seem to happen a lot with other films that are more universally loved. And that leads me to believe that it has something to do with people truly wanting to like it, convincing themselves of such. Like I mentioned in my post, this only resonates with me because I too initially was one of those people.
The Tosca scene was pretty good but it does not safe the movie.
The throwing of Mathis body in the bin is so UNBond that it hurts the movie in a bad way.
And for the actionscenes I can only say LALD did it better as did MR (and no CGI in MR for the jump out of the plane). Sienna = the Bourne Supremecy borrowed, the carchase was edited to dead, too bad that it suffered from cutting 3 Alfa's to two Alfa's.
Overall I can safely say that Bond23 did not have any standard to live up to.
I think that statement you just wrote @RC7 is quite accurate on your part. I think you do get where I'm coming from with this.
Or they could genuinely like it? Considered that?
Of course, absolutely. Like I mentioned earlier, I regonize some folks like it for what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. I am only observing that a large number of people who support it still inevitably point out its flaws, which makes me question just how genuinely they may like it in comparrison to some of the other films. Like @RC7 pointed out, the flaws of this film are more readily accepted than all the others. And to me at least, that just begs a question.
I point out its flaws but I can point flaws in every single film! I genuinely like it, otherwise I wouldn't even bother posting anything in here.
*Not that I don't love the films inbetween.**
**Most of them.
See, I really don't see it. I always hear people talking about how Craig is similar to Connery, etc, but I really don't see it.
SF might make me think differently, since they said they are trying to make a film with a 60s feeling.