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
Quantum of Solace is at #3 for me.
QOS for me is at #267
One place higher than TLD which I have at #268.
@Mendes4Lyfe, it's not blaming Goldfinger itself, but more how its "innovations" were used after by EON. Though I also hold that a great bit of the Bond experience was already settled in before 1964 ever arrived, where that film didn't create the feeling or experience of a Bond film, but only was able to develop off it. But I don't want to turn this into another discussion where a member will treat me like a child and say, "Know your Bond history, that film is important," and blah, blah, blah.
I'm not criticizing the formula and lauding Craig's era for not having it, those elements are there, but as I have always said, the movies don't let formula weight it down or limit them. If the Bond formula ran those movies then we'd never get to see the human stories, because they would be of the mind that, like Goldfinger, people will suck up a movie that is flashy instead of substantial in the grand scheme and Bond isn't a place for those more "grown up" stories. The Craig films are what they are in spite of the formula, which it sometimes pokes fun at to an amusing degree as well, and that is dodges around to be more than just another series of Bond films. I just think it's a beautiful thing that a modern day Bond film can have a long character scene with two people discussing a dead man they knew to be both good and evil, and how the movie itself allows that scene to develop quietly. It's not something one would expect to see in a Bond film or one calling on the legacy, but it's there. The scene treats itself seriously, and doesn't ruin it by inserting an obligatory one-liner or a shot of a woman with no top.
Old Bond films can be fun, but I like how the Craig films have still been able to grow up with an edge, and play with expectations, sometimes in ways fans view as condescending (I don't), to create a new experience. We couldn't have a Casino Royale if EON were constantly worried about respecting the formula, and we never ever would've had a Quantum of Solace. Skyfall and Spectre, which people seem to think are more Bondian than the first two, still do their own thing with the Bond legacy and shake stuff up in the stories they tell and how they use characters, often in ways we've never seen before. Taking what you know-or think you know-but doing it different.
It is a film I've come to greatly admire, SP has definitely been put into perspective.
QOS seems like LTK but this time it's not jarring tonally and the actor playing Bond gives a consistent performance.
That's essentially how I describe it. "LTK, but better executed tonally, and more interesting character-wise." ;)
It's what I talked about above, where you have a film with too much formula, LTK, and a movie that is connected to the Bond legacy without letting the formula limit it, in QoS. You can't have a movie like QoS done well if you hold on to so much of the formula, as we see in the mis-matched execution of LTK. You have to commit, and tell your story. While LTK spends too much of its time wondering if it's doing something old or something new (much like TLD too at times), from jump QoS says, "This is what I am, and here we go." No identity crisis, no cold feet.
Please do so....I must have missed your remark...
Both films are basically ranked similarly by the general public. A mediocre and forgettable 64% (QoS) and 65% (SP) respectively on RT (with 'Audience' rating of 58%-QoS and 61%-SP respectively with much more representative sample sizes, although there might be a slight skew in favour of SP in that ranking because more members of the general public viewed the last film in comparison to QoS, and are also more likely to remember it since it's more recent).
SP gets more criticism here because it's the latest film. That's always the case. It was that way 3 years ago with SF (there were countless threads on the film here at that time) and I imagine it was the same way 6+ years ago with QoS. Just because a film is debated and critiqued by members doesn't mean it's necessarily more 'disliked'. Just that it is the more current choice for discussion. More so in this case because it was a film that tied everything together.
So all this poll has shown us is that both of Craig's lesser efforts are generally viewed as being equally poor, which is exactly as we could have surmised from the RT audience rating.
I agree with you on most of your answer. I do think however that in the past 8 years or so the Bond forum community has become more crowded. I actually can't remember very well what the opinion was about QOS shortly after it premiered. Well, the official critics are clear, but in here I don't know.
Yet when I did a similar poll somewhere else between SF and CR, shortly...or a few months after SF premiered, CR was still winning.
Also, when do we take film critics seriously and when are we blasting them? I remember I created thes topics, and there was pretty much blasting going on with regard to film critics:
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/4960/skyfall-vs-casino-royale-on-rotten-tomatoes-metacritic-imdb-update-23-8-2016-with-qos-sp#latest
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/7137/rottentomatoes-ratings-of-bond-films#latest
The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film over the next two years.
For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.
With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.
Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."
Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
what that is."
Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.
With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."
And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.
So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.
Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.
I didn't like the Madeliene/Bond scene on the train in SP because that reminded me too much of the Vesper/Bond train sequence in CR, which was just far superior (very few can compete with Eva Green and her train intro is one of the iconic moments of Bondom). I don't know what Mendes was thinking, but he really should have changed up the location. That's one of the things they have to be careful about going forward. In a way, he did Seydoux a disservice. There are many examples like that in SP which recall the past too vividly and create unfavourable comparisons.
Having said that, I didn't have a problem with the actual discussion, which recalled the Vesper/Bond CR conversation over caviar about 'choice' (even if it was too reminiscent of Bourne/Marie or Wayne/Rachel for my liking)
Bond bumped shoulders with a lot of enemies in Jamaica and nearly died more than a couple of times (The Three Blind Mice twice, Dent, then Dr. No), that's all that quote is referring to.
I...I agree with you @BondJames. I completely agree. Hence I think it would be great to change the locations more radically. Would be great to set the next Bond film way more heavily in the USA. There's a lot of....shit happening there these days ;-).
If they go to the US, I just hope that they try to make the locations feel glamorous and stylish rather than camp and cheap. Bond films have not used the US well in the past. AVTAK is a disgrace in comparison to other efforts (like Vertigo) which really make San Fran shine for example. Hitchcock knew how to make the US feel stylish (e.g. North by Northwest).
Fine. Except Bond says the line to Felix.
If that's a reference to DN I'd be interested to know when the enemy got 'close' to Felix? The most danger he is ever in is being exposed to Dent's radioactive 'samples' on the quayside.
That we see.
A bit like....this @BondJames ;-)? https://www.docdroid.net/q503afj/story-treatment-james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-final-2docx.pdf
I can think of plenty luxurious spots in the USA. USA locations that feel Bond-ish at the same time.
It's not so much the luxury as the cinematography. Washington DC for example can look very stylized (I thought they did a decent job in National Treasure for example).
'House of Cards' does a great job of making D.C. look very stylized, as well.
I haven't seen National Treasure, but I think I'll check it out. I'm liking the cast.
It's a fun film. I much preferred the first one to the second.
Yes, I see the issue. Perhaps Bond is referring to Freelance, the seemingly innocent girl found out to be a SPECTRE plant alongside Felix in the club, a sign that they were being heavily opposed and watched in Jamaica? Felix was also there watching Bond when secret killer Mr. Jones was in place to pick him up for the ride, again showing that all the parties, British and American, were in danger. We also don't know the work Felix put in before Bond got there, possibly rubbing shoulders with them as he surveyed, information that was relayed to Bond. I just see that statement said by Bond in a general sense, in a, "They nearly got us" sort of way.
It's not an elegant connection, but I can see its context.
One of the few examples of