BOND POLLS 2017: The Big "SPECTRE" vs "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" Battle!

12345679»

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    I think it's also a matter of taste. I am a sucker for a bit 'slower' spy movies. To me SP feels like TB; both following an insanely critically acclaimed previous Bond film. SP to me had more Bond-ish 60-ies swagger. In QOS Bond throws Mathis in a junkbin. I think it was a pretty useless death that threw the whole Bond-vibe out of that film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think it's also a matter of taste. I am a sucker for a bit 'slower' spy movies. To me SP feels like TB; both following an insanely critically acclaimed previous Bond film. SP to me had more Bond-ish 60-ies swagger. In QOS Bond throws Mathis in a junkbin. I think it was a pretty useless death that threw the whole Bond-vibe out of that film.
    Fair enough, and I can't disagree with that. It's just that when someone comments on Production Values (I'm not in the film business) then I wonder what they're referring to, because SP seemed very 'fake' and 'unreal' throughout to me (perhaps deliberately) while QoS seemed very much the opposite. Vibrant even. It only failed during the CGI clock tower fight and the CGI plane and parachute fall, where it felt 'cheap' like SP to me..
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think it's also a matter of taste. I am a sucker for a bit 'slower' spy movies. To me SP feels like TB; both following an insanely critically acclaimed previous Bond film. SP to me had more Bond-ish 60-ies swagger. In QOS Bond throws Mathis in a junkbin. I think it was a pretty useless death that threw the whole Bond-vibe out of that film.
    Fair enough, and I can't disagree with that. It's just that when someone comments on Production Values (I'm not in the film business) then I wonder what they're referring to, because SP seemed very 'fake' and 'unreal' throughout to me (perhaps deliberately) while QoS seemed very much the opposite. Vibrant even. It only failed during the CGI clock tower fight and the CGI plane and parachute fall, where it felt 'cheap' like SP to me..

    Maybe @RC7 can enlighten us a bit?
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    As a production I find it superior to QoS on most levels.

    That's absolutely true. QOS to me feels like a low-budget Jason Bourne film.....without elaborate Ken Adam-esque sets. Perhaps not cinematography-wise, but production-wise(locations, Blofeld's lair, Austria, Hoffler Klinik, Rome, the PTS, SPECTRE-meeting) SP is my favourite Craig-entry. It's really a bit Craig's own "Thunderball" in many ways.

    Low budget? QoS oozes production value in almost every frame!
  • Posts: 7,405
    I think QOS is ond of the most stylish of Bonds. The opening shots of Italy are superb!
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Your thoughts mirror mine exactly.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    I guess SP just seems to have a bit more class and glamour. Thrashing supercars past the Vatican beats a drudge through third world shanty towns.

    I take your points on QOS - it looks glorious in blu ray on a 60 inch screen - but there's just something about the locations that seems a bit cheap.

    It's difficult to explain but I guess for some reason I'm just never that blown away when Bond ventures to the Americas.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I think QOS is ond of the most stylish of Bonds. The opening shots of Italy are superb!

    well, yeah, right...
    https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/jamesbond/images/2/2b/Quantum_of_Solace_-_Mathis_thrown_in_a_dumpster.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/343?cb=20130410110138

    The man was a loose canon in there. Even more loose than Dalton's Bond in LTK.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,423
    I always took the "production values" to be a combination of all that went into production - the special effects, the cinematography, the location footage, the music, the sets, the wardrobe, the props, the sense of glamour etc.

    I'm with you @Mathis1 - QoS, whatever one has to say about the film, is one fine and crisp looking picture.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    I guess SP just seems to have a bit more class and glamour. Thrashing supercars past the Vatican beats a drudge through third world shanty towns.

    I take your points on QOS - it looks glorious in blu ray on a 60 inch screen - but there's just something about the locations that seems a bit cheap.

    It's difficult to explain but I guess for some reason I'm just never that blown away when Bond ventures to the Americas.
    Ok fair enough and I agree that EON have never really done a good job when in the Americas.

    Regarding Rome and so on, sure these are glamorous spots, but I wouldn't say that the film made the best use of these locales. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that John Wick 2 did a far better job with making us feel the atmosphere of Rome, at least for me.

    So while the locales were certainly fancier & more expensive in SP, I felt that QoS did a better job with what they had to work with.
  • Posts: 7,405
    And QoS doesn't have any of that yellowing that SP has or the bleached look of SF!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited August 2017 Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    I guess SP just seems to have a bit more class and glamour. Thrashing supercars past the Vatican beats a drudge through third world shanty towns.

    I take your points on QOS - it looks glorious in blu ray on a 60 inch screen - but there's just something about the locations that seems a bit cheap.

    It's difficult to explain but I guess for some reason I'm just never that blown away when Bond ventures to the Americas.

    @TheWizardOfIce, I think that's just the nature of the locations picked. We really see the locations in the dirt, and not very glamorous. In Italy we don't see the art or culture, it's Bond fending for his life on the rickety rooftops as tiles cobble to crumbs under his feet, or where he gets mucky and wet in the cisterns below the city. Later locations, like Haiti and Bolivia, are also those we see out of their best lights, as communities impoverished are come upon by Bond. It's an examination of third world pain visually expressed, like in the shots of kids racing for water that won't come out of the tap, as opposed to those locations having just a visual appeal. How they're shot and why connects more to the story and Green's plans to monetize/control a valuable resource that is a human privilege rather than to function simply as beautiful imagery.

    Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but I appreciate how the locations are used on that deeper, more relevant level. Not every Bond film should have pretty locations, and those that don't, like From Russia with Love's spooky and faded Turkey, have their own appeal as mood setting locations.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    RC7 wrote: »
    As a production I find it superior to QoS on most levels.

    That's absolutely true. QOS to me feels like a low-budget Jason Bourne film.....without elaborate Ken Adam-esque sets. Perhaps not cinematography-wise, but production-wise(locations, Blofeld's lair, Austria, Hoffler Klinik, Rome, the PTS, SPECTRE-meeting) SP is my favourite Craig-entry. It's really a bit Craig's own "Thunderball" in many ways.

    Low budget? QoS oozes production value in almost every frame!
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I think QOS is ond of the most stylish of Bonds. The opening shots of Italy are superb!

    Agree
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I definitely see the budget of QOS on the screen more than I do SPECTRE, the location work is great and that opening sweep across Lake Garda is glorious.

    Also the explosive climax in the desert is so much better than the half assed Morocco segment, although compared to the London 2nd climax it doesn't look too bad.

    Yes QOS does have the editing issue but I only find it a problem in the foot chase and I don't like the boat chase much, the dog fight sequence is quite serviceable but it's made worse with the dreadful sinkhole sequence.

    That being said apart from the Mexico PTS nothing else in SP can hold a candle to it. Love the PTS and best car chase of the Craig era, the dialogue is better.

    As for sacrilege QOS has the ill advised GF tribute but after that I can't see anything bar the sinkhole bit that is on the level with the crimes committed in SPECTRE.

    I heard someone say that EON rightly ignored it, well I'll disagree with that if anything SPECTRE gave QOS more validity and ironically for me at least makes QOS a better film.

    No it doesn't really work without CR and for me all functions better watched straight after watching CR but I know I have no desire to watch SP after feasting my eyes on the far superior SF.

    @Mendes4Lyfe mentions that the praising of CR is almost ignoring it's mistakes.

    I would agree as much as it's no. 2 after OHMSS in my rankings CR does not get it right like Majesty's seems to, even Lazenby is good enough to make me not see that as minus.

    Although CR has some questionable dialogue moments, ( we all know the ones) also the ham fisted product placement which almost brings one of the best Bond & Bond girl sequences to a crashing halt and the Miami sequence while entertaining is rather generic and then Arnold's taints it more with that awful Austin Powers moment when the Sky Plane is unveiled.

    I do actually not find CR too long, (my Wife does and said so when we watched it) but I do see peoples POV on this.

    That being said that CR gets so much right that it outweighs the bad and we get the best intro of a Bond since Connery sat at that casino table back 1962 and intoned that immortal words.

    I love the sinking house sequence and the sign off his pure joy, this even getting into Eva, Gino and of course Mads, CR is one the milestones of the series.

    Though QOS has more consistent dialogue and while the theme isn't on the level of YKMN (I do like it so sue me) but Arnold's score is definitely better, while I see QOS being reappraised over time I don't see SPECTRE in fact depending what happens next I can't see it improving over time at all.


  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I think that goldifnger call back is quite fun in QOS as this is a rebooted series and thats a good way of merging the past for the fans in a creative way for a modern day film
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Productions value are essentially about craft and technical skill. A film with high production values usually showcases that across the board. I find Gassner is working at higher level in SP when compared with QoS. Likewise the way Mendes structures and composes sequences is superior to Forster's work. A Mendes frame is considered, while a lot of Forster's is hit and hope, punctured by pseudo-arty cutaways or establishing shots. Hoyte is also a superior cinematographer. Between them they bring a richness and sweep to the picture. There's a grandiosity to the film that evokes TB. Another film with high production values. I don't dislike QoS' look, but colours popping is about preference (CR does that better for my money), production value is about the package and for me Mendes is better at delivering more class, style and richness through his design of the elements.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Productions value are essentially about craft and technical skill. A film with high production values usually showcases that across the board. I find Gassner is working at higher level in SP when compared with QoS. Likewise the way Mendes structures and composes sequences is superior to Forster's work. A Mendes frame is considered, while a lot of Forster's is hit and hope, punctured by pseudo-arty cutaways or establishing shots. Hoyte is also a superior cinematographer. Between them they bring a richness and sweep to the picture. There's a grandiosity to the film that evokes TB. Another film with high production values. I don't dislike QoS' look, but colours popping is about preference (CR does that better for my money), production value is about the package and for me Mendes is better at delivering more class, style and richness through his design of the elements.

    I wholeheartedly agree @RC7
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Productions value are essentially about craft and technical skill. A film with high production values usually showcases that across the board. I find Gassner is working at higher level in SP when compared with QoS. Likewise the way Mendes structures and composes sequences is superior to Forster's work. A Mendes frame is considered, while a lot of Forster's is hit and hope, punctured by pseudo-arty cutaways or establishing shots. Hoyte is also a superior cinematographer. Between them they bring a richness and sweep to the picture. There's a grandiosity to the film that evokes TB. Another film with high production values. I don't dislike QoS' look, but colours popping is about preference (CR does that better for my money), production value is about the package and for me Mendes is better at delivering more class, style and richness through his design of the elements.
    Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, then I agree. SP is definitely more structured and there is far more scale & elaborateness to it. From a purely technical perspective, it is superior.

    I viewed TB last night, and I felt like I was inhabiting the locations there however. As if I was 'in the film'. I get that with TSWLM as well. QoS gives me that 'in the moment' feel too.

    With SP, I feel as though I'm watching a stylized version of the location (more Sin City or Watchmen).
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Productions value are essentially about craft and technical skill. A film with high production values usually showcases that across the board. I find Gassner is working at higher level in SP when compared with QoS. Likewise the way Mendes structures and composes sequences is superior to Forster's work. A Mendes frame is considered, while a lot of Forster's is hit and hope, punctured by pseudo-arty cutaways or establishing shots. Hoyte is also a superior cinematographer. Between them they bring a richness and sweep to the picture. There's a grandiosity to the film that evokes TB. Another film with high production values. I don't dislike QoS' look, but colours popping is about preference (CR does that better for my money), production value is about the package and for me Mendes is better at delivering more class, style and richness through his design of the elements.

    Imagine what could have been, If only he could make a good movie, whose story doesn't fall apart at the slightest touch or is boring as hell.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could someone please explain what they mean by production values? Are we talking about money on the screen?

    I've always found SP to be somewhat 'fake' looking (not just because of the filter, but because of the obvious CGI enhancements which I can make out in quite a few scenes including the PTS and Blofeld's lair). The film has the look of a generic Marvel blockbuster in many places to me. It doesn't feel 'real' and I actually think this was the effect they were going for (given the 'spectral' premise). What saves it imho is Hoyte's 'shot framing' which is wide angle in the 'old school' Bond way.

    QoS on the other hand really pops in my blu ray player and everything just feels so authentic, 'on' location and very gritty and real like the old school Bond films. Apart from the frenetic editing it really has the look, atmosphere and feel of a classic Bond film imho.

    Productions value are essentially about craft and technical skill. A film with high production values usually showcases that across the board. I find Gassner is working at higher level in SP when compared with QoS. Likewise the way Mendes structures and composes sequences is superior to Forster's work. A Mendes frame is considered, while a lot of Forster's is hit and hope, punctured by pseudo-arty cutaways or establishing shots. Hoyte is also a superior cinematographer. Between them they bring a richness and sweep to the picture. There's a grandiosity to the film that evokes TB. Another film with high production values. I don't dislike QoS' look, but colours popping is about preference (CR does that better for my money), production value is about the package and for me Mendes is better at delivering more class, style and richness through his design of the elements.

    Imagine what could have been, If only he could make a good movie, whose story doesn't fall apart at the slightest touch or is boring as hell.

    *sigh*
  • Posts: 11,119
    Keep voting my luvs ☺️
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    SP

    There are small brief moments where the film feels like a Bond film. However fleeting they might be, they are there. I can't say the same for SF.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SP

    There are small brief moments where the film feels like a Bond film. However fleeting they might be, they are there. I can't say the same for SF.

    @MajorDSmythe, we're to choose between SP and QoS, not SF. Though I don't think that'll change your vote anyway.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    SP

    There are small brief moments where the film feels like a Bond film. However fleeting they might be, they are there. I can't say the same for SF.

    @MajorDSmythe, we're to choose between SP and QoS, not SF. Though I don't think that'll change your vote anyway.

    Opps, my mistake. I'd take SP over SF, and SF over QOS, so the outcome is still the same. Moreso really, given that it is up against QOS.
  • Posts: 11,119
    let's continue this poll a bit ;-).
  • Posts: 19,339
    How odd that I haven't voted in here...

    Anyway definitely QOS over SP in all areas.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    I prefer QoS for two reasons: Craig's performance and the ending.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Backflipped on this, sadly.

    QoS wins. More energy, more of Fleming's spirit (which is what Craig is best at), and the "good scenes" in it are better than those in SP. It can certainly feel flat at times but never as injurious to the series as SP. Craig's performance is just better. I still consider both of them among the weaker entries of the series but I'm in favour of QoS now.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2017 Posts: 17,789
    QOS wins for me by a virtual landslide. Better for me on almost every level except henchman (and the train fight).
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I don’t know if I have voted here but I if i havent, QOS for sure
Sign In or Register to comment.