Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Quantum's effect on your opinion of Craig and Casino?
w2bond
is indeed a very rare breed
Has Quantum of Solace altered your opinion of Craig as Bond or improved/ruined your appreciation of Casino Royale?
While Quantum doesn't ruin Casino for me, it makes me want to forget the two movies are meant to be together. I never warmed up to Quantum, and the more I think about it, the less it fits in as a Bond movie.
Bond completely devolves and has to regain M's trust (yawn) yet again.
The reason I bring this up is that I've noticed a turn in comments from 'best bond since connery' to 'what an insult to compare craig to connery'
While Quantum doesn't ruin Casino for me, it makes me want to forget the two movies are meant to be together. I never warmed up to Quantum, and the more I think about it, the less it fits in as a Bond movie.
Bond completely devolves and has to regain M's trust (yawn) yet again.
The reason I bring this up is that I've noticed a turn in comments from 'best bond since connery' to 'what an insult to compare craig to connery'
^ 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
QOS was a poor film which was still a success due to the good will carried over from CR, hopefully the mediocre quality of this film will not effect peoples interest in Skyfall.
I think CR reputation has remained in tact though following QOS.
When I first saw QoS on opening night I was underwhelmed and felt like EON had blown a great opportunity. I wasn't upset or angry, just a little...wistful that they couldn't have kept the momentum. However, after watching the film a second time I liked it considerably more. Part of that is knowing what to expect and not having the huge expectations going in as I did on opening night. Unfortunately I think that the editing of the film is so upsetting to some people that they can't see any element of the film apart from that. I keep saying that if we could see a "non-director's cut" of the film some of the critics would like it a lot more. Acting-wise, story-wise, settings and action - there could always be some improvement (as with many Bond films) but I don't think that QoS is a dire film or a betrayal of the Bond series.
It would have been nice to see Craig deliver more of the charm in QoS like he did in CR but I can understand why he didn't. Of course, waiting so long for a new Bond film when it first comes out heightens our opinions of it; 20 years from now when QoS is just one of a series of Craig films I think its differences will make it refreshing. Much like it's nice that Moore has both a MR and a FYEO, and Connery has a FRWL and a TB.
With QoS I knew that they failed to deliver completely in every aspect. I would rather have waited another year on this 007 vehicle, so they could get their stuff right instead of rushing this turd out.
With Bond23 I have little expectation, if they manage to f*ck that up which is not completely outside any possibility I can honestly say that EON gets a very good actor and does not know what to do with him.
so does QOS change my opinion on the first film?... hardly.... no, not at all - no more than a lousy sequel to Halloween change my opinion of the first film, or does a subpar Indiana Jones outing change my opinion of Raiders... i feel people who let films effect them in that matter are (no offense) weak minded.... just my opinion....
and though i feel Forster delivered one of best directed and looking Bond films, he botched it by shooting most of the action scenes the way he did.. I dont mind the use of shaky cam, to set the feel of a scene - but it was overblown to the point where you couldn't comprehend what was being shown on screen at times... and the film also suffered from lack of a completed script - but i can't place blame on Forster, or anyone else for that matter - not even Haggis... it was a bad set of circumstances surrounding the writer's strike that held the script back - and forced Forster and even Craig to figure out a lot of stuff on the fly......
what the problems of QOS do for me, is reaffirm just how great of a film CR is.
Regarding QOS: I'm not a hater- it ranks about halfway down my Bond movie list, but then again CR is in the top TWO. There were some necessary questions to answer from Casino Royale's story, and besides what was directly linked to those points in QOS, as a whole the story was ho-hum I think.
I bet a clever editor could have shaved bits off of CR and turned CR and QOS into one movie!
I think that would have made for a much better film.
I agree with you here. On the surface, Quantum of Solace doesn't really seem like a dud of a film, but to me it was. I think as time moves on and Craig becomes 'one of those old Bonds' however, people will ease up on it a tad.
QOS always faced an impossible task of matching CR movie for movie. Especially knowing what Craig's Bond would be like? The writers strike? and probably the biggest thing of all the change of director! Although i accept it is a 2 part movie which does not bother me. The change in directorial influence and continuity of working the second half of the story was a big ask!
I expect that SF will be a classic and great adventure that will outdo CR.
I'm looking forward to it and seeing more of Craig as Bond.
There seems to be alot of threads trying to throw ball bearings under the feet of the Craig era.
They just want everyone to dislike it as much as them. And no want CR discredited too.
Quantum was very 'meh'. When I first saw it I thought "something's missing". Saw it again and still thought that.
Got the DVD and have seen it several times trying to like it more but it just lacks something.
Quantum was very 'meh'. When I first saw it I thought "something's missing". Saw it again and still thought that.
Got the DVD and have seen it several times trying to like it more but it just lacks something.
it seems to be the hip thing to do, once something reaches a certain level of popularity.
Nevertheless a sad trend by just a few, who are evreywhere to make it look like they are many. ~O)
Sorry, but I dont see QoS as abysmal. I see it as a tight little thriller with good locations, a nice use of Quantum and some of the best art direction the series has ever seen.
And a leading man who carries the part with ease. The editing doesnt bother me because it doesnt seem to bad on the small screen and there is a emotional journey from beginning to end.
Its Bond for adults. Maybe thats why people dont like it.
When Craig took the role some people may have thought that we could have the best Bond ever here, that the man was free from error, that he was the pinnacle and epitome of what a great James Bond should be. We know that that was simply not the case but maybe one or two were under the impression.
Point being and all said, maybe I'm not 100 per cent happy with Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 for whatever reasons but I can't change the actor or just have someone else. He's not the best Bond ever, maybe one day that could happen but doubtful, at this moment in time he has one success and one failure to his name and a chance to redeem himself later this year with a release that could really tip the scales in his favor. Maybe I'll wait until then
Hold on a minute.
What failure?
Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt a failure.
I dont like DAD but no way would I say it is a failure - it made shed loads of money and brought people to the franchise. Diamonds was never a failure, nor was AVTAK. Theres a mention of DAF being the film with the fifth biggest ratings on British TV on first showing.
No Bond film hasnt made money. No Bond film has not brought new fans to the series. Same with QoS.
All the action and the high pace have to cover up that they didn't pay much attention to the story.
To me they should have expanded the Quantum story. Not much of a dangerous organisation, as far as we can see in the film. So Bond should have investigated them, as M told him to.
Dominic Greene is supposed to have a "pitiful" quality, but that would only have worked if he had a higher boss within Quantum.
Besides that, it would have a stronger effect on the film if Bond had flashbacks of Vesper. A real mistake that they didn't bring Eva Green back.
It is also a shame they killed Strawberry Fields so soon.
Although with Skyfall I still see a serious emotional thread to his performance those expecting wise cracking Moore like escapades are going to be disappointed, hopefully they'll up the humour quota a little but no smutty innuendo's. The Moore era is gone thank god and hopefully to never return, at least in my lifetime!
With it being a direct sequel to CR though I tend to watch them as a double bill and imagine it as all part of the same film.
It sort of works but you cant ignore the drop off ijn quality from CR which is the best Bond since TLD.
In many ways CR had a big advantage in that coming after DAD it was always going to be a lot better. The fact that they hit it out of the park made it an impossible task for QOS to live up to. In time it will be seen as an average entry. Lets just hope that theres a bit of pressure off for SF to try and get close to the heights of CR. I'll be reasonably happy for a film 80% as good as CR. Anything more will be a massive bonus.