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
I just occurred to me, but the Bolivia scenes were shot in Panamá, so what if the real story takes place in Panamá and it has something to do with the Panama Canal, like Quantum trying to take it over and Bond preventing it, making place for a big action sequence at the end with boats and locks collapsing... I don't know if it is too stupid but I think they should profit the real locations. If they wanted Bolivia, so go to Bolivia.
In all seriousness, QoS is one Bond film where I never have thoughts rushing into my head about plot holes that are apparently all over the place, in part because it doesn't insult our damn intelligence like DAD does above.
I don't think QOS has a lot of plot holes but I also don't think it's very good and that a lot of the hate directed towards it is deserved. Anyway, I don't know why the QoS fans act like they're a hard done to minority. I think these days (on this site) QoS gets more praise than bashing with people making it out to be a really deep underrated film.
I don't think QoS is as bad as some of it's critics say but I also don't think it's anywhere near as good as it's biggest fans make out. I think it's a mid table film at most. Definetely not a top ten Bond film imo.
What I mean by that is CR & SF are great. These goofy analogies make sense in my head but look crazy when I write them sometimes, lol
That's not my main defense at all, if you read my post. My nitpicking with DAD extends to its abysmal creative team who might as well have just made up their own language and had Bond being probed on an alien space ship for all the sense the plot and main scheme of the baddie made. If you are going to include science in your film, especially something as straight forward and widely researched as gene therapy, at least try to get the science right instead of insulting your audience with your laziness and style over substance sensibility. I mean, a five year old could explain gene therapy after a five minute Google search, yet the whole team behind DAD couldn't? Blimey...
*sigh* Perhaps someone needs to post a glossary of basic terms?
A plot hole is an inconsistency in the story or logic of the film.
A miracle gene therapy that does not exist is just called science fiction. You either suspend your disbelief or you don't.
Whilst the gene therapy, Jinx, the invisible car, the CGI parasurfing and Mr Kil are all utter shite - they are not plot holes.
To have a plot hole first you need a plot and QOS doesn't have time for much of this in between its relentless and in the main poorly executed action scenes. There's possibly a great film in there struggling to get out if only the script could have been polished and the director hadn't been up his own arse so much.
Sometimes I feel like my posts aren't even read (and don't feel the need to insert a witty retort, I've thought on them all and none are original). It could be easily argued that the fakery dakery science of the film is indeed a plot hole since Moon's transformation into the Graves persona is something that couldn't actually be done the way it is explained (through gene therapy) during the film. You can spoon feed me the science fiction excuse all you want, but the Bond films are not a part of that genre so it holds no water for me. The film could be accused of using "science fiction" medicine if it made up a treatment Moon had performed, but it specifically names gene therapy, which means it damn well better get the science right, which it doesn't. My main point above all that is it's just an insult to human intelligence, my biggest issue with the film as a whole. What I find to be a major is how Moon managed to get his entire transformation complete (appearance and dialect) as well as designing and crafting his satellite in just 14 months. It's an implausible event above all, and a part of the villain's main scheme we are supposed to believe. Even by Bond movie standards my disbelief would have to be suspended to an exceeding degree, and the film is too unremarkable as a whole for me to forgive it an ounce .
Given that it's never explained how the gene therapy works I'm not sure how you can conclude that it is so fantastical? Perhaps they do it in two weeks? Who knows? As the whole thing is preposterous how can you say what is credible or not. And perhaps Moon already had his satellite before his disappearance?
I agree it is a rather compressed time frame but it's a Bond film FFS. How long was Blofeld working on his space programme in YOLT? He seems to be on a par with the US and USSR so he must have at least started around the time of Dr No. Who knows perhaps No's work fed directly into the SPECTRE space programme (certainly the literary Dr No suggested that he might topple rockets so they splashed down in the Crab Key area so he could harvest its secrets)?
If the fact it's all a bit fast is your biggest gripe with DAD you must have easier access to the morphine than I do.
The one thing that does big me is some Argie no ones ever heard of a year earlier being given a knighthood. This would simply never happen. It probably takes about a year for it to go from being forward to the palace to being approved and what had Graves done for Britain a year before his knighthood? Now that is something that is beyond suspension of disbelief it is so ridiculous.
But it's not a plot hole.
Well, to give a layman's explanation not bogged with medical or scientific jargon, gene therapy is basically the injection/insertion/whathaveyou of genes into your body to stop certain diseases from continuing to do you harm. For instance, if a protein in your body isn't working properly certain viruses carrying a good gene can be engineered to attach itself to your body's cells and bring in a new, working protein to replace the bad. However, this process will not make your physical appearance change, as Moon's does in the film by the way they explain it, which isn't conclusive in the first place because nothing was obviously researched.
It would have made much more sense if Moon chose to get cosmetic surgery to model his new appearance after a popular British figure that had big connections and money. Graves could have been an actual man that Moon gets to and has killed so that he can use his identity once the surgery is done and complete his plot. He could then use Graves's resources to do what he needed to do, or just bribe Graves into helping him do his bidding while sparing his life. It's a stupid idea, but leagues more sensible than what we are fed in the actual film.
Quantum for me is just a fairly joyless film, although I confess it is probably the better of the two. At least they TRIED to make a more grown up, mature film.
That would be a lot closer to Drax from Flemings' MR, who took over the identity of a Brit and thus found a way to take his revenge on the British.
And yes the time it takes is far to quick to recreate a whole new identity and receive the Queens attention, that is one plot hole.
To be honest QoB has no plot holes really, it does manage to leave some plot threads hanging primary the faith of Guy Haines, the man who was so important in the UK government and Intelligence service. It would have been nice to see some more QUANTUM personnel getting nicked or even double 0'd.
The problem of QoB is more its style, editing, Bourne nicked action style only poorer which unforgivable, and the directors lack of experience in action driven movies. But its plot is actually quite close to reality and interesting as it shows the manipulation by the various governments to obtain a certain power-base in what they consider weaker nations. If anything they should have been more clear and it would have made QoB a great political thriller and with a half decent action director it might have looked good too.
Jeez, her I am defending QoB while I find DAD more entertaining a movie. ;)
Thank you for completing my education Professor. Remind me again is 'whathaveyou' a common term in the scientific community or are you merely simplifying it for dull witted peasants like myself?
I didn't argue that scientifically it wasnt bollocks - but just because it is not possible does not constitute a plot hole.
If you want to start going down that road other major Bond film 'plot holes' include:
- A cobalt & iodine bomb is not a practical device for Goldfinger to employ as the gold could easily be decontaminated afterwards.
- For water to be fired out of the DB5 with the force shown in the film it would need a pump mechanism and vast tanks bigger than the car.
- The SPECTRE rocket, as depicted in YOLT, does not have anywhere near enough thrust to take off and then to land later on.
- A space laser that can destroy submarines generated through diamonds is not possible.
- An electromagnetic watch that had anything approaching the strength shown in LALD would need to be the size of a bungalow.
- The Lotus transformation as shown is simply impossible.
I could go on.
Bond films have always needed to be taken with a pinch of salt so I don't quite know why you are singling DAD out for such criticism when most 'classic' Bond films are guilty of similar crimes against science.
But then it's easier to put the boot into poor old DAD I suppose. DAD commits far more heinous crimes than a far fetched gene therapy plot device.
And in the world of the films these things are possible so if included in a logical fashion within the story are not plot holes.
Quantum of Solace's biggest sin is that it is too damn boring, too damn serious, too damn leftist, and too damn depressing. Oh and if it weren't for Craig's performance it'd be missing James Bond as well. Forster seemed intent on eliminating all aspects of James Bond and replacing them with his arthouse leftist bullshit.
The drabbest film is TWINE, I agree with the post above concerning that. QoS has superb cinematography. For all its flaws I'll give it that.
:))
I was not in any way implying that you were of substandard intelligence on any level, so don't try to pull that routine.
I concur. I find it interesting on an action level but much more on a cerebral level. I find it to be a great character study on Bond and those around him, which is about as interesting as it gets for me.
When I first saw QOS I thought it was the worst Bond film but this was mainly because I was extremely disappointed. Since then I've rewatched it and I've decided that although it's poor, it's not the worst. It's not a really bad film. Just a disappointing one. CR was one of the best Bond films ever and this is it's direct sequel, that's why it's such a let down for me and many others. I think the main problem with QOS is that there's too much stuff for it's run time. It wants to develop Bond and have him come to terms with the loss of Vesper and learn to trust M, it wants to tell the story of Quantums water plot, it wants to tell the story of Camille and her revenge on Medrano, it wants to show how the CIA are corrupt and Felix is the only one who cares about doing the right thing but then there are also loads of action scenes which are only really there for the sake of it because Forster wanted to be all arty with the "elements" idea. And the action scenes aren't even any good! It's mostly just chase scenes where you can't see what's going on. If Forster wanted to make a tight 90 minute thriller that was "like a bullet" then he should've made a different film. QOS is too short for what it is. Add in stupid stuff like Mathis dying, Mathis being a code name, the GF reference, the incredibly shit theme song (worst in the series imo), M being overused (in TWINE and SF it made sense but here she's just jetting off all over the world for no apparent reason), an annoying Bond girl (Gemma Arterton is fit but I found Fields really annoying), a shit theme song (worst of the series), a shit title sequence and Elvis and you have what I think is a poor film. Not awful like DAF or DAD but definitely a lower league Bond film imo. It doesn't know if it wants to be an action packed thriller about Bond stopping Quantum or a character piece about Bond getting over Vesper so it tries to do both and I think it ended up a jumbled, pretentious mess of a film. It's stylish and it has a few nice moments but that doesn't make it an underrated gem for me. It's not the worst Bond film but I do think it's one of the worst. I think it's the most disappointing Bond film and I think it's by far the most pretentious Bond film ever made (even the title is pretentious).
Daniel Craig is quite good as Bond. The cinematography is nice too (although I think SF was better in this department), it's a very stylish and colourful film. There are one or two funny moments ("we've just run the lottery"). I think the score is great, possibly Arnolds best. I liked the beginning of the PTS, where you hear the DBS roaring through the tunnel as the camera pans across the lake. I also quite like Mathis and Camille, and there are a couple of really good scenes (the opera bit and the final scene being the standouts imo).
As it stands though, I think the bad outweighs the good. I've heard lots of people call QOS underrated but I don't think it is. I think it deserves most of the criticism it gets and if anything I think it gets too much praise from a couple of members on here.
When I watch it I really want to see what some other Bond fans seem to see. I want to see this exciting, tense thriller. I want to see this deep character study. But I don't. I just see a pretentious, messy, disappointing Bond film.
I think Quantum is, in a lot of ways, a poor mans Licence To Kill. Licence To Kill is what QOS wants to be: an exciting thriller that does something different with Bond's character. I think the difference is that LTK is also really well made and it doesn't try to be something it isn't. Plus LTK has a better theme song, a better villain, better stunts/action, better story, a better Bond, etc. It's better on every level imo.
If you want an underrated Bond film that's a good character piece then I would recommend The World Is Not Enough. If you want an underrated Bond film that's a tight, exciting thriller then I would recommend Licence To Kill. However, if you want a stylish but disappointing and pretentious Bond film, then QOS will be right up your street.
I'd give Quantum Of Solace about a 7/10
QoS is only a character study in the sense that the plot doesn't so much take a back seat, but fails to make an appearance for swathes of the film. The moments of introspection far outweigh the relentless action in terms of impact and quality. The problem is, they are few and far between and at times feel like they're flagged up. It leaves us with a glimpse into facets of the character but doesn't do enough to deliver a consistent and rich arc. It's just pockets of greatness amongst noise and movement.
In my personal opinion, while not 'character studies' in the literal sense, CR and SF show far superior character 'development'. A coherent trajectory that is dependent on and in some cases driven by the supporting characters. In fact I'd say SF is almost borderline 'character study' and if you were to grant it this status it is far superior to QoS on that level.
Yeah good luck with that. Ballast tanks and pumps, oxygen tanks, pistons to retract the wheels, thickened glass to cope with the pressure etc, etc . Only going to add about 3 tons to the car. It's maybe just about possible I suppose but even if you could fit it all inside the svelte body of the Lotus without it showing don't think you're going to be running rings around a helicopter as shown in the film given you'd be cornering like Carlton Palmer and have the acceleration as your fingernails growing.
Nothing could be worse than CR'67! That movie is just a 2 hour mindf*ck...
So you have not seen DAD yet? Do not bother.
I take that intro perspective of Bond in QoS any time against the forced,hammered home pseudo character study of 007 in SF anytime (and be glad to have had a choice!). Most of all because the guy we see in the latter certainly doesn't bear much resemblance with Mr. Flemings creation (despite what so many of you "enlightened" folks like to claim). And no I don't want to make a discussion out of it. Just accept that there are people who feel this way quite strongly (and who can make very strong arguments for that point as well.)
This! Excellent post sir :)
Also I found Craig's Bond in Skyfall to be more of an extension of Connery's Bond from the 60's. He's certainly not the same Bond he was in CR/QOS (his shift in performance a signifier of the passing of much time is what I like to think). I still find him very Fleming-esque, if not more so.
B-)
DAD and CR'67.... What a double feature!