›

Casino Royale vs Quantum of Solace - Which Is The Better Bond Film? (Interactive voting video)

jolearonjolearon
edited August 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 645
Casino Royale vs Quantum of Solace - Which Is The Better Bond Film? (Interactive voting video)
«1

Comments

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    Thumbs up. ;)
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Classic versus somewhat incomplete. This should be no contest.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    120 votes to 11 votes as of now. Such a close game!

    /sarcasm

    Thumbs up for me.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    Yeah it seems hard to vote when it's sort of an unfinished story.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    I find QOS to be more incomplete regarding certain characters like Mathis and Fields. The important questions regarding Vesper and QUANTUM though were satisfactorily written, and they left a window for QUANTUM to come back so in that respect the movie succeeds. I still don't think they could have topped CR even with a more complete story, there was still the frenetic editing that made the action more difficult to follow than it should have been.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    I truly dont get the disregard for QoS I think it is an underratted gem that rockets along. The Tosca scene alone is better the a certain Irishmans last two entries. And the South American locations are some of the est in the franchise.

    the story was easy to follow for me. So I voted FOR QoS...
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Casino Royale in a landslide.
    QoS is just all over the map. Bond movies are best when they stick to a basic plot and something simple. They should have kept with the Quantum story and had Mr. White as the Central villain. All that crap about Greene and Water, then Camille and her revenge subplot. The only subplot they should have had was Bond going to avenge Vesper. It would have seemed like a true sequel and kept it at that.
    so I hope my vote is counted./
  • GrindermanGrinderman
    Posts: 165
    Quantum of Solace is a great, albeit very different, Bond film. I believe time will be very good to QoS and it will eventually be seen as the gem that it is.

    But it's no Casino Royale.

    It's hard to pit these two films against each other, as I tend to see them as one, long, continuous story. I see the Lord of the Rings the same way - not 3 seperate movies but one very, very long movie in 3 parts.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    This can be suggested for a discussion here:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2274/bond-movie-a-vs.-bond-movie-b-you-only-live-twice-vs.-casino-royale/p1
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    CThe only subplot they should have had was Bond going to avenge Vesper. It would have seemed like a true sequel and kept it at that.

    B ut Bond wasn't avenging Vesper. He was doing his duty all the way along. The audience and M were misled. Which gave it an interesting twist.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    actonsteve wrote:
    I truly dont get the disregard for QoS I think it is an underratted gem that rockets along. The Tosca scene alone is better the a certain Irishmans last two entries. And the South American locations are some of the est in the franchise.

    the story was easy to follow for me. So I voted FOR QoS...

    It annoys me when people fall back on that when defending the new films. "Brosnans films were worse!!!"

    (all this is imo) The only Brosnan film that has a chance of being worse than QOS is DAD (and I actually prefer DAD to QOS). QOS was just a mess. It's not terrible, and it has some great moments. But the action/editing is just a bad Bourne rip off, the story is all over the place, and it's a big step down compared to CR.

    I voted for CR btw, no contest really. One is in my top 10, the other 23/23.

    This Kermode review sums up my feelings about QOS.



    The only part I disagree with is the bit where he says Craig is the best Bond, he's good, but not the best imo.

  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    I truly dont get the disregard for QoS I think it is an underratted gem that rockets along. The Tosca scene alone is better the a certain Irishmans last two entries. And the South American locations are some of the est in the franchise.

    the story was easy to follow for me. So I voted FOR QoS...

    It annoys me when people fall back on that when defending the new films. "Brosnans films were worse!!!"

    Well, they were. TWINE is an even bigger mess. And posting Kermodes view is not evidence. He just coincides with your opinion.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I never said it was evidence, I said it summed up most of my feelings on the film pretty well. Saying Brosnans films were worse than QOS is just your opinion, and if anything, using "Brosnans films were worse" as an argument just proves that QOS isn't brilliant. It means that there's not many good points in the film you can use for arguments so you fall back and say "but it wasn't as bad as this!!!!"

    And you said TWINE was a bigger mess, at least in TWINE I could understand what was going on.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Casino Royale - I can watch that film over and over.

    One word sums up QoS - erratic. Even it's fans have to admit it is a bit "all over the place" pacing wise. It speeds up, slows down, speeds up, slows down and speeds up again. Fairly forgettable characters and a...meh story. Despite the bigger budget it doesn't look as impressive as CR either.

    And the action in CR was competently put together.

    HOWEVER I will say though that there were some good things in Quantum like the stuff between Bond and Mathis, Tosca and the confrontation with Bond and Jusef.
    actonsteve wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    CThe only subplot they should have had was Bond going to avenge Vesper. It would have seemed like a true sequel and kept it at that.

    B ut Bond wasn't avenging Vesper. He was doing his duty all the way along. The audience and M were misled. Which gave it an interesting twist.

    Well I don't really care. Come Skyfall it ultimately won't mean anything anyway.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    CThe only subplot they should have had was Bond going to avenge Vesper. It would have seemed like a true sequel and kept it at that.

    B ut Bond wasn't avenging Vesper. He was doing his duty all the way along. The audience and M were misled. Which gave it an interesting twist.

    I don't care :O

    :))

    That is one of the biggest problems with the film, it doesn't make you care about any of it. There was a brilliant comment on the Kermode review that said "I thought the plot wasn't hard to understand at all, they were trying to steal the water from Bolivia, unfortunetly, since I understood the plot I cared about it even less"
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    CThe only subplot they should have had was Bond going to avenge Vesper. It would have seemed like a true sequel and kept it at that.

    B ut Bond wasn't avenging Vesper. He was doing his duty all the way along. The audience and M were misled. Which gave it an interesting twist.

    I don't care :O

    :))

    That is one of the biggest problems with the film, it doesn't make you care about any of it. There was a brilliant comment on the Kermode review that said "I thought the plot wasn't hard to understand at all, they were trying to steal the water from Bolivia, unfortunetly, since I understood the plot I cared about it even less"

    I always felt that way too oddly. The whole "Quantum/water" thing just fell a bit flat to me in the end. Maybe if the film was a little longer we could have cared more but who knows. I thought the stuff between Bond and Mathis was probably the best part of the film.

    Upon recent viewings its not that bad and there is a better film in there BUT it's not one I'd rush to put back in the DVD player. Not terrible...just average!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    That's true. Shame he got killed off.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    Hmmm
  • W1llardWhiteW1llardWhite
    Posts: 2
    Casino Royale is a near perfect Bond film, Quantum of Solace is all over the place. QOS has great action scenes, but the plot and dialogue is utterly useless, amplified by the fact that it is SO po faced and completely without the sense of humour that we have come to expect from Bond films.

    This guy did a rewrite of Quantum of Solace which I think is ace and would have made the film a lot better.

    http://vivavigilante.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/for-bond-nerds-only-a-re-imagining-of-quantum-of-solace/
  • GoldenballGoldenball United States
    edited September 2012 Posts: 74
    I love both- but since I have to pick one I'd say CR even though QOS continues the arc from the previous film and has that great homage to GF in Strawberry Fields death scene. CR also has better music and titles and is, after all, the film that introduced Dannyboy as Bond. And let's face it, Daniel Craig was awesome.
  • wildboonjivewildboonjive
    edited September 2012 Posts: 299
    Casino Royale without question. QoS doesn't even come close. For the record, I do appreciate QoS and there are certain things about it that I like very much, similar to what some of you have already pointed out (the Mathis scenes, the finale with Vesper's boyfriend). And the Tosca sequence is one of the best of the entire series, hands down. It's quintessential Bond, and Barry would be proud of Arnold's work there.

    However, as @BAIN123 mentioned, the bigger budget doesn't do anything to make it look better than CR, and that's a big letdown. It seems as though Cubby's professional policy of putting the money on the screen completely failed with QoS. CR looks absolutely beautiful, everything about it. With the budget that it had, QoS should have looked even better, but sadly and inexplicably, that wasn't the case.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I love QoS, but not even FRWL can stand up to CR for me. The best of the best.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Only OHMSS tops CR for me.
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    edited December 2012 Posts: 546
    Both were great Bond films. But Casino Royale takes this one.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Don't think I voted on this one before. Casino Royale is for sure a better film overall, even though QOS has some fine moments. No contest.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    This is like putting The Godfather against The Room. If you voted for Quantum of Solace over Casino Royale, you're wrong. There's a point where opinions become ridiculous, and that's way beyond ridiculous.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    This is like putting The Godfather against The Room. If you voted for Quantum of Solace over Casino Royale, you're wrong. There's a point where opinions become ridiculous, and that's way beyond ridiculous.

    Well put.

    I'm not a total QOS hater. There are good things in it but some people seem to be getting confused and using those good elements as justification in saying its better than CR.

    In every single department QOS is clearly inferior to CR - it's not even a debate. It's like comparing Stewart Downing and Maradona. Just because Downing is better than, say, Jason Lee (the footballing equivalent of DAD?) it can't be used as evidence that he's right up there with Diego can it?

    Some people seem to lack even the most basic logic and debating skills.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited July 2013 Posts: 18,338
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    This is like putting The Godfather against The Room. If you voted for Quantum of Solace over Casino Royale, you're wrong. There's a point where opinions become ridiculous, and that's way beyond ridiculous.

    Well put.

    I'm not a total QOS hater. There are good things in it but some people seem to be getting confused and using those good elements as justification in saying its better than CR.

    In every single department QOS is clearly inferior to CR - it's not even a debate. It's like comparing Stewart Downing and Maradona. Just because Downing is better than, say, Jason Lee (the footballing equivalent of DAD?) it can't be used as evidence that he's right up there with Diego can it?

    Some people seem to lack even the most basic logic and debating skills.

    Debating skills are certainly your forté, Ice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2013 Posts: 24,249
    I don't see the debate. Clearly CR is the better film: better acted, better crafted, better edited, better written, ... Of course people may consider QoS their favourite Bond film; I'm okay with that. But we can and should at least agree that CR is a far more competently made and better executed film.

    It's a bit like Alien versus Aliens. Aliens may give me a more pleasuring ride but Alien is hands-down the most well made film in the Alien franchise. So I can understand that some might find reasons to prefer QoS over CR; sometimes one or two specific elements can be enough, like being a huge fan of one particular actor / actress or having once visited a place featured in the film and now the scenes bring back nice memories. I don't know. But the point is that your favourite film needn't necessarily be the one you in full honesty think is the best.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited July 2013 Posts: 18,338
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I don't see the debate. Clearly CR is the better film: better acted, better crafted, better edited, better written, ... Of course people may consider QoS their favourite Bond film; I'm okay with that. But we can and should at least agree that CR is a far more competently made and better executed film.

    It's a bit like Alien versus Aliens. Aliens may give me a more pleasuring ride but Alien is hands-down the most well made film in the Alien franchise. So I can understand that some might find reasons to prefer QoS over CR; sometimes one or two specific elements can be enough, like being a huge fan of one particular actor / actress or having once visited a place featured in the film and now the scenes bring back nice memories. I don't know. But the point is that your favourite film needn't necessarily be the one you in full honesty think is the best.

    Well, I can't say I disagree, but I still like QoS for what it is rather than what it's not - it's experimental and different as well as being the final act of CR.
Sign In or Register to comment.