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
Don't leave Tim out! :o3
Correct on QoS - those criticising it need to read their Fleming Bond novels
The one thing though, is that according to Fleming Bond would never have disobeyed M. Then again, the M in the books didn't fly around the world to have a conversation with Bond, either.
See YOLT, OHMSS and TMWTGG and TLD ss for proof that he did disobey M quite often in Fleming.
Ah, haven't gotten there yet. I'm still in DAF.
I have been very vocal about QOS's flaws in the past so I won't go there now. All I can say is that despite the final cut, I can see a much higher potential in this film than in the other two I just mentioned. That makes me mad though. It's a case of could be-and-should be.
Tim did an awesome job with the material he was given.
No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking here.
QoB might have started out with the best of intentions but ended up with some nice bits, which do not make a great movie imho, and ended up with being a poor imitation of the Bourne movies who where easily better than the QoB movie. Jason had better action, better editing, better music, better scripts. QoB only borrowed some aspects and did so piss poorly.
HERE HERE
Ooooh, sorry to step on your toes dear master. Pleeeeeeease. I missed the memo where it was decreed that all opinions on Bond must match yours. Oh wait...it never existed! I find it extremely hilarious to entertain the notion that an era that was in itself a garbage parody is more Bondian that a true representation of Bond in the Craig era, the way the character should be portrayed. Leave the comedy acts to Moore. I want a serious Bond the way he should be spun, and Dan is giving that in spades. But as you have taught me, I guess you can't account for others bad taste. And yes, that previous sentence was purposely hypocritical, so save your breath.
If it was a garbage parody that lasted 7 films:
1. Would Moore have the public reputation he does with the public now.
2. Would he have done 7 films.
3. Would the Bond series be as successful, or moresom, even still here if it was that much of a piece of garbage.
Think on your sins.
There are plenty of series that overstay their welcome, Moore's Bond being a part of Bond's for me. By the end of things bad films spawn more bad films because the box office is good. Bond's box office is one of its stronger aspects, and that is a heavy factor, especially when films like MR are so lazy they have to cash in on Star Wars. I feel sinful after watching a minute of his Bond doing some campy act, and run for a shower. Roger is lucky enough not to be a pretentious arse in real life, and I give him credit for not letting Bond fame change him unlike some people. Yes, George, I am looking at you. Of course, he was likely always that piggish and full of pathetic self adoration.
it seems you did not read my 3 points above, please take a look and then we can agree on something maybe.
Oh brady you always are easy to bait, but seriously QoB is one of the failings of DC's reign the other are the fans that deem DC superiour to everything that has gone before.
I dislike the comparing of DC with previous actors and calling him better, when he is just different, like the next actor that will play 007. Which is kind of nice that Craig is not the one to bury the part.
Is Craig all that great, time will tell.
Like the Nolan Dark Knight movies it is a matter of perspective, I find that watching the Burton Batman movies are much more fun than the tortured Nolan version. This is similar for me with the Craig 007 movies. I do hope he gets a better movie with Bond24 and while SF was a step up from QoB, which in itself is a very easy feat to do, I am still not that impressed with the movie. As an actionmovie it was not that great, which is kind of different when the 007 movies were considered an actionmovie highlight of the year, and as a job by 007 it was one of his worst when the bad guy wins, okay but he dies, and 007 fails in his job. An it is all considered a winner. #-o
Roger Moore has always been a bloody brilliant ambassador for EON, they recognise his efforts and talent when a shedload of socalled fanboys lack that skill but still are very vocal about their views which mostly amount to nothing new or remotely original. Roger Moore in hindsight was the actor that brought the series back to greatness together with the great Albert B. His movies were original and large in scale, and a great laugh as well.
Perhaps not the flavor of todays movie visitor but they did very well in those days, so good that even Dalton could not bury the part. (to be honest with LTK he did get not a very good script, and indeed I would not have minded a third movie as they are important for the 007 actors.)
Roger Moore is 007's guardian Saint, which is more than any of the actors untill now can boast. O:-)
HERE HERE
For somebody who says he is respectfull of the opinion of other people you surely do not behave the way you claim to do.
Chocolate chip please. O:-)
I am mocking you, as you think everything you say is concretely set in stone to be 100% true.
Concrete is severely overrated imho, after a while the elements get a grip on it.
You mock anybody that does not agree with your truth, or tell them that they do not understand your reasoning, hence are not smart enough to understand you. People disagree on 007, Batman etc.
But too blunty write off an important actor in the series franchise as ridicolous shows that you fail to see the big picture. You might not like his era but it is perhaps more important in the history of 007 movies than Craigs who took over a very healthy franchise.
The editing? Well, i don't have any problem with that. It shows Bond's emotional state throughout the movie, and it the cutting get's slower as the movie progresses ( once again it's a wink to Bonds state of mind ). And before anyone slags me of as a " 16 year old schoolboy who can't appreaciate slower movies ". My favourite films are all over 2 hours, the longer the better.
The script? It is perfect as it is, it does it works both in the humour department and in the other parts. So no problem there.
And Daniel Craig, he is the man. I think that he is better here then in Skyfall actually, but not better then in CR.
So all the QoS haters, come at me. I will defend one of my favourite Bondfilms! \m/
You're brave to say all this, and I admire for it, and actually agree with you! QoS is in my top ten, it's quite a brilliant movie. One of the big flaws I have with it is the editing, but the point you make is actually quite interesting. The quick editing and the fact that everything is so fast-paced could have something to do with Bond's state of mind.
So thank you, you made me love the movie even more! :)
I agree with this.
I like the books. I like QOS. I think the Dalton films are the best in the series, and I thought SF was great. And I think Moore was a great Bond who made some fantastic Bond films.
It is possible to like more than one version of Bond.
Those that said the car chase was too quick, Bond wasn't driving a milk float in that scene, he was driving at top speed in an Aston whilst being shot at. I thought the way it was filmed was beautiful.
The fight between Bond and Slate? The opera scene? The free fall? The MI6 interface and touch screens? The awesome intro by MK12? What was not to like? I'm wondering what movie everyone else was watching... seriously.
I kind of think of QoS as a License To Kill 2.
Thank you!
But just the single thing that the movie slows down when we get to Bolivia makes it pretty obvious that the cutting and the pace is a metaphor for Bonds mind. Because he have find some sort of peace after his conversation with Mathis onboard the flight.
Forster should come back!
Except LTK is a proper revenge flick. QoS wants to be, but ultimately isn't. Don't get me wrong I think there are some great moments in QoS and I generally enjoy watching it but it always feels like the sum of it's parts make for a less than satisfying whole.
I think they got far too bogged down in the issues of Quantum and the sub plot of resource control in Bolivia. In LTK Bond's main issue is Sanchez, but he realises he can bring down his entire empire before doing away with him. As Greene is just another pawn in the Quantum game, as evidenced by the fact a Quantum hitman ultimately finishes him off, it feels unsatisfying that Bond would voraciously pursue this one man. He knows there is more to Quantum than this, there is nothing to suggest Greene is higher up the Quantum chain than say White or Haines.
For this reason alone I think it slips below LTK in terms of delivery. LTK is an out and out revenge mission. Bond has his revenge by destroying not only Sanchez, but his empire. QoS does not feel similar, in the end it gives the impression (intentionally) Bond does not want to avenge the death of Vesper, but rather seek his QoS. Again, something not quite executed well enough IMO.
Just sitting here thinking about it I have about 3 or 4 different scenarios that would have been a more fitting conclusion to CR, which is what QoS tries to be, but as I said, isn't.
I get people's love for the editing, pacing and design of the film all of which I agree with in context. However, like I said, it could have been so much better. It had the potential to be utterly thrilling but in the end it came up short and always leaves me feeling we deserved better.
He inherited a very healthy franchise. The series was in no danger of ending. Actually DAD was the most successful Bond film ever at the time, unadjusted. It didn't do terribly critically either.
After DAD, if we hadn't gotten CR, we probably would've gotten a back-to-earth FYEO type 5th Brosnan flick.
The series would have been fine without Craig. Would the films have been as successful and popular, maybe not. But the series would've carried on.
The only time I ever actually thought the series was over was after LTK, and after GE was announced I've learned that Bond will keep going no matter what. Chances are it'll outlive me.
A) A dead franchise in terms of quality
B) A dead franchise in terms of not doing any money.
The series after DAD had more or less putted it self in a corner with all the action sequences and clichés. The series would probably carried on, but not with names like Marc Forster, Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins.
The Bondfilms has stepped up their game, and that is not just because of Craig. It's the whole team collaboration that has made the three latest Bondfilms to the critical acclaimed films that they actually are.