Quantum of Solace - The worst Bond flick to date

1679111215

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    lahaine wrote:
    MrBrown wrote:
    Was it even a Bond film?

    Yes a very good Bond film that showed a more human side to him not seen since OHMSS

    Don't leave Tim out! :o3
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    I can't disagree enough with the title of this thread.
    For those criticising the plot...BOND himself is the plot, its his film, its a revenge flic. As for editing - intense yes; it has to be, Bond has no luxury of sitting back and so, this time around, nor should we. You are quite simply in it with him.
    Ok so Craig himself has said he is not happy with certain elements but seriously? worst bond ever?..nonsense. An unpredictable, underrated film - beautifully shot and a real expose of Bonds frame of mind.

    It all goes too fast say some - go with it and pay attention, say I.

    A superb entry.

    For the record; put DAF in the bin but leave me with the theme song. :-)

    Correct on QoS - those criticising it need to read their Fleming Bond novels
  • Posts: 5,745
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I can't disagree enough with the title of this thread.
    For those criticising the plot...BOND himself is the plot, its his film, its a revenge flic. As for editing - intense yes; it has to be, Bond has no luxury of sitting back and so, this time around, nor should we. You are quite simply in it with him.
    Ok so Craig himself has said he is not happy with certain elements but seriously? worst bond ever?..nonsense. An unpredictable, underrated film - beautifully shot and a real expose of Bonds frame of mind.

    It all goes too fast say some - go with it and pay attention, say I.

    A superb entry.

    For the record; put DAF in the bin but leave me with the theme song. :-)

    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.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I can't disagree enough with the title of this thread.
    For those criticising the plot...BOND himself is the plot, its his film, its a revenge flic. As for editing - intense yes; it has to be, Bond has no luxury of sitting back and so, this time around, nor should we. You are quite simply in it with him.
    Ok so Craig himself has said he is not happy with certain elements but seriously? worst bond ever?..nonsense. An unpredictable, underrated film - beautifully shot and a real expose of Bonds frame of mind.

    It all goes too fast say some - go with it and pay attention, say I.

    A superb entry.

    For the record; put DAF in the bin but leave me with the theme song. :-)

    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.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Dragonpol wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I can't disagree enough with the title of this thread.
    For those criticising the plot...BOND himself is the plot, its his film, its a revenge flic. As for editing - intense yes; it has to be, Bond has no luxury of sitting back and so, this time around, nor should we. You are quite simply in it with him.
    Ok so Craig himself has said he is not happy with certain elements but seriously? worst bond ever?..nonsense. An unpredictable, underrated film - beautifully shot and a real expose of Bonds frame of mind.

    It all goes too fast say some - go with it and pay attention, say I.

    A superb entry.

    For the record; put DAF in the bin but leave me with the theme song. :-)

    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    I don't think QOS is the worst Bond film to date but I will acknowledge that it has multiple flaws. However, the sum total of the things I do like, including Craig, the final act (confronting Yusef), the Bregenz material (including the music), Mathieu Amalric,... makes the film a higher ranking one for me than the likes of TMWTGG or AVTAK to name but two.

    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.
  • Posts: 161
    Don't leave Tim out! :o3

    Tim did an awesome job with the material he was given.

  • Posts: 7,653
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking here.

  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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.

  • Posts: 479
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking 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.
  • Posts: 479
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking 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.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking 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.
  • Posts: 479
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking 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.

  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    No it was not, it is just your lack in taste is speaking 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.

    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:-)

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.
  • Posts: 479
    RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    HERE HERE

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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
    Sammm04 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    HERE HERE
    What? Do you want a cookie?
  • Posts: 7,653
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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
    Sammm04 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    HERE HERE
    What? Do you want a cookie?

    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:-)

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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
    Sammm04 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    HERE HERE
    What? Do you want a cookie?

    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.
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    Sammm04 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    It was more Bondian (in character) than anything Moore did, especially at the end of his run and for some of the crap they wrote Bond doing in DAD.

    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
    Sammm04 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    HERE HERE
    What? Do you want a cookie?

    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.

  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    It is far beyond my imagination how someone can even consider QoS being the worst Bondfilm ever. For the first, it is one of the few film that handles Bonds real carachter. As he was written by Fleming, in QoS he is a dark complex man with serious issues. But as the movie progresses he get's better. He understands why things happen as they does, and then he realizes that killing won't make anything better. He understands that some people are more valuable if they're alive. ( Hence the original ending got cut ). QoS is also one of the most stylish Bondfilms with the most beautiful sets and the most exqusite cinematography. I do think that QoS is on par with Skyfall at that point.

    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/
  • MrBond wrote:
    It is far beyond my imagination how someone can even consider QoS being the worst Bondfilm ever. For the first, it is one of the few film that handles Bonds real carachter. As he was written by Fleming, in QoS he is a dark complex man with serious issues. But as the movie progresses he get's better. He understands why things happen as they does, and then he realizes that killing won't make anything better. He understands that some people are more valuable if they're alive. ( Hence the original ending got cut ). QoS is also one of the most stylish Bondfilms with the most beautiful sets and the most exqusite cinematography. I do think that QoS is on par with Skyfall at that point.

    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! :)
  • RC7 wrote:
    Moore's films are epic in their own right. He's a legend and his films are legendary. I like 'realism' (terrible word) as much as the next man, but for every Craig pout I raise you a Moore eyebrow. The man's films left a legacy and some of us love them. Oh and it possible to love Fleming's novels as well. Reinterpretation and development. It's what keeps the world turning.

    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.
  • I really don't see Quantum of Solace as being the worst film by any stretch. It's in my top five. I found it gritty and stylish. I think the editing is incredible. Those who say it cuts too much need to take some cod liver oil to speed their brains up.

    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.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    MrBond wrote:
    It is far beyond my imagination how someone can even consider QoS being the worst Bondfilm ever. For the first, it is one of the few film that handles Bonds real carachter. As he was written by Fleming, in QoS he is a dark complex man with serious issues. But as the movie progresses he get's better. He understands why things happen as they does, and then he realizes that killing won't make anything better. He understands that some people are more valuable if they're alive. ( Hence the original ending got cut ). QoS is also one of the most stylish Bondfilms with the most beautiful sets and the most exqusite cinematography. I do think that QoS is on par with Skyfall at that point.

    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! :)

    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!

  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2013 Posts: 10,512
    I kind of think of QoS as a License To Kill 2.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Yes, Dan inherited such a healthy franchise. So healthy that EON were desperately scrambling to reinvent the character after DAD devastated any planning the franchise had up to that point. About as healthy as cardiac arrest.
  • Yes, Dan inherited such a healthy franchise. So healthy that EON were desperately scrambling to reinvent the character after DAD devastated any planning the franchise had up to that point. About as healthy as cardiac arrest.

    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.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    It's a difference between

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.