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
Well, I guess each of those films tried being Bond movies and whether it came off polarizing or not, they basically didn't dare to be different films like their predecessors. DAF wasted what could have been a great link to OHMSS as a story arc before Blofeld rights got removed. Plus Connery basically made either a copy or parody of his own films in the end with DAF. OP really exaggerated the parody factor and went against NSNA to celebrate not being a Connery movie. And because it had more marketing money it made more money to get the last hurrah at the box office.
IMO it's totally unfair to knock DAF for not being a sequel to OHMSS. With the latter being an underperformer at the box office, both Lazenby and Hunt not returning, it wouldn't have made sense to have Connery star in a sequel to a film he wasn't even in. So going back to the tone of GF by bringing back Guy Hamilton and ignoring OHMSS made perfect sense in 1971 to help reignite the series, which lead to Roger Moore getting his gig in LALD.
I don't see anything wrong in OP playing up to the strengths of what made Moore films popular. Moore's run was the very reason we still get Bond films to this day, so even though they skew far from Fleming I can appreciate how they enriched the franchise in terms of bringing a whole new generation. It's how I feel about Adam West's Batman, which actually helped reinvigorate the popularity of that character and lead the way to efforts that were not as much of a parody.
To relegate the success of GE and SF as just only doing good at the box office is just frankly dishonest. They're highly acclaimed films by fans and audiences for reasons that have nothing to do with how well it performed at the box office. They both helped reinvigorate the franchise at times when its future seemed uncertainly, especially in the case of GE. Before I had seen GE, my first films were TND and TWINE and both left me very unimpressed and didn't at all encourage me to want to see more Bond films. Later on I would see GE, and not only did that film grab me but it actually made me want to see even more films like LTK.
And from my interactions with others, SF was exactly that kind of film that made people want to see more Bond films. That's why it's considered a cornerstone film, not because it purely made money but that it made people excited about Bond, and that's the highest honor a Bond film can earn IMO. As long as we do get the more popular entries like GF, TSWLM, GE, and SF, we can get more risk taking films like OHMSS, LTK and QOS down the line.
You're not alone, I have Spectre in my top 10. It's the only Craig entry in my top 10.
For me it's more about which films I enjoy and the ones I think are best. I happen to think some of the most successful films, like TB, GE, SF, SP and DAD are also amongst the least satisfying to watch. I don't dislike them because they were commercial successes, but equally I don't feel obliged to like them because they were big at the BO.
“Hey, this made the most money, therefore I like it!”
Done it several times!
An excellent double bill, works really well, and QOS shorter running time really helps!
Folks, give QoS a chance as it was meant to be seen. These double billing styles haven't been around for decades. Modern classic!
Next, they roll out extended editions of each film on Blu Ray.
QoS had a whole 20 minutes...a producer's cut or special edition Daniel Craig cut would be nice.
True, but only within the MI6 Community.
It doesn’t work. If QOS was it’s own self contained story it might have been fine. But it’s so stylistically opposed to CR I just can’t see it complimenting it as a Part II. SPECTRE is a better sequel to CR than QOS because that at least has some elegance in its presentation. The Bourne shakycam approach of QOS is utterly ruinous.
It was like this even in the KTBEU iteration of this forum 13 years ago. In fact there’s TWO appreciation threads.
But yeah outside of this forum QOS is largely seen as Craig’s black sheep film. And deservedly.
Too true @Mathis1
They complement each other nicely 👍
It even has a game for the Nintendo DS.
You may be thinking "Oh this is some cheap cash in, just because the Nintendo DS is so successful, you can slap any successful IP on a low-budget game and it'll sell a million". But you're totally wrong.
This is some premium breathtaking action in a whopping 240p resolution.
I have this, it’s actually pretty great!
The home console version of QoS, is more faithful to QOS's plot with some aspects of CR in it.
The video game came out during the new Golden Era of both the film and video game series.
It deserves a re-mastering. Plus, in today's age, we can get former Bond actors to voice future 007 games with new plots etc, or fill-in-the-gaps. Hoping one day we get a producers' cut of the QoS movie on Blu-Ray with Daniel Craig's involvement and have a remastering of this game as a tie-in or a video game that has a plot which fills the gap between QoS and SF better.
These films were really supposed to compliment each other more than what turned out.
I think of the Craig movies in two eras.....CR-QoS, and SF-SP-NTTD.....the latter of which took increasing influence from Christopher Nolan movies.
Yup. When Craig walks into the night at the end of QOS, it felt to me like that version of his Bond never came back. They took a weird turn with SF that culminated in NTTD that doesn't match up with the style and realistic world-building of CR-QOS.
2006-2008 Craig is one thing.
2012-2021 Craig is another.
Still a huge miss that we didn’t get one more between QOS and SF in the vein of early Craig.
I absolutely agree. It feels very much like two eras in one. And I wish the first one, which is by far my favorite (I adore both CR & QOS), had a third film too, in the style of "BloodStone" or something like that. Instead, since SF was a huge success, every film after tried to redo the "Skyfall style" of Bond film, like CR and QOS never existed. Reminds me of what happened after GF, TSWLM and GE. After the third film (I consider GE as a third film), it seems impossible for the producers to go back to the spirit of the first two. I remember MGW saying something like : "We always try to do another FRWL, and we end up doing another TB." One could say: "We always try to do another CR, and we end up doing another SF".
From the CR release November 2006, their bold plan was BOND 23 to open May 2008 a mere 18 months later. In a world where they could have moved forward from there it would create a much different path I expect.
Then realities and emergent developments took over for writers' strikes and later studio turnovers. And so with extraordinary effort from director and actor and others BOND 23 released November 2008.
Absorbing in some part the experience of 1989-1995, I can see the producers managing events to make films released in 2012, 2015, and especially 2021. Which overall they did professionally and successfully. No small feat.
SF-SP-NTTD came across as movies that tried to be Bond films....the first two Craig movies didn't give a damn and were a lot more original in style and story telling. MGW and DC recently said in the Being Bond documentary that they made a mistake by focusing too much on plot and less on story with QoS while DC was compensating the lack of script material by doing his own stunts and regretfully getting injured too much. It comes across as DC really trying to earn people's respect by putting himself in a sort of punishing situation.
Nevertheless, there is some hope in me that DC and the producers can come together and give us a better edited and longer version of QoS movie without Mr. White's first attempted death that ties in better for Spectre organization or a video game that's packed with storytelling in today's better graphics available.
Either way, Bond visited Vesper's grave. I kid you not (maybe we can dig some of my own old posts to prove this)....I suggested to Purvis and Wade that Bond visit Vesper's grave. This was a year after QoS was released at a Q&A. Purvis thanked me for the idea as we parted ways. Of course it didn't happen with SF, but that's ok.
Regarding Bloodstone....even that story had loose ends that were offensively never tied back up with the whole fiasco of the SF-007 Legends phase that forgot CR-QoS stories.
People were suggesting to Barbara Broccoli to bring back some of the tropes like humor and gagdets....it's not going to work today's world. For a series that has survived a lot of issues to come closer and closer to bigger BAFTA and Academy Awards, it would be a waste to not treat each film with the best effort possible in terms of quality for each aspect of the movie.
We the audience really missed an opportunity for an interesting movie with unique realism between 2008 and 2012.
At the Q&A in 2009 with the producers and Marc Forster....they seemed to get along well. Forster explained that he left out the Guy Haines reveal at the end of QoS so that the producers could have a choice with how their 3rd movie would turn out. Broccoli stated she invited Marc back for Bond 23 while he quipped back saying "was I really invited back?"....but he does hold out hope to come and do things better in a future Bond movie.
Realism is always welcome as it ages better over the years and keeps the franchise going. The scary part is that the Bolivian water crises really did happen...
Guy Haine's big reveal within MI6 was similar to original plans for Ralph Fienne's M being revealed as Blofeld, which never happened.
The captivating factor about QoS that air of melancholy it carries, thanks in part to the music and DC's scenes with M which were necessary for SF to be more emotionally impactful at the end...even for the audience, it was sad how Vesper was part of the story and didn't even need to appear one bit as her absence was felt but the solace at the end was also presented with Bond.
Exactly this. 💯
Didn't miss the gadgets or all the other clichés one bit. It was still Fleming's James Bond. Just more grown up...