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
The producers fell into the old trap of feeling they had to "top" CR in everyway and they failed by going off on this convuluted jig saw of a storyline.
CR had a very very basic plot and the whole story wove around it quite nicely. Rather than trying to impress the audience they should have just concentrated on finish telling the story they had started in CR.
They could have just had Bond on the trail of Mr. White who puts up constant obstacles in his path and Bond has to negotiate this maze to find him. He would have a number 2 who would battle bond in the finale and after killing him, White escapes to fight to another day and another film....
But whites not the boss. And don't sound so past-tense about Quantum.. they haven't written them off yet!
Avant-garde? You don't get more mainstream than a Bond movie.
You can't really do a post-9/11 spy movie and not have it be grounded more in reality, especially now that Craig is in the role. I for one don't want to see Craig attempting a YOLT, DAF, or TSWLM.
Hardly, it's worked well so far and that believability (or versimilitude rather) is the one thing that people praised when they saw Bond in CR. A guy who bled, got bruised and smashed every possible way and on top of that one who made mistakes. Furthermore, I never equated a villainous outfit that "makes the most sense" as being the most terrifying. You drew that conclusion from somewhere. I merely pointed out that updating the threat to one such as Quantum makes for a more interesting and complex threat to Bond. Purely by their modus operandi. By extension I'll agree it makes them more terrifying, but it's not a prequisite for me (just far more preferable).
Were being the operative word there. People would just laugh if they ever tried that again, you may not like it and even see it as a betrayal of classic Bond or whatever. But I can't imagine a different response. We're far beyond bald men in white suits with a facial scar and a penchant for feline tickling (ohh behave), and phallic sub-aquatic HQs rising up. Audiences deserve more, a threat that's far less overt yet as equally if not more dangerous. What I found with Quantum was how sinister and vicious they were. This idea that they meet in lavish surroundings such as the opera, yet orchestrating to monopolise a country's water supply whilst the country struggles with even more drout. Not to mention the way Greene was dispatched for merely sharing intel on Quantum. That to me is much more disturbing than some knob in a tower laughing whilst he pushes the flashing red 'destruct' button. A pervasive threat that can hardly be seen? I'll go with them. I honestly can't see a vintage SPECTRE scaring people as they did in the past. We're in a different age with different and I'd say more sinister threats. If you try and go back to the classic villainy, then I think you risk entering into parody and you'll just include an element that's utterly incongruent and I'd say incompatible with the latest Bond direction.
Which makes them far more dangerous and hard to combat.
So far, I have to say spectre have been alot more threatening than quantum. Spectre came closer than anybody to killing bond, hijacked a nuclear warhead, and blofeld is one of the greatest villians in the history of film. Quantum could become better, but from what I've seen, im not that impressed.
I can't see them resurrecting this personally - it's not strong enough to engage viewers and it serves no real purpose to do so. People expect a standalone piece when walking into a Bond movie, I think B+M realised this following QoS hence the decision to do away with it. Worth a try but I can only see standalone films for the foreseeable future.
But it fits in with the tone of the latest films. What else would you have? Why would you want to decimate a land mass, when you can infiltrate nations and get them to do your bidding whether directly or indirectly. Money makes the world go round and nuking even a portion of it is neither smart, profitable nor expedient. The point is Quantum are the type of organisation that could easily get their hands on a nuclear weapon without so much as needing to hijack one. Bond has faced death in every one of his films, can't really put it on a comparison scale. QoS may have been forgettable for some (or clearly not that much if people still talk about it) but it had some rather stand-out imagery for me. Whether you like it or not, it's film that finalised the story-arc that began in the first film. Now that the complete Bond is in place, other things can be added in. Sure Quantum should be expanded upon and it will, what I found in the second film was quite promising. And frankly felt like a natural progression from the first film.
For me it signalled the end of the Vesper storyline and the beginning of the accomplished Bond, not the end of Quantum. He's earned his stripes so to speak and so it makes sense to go off and try something else. That doesn't mean that Quantum will suddenly disappear. It wouldn't really make sense seeing as they're a persistent threat. Even if you do standalone films (there are no remaining loose story threads), why not have recurring villains and organisations? If you're going to do away with Quantum, invariably you're going to seek a replacement threat. Which would bound to be very similar to Quantum, which makes ditching them pointless seeing as they fill that spot and have potential for some great stories. Furthermore, for all the complaints about QoS, for the most part, Quantum wasn't one of them. Some couldn't stomach the editing and thought that Greene was a weak villain (which he was supposed to be, a politicking businessman, smarmy more than intimidating, based on Blair and Sarkozy hah).
That's my point though. You're a Bond fan, most people couldn't give two hoots about Quantum. They don't have the gravitas of a 'Spectre' and aren't memorable enough to be engaging. If Blofeld or Spectre do make a return at some point in the future the press and public will lap it up, if Quantum reappears no one will give a shit.
(This is not me justifying a SPECTRE return I'm just using them as a yardstick).
As an aside. Quantum (who ironically weren't even Quantum) were a much more threatening presence in CR. They shot their load with QoS and the pay off wasn't good enough.
I just don't believe in the viability of such an organisation (Quantum, Spectre or otherwise) in the current iteration of the Bond films. I don't feel like it has any longevity and as such seems a pointless exercise to persist with. Dominic Greene had a flimsy to non-existent backstory and the governmental ties that could have made for an exciting and different narrative simply weren't used well enough.
I guess my bottom line is, they're just not an exciting enough proposition.
Yes, because it's odd.
Discreet = boring.
Yeah you do (Hollywood), but that's beside the point. Mainstream and avant-garde can go hand in hand. Just look at Ken Adam's modernist sets or Jerry Goldsmith's original score for PLANET OF THE APES (20th Century Fox).
Who says you can't? Is there some kind official decree out there?
And I for one do.
I can see your point with not wanting an organisation. I.e. a singular threat contained within each film.
The problem with your historical comparison, is that SPECTRE had more time to entrench itself as a major threat to Bond. Quantum is an entirely 'new' enemy and therefore needs to be expanded upon over a few films, in order for that comparison to be fair and valid. For me, QoS merely scratched at the surface of the organisation. I imagine from the outset, the intent was to uncover more of the organisation and its major players as other films were released. The good thing with Quantum is they can come back at any time, which is why the second film ended the way it did. To at least give the producers the option of pursuing a different storyline for a sequel. Of course Dominic Greene had no real backstory, there was no need for one (the same could be said for LeChiffre). Greene was ultimately just a cypher, as proven by his execution. What Greene was supposed to show was even with a supposed eco-friendly character, he could be just as sinister and conniving as the rest of them. There's no better face for villainy than a guy who pretends he loves to plant trees ;-). I like the irony of it.
For me, the point is this: what reality are you aiming for? If they decided to reboot the franchise with a new continuity that dispensed with the 'realism' of the Craig films and instead went for the fantastical route. Then sure, SPECTRE, Blofeld (in his original incarnation) and the rest would fit in. If instead, you want to pursue a more streamlined and grounded reality, such as what we have with Daniel Craig. Then of course you need to tailor your characters and villains to that reality. Otherwise, there's no real continuity and segue in terms of style and tone. Now, that may sound contradictory if we look at the history of Bond. But they never veered far from the slightly tongue in cheek or camp. To go from one extreme to the other, without some sort of continuity reboot wouldn't work.
Frankly, if there were no interest in Quantum, then I doubt questions would've been put to Craig, Mendes et al about their possible inclusion.
Sure, there's a surrealty to Bond's world. It's an inaccessible world to most, full of espionage, intrigue and plots to cause mayhem/destruction. But to what extreme or end do you propose? For me, I thought there were moments in QoS that were fairly surreal. Namely the Opera scene. Megalomania interspered with opera; can't get more surreal than that.
Who says you can't? Is there some kind official decree out there?[/quote]
Well obviously not literally, but seeing as we live in a certain age. One which is a little less frivolous, I don't think the over-the-top approach would work as well. Who knows, it may change in a few years and we'll see a return to the old form. But as it stands, I like what they've done and anything that runs counter to that would just seem out of place.
Er right, the same guy also demonstrated superhuman stamina, cuts and bruises that magically disappeared, the the same cuts being nothing more than conveniently placed beauty scars, carried on a fight if a nail temporarily lodged in his back was a small splinter (lets not forget about blood loss), and went on from a bleeding heart attack to win a game of Texas hold 'em.
Yep, "verisimilitude" alright.
Just looking at recent successful blockbusters (i.e. X MEN: FIRST CLASS), I think it already is. It's been just over a decade since 9/11, and I think audiences and movie makers are starting to move on. There's only so many times you can beat a dead horse.
That's a damn sight closer than what's gone on before. I never said it would be documentary level of realism. More that you get a sense of a man who hurts, who bleeds and who does get it wrong. Which I thought was refreshing. Because at the end of it, it makes his ascent more worthwhile, seeing what he encountered and eventually overcame. I take it you're not a fan then? Again, versimilitude simply means the appearance or illusion of 'truth' or reality, rather than an actual re-production of it. ;-)
Well the Nolan Batman films have shown that there's still an appetite for it. Although next year it'll be fantasy centric - The Avengers, Spider-man, Hobbit etc. If beating an equine cadaver still brings in the cashflow then they'll keep at it. Besides, I wasn't making the case that all films had to have a grounded approach. It's clearly worked here though. And funny you mention X-Men: FC, as many have already said that the superhero franchise has become slightly over-saturated and therefore plenty of dead horse beating. Generally speaking, we haven't seen a wholesale change in terms of how grounded films are. There have been plenty of films that are pure fantasy. Though going from films such as 28 Days Later, through to the Bourne films and even Iron-Man, it's definitely a zeitgeist and I'm not convinced it's quite been flogged enough.
I think they do have the potential to be exciting, we just haven't seen a lot of it. QOS didn't explore their aims, merely scratched the surface a bit. But an organisation playing so effectively in politics, well, who's to say they won't run for elections one day? There have been more unlikely candidates, some even were elected. Mr White for PM anybody?
Mr. White for Foreign Secretary perhaps.
Hollywood money from UA, MGM, and Sony has been the lifeblood of Bond for decades.
There is a good argument to be made that the early Bond films (at least the first four) were trend-setting. But since then, they've followed rather than created trends: LALD-- blacksploitation, TMWTGG--Kung Fu, TSWLM--"Jaws" and shark, MR--Star Wars...up through the Bourne films' influence on the last two Bonds.
The parody of Austin Powers has all but made a modern-day YOLT impossible for the Bond series to pull off credibly. Plus, Craig is not exactly known for his light touch in character or in person, so to ask him to play Bond that way would most likely be a disaster.
> Bond 26 (2019) > 3 Years > Bond 27 (2022) > 2 years > Bond 28 (2024)
On this way DC don't break the wish the 6th Bond made 5 movies and 7th Bond 3 movies. Bond 24 wil have Quantum and Camile, Bond 25 possible not. Ending the Daniel Craig era in 2017 is a option i stil keep open going to happen. 2017 it be the 55 years anniversary.
It be a good idea to yuse Quantum for the next Bond actor, but another side of them and mabey once. What i like to see is this time there not showing the big boss face to fast. There can do a lot with Quantum, like copydraft behaviour in another villian. That's one option i think Eon mean with the classic element.
The shadowy presence of Quantum would be a constant thorn in Bond and MI6 sides.
I just hope EON does not pass up on such a promising idea...yet we've seen EON discard many a great idea in the past (look at Pierce Brosnan's films)
I retract my comment about Quantum not having potential, it's not really what I mean. I was incredibly excited by the way in which CR ended and the initial teaser for QoS heightened my expectations. The film for me however didn't deliver on these expectations. The thinking behind the organisation falls between two stools in a sense that it maintains a sense of believability while at the same time bizarrely tipping it's hat to the old school SPECTRE by having the organisation wear branded Quantum badges.
Maybe in a few years if they resurrect it with a great idea then I'll be all for it.The route they took with QoS suggests there's a big-bad behind the big-bad and then maybe even a bigger-bad behind that. If they got it right it could be fun but I can't help feeling the outcome can never be that satisfying when your enormous threat over a series of films turns out to be a normal bloke in a suit.
SPECTRE was a neat idea number1..2..3..4..ETC but they have been parodied way too much and 1000 BILLION DOLLAR HAAAHHAAAAA! Pinky at mouth.....
I like the real feel of Quantum...Spectre never really felt real.