Quantum of Solace Appreciation Thread- We Found a Better Place to Meet

16465666769

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Yes, I think there's a lot of truth in that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2022 Posts: 6,304
    I love that. Bond never forgot his first love, or his first M.

    I never bought the argument that M is inconsistent in SP vs. NTTD. Presumably, M is making high-level decisions on many sensitive projects, and he was willing to gamble on Heracles but not on NineEyes. Also, gambling *is* very much part of M's character.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    echo wrote: »
    I love that. Bond never forgot his first love, or his first M.

    I never bought the argument that M is inconsistent in SP vs. NTTD. Presumably, M is making high-level decisions on many sensitive projects, and he was willing to gamble on Heracles but not on NineEyes. Also, gambling *is* very much part of M's character.

    @echo, I just think the Mallory of SP wouldn't agree with the Mallory of NTTD, and that's where I find a disconnect and where I wish the film did more to argue Mallory's side of the issue. Because without that, he just seems crazy and incompetent. It wouldn't have been as sore a subject if Obruchev wasn't already confirmed to be a corruptible/immoral person, but adding that onto the pile doesn't make Mallory look too good.

    Nine Eyes and Heracles are very much of the same ilk, danger wise, and that's why I find it odd that Mallory so quickly denounced Nine Eyes, when, according to the timeline of the era, he had been secretly involved with developing the Heracles "weapon" when he took over as M in SF. He already looks hypocritical supporting Heracles in the wake of what happened with Nine Eyes, but looks all the worse when you find out he was developing the weapon at the same time as he was trying to stop Nine Eyes. Both Nine Eyes and Heracles would offer too much power and too much of a threat in the wrong hands, and both essentially allowed for anyone in the world at any time and for any reason or whim to be targeted and eliminated. Could you imagine the danger of both together? A surveillance apparatus that can track anyone anywhere and a virus that can then be targeted to eradicate that individual or individuals? The best solution for Heracles is what was done with the ATAC: destroy it so that it's of no use to anyone. That Mallory couldn't see the inevitable cataclysm is worrisome.

    Granted, Mallory is perhaps inspired by the worse sides of the original M, who made his own management mistakes and had poor strategy at times. Both Ms are particularly oblivious to the danger they are putting their people in, Bond especially. Mallory's disregard for the danger he's putting people in isn't too far a cry from the literary M who kept sending a gradually broken down and fatigued Bond on more and more "ugly" jobs, not listening to others who had concerns for his agent's own wellbeing.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,551
    echo wrote: »
    I love that. Bond never forgot his first love, or his first M.

    I never bought the argument that M is inconsistent in SP vs. NTTD. Presumably, M is making high-level decisions on many sensitive projects, and he was willing to gamble on Heracles but not on NineEyes. Also, gambling *is* very much part of M's character.

    Your thoughts “echo” my own. I think it’s a lot easier to be cavalier and idealistic at the beginning of a job like this. Perhaps the reality of the job set in between SP and NTTD. Also I think it’s important to remember the sole purpose of Heracles was to eliminate collateral damage; a far cry from global surveillance and drone assassinations.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @NickTwentyTwo, the sticky issue is that, from what we find out, Mallory was involved in getting Heracles developed since SF. So he was already acting non-idealistically from the start. And Heracles is far more dangerous than Nine Eyes ever would've been. It's one thing to know where someone is at all times, but it's another to be able to target them for death without them even knowing it, or being able to target any kind of race or genetic type you please if you felt the desire to wipe that group off the face of the earth. Nine Eyes was a giant camera, Heracles was a space laser in comparison.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,033
    Though I realize it’s not for everyone, Tosca is running late Nov to early Dec for those in the Los Angeles area…

    If anyone has Q cuff links and earpieces I’m game.

    https://www.laopera.org/performances/202223-season/tosca/?gclsrc=aw.ds&gclsrc=aw.ds&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgq3CouCp-wIV6hXUAR1R0w8hEAAYASAAEgLNE_D_BwE
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    That's cool, though as it seems with most theater, I have a feeling I am one of those people Tosca isn't for.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Resist the impulse to get up from your seat during the performance I'm thinking.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Extra points for snapping a bog door handle off.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Venutius wrote: »
    Extra points for snapping a bog door handle off.

    Or throw a man off the roof. 😉
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Yeah - especially if you do your best not to! :D
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited November 2022 Posts: 5,970
    So this has probably been discussed many times on this page but I think one of the issues for me with this film is that at some point during the third-act I always remind myself that we got to this point quite aimlessly.

    Each aspect of the story is clear but feel like we're here for no other reason than because of some money that was found on a person we didn't even know in the hopes we'll get where exactly? I just think with a little more direction in terms of where the script is going and where these characters should be going at this point, it could have been much better, especially when you're picking up right after Casino Royale.

    Now, I'm not saying it should have been connected to Vesper specifically, but I just feel if you're gonna do a follow-up to Casino, go in on that and play off that more, not trying to relate a complete separate thing that has no bearings on where Bond is at emotionally The connection to Quantum and Mr. White feels too loose.

    It's like this organisation is responsible for the pain Bond's suffered so we're gonna send him to one of their guys operating in Haiti and Bolivia because that somehow feels emotionally and narratively relevant for Bond right now. Really?

    Now, of course, Bond goes on different missions all the time but if you wanted that, you don't bother having us start immediately afterwards, you let audience assume White was arrested and then move on to a mission regarding a mysterious villains operating a coup and controlling all the water supply. Golden. Now you've got plenty of time to explore that, with no trappings of Casino's baggage.

    But otherwise, if you're gonna do a follow-up, really commit and have that thread extremely tight and present with every element working to explore that as opposed to trying to explore two things at once.

    Apologies I started rambling and couldn't stop. Also, grievances with this film can be really hard to explore without commenting on the writer's strike which I know affected the film massively, but this stuff always runs through my mind when watching this film, as much as I do enjoy it despite my criticisms.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2022 Posts: 7,551
    I'm not sure I fully understand your point... Everyone's top priority was to find White/Quantum, and that's why they used the tagged bills and found Slate in Bolivia. Vesper was certainly an underlying thread, and was a high priority for Bond, and it was resolved in the end, but the mission started with MI6 capturing White and then his escape, and ultimately it was to learn about he and his organization, which they did.

    Personally I'd rather have this than a film where Bond is purely going after Yusef or something.

    EDIT: I think I can sort of see what you're after, and it's fair enough; I think it all comes down to personal preference. Personally I thought QOS was executed excellently, and if no one had told me there was a writer's strike happening I probably wouldn't have noticed a difference really, except in running time.
  • I really wanted to see Yusef get his arse kicked by Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @NickTwentyTwo, I don't notice the burden of the strike either. QoS is one of my favorite Bond scripts, with endlessly great dramatic scenes but also an insane bunch of quotable/memorable lines. It's really lightning dialogue, and full of intense and interesting interactions between the characters.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Overall, I just personally wish the call to action was a lot stronger and more direct, and that the film had more focus.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    The only thing wrong with QOS is that it's not 30 minutes longer.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Venutius wrote: »
    The only thing wrong with QOS is that it's not 30 minutes longer.

    Gotta disagree on this one. The fast pace and brevity of the movie is one of its unique appeals to me, especially within the context of four much longer Craig Bond films.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The only thing wrong with QOS is that it's not 30 minutes longer.

    Gotta disagree on this one. The fast pace and brevity of the movie is one of its unique appeals to me, especially within the context of four much longer Craig Bond films.

    This. I'd gladly watch any deleted scenes they'd like to offer but the pacing and runtime is spot on perfect to me. It's one of the reasons why it's so easily rewatchable and wastes no time in moving along.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 2022 Posts: 2,048
    I've always loved QoS. Like CR, it has the exact same feel, which I Iove. I know the subsequent films had some of the biggest names in the business, but CR & QoS felt more satisfying. Even if it's just music, I would also say the absence of David Arnold somehow made the next 3 films, feel even more different from CR & QoS. I like the subsequent scores. But since they were linking the films, they needed Arnold's music to help make it feel that way completely.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Let me rephrase: when I watch QOS, I never want it to end. ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2022 Posts: 24,183
    I hated -- HATED! -- the much shorter running time of QOS in 2008. But I have since come to see it as a good thing, actually. The film is a brisk actioner that effectively manages to conceal its incomplete script by moving fast and keeping the finger on the pulse. I enjoy the film as a relatively short 'appendix' to CR, as a viewing session that doesn't necessitate clearing one's entire evening schedule. That can prove convenient from time to time. ;-) Having seen the film multiple times, I have also come to accept its relentless cutting between shots as an 'artistic choice' that gives QOS its enjoyable kinetic energy.

    Most of all, knowing that Craig and Forster pretty much had to carry this project through to the end all on their own, with strikes and whatnot dropping big boulders in the road, I respect QOS as a film that probably turned out way better than it could have been. People can complain about Craig's involvement in these productions all they want, he's probably a big reason why QOS got made in the first place. The story may be simpler, the film shorter, and the climax less spectacular, but given what little time and freedom they had, I'd say the crew pulled together a nice little film with a powerful final scene as icing on the cake.

    It's not a perfect film -- few Bonds are -- and something of an acquired taste to some (myself included), but it's an awesome film to come around to. It ends up giving a lot of interesting moments to Bond fans.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    Honestly, things like running time and writing and stuff like that, I don't really notice any of it in the theatre... I'm bad at movies I think. :)) I'm a simple man, I see Bond, I enjoy.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Yes, the fact that it had so many obstacles to butt up against during the entire shoot means it should be nowhere near as fantastic as it is. I'm all the more impressed by what Forster and co. managed to pull off as a result.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,033
    Agree with all of the above… while I wouldn’t want a longer runtime necessarily, I could see a benefit in adding just 3-5 mins of breathing room for establishing/location shots, a few longer action clips, etc. Still, this doesn’t change my opinion of QOS which flirts with my Top 5 on occasion.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    I think the current trend of inflated runtimes and indulgent storytelling (when in the wrong hands) has made QoS a more attractive option for many, including myself. There's no frills about it, despite its flaws.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited November 2022 Posts: 14,585
    The only thing that doesn't work for me is that flipping boat stunt. The physics are wrong. All I want is...closure.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    QBranch wrote: »
    The only thing that doesn't work for me is that flipping boat stunt. The physics are wrong. All I want is...closure.

    I've never given that bit a second thought until that huge debate happened on the forums a couple years back. Now it lingers in my brain (but still doesn't bother me) with each new viewing.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    317545288_481252164099766_7067528418669871995_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=NurdmMEQDFcAX8NXFr8&_nc_oc=AQkrjSrvaf0AL-VtI6kRdP31U6AOhvxOvGHHbmuw2r3rdG1Y7ByMTTQGxzb75nJOUiwyvEzPBU1z6ATbCiY5DQG6&tn=Bumhn9xLxbIfXrlq&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr4-1.fna&oh=00_AfDSvhkl34ghjI1Wob6m8twA6hIRqEkDcWBouQ4N7M7ZBg&oe=638B1585

    My friend just shipped me this. :)) See you never!
  • Posts: 12,473
    Oh god…. the memories
Sign In or Register to comment.