redacted

13468914

Comments

  • Walecs wrote: »
    @ThighsOfXenia I used to be a QoS hater too, actually. QOS was very low in my ranking, until I watched it again while waiting for SPECTRE, and for some reason I loved it so much it now sits at number #3.

    Was it the "paced like a bullet" aspect that most people seem to love?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »

    It's funny, I know Birdleson and myself wanted a Bond somewhat similar to what we got. People say, "be careful what you wish for," or "you just can't please those sorts of people" but I disagree. We didn't get what we wanted. We wanted an old school Bond film, a classic Bond film with classic Bond elements, but executed with inspiration, vibrancy, and energy.
    That's it.
    Yes, this is the key point imho. One can feel it when there is a lack of interest. It's subtle but one can pick up on it. A lack of visible passion in a way.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    Walecs wrote: »
    @ThighsOfXenia I used to be a QoS hater too, actually. QOS was very low in my ranking, until I watched it again while waiting for SPECTRE, and for some reason I loved it so much it now sits at number #3.

    Was it the "paced like a bullet" aspect that most people seem to love?

    QoS drags to me. I'm not saying this to be contrarian, but it is genuinely the only one of the four that did so for me. I watch the new releases three times on the first day and by the evening showing of QoS I was struggling. That never happened with any of the others. There's a difference between streamlining and something being too thin, QoS is the latter for me, on every level.
  • @RC7 Yeah it is for me too, as of now. I rank it very low. Bottom 3. I'm looking forward to a rewatch though.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    QOS is better than SPECTRE, QOS has grown in stature of the years for me I still put SF and CR over it but it's got the best score of the Craig era.

    I'll just about give Newman the benefit of the doubt on his SF score but his SP one is utterly lazy and generic.

    QOS has a cracking start and it's climax in the desert is certainly superior to the wet fish sequences from SPECTRE but SF & CR have still the best endings of the era for me.

    Whereas I see me still appreciating QOS in years to come, SPECTRE is always going to a big fail for me, I might make my piece with it eventually but seeing it lacks any tension I wouldn't bank on it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,139
    Walecs wrote: »
    @ThighsOfXenia I used to be a QoS hater too, actually. QOS was very low in my ranking, until I watched it again while waiting for SPECTRE, and for some reason I loved it so much it now sits at number #3.

    Wow that is a seriously significant jump!

    I love QoS and think it would have been phenomenal had the editing been better. There are some really great moments in this film that outweigh the bad and maintain the character trajectory that Craig started off with in CR. All scenes with Mathis are great, the opening car chase, Tosca, Bond vs Slate, Bond in pursuit of Mitchel, Mr. White interrogation, Bond confronting Yusef, Bond escaping the MI6 agents' custody, Bond Vs Greene in tge burning building, Bond leaving Greene in the desert and Arnold's score.

    QoS is shamefully underrated and is a movie that doesn't f*** about. It gets straight down to business.
  • Posts: 4,325
    This is how I rank the DC Bonds

    1. Casino Royale
    2. Skyfall
    3. Spectre
    4. Quantum of Solace
  • God, it has been awhile I almost forgot about Mathis. I think Craig's performance is pretty one-dimensional here (constantly teetering somewhere back and forth between rage and grief) but he is really good at it. Better than he is in SP, but not quite as good as he was in the other two I don't think. That said, I still think he was great, just a bit one-note (which was what the script called for in his defense).
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    The supporting cast in Skyfall is so much better (especially the villain), as is the theme song and the cutting of the action scenes.
  • People really must stop saying 'if QoS's action scenes were edited better' or 'if you forget about the action scenes in QoS' or anything like that. The action scenes in QoS are the action scenes in QoS. You cannot just 'disregard' them. They make up a part of QoS's identity, and to judge a film you must judge it in its entirety, not by pretending its negatives do not exist.

    And on this basis, QoS is thoroughly average. It really is true that the action scenes are painful. The first time I saw it, it was so painful I gave up watching at the half-way point. (at about the freefall sequence). I literally couldn't watch anymore. My opinion has improved of course, and in the wake of SF (which is a dull film) I can appreciate the frenetic nature of those scenes - but only to a point, because there are too many of them, and they are cut so badly...

    Don't forget that the writing in QoS is lazy as well, which renders the story almost as weak as the action. Action happens for no reason (Slate knife fight - Bond goes into apartment room, fights Slate, then leaves apartment room, literally nothing happens) and does not advance the plot. The quiet scenes are too short, the film has no time to breathe, and the film tries to take on multiple arcs and plotlines (Bond interrogating White, Bond investigating Quantum, Quantum trying to take over Bolivia's water and launch a coup, Camille wanting revenge, Bond wanting revenge, M distrusting Bond) - so much so that it falls beneath its weight and seems to end with loose ends and without closure.

    QoS has strengths, of course - that goes without saying. But its faults are fatal.

    As far as I'm concerned, the main thing QoS has over SF is that it feels more like a Bond film. Some people would say I'm crazy there, but it is true. SF doesn't even have a Bond girl, for crying out loud! And at least QoS did not aggressively probe into Bond's character in the way SF did.

    SF's faults have been discussed at length, and of course, it is far from the perfect film. It is N14 on my list (QOS is 21). But I would agree that neither is classic Bond, nor the best of the Craig era. In fact, the Craig era is, in my opinion, more or less a repeat of Brosnan's era, except slightly better overall (one good film followed by three bad or decent films).
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    People really must stop saying 'if QoS's action scenes were edited better' or 'if you forget about the action scenes in QoS' or anything like that. The action scenes in QoS are the action scenes in QoS. You cannot just 'disregard' them. They make up a part of QoS's identity, and to judge a film you must judge it in its entirety, not by pretending its negatives do not exist.

    And on this basis, QoS is thoroughly average. It really is true that the action scenes are painful. The first time I saw it, it was so painful I gave up watching at the half-way point. (at about the freefall sequence). I literally couldn't watch anymore. My opinion has improved of course, and in the wake of SF (which is a dull film) I can appreciate the frenetic nature of those scenes - but only to a point, because there are too many of them, and they are cut so badly...

    Don't forget that the writing in QoS is lazy as well, which renders the story almost as weak as the action. Action happens for no reason (Slate knife fight - Bond goes into apartment room, fights Slate, then leaves apartment room, literally nothing happens) and does not advance the plot. The quiet scenes are too short, the film has no time to breathe, and the film tries to take on multiple arcs and plotlines (Bond interrogating White, Bond investigating Quantum, Quantum trying to take over Bolivia's water and launch a coup, Camille wanting revenge, Bond wanting revenge, M distrusting Bond) - so much so that it falls beneath its weight and seems to end with loose ends and without closure.

    QoS has strengths, of course - that goes without saying. But its faults are fatal.

    As far as I'm concerned, the main thing QoS has over SF is that it feels more like a Bond film. Some people would say I'm crazy there, but it is true. SF doesn't even have a Bond girl, for crying out loud! And at least QoS did not aggressively probe into Bond's character in the way SF did.

    SF's faults have been discussed at length, and of course, it is far from the perfect film. It is N14 on my list (QOS is 21). But I would agree that neither is classic Bond, nor the best of the Craig era. In fact, the Craig era is, in my opinion, more or less a repeat of Brosnan's era, except slightly better overall (one good film followed by three bad or decent films).

    You're absolutely spot on regard QoS. No time to breath, action for the sake of action, multiple flaccid subplots... for me it's easily the weakest of the four. Nothing drives anything else, it's a series of linear movements and coincidences that move the film forward. I can enjoy it for what it is, but the 'if only' excuses are wearing a little thin. The whole writers strike production subplot is massively exaggerated and not a get out of jail free card.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP is that the latter seems to do everything it sets out to do poorly, in my view at least.

    It has a big budget with large action set pieces, and the action itself is uninspiring, boring as hell (for me) and insipid. Even the vaunted opening sequence is lauded for the tracking shot and not the fight. Some of the fights can put you to sleep (Bond thrashing the goons in and outside the clinic and in front of the Mi6 building after breaking the restraints for instance).

    It proclaims (via the sap title song) a great love story, and we are subjected to something that comes out of nowhere and has no resonance (again for me). It seems inauthentic and contrived, especially compared to what came just a few films before. The sudden passion on the train comes out of nowhere, as does the proclamation of sudden love and the desire to suddenly leave.

    We have this big buildup since they finally have the rights back to Bond's Moriarty, and what do we get? A retconned solution with a family flavour to create the necessary menace - and despite the incredulity of it, we're supposed to buy it. Nobody seemed to consider that the previous films resonated (2 of them in particular) perfectly as is, and if they were going to retconn, then at least they should ensure that the final product in which such after the fact suspension of disbelief is required was up to snuff.

    Criticisms were leveled at QoS in particular due to suddenly exploding lairs, poor character development, and poorly connected plot threads. So what do they do? They show us that they haven't learnt a thing. Rubbing salt in the wounds.

    People commented last time that the highlight girl of the film (Marlohe) had too short a screen time. So what do they do this time? Cut the highly touted (correctly so in my view) Bellucci's screen time to even less.

    People complained in the past that 'rogue' was done to death. So what do they do? Give us more 'rogue'.

    Everyone spoke so highly about SF's cinematography and vibrant colours the last time. So what do they do? Strip SP of absolutely any life by bathing the film in the colour of you know what.

    People were so excited by Waltz's casting. How can they go wrong with him? Well......

    What is entirely frustrating is all of these things could have been fixed, even with a weak script. None of them were necessary. If these things had been addressed, then like SF, SP would have resonated with many more, despite the script flaws. That is fundamentally a directorial problem in my view. That is Mendes' fault.

    At the end of the day, it's all fine and good to have all these underlying complex themes and what not to impress people who look for those things (death, mouses, eyes, whatever).

    Some of us just want a seat of your pants exciting, Bond film, where everyone in it seems to care. Whatever one may think of it, QoS delivers completely on this front.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
    You've made your point. There are several threads here that veer off course and you're fully aware of it and have contributed to that, as we all have. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll be more pedantic next time.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
    You've made your point. There are several threads here that veer off course and you're fully aware of it and have contributed to that, as we all have. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll be more pedantic next time.

    I'm just teasing you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
    You've made your point. There are several threads here that veer off course and you're fully aware of it and have contributed to that, as we all have. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll be more pedantic next time.

    I'm just teasing you.
    Likewise.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
    You've made your point. There are several threads here that veer off course and you're fully aware of it and have contributed to that, as we all have. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll be more pedantic next time.

    I'm just teasing you.
    Likewise.

    Thankfully Gustav Graves isn't on the thread. His definition of teasing is quite different, iirc.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My fundamental issue with QoS vs. SP

    The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
    Fine, but the discussion I read above was on QoS vs SP which is the more relevant conversation to me, because they are my #3 and #4 from the Craig era. I think SF vs SP and QoS vs SF is less controversial

    It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
    Understandable in my view. Some were blithering on about SF until just before SP's release. I think we all know who we are. We've only just had the blu ray release of SP so it's quite understandable that such conversation will continue for some time to come. Let's get a Bond film release more frequently and then perhaps we all won't have to endure different views about films we like. The last one always takes the hit until something new comes along.

    I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
    You've made your point. There are several threads here that veer off course and you're fully aware of it and have contributed to that, as we all have. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll be more pedantic next time.

    I'm just teasing you.
    Likewise.

    Thankfully Gustav Graves isn't on the thread. His definition of teasing is quite different, iirc.
    I already received the brunt of that some time back. It wasn't pretty.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 4,617
    I think with QoS , fans are desperate to like it as there is much good will with DC at that point plus some do like that style of editing, camera work etc. And it is very tempting to over look its faults (we all know they are there) and focus on the good stuff. But you have to judge any film on the overall experience rather than the quality of some elements. I have seen it many times and I really do want to like it and some parts are OK. But as an overall story (that is what movies are, 2 hour (ish) stories), it is just a mess and, for me, no amount of re-appraisal will change that (sadly).
    Mark Twain used the phrase "a good story, well told". I don't think QoS is either. And I think SF is both
  • Maybe I'll go through all 4 of Craig's films again sometime next week, although my (very) recent rewatch of Skyfall means maybe I'll skip that.. Dunno.

    Would be interesting to watch them out of order actually, because SF's themes work better if SP comes before it (but the damned ending would really mess up that viewing order).

    CR - QOS - SP not bad. Or even CR - SP could work (because I don't think QoS even needs exist, frankly, as I've always interpreted "The name's Bond... James Bond" at the end of CR as Campbell and company's way of saying, "now he has become the Bond we all know and love." Hell, it's even the first time we hear the proper Bond theme in the entire film, which I don't think is a coincidence).

    That's one of my gripes with QoS - if we treat this Craig era as existing in a vacuum (which I resisted until blasted SP confirmed that it is an entirely different storyline) - it literally does not need to exist. The end of CR clearly says that "now hehas become Bond" but then QoS says "wait not really!" but doesn't really add anything interesting to the character that the final 20 minutes of CR didn't handle. Even the final 5 minutes of CR see Craig getting his revenge more or less.

    I dunno, it just doesn't seem like it needs to exist, especially because it's the one pure sequel in the franchise.
  • I really like Quantum of Solace; for all the script problems, it hangs together nicely and I thought that Skyfall betrayed the characterisation in QoS, where Bond grows to accept that revenge is a waste of time and he returns to his professional duty. SF presents Bond as being unprofessional. Sure, Bond can push the boundaries but it has to be believable that MI6 wouldn't get rid of him for being a liability. Also, QoS actually had some genuine emotion and characterisation whereas SF twisted it so that it became a metaphor for the series and playing up to sentimental patriotism with the Olympics.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Just finished watching QOS and this thread pops up :))

    QOS is so much better than SF.

    QOS is fast-paced, SF is a sleeping pill

    QOS is action-packed from start to finish, SF has (besides the PTS) one strange choreographed dance in a skyscraper with a villain and the fabulous shoot out at the end.

    QOS has a Bond girl named Camille, SF has a Bond girl named M which incidentally is also Bond's "mother".

    QOS has a villain that deserves the term. SF has an Austin Powers-esque clown.

    QOS has a Bond score, SF has for the most part "any" score.

    Even so, SF has a very good PTS, QOS has a PTS that is a disgrace to the franchise.
    SF has a good Bond theme song and a great title sequence, QOS has not.
    SF has Ralph Fiennes, Moneypenny and Q. QOS has not.

    QOS-SF
    75-25 scoring
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I wouldn't call QoS' PTS a disgrace to the series in fact I rate it as one of the best but other than that I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I've gone from hating the car chase in QOS, to loving it. :)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I've gone from hating the car chase in QOS, to loving it. :)

    Do you watch it in slow motion to recognise anything?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I wouldn't call QoS' PTS a disgrace to the series in fact I rate it as one of the best but other than that I pretty much agree with everything else you said.

    Agreed. The QoS PTS is superb.
Sign In or Register to comment.