Is anybody else hoping to continue off of Quantum of Solace?

13»

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,719
    Since the time I saw how the filmmakers made Casino Royale with a female M (played by the same actress as the previous continuity), a black actor as Felix Leiter, a blond actor less than 6' tall as Bond, and no Q or Moneypenny at all I've been a lot more open to the possibilities.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,159
    If they got a good story reason for bringing back a previous Bond girl, then they shouldn't be restricted from giving it a shot. I'm just not sure Camille would be the most compelling one to return.

    Had Dalton continued with GE and did TND, having Kara come back in the role of Mrs Carver would have been interesting, providing her role was much bigger and crucial than Paris turned out to be.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's what became of Camille that could be compelling.
    Really?

    I couldn't give the slightest toss personally. Why are people always so sure that bringing previous Bond girls back is such a spectacular winning formula?

    Bond going off on to do a mission on his own, the GB at the start, some real stunts and no Scooby Gang or dredged up old flames - now that would be compelling.

    yep.

    Camille was pretty dull tbh
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I just liked Camille as a character - plus Olga in general. Because of her role it could make some sense to cross paths with Bond again, being in the intelligence business as well. It‘s no must-have but the continuity is one of the key elements of the Craig era and at least this would be believeable connection.

    Felix returing is a must though - they should not let this opportunity pass for Craig‘s last film.
  • Posts: 623
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´ll never get how one cannot understand what´s going on in QoS´ action scenes

    One example is the interrogation scene. Mr White says "we have people everywhere, isn't that right?" and then Mitchell shoots someone, more shots, M seems to be injured, you see her react to a shot, so she's shot.. I think... but you also see someone running away a split second later. Was that M? There's someone on the floor, is that M? hang on... horses!

    Watching it back on DVD you can see, if you study it carefully that there are a couple of milli-second shots of M (without showing her face) escaping, but on the first viewing in the cinema, I couldn't make head nor tale of it. I remember saying to someone "is M shot?" and they said "I don't know, I couldn't see what happened". And later in the same sequence, the scaffold fight is all over the place. There's people swinging and shooting and there's no way of knowing what's going on. The quick editing is supposed to tense up the scene, but in reality it actually makes it boring, because you can't see what's happening, so you stop caring and it all just washes over you.
  • Posts: 11,425
    the scene where M runs off is abysmally edited
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Quite right, @shamanimal. Any sense of choreography, which is vital in driving an engaging action scene, is shot to shit in QoS. The only one that works for me is the mayhem of the intro, beyond that it’s just ‘stuff happening’ and it really struggles to engage. It isn’t helped by the fact the staging and choreography in its predecesssor is first class.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 623
    Then the film really loses steam with the "someone's trying to kill you" bit, because the plot becomes so convoluted I hadn't got a Scooby what was going on. Who is the girl in the car? Bond's pretending to be the bloke he killed, I think, and he finds a gun, in the case in the car, and so she tries to shoot him, but he just gets out the car and she throws the gun down and drives off... eh? Does she want to shoot him or not? Then who's the black guy on the motorbike? He gets a kick in the face because ... erm ...



  • Posts: 1,548
    I want to see what happened to the receptionist at the hotel in Bolivia. It has spin off potential!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    the scene where M runs off is abysmally edited
    Agreed. Pathetic. To this day it looks to me like she got shot at one point.
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Then the film really loses steam with the "someone's trying to kill you" bit, because the plot becomes so convoluted I hadn't got a Scooby what was going on. Who is the girl in the car? Bond's pretending to be the bloke he killed, I think, and he finds a gun, in the case in the car, and so she tries to shoot him, but he just gets out the car and she throws the gun down and drives off... eh? Does she want to shoot him or not? Then who's the black guy on the motorbike? He gets a kick in the face because ... erm ...
    Haha. I remember viewing that whole sequence in the theatre the first time. Honestly all I could think of was WTF are these people (meaning the film makers) doing here? Have they completely lost it?

    Of course it's infinitely more clear on subsequent viewings, but that's something only us hardcore have time for. Most of the general audience probably walked out of there without any interest in revisiting the film again. That's why it blasted out of the blocks very strongly (as sequel to the much loved CR) and then declined precipitously in most markets.
  • Posts: 9,841
    Yes and no I feel Spectre was annoying and it was a missed opportunity to give Craig his own organization but oh well

    I don’t like retcons too much
  • Posts: 623
    Getafix wrote: »
    Of course it's infinitely more clear on subsequent viewings, but that's something only us hardcore have time for. Most of the general audience probably walked out of there without any interest in revisiting the film again. That's why it blasted out of the blocks very strongly (as sequel to the much loved CR) and then declined precipitously in most markets.

    I think QoS is so highly regarded on here because it is a film that's very easy to watch on repeat viewings. It's a long film compressed into 90 mins (or whatever it was).
    Another editing clusterfuck is the scene at Mathis' Villa going into the bar scene. It's her face, for no reason, then a second of Bond drinking, then we're on to the next scene. It's clumsy to the point of it feeling like something's been spliced out by the projectionist earlier in the day.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    The editing is a nightmare and a waste of excellent material. The action scenes as well as many breathtaking images of all those locations were done extremely well - you can glimpse but never really appreciate it. That‘s my only complaint about the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    The editing is a nightmare and a waste of excellent material. The action scenes as well as many breathtaking images of all those locations were done extremely well - you can glimpse but never really appreciate it. That‘s my only complaint about the film.
    Very true. It's terribly frustrating. Almost like observing a beautiful vista through a keyhole or with out of focus lenses. So close and yet so far.
  • Posts: 15,060
    bondjames wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    The editing is a nightmare and a waste of excellent material. The action scenes as well as many breathtaking images of all those locations were done extremely well - you can glimpse but never really appreciate it. That‘s my only complaint about the film.
    Very true. It's terribly frustrating. Almost like observing a beautiful vista through a keyhole or with out of focus lenses. So close and yet so far.

    QOS could have been one of the most beautiful looking Bond movies.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    shamanimal wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´ll never get how one cannot understand what´s going on in QoS´ action scenes

    One example is the interrogation scene. Mr White says "we have people everywhere, isn't that right?" and then Mitchell shoots someone, more shots, M seems to be injured, you see her react to a shot, so she's shot.. I think... but you also see someone running away a split second later. Was that M? There's someone on the floor, is that M? hang on... horses!

    Watching it back on DVD you can see, if you study it carefully that there are a couple of milli-second shots of M (without showing her face) escaping, but on the first viewing in the cinema, I couldn't make head nor tale of it. I remember saying to someone "is M shot?" and they said "I don't know, I couldn't see what happened". And later in the same sequence, the scaffold fight is all over the place. There's people swinging and shooting and there's no way of knowing what's going on. The quick editing is supposed to tense up the scene, but in reality it actually makes it boring, because you can't see what's happening, so you stop caring and it all just washes over you.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Quite right, @shamanimal. Any sense of choreography, which is vital in driving an engaging action scene, is shot to shit in QoS. The only one that works for me is the mayhem of the intro, beyond that it’s just ‘stuff happening’ and it really struggles to engage. It isn’t helped by the fact the staging and choreography in its predecesssor is first class.
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Then the film really loses steam with the "someone's trying to kill you" bit, because the plot becomes so convoluted I hadn't got a Scooby what was going on. Who is the girl in the car? Bond's pretending to be the bloke he killed, I think, and he finds a gun, in the case in the car, and so she tries to shoot him, but he just gets out the car and she throws the gun down and drives off... eh? Does she want to shoot him or not? Then who's the black guy on the motorbike? He gets a kick in the face because ... erm ...
    Excellent posts chaps and ones that might quieten down the ‘QOS is actually a classic and waay better than CR and SF’ mafia that seem to be constantly harping on about its greatness in recent years.

    It was a total mess at the time and features some disgraceful visual story telling. The only reason it might have clawed back some credibility is because of how much of a shambles SP is, although at least you can tell what’s going on there. With SP it’s more of a case of wishing you couldn’t see what unfolding before your eyes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,159
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Then the film really loses steam with the "someone's trying to kill you" bit, because the plot becomes so convoluted I hadn't got a Scooby what was going on. Who is the girl in the car? Bond's pretending to be the bloke he killed, I think, and he finds a gun, in the case in the car, and so she tries to shoot him, but he just gets out the car and she throws the gun down and drives off... eh? Does she want to shoot him or not? Then who's the black guy on the motorbike? He gets a kick in the face because ... erm ...

    It didn't help that prior to all that we got a very rushed exposition scene that included fast touchscreen computer visuals that basically turned the scene into audio/visual sensory overload. Tracking money. Someone at a hotel. Bond suddenly at the hotel, kills that someone. Now there's Camille, and some hit job. All within two to three minutes. There's no time to let the story/plot breathe, we're just being plunged into this like a bullet. I know Forster wanted the movie to have a pace of a bullet, but he didn't have to be so literal about it.
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I think QoS is so highly regarded on here because it is a film that's very easy to watch on repeat viewings.

    I feel it's more well regarded here because it is so maligned everywhere else. Here is where its fans can champion it together. I've seen this a decade ago when it was fresh and new. I REALLY wanted to like this one so much, but over the years it just went down my rankings. No where near the bottom, but certainly among the lower middle tier Bond installments.

    That also explains the backlash against SPECTRE because it essentially marginalized the Quantum organization into a branch (or tentacle). Yet truthfully, they're both similar enough where the only difference lies in its name, and that's just because of how QOS gave away so little.

    Also, some have noted CR and QOS having the same tone and wanting that continued. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the two are same in tone. One of the things I dislike about QOS is that despite being a direct sequel in concept it doesn't feel of the same piece as its predecessor. CR feels very lush and Bondian with a definite sense of humor. QOS is just dirty, dour and fast paced to the point it feels less like a Bond film and more like some cheap generic Gerard Butler action flick.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T.
    Posts: 7,016
    It really bugged me that the filmmakers ultimately chose "Quantum" as the name of the organization, even if it's barely mentioned. It fudges with the actual title of the film, which might as well be interpreted as "Terrorist Organization of Comfort". I would have let them remain unnamed like in CR just to keep some air of mystery (and in retrospect they'd later be revealed as SPECTRE anyway).

    It bugs me as much as the knowledge that a mere typo changed TOMORROW NEVER LIES to TOMORROW NEVER DIES, and the producers decided to go with the typo anyway because it "sounded more Bondian", even though it's nonsensical in relation to the story.
    I agree with all this.

    I think if they wanted the QoS title to have meaning in the film, it would've been better if a character had quoted it.

    Also, "Terrorist Organization of Comfort" :))
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,120
    Seconded.
    Fleming managed to give the title a meaning and in fact, QOS has a few scenes that could have directly used his line from the short story. Quantum is after a large quantity of water or money. I guess. But that would be like calling your organisation "Plenty" or "Much" or "More". Green Planet made sense, stick with it. And use a quantum of solace in a more dramatic sense.
  • Posts: 16,131
    It's what became of Camille that could be compelling.
    Really?

    I couldn't give the slightest toss personally. Why are people always so sure that bringing previous Bond girls back is such a spectacular winning formula?

    Bond going off on to do a mission on his own, the GB at the start, some real stunts and no Scooby Gang or dredged up old flames - now that would be compelling.

    That's probably why I tend to pop in the pre Craig films (and really the pre-Brosnan films) the most.
    As M says in OP: "Remember, 007. You're on your own".
    It speaks volumes as the head of MI6 has complete confidence in his best agent.
    No training wheels or earpieces necessary.

    I'm baffled as to why there is such a desire on here to see previous Bond girls return.

    I'm glad Wai-Lin never reappeared in DAD. I don't think she could have improved that film by a mere cameo.
    I like Camille as much as the next Bond fan, but have no interest whatsoever in her returning. Same with Madeleine Swann.
    My enjoyment of GOLDFINGER has never been affected because Tatiana isn't in it.




  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    The only time I feel that a Bond girl returning wouldn't have felt out of place is if Eva Green filmed a cameo for QOS. That video message idea intrigued me.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Remington wrote: »
    The only time I feel that a Bond girl returning wouldn't have felt out of place is if Eva Green filmed a cameo for QOS. That video message idea intrigued me.

    The original script has her resprise her role for nightmares during bonds sleep. She signed on for a two film contract.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 12,837
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Yes and no I feel Spectre was annoying and it was a missed opportunity to give Craig his own organization but oh well

    I don’t like retcons too much

    The Spectre retcon wouldn't have even been a retcon if they'd had the balls to commit to the title. They decided on the title only a couple of days before they announced the film, after the script was already completed, so I'm assuming originally the organisation would have stayed nameless since it's revealed in such a last minute way in the film.

    I hate how the organisation was called Quantum to be honest. I never liked the title anyway and that just made it even worse imo, because they bottled it after the backlash ("it's about Bond finding closure (but also it's the name of the organisation for some reason)", tried to give it a more tangible meaning with the organisation but instead just confused things even more. And I'm not sure if they were working on getting the rights back at that time (Mcclory had died recently so I'm sure it would have been in the back of their minds to be fair), but if they'd kept it nameless then SP would have been a big reveal instead of a retcon.

    I think the retcon works though. In the books SPECTRE was made up of members from different crime syndicates. So it makes sense that they'd have a couple of Quantum's guys on the payroll. Obviously this didn't occur to Purvis and Wade though who said Quantum was the UK branch of Spectre or something? The same Quantum we meet French and Danish members of who make deals with the American CIA? As much as I like Spectre I do often think when I defend it that I'm reading into stuff that wasn't actually there. I make it work in my head but I don't think half of the explanations and justifications for the sloppy writing that I come up with were intentional by the writers.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Remington wrote: »
    The only time I feel that a Bond girl returning wouldn't have felt out of place is if Eva Green filmed a cameo for QOS. That video message idea intrigued me.

    The original script has her resprise her role for nightmares during bonds sleep. She signed on for a two film contract.

    If done right, that might have worked.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,159
    I think the retcon works though. In the books SPECTRE was made up of members from different crime syndicates. So it makes sense that they'd have a couple of Quantum's guys on the payroll. Obviously this didn't occur to Purvis and Wade though who said Quantum was the UK branch of Spectre or something? The same Quantum we meet French and Danish members of who make deals with the American CIA? As much as I like Spectre I do often think when I defend it that I'm reading into stuff that wasn't actually there. I make it work in my head but I don't think half of the explanations and justifications for the sloppy writing that I come up with were intentional by the writers.

    IIRC in an interview Purvis & Wade explained that "Quantum" was basically the South American branch for SPECTRE. When you look at it that way, that pretty much confines them to that one film, whereas with CR having a nameless organization could easily just be plain SPECTRE.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I just ignore SP when watching CR and QOS. It's all Quantum in my eyes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,159
    Ultimately though, what is the difference? I'm trying to understand why certain fans are upset that "Quantum" was changed to "Spectre". Looking at them separately, they're both apolitical terrorist organizations trying to seize control of the world through treacherous means. Had QOS not even name dropped "Quantum" there would be no need for a "retcon". I really don't see much of a difference between the two, and we all knew back in 2008 they were just being used a stand in for SPECTRE because EON didn't have the rights.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Remington wrote: »
    The only time I feel that a Bond girl returning wouldn't have felt out of place is if Eva Green filmed a cameo for QOS. That video message idea intrigued me.

    The original script has her resprise her role for nightmares during bonds sleep. She signed on for a two film contract.

    What? I've never heard about this!
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    @PropertyOfALady Yeah I read it in the James Bond Archives. Apparently the plan was that it was very much going to be part 1 and part 2, with part 2 being released in 2007. In this part 2, vesper would return in dreams of bond. However this plan fell through and the film was pushed back to 2008 and then they decided it wasn’t going to be part 2 but it still was going to be a sequal, and then the writers strike
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,231
    Perhaps Bond 25 will be a chamber play in the spirit of Pride & Prejudice.

    Ex-Mrs. White: this time it's really personal.

    Call it The Property of A Lady.
Sign In or Register to comment.