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
A headache vs a snorefest
Actually, I don't think of either as negatively, but SF is a clear winner. Every action scene in QOS is way too hard to comprehend and there are too many of them. We had editing issues in earlier films, like TB and OHMSS but those films realised that jump cuts were only to be used in close quarters physical fights. OHMSS ski chase and TB underwater scenes are not flash cut for example. Every action scene in QOS could plausibly induce epilepsy.
At least QOS doesn't have a snorefest finale, eerie my foot it's generic suspenseless guff.
Hmm,.. is there any category where QoS beats Skyfall. I don't think so..
@Thunderfinger, which one? The one in the stripper outfit, the "get in!" girl, the Canadian secret service girl...? :p
A good action scene is appreciable immediately.
- A better portrayal from Daniel Craig
- A much better villain
- A more Bond-like feel as opposed to half-Bond, half-Bourne
- Superior editing
- Superior cinematography
- A better story
- A better theme song
- A plot that feels connected
Skyfall wins hands-down. QoS should be compared with SP, a match-up that as of now, I'm unsure of the victor.
Agreed. Except for the first point about Craig, that may be contentious. And SP is not as good as SF but it is far better than the headache that is QOS I mean come on.
And he's comparing it directly to QOS. :-?
I am not a big fan of both films. I dislike the bad scripts and the unintersting characters in both films. I also dislike the many plot holes and inconsistencies in Skyfall but I appreciate its more melancholic approach and its great cinematography. QoS, however, always felt like a Bourne film to me. It is just a typical action movie. The story is uninteresting, the locations are uninteresting, the characters are uninteresting, there are no twists or any surprises. There is neither any suspense nor irony or humeur.
Hence I like Skyfall more than QoS.
IMO QOS is more 'grown up' than SF, but that's just me. I'd say SF is the most intelligent/ smart film due to its themes, but QOS is the one for grown ups, if that make sense.
I'll give it to SF.
The production values alone on the Craig films make them superior to the nadir represented by the dreary run of films between 95-2002.
Tonally though, and in the sense that Mendes returned to a greatest hits self-referential approach, there are similarities between the Brosnan films and Craigs third and fourth films.
At least those films had plots, and didn't presume to be anything more than escapist entertainment.
True. The Brosnan films did have internally coherent plots, as opposed to SF, which is mainly thematically driven. But that on its own doesn't make the Brosnan films any good.
May be one day we'll get a Bond film that has a great plot, writing, acting and production values. That would be a novelty!
When I go back and watch GE, TND, even DAD, there is a certain earnestness to them. They are just trying to entertain. Whether they are always successful or not is debatable, but the intent is there and it shows. Neither QoS or SF even make the effort in this regard.
Keep calm and go rogue!