Summary of Concerns

Strangeways

Well, only two weeks to go and I just thought we could start to list what concerns we have about QOS. I sooooooo want this film to be better that CR, better received by the critics, better loved by the fans (and non fans) and better at the box office. I do still have concerns though, all of which will be answered by this time next week.

1. Gunbarrel. Traditional one please!
2. Running time. Although GF was under 2 hours, will this work in the 21st century? Most blockbusters are over the 2 hour mark these days.
3. Script changes. TND was plagued by script changes, let's hope this time they are for the better.
4. Direction. I am not familiar with Marc Foster's work, but I hope that QOS does not head too far down the Bourne path.
5. Music. Will we ever hear a true rendition of the James Bond Theme again I wonder?
6. Pre-titles sequence. For a film under 2 hours, the PTS should be no longer than 10 mins at the absolute maximum. Agreed?
7. Titles sequence. Having seen the Coke advert, how will this work I wonder?

As I have said, I am totally committed to wanting to love QOS as I have CR. However, as someone else said on this forum hope for the best, expect the worst. I just hope that we do get at the very least a great Bond film, and not a Christmas Turkey!

{[]

Fitzochris

Points one and five I'm definitely on board with.

Monsieur Scaramanga

Hello All,

New poster here so forgive me if this has already been said but I'd like to add a couple more concerns to the list if I may.

1. I understand that in QOS at no stage does Daniel say Bond, James Bond.
2. He doesn't drink Vodka Martini shaken not stirred.
3. And there is still no sign of Q branch.

Has anyone else heard this?

However, I was sceptical about CR and it's turned into one of my favourite Bond films. I really want to love QOS so going to give it the benefit of the doubt.

A7ce

Monsieur Scaramanga wrote:

Hello All,

New poster here so forgive me if this has already been said but I'd like to add a couple more concerns to the list if I may.

1. I understand that in QOS at no stage does Daniel say Bond, James Bond.
2. He doesn't drink Vodka Martini shaken not stirred.
3. And there is still no sign of Q branch.

Has anyone else heard this?

However, I was sceptical about CR and it's turned into one of my favourite Bond films. I really want to love QOS so going to give it the benefit of the doubt.

You are correct

A7ce

'Summary of Concerns ' - That would have been a good title for this Bond Film

Napoleon Plural

As someone who didn't like CR too much, I have nothing to lose with this film, unlike other fans.

I'm not sure the Bond theme really fits with Daniel Craig. The swagger of it belonged to the Connery era but sort of worked for other incarnations, though not Dalton. This is no insult to Craig, but he's more Fleming's Bond, more an anti-hero than hero in this context. Albeit anti-hero like Bogart, McQueen and Sinatra, I was going to start a thread on this actually.

As I wasn 't convinced by the Vesper thing, I'm not sure that a whole movie with Bond chasing revenge is going to work, though it could. I'd like Bond to find out something more about Vesper that makes him realise he never actually knew her.

I'm interested in what the villain brings to the bag. And also how it follows on from CR. I mean, if it's only 10 mins after how come Bond will be shagging his way thru a slew of leading ladies just shortly after grieving? Unless it's a Peaches style solution... (F... the pain away).

Fitzochris

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I'm not sure the Bond theme really fits with Daniel Craig.

An opinion, but not one I agree with at all. The Bond theme is for the character of James Bond, not the actor that plays him.

Napoleon Plural

Well alright, I mean Craig's Bond.

Lexi

The only thing that concerns me is the running time.

I would have loved to see this past the 2 hour mark, purely to have my desires of the title...A Quantum of Solace...played and told properly. Vesper's betrayal...and subsequently Bond's vengeance..needs to have room to breathe, and I really hope, even in this short running time, it can be achieved.

Seahawk

To give but two examples "Casablanca" (running time 102 mins) & "The Third Man" (running time 104 mins) both illustrate that a satisfying film can be of shorter duration than a football match (inc half time) I take the point that most modern blockbusters go over the two hour mark, however most modern blockbusters also favour presentation over content which is what many of us dislike about contemporary cinema.
Cubby Broccoli believed that the best Bond films were of less than two hours duration.
He was prone on occasion to making statements which were more persuasive than accurate & it is very easy to think of at least two exceptions to this rule. That having been said, I think we can safely assume that QoS, unlike many films, will not contain any extraneous padding inserted simply to increase the running time.

Napoleon Plural

Of course, the film needs less exposition than any of the others, being a bit of a sequel. I'm not really worried about it, to be honest.

SeanConnery007

I'm a little concerned about QofS being simply an hour and a half of the 'action packed nonsense' that they just didn't include in CR.
With the two films being 'connected', it could turn out that CR was the 'A' movie and QofS is just the remaining 'B' movie.

frostbitten

I am a little concerned with all the reports so far pointing to QoS being more action-packed than CR. IMO, CR worked because it balances its hyper-kinetic action scenes well with suspenseful casino scenes, and scenes that showcase the new writing talent of Mr. Haggis (oh why didn't the producers bring him on board sooner?) I like the thrilling chase on foot at the beginning of CR very much, but wouldn't want to sit through 2 hours of wall-to-wall action, no matter how high the quality of the action is. Hopefully, QoS will still feature an interesting plot (more than just a straight revenge yarn), and deep characterizations along with the well-hyped action.

Loeffelholz

So QoS has gotten its own Contrarian's Playground, after all B-)

I wish the film ran 120 minutes, mostly because I want as much Bond as possible (a film every two or three years isn't enough!), but the idea of a lean and mean action thriller appeals to me, and I appreciate the way in which Eon is moving from the longest film of the franchise to the shortest---and from the shortest PTS since FRWL to perhaps the longest ever! Unpredictability is a novel thing in a 46 year-old franchise :007)

The gunbarrel will be there, the consequences of the script's travails can't be evaluated until we've seen the picture, Forster's a very talented director, I predict the score will be chock-full of the Bond theme, and I welcome the return of the dancing nudies to the titles :x

I can't imagine why anyone would expect a Marc Forster film to lack story or characterization (his forte, IMO), no matter how much action there is. Now, if Michael Bay were directing...

Perhaps my biggest concern with QoS has nothing to do with the film itself...but rather the looming probability of the same old Craig Wars^TM-style polarity amongst fandom, which can be a bit boorish in its most undisguised form, expecially inasmuch as the actual reviews tend to be rather predictable. But nothing can be done to change that, so I won't sweat it.

In summary, I have questions...but no true concerns! :007)

Napoleon Plural

I wouldn't mind the return of the dancing nudes. But I've heard that Babs Broccoli has put her oar in, so we have to watch writhing blokes with their kit off over the credits. It's all about pandering to the female audience these days.

These are troubling times...

frostbitten

Loeffelholz wrote:

I can't imagine why anyone would expect a Marc Forster film to lack story or characterization (his forte, IMO), no matter how much action there is. Now, if Michael Bay were directing...

I don't expect the film to lack story or characterization. All I'm saying is that the advance reports point to QoS having even more action than CR (Craig himself said so), and since QoS is quite a bit shorter than CR in length, I'm just wondering if there is enough time to develop a reasonably complex plot, or to delve into the new characters (like Camille or Greene) fully. However, Haggis is very talented, and so is Forster, so maybe they can achieve the perfect balance in 106 minutes. We'll see.

BTW, my review of CR was probably not predictable. I gave it a very favourable 6 out of 7 (I used a 7 scale in honour of 007)

Loeffelholz

I think the key factor is that QoS won't have the protracted Act 2 of CR, which featured the famous card game, but I wouldn't be too concerned that this means that the new film won't take time to breathe. Economy of time doesn't necessarily equate with economy of quality.

More action than CR...maybe, maybe not, regardless of what's been said. A long action-packed PTS will certainly add to the illusion of more action. The exact same amount of action as CR will seem like more in a 105-minute picture.

I foresee a picture with a great deal of forward momentum, with breaks in-between the set pieces where character and story exposition are given their due. Like I said, this isn't Michael Bay, and the scalpel isn't being held by a ham-sized fist.

Sweepy the Cat

In the newest issue of Top Gear magazine according to the article, the 6 minutes pre-titles is the car chase (starting straight off from the lake at the end of Casino Royale), and the interrogation with Mr White is after the title sequence.

Personally, I think this is great news. Opinions?

spectre7

Yes, good news. We need a return to the short and snappy pre-title sequences and avoid the bloated Brosnan pre-titles which (on more than one occasion) were by far the best part of the films.

Loeffelholz

Interesting to hear; I'd heard other stories where the PTS was to run longer than the one from TWINE. I'm just glad we're going to see more of the Aston in action this time round B-)

Grishenko

I don't mind long PTSes. With a few exceptions, the PTSes are usually among my favorite parts of the movies. Specifically, I love the TWINE PTS.

I don't think length has any bearing on how much I enjoy a PTS. It could be thirty seconds or thirty minutes. However, the more the PTS deviates from the average five-minute-or-so mark, the greater the burden is on the filmmakers to make it work. I count TWINE as an example of where it worked.

If it is true that QoS's PTS will be a six-minute car chase, our disagreement is moot for the time being. I don't think we will be disappointed...

00-Agent

The movie was probably planned for a full 120 minutes but once they cut out the scenes with the classic Bond lines: “Bond, James Bond” and “Shaken Not Stirred” and eliminated the scenes with the iconic characters such as Moneypenny and Q they were left with 106 minutes.;)

Smoke_13

I have no concerns whatsoever with the upcoming Bond film.

I am officially taking an "innocent until proven guilty" approach with the whole thing. There was far too much Craig bashing and apprehension going into CR (I don't exclude myself from the list of naysayers either) and that film turned out to be one of my favorites.

I've learned my lesson and will reserve any judgments for after I've seen the film in its entirety.

yodboy007

I don't have too many concerns either. I would normally be let down again to think that Craig is going to play Bond like a mean and angry son of a bitch with no smile on his face and little charm or sophistication like he did in CR. However, since this film is a "revenge" mission similar in style to LTK then that is acceptable to me because this gives Craig an excuse to portray Bond that way again. I am sort of glad to hear he will do two more after this instead of the just one more that I had hoped for because in Bonds 23 and 24 he will hopefully play a less ****ed-off Bond.

As far as traditions are concerned, I am glad to hear some are returning. The gunbarrel and the James Bond Theme are essential to a 007 film and I can only hope Q and Moneypenny return in Bond 23 to get things back to normal. Whoever said the James Bond Theme does not fit Craig is wrong. The theme music is iconic and has fit five actors before now and will continue to fit them all because the films are about James Bond and not the actors who portray him. Quit acting like Craig is so damn special and above all the traditions of the franchise.

The runtime is a bit of a let down but it could work if there is indeed lots of action because I feel that is Craig's only strength as 007. CR ran too long so this 106 minutes may feel better.

In conclusion, I am confident this film can be the best since GE because some traditions are returning, I do not already know the plot and outcome (like with CR) and Bond has an excuse to go on a thrilling revenge mission. Plus I am used to the Craig hype and the whole "reboot" thing (even though I still refuse to see it that way). Hopefully Craig's films can only get better from CR, which won't be that hard to do!

Napoleon Plural

Word remembering, yodboy, that the Bond of CR in the book was less charming than in subsequent books, a bit of a hard nut. In LALD he loosens up a bit, becomes more sympathetic. I expect the same to happen here...

sharpshooter

I like a cold, hard Bond. Just the way Craig plays it. As long as he is in the role, I don't see this changing.

Fitzochris

It seems they persist with f***ing about with the traditions. Bond theme reserved for the end of the movie as is the gunbarrel. Absolutely farsical. Forgivable for the reboot installment, but this is the second movie and there's no place for tinkering now.
How the gunbarrel can look or feel right at the end of a Bond film is beyond me, I'm afraid. Whoever came up with that idea want's punting off the franchise.

So, Mr Foster and Mr MG Wilson - when asked if the traditional gunbarrel is returning, next time please answer truthfully and say no. A gunbarrel at the end of a Bond film is not traditional.

Napoleon Plural

But if this is the end of the reboot with this film's close, then the gunbarrel is okay imo at the end. It's like the end of a chapter.

Seahawk

I tend to the opinion that something which has only been done on 22 occasions since inception as late as 1962 would more properly be described as habitual rather than traditional.
That to one side, over the years we have seen ALL of the following in the gun barrel sequence:Actor playing Bond does not appear,Bond dropping to one knee,behatted Bond,Bare-headed Bond, Bond in day wear,Bond in evening dress,round discharged by Bond "travelling" through the gun barrel, gun barrel sequence incorporated into the story line,gun barrel sequence signalling the start of the PTS & gun barrel sequence signalling the end of the PTS.
If all (or even most) of these many "variations on a theme" are deemed to be traditional , then surely we must conclude that a tendency to experiment with,& diversify this sequence is part of that tradition.
If we accept that then the logical entailment would appear to be that the latest gun barrel sequence represents a continuation of, rather than a break with, that "tradition".

Ravenstone

I have no concerns. The reviews are a mixed bag anyway, and reviews are never really worth a damn for any film.

I don't miss Q, or Moneypenny. "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, not stirred". The reviewers have said the film lacks humour, has humour, lack action, has too much action, is too long, is too short. So, in short, they're pretty useless.

The only thing I really care about is how I'm going to feel straight after seeing the film. You can't really judge a Bond on one film, so QOS is going to be important to me, as a defining moment in what kind of Bond we've got on our hands. Personally, I think we've got a pretty good one so far, but I need one more film to convince me.

I can understand the gunbarrel being where it is. Makes sense, because this isn't the same Bond as Goldfinger. This is the rougher, less polished Bond straight out of SBS and Special Ops. Anyway, I can't wait. I don't care what the reviews say.

If I'm disappointed, I only hope it's not as disappointed as I was with TND.

Fitzochris

Then it should come at the start of the next Bond film. There would've been nothing wrong with the gunbarrel coming at the start of QoS.