No nothing wrong with it. Nothing really wrong with it being at the beginning. If the film is bad, a gunbarrel sequence isn't going to save it, regardless of where it's placed. And if it's good, likewise it won't ruin it either.
I am curious to see how Craig does 'his' walk though.
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
Sounds good, but it's definately not Bond
I'll admit, CR stole a bit of Jason Bourne
So what!
MR stole of Star Wars
LTK stole of Miami Vice
But this is taking the ****
Does this sound like a Bond film to you?
- No Bond theme
- No gadgets
- No Q
- No Moneypenny
- No "Bond, James Bond"
- No "shaken not stirred."
They stripped Bond from me. All we are left with is the name. And lots of action of course.
But surely you can have all those things and still have a lemon on your hands? You don't need those things to make a good Bond film. In fact, if you get to the end of the film and think you've missed them, it's going to be the least of your worries, because putting them in won't make the film any better.
Well hang on, CR didnt' have most of that and people liked it sweeps. And all the stuff in the Connery classics... it's not so many of your examples that made 'em good. Moore never said shaken not stirred to avoid comparisons.
All I want is a great action film with Bond elements, I don't care much about the trappings. We've got exotic locations, cool cars etc. That's more than, say, LTK.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
- No Bond theme
- No gadgets
- No Q
- No Moneypenny
- No "Bond, James Bond"
- No "shaken not stirred."
I wouldn't mnd missing a couple of these but... all of them?
?:) But Sweeps, CR missed most of those except for the last 10 seconds of the film. Gadgets were very few and far between. Yet you have the film in your top 10!
I disliked CR, but not for any of those reasons.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
I am cross that this thread that I started didn't warn me about the SPOILER, that is the gunbarrel being at the end. I don't mind, but you guys should have warned me!
As for QOS not being a Bond film, just one thing to say...it is! The direction that the films take does not worry me. They will always be Bond. 007 of MI6; not Bourne, not Jack Bower, not Ethan Hunt but Bond. The films have to move with the times, EON always wanted Bond to be a contemporary hero, not one steeped in the 1960s. I think the 60s films were great for the 60s, but Brosnan's era was great in the 90s. Now the Craig films show that he is the man for the 21st century.
Can't wait for 1 November, 12.50pm, Odeon Leicester Square.
The gunbarrel at the end is a bad idea. What does it lead to? The credits?
My goodness, why are the producers changing around these traditions or "trappings" as you guys call them? I know they are changing the focus and going places they have never been before like inside Bond's mentality with a grittier tone. I agree that after DAD the franchise needed a makeover by not having too much CGI or campy and unrealistic moments that border science fiction. I know they had to find a better writer to help with better dialogue, character development, original plots and more.
Now EON has done all of those things I mentioned above to improve this franchise greatly. So why do they think leaving out the theme music or the gunbarrel opening or institutions like Q and Moneypenny are going to help? These things were not the problem. Some of you say they never made the old films better. Guess what? They never made them bad either. These traditions help with the feel of the film and I don't care what you say because it does not seem right without them. Throwing out a few now and then is fine. As pointed out earlier Sir Rog never ordered a martini and Q missed a few films before but that is all. A few "staples" need to be present to make it feel like you are watching 007 and not another generic action hero. I for one love to hear the James Bond Theme play when 007 does something cool in an action scene. I hate that Craig, who does action scenes very well, will not have that music during the action scenes in his first two films.
The last thing concerning all these changes or traditions being left out is that a lot of people seem to act as if Craig's Bond is not just different, but better, than the five before his and that his Bond is above these sort of silly traditions. That is so foolish. Bond will go through many different styles of portrayal with many actors for years to come, but he will always be James Bond at the core and his traditions should follow him everywhere he goes. It is not as if Craig's style does not fit a proper gunbarrel or the theme music or a few minutes of flirting with Miss Moneypenny!
Anyways, I am done ranting now. Maybe Bond 23 will get things back to normal. With DAD's CGI, horrible dialogue and redundant plot coupled with CR's crapping all over the traditions of the franchise I feel that the last James Bond film to have the James Bond "feel" was TWINE. That is sad!
I think QOS will be enjoyable, but reviews seem to say it's all action chases and broody Bond but not a lot of plot.
DC and Director Forster have said the script handed in by Mr Harris (just before the writer's strike) was not completely finished for filming.
So they added their own bits.
Other minus points are a rubbish theme and a return to girl silhouettes in the titles.
The CR Card titles were refreshingly different with a strong theme song.
I'll still see QOS a few times though!
De Bleuchamp.
"Well,well, look what the cat dragged in!" DAF.
Everyone is concentrating on what traditions are not in QOS. I'm trying to be positive and look at what it does have:
-A PTS
-A theme song to dancing female silhouettes
-Bond drives an Aston Martin
-Bond carries a Walther PPK
-He's still working for MI6
-M is still his boss
-He meets beautiful women (and beds one)
-There are multiple exotic locations and sets
-There is a mysterious and powerful enemy organization that reminds one of SPECTRE
-Bond drinks martinis
-Bond wears several very nice suits including a dinner suit
-Felix Leiter
-Mathis
-"nods" to TSWLM and GF
-Car chases, foot chases, fights, explosions, boat chases, dofighting planes
-A gunbarrel sequence and the James Bond theme (even if they are at the end)
This sounds very much like a James Bond movie to me -{
Yep. It's good they are shaking up this once stale franchise.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
edited October 2008
Got my copy of "Bond On Set: Filming Quantum of Solace" today...and it's a great bunch of photos, with very illuminating narration in parts by director Marc Forster. Reading this book really gives you an appreciation of just how massive and sprawling a production like this can be.
Based on some of the early reviews (and let me hasten to add that I take all reviews with a grain of salt!), it appears that a consensus might be developing that the emphasis on action is disproportionate to the plotting and characterization. If this particular criticism turns out to have merit, I'll be somewhat surprised, given Forster's resume. Perhaps he let himself get bowled over by the 2nd unit...
Clearly QoS, although a direct sequel to CR, is a different beast altogether, and that is a good thing. The location of the gun barrel continues to puzzle; I'm looking forward to seeing what they do, and whether or not it works.
What they choose to do with Craigger's third picture begins to loom large...apparently Sony would very much like a '10 release, and maintain the standard 2-year span between films. Works for me...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Based on some of the early reviews (and let me hasten to add that I take all reviews with a grain of salt!), it appears that a consensus might be developing that the emphasis on action is disproportionate to the plotting and characterization. If this particular criticism turns out to have merit, I'll be somewhat surprised, given Forster's resume. Perhaps he let himself get bowled over by the 2nd unit...
Dan Bradley can be a very commanding presence...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Perhaps so... ) But in all seriousness, perhaps the fact that Forster doesn't have a strong action background worked against him, and he simply deferred to the producers' wishes in this case.
I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to go 'all out' action-wise this time round was a deliberately executed counter-balance against the longer CR with its static card game in Act 2. If the end result makes QoS somewhat lesser, it will be too bad, but also perhaps unavoidable. CR was such a phenomenon that its follow-up faces quite a high hurdle.
For me, though, this isn't too much of a legitimate concern---in my favourites list, the Bonds which surpass CR are a rarified short list indeed.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
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 WarsTM-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)
I have a large number of concerns and worries re QOS, but none of them are to do with DC, who from what I have gleaned so far has turned in a great performance despite having little to do apart from running and jumping around.I'm going on saturday morning and really hope that it is good, but the short run time and much trumpeted action fest nature of QOS makes me wonder (a) why they chose Forster, and (b) why he agreed to do it. I have posted elsewhere that Forster seemed very concerned re the short time allowed to cut the film, and as I have said before I suspect that a much better version exists on the cutting room floor.
Also is it just me, or did DC seem a little downcast and not as enthusastic about the movie last night on the Jonathan Ross show (Ross has said seperatley that while he liked the film it is nowhere near as good as CR) as he had been while in production. only time will tell as we can resd and re-read the tea leaves as much as we like before seeing it, with anticipation being part of the fun. Here's hoping...
DC looked disinterested on Wossy last night. That might be more to do with his host and the fact he's nursing a bust shoulder than anything else, though.
DC looked disinterested on Wossy last night. That might be more to do with his host and the fact he's nursing a bust shoulder than anything else, though.
You could be right. Wossy is a truly terrible interviewer, who only seems concerned that he hogs the conversation and talks about himself almost constantly. I for one would like to see DC with a much more accomplished host.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
I'm going on saturday morning and really hope that it is good, but the short run time and much trumpeted action fest nature of QOS makes me wonder (a) why they chose Forster, and (b) why he agreed to do it.
In 'Bond On Set: Filming Quantum of Solace,' Marc Forster addresses the latter question: "Maybe it was a quote from Orson Welles who, when asked what was his greatest regret in life, said, 'That I never directed a commercial film.' Or maybe it was the challenge of having all odds against me that made me do it. It is those challenges that seem silly in the grand scope of life, but never fail to make my blood rush to my temples. It is in those challenges that life always seems magnified, as if in a room of light and dark."
As to the former question: I'd think that Forster was chosen specifically to wring as much character and story as possible out of the bits in-between these massive set pieces---this might prove paradoxical, if the bad reviews are even half correct in their analysis---which leads me to your other point:
I have posted elsewhere that Forster seemed very concerned re the short time allowed to cut the film, and as I have said before I suspect that a much better version exists on the cutting room floor.
Of course it's possible, but we'll likely never know for sure. It's a curious thing, with such relative time to spare, that he seems not to have availed himself of the opportunity to let things breathe a bit more...to slow down and savour the character and intrigue with a few longer dramatic 'beats.' Such opportunities in a franchise like Bond are rare enough; to hear that some might have been left on the table (!) is slightly frustrating. If so, perhaps we might be treated to a 'Director's Cut' DVD down the road.
Still, I remain unconvinced by reviews alone, and will have to view the film myself...when I am finally able ( X-( ). It could well be that these moments do exist in the finished film, but seem relatively fleeting in context to the action, and simply couldn't penetrate the occasionally thick critic's skull. These films have never been made for critics B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I am curious to see how Craig does 'his' walk though.
I'll admit, CR stole a bit of Jason Bourne
So what!
MR stole of Star Wars
LTK stole of Miami Vice
But this is taking the ****
Does this sound like a Bond film to you?
- No Bond theme
- No gadgets
- No Q
- No Moneypenny
- No "Bond, James Bond"
- No "shaken not stirred."
They stripped Bond from me. All we are left with is the name. And lots of action of course.
All I want is a great action film with Bond elements, I don't care much about the trappings. We've got exotic locations, cool cars etc. That's more than, say, LTK.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
- No gadgets
- No Q
- No Moneypenny
- No "Bond, James Bond"
- No "shaken not stirred."
I wouldn't mnd missing a couple of these but... all of them?
I disliked CR, but not for any of those reasons.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As for QOS not being a Bond film, just one thing to say...it is! The direction that the films take does not worry me. They will always be Bond. 007 of MI6; not Bourne, not Jack Bower, not Ethan Hunt but Bond. The films have to move with the times, EON always wanted Bond to be a contemporary hero, not one steeped in the 1960s. I think the 60s films were great for the 60s, but Brosnan's era was great in the 90s. Now the Craig films show that he is the man for the 21st century.
Can't wait for 1 November, 12.50pm, Odeon Leicester Square.
{[]
My goodness, why are the producers changing around these traditions or "trappings" as you guys call them? I know they are changing the focus and going places they have never been before like inside Bond's mentality with a grittier tone. I agree that after DAD the franchise needed a makeover by not having too much CGI or campy and unrealistic moments that border science fiction. I know they had to find a better writer to help with better dialogue, character development, original plots and more.
Now EON has done all of those things I mentioned above to improve this franchise greatly. So why do they think leaving out the theme music or the gunbarrel opening or institutions like Q and Moneypenny are going to help? These things were not the problem. Some of you say they never made the old films better. Guess what? They never made them bad either. These traditions help with the feel of the film and I don't care what you say because it does not seem right without them. Throwing out a few now and then is fine. As pointed out earlier Sir Rog never ordered a martini and Q missed a few films before but that is all. A few "staples" need to be present to make it feel like you are watching 007 and not another generic action hero. I for one love to hear the James Bond Theme play when 007 does something cool in an action scene. I hate that Craig, who does action scenes very well, will not have that music during the action scenes in his first two films.
The last thing concerning all these changes or traditions being left out is that a lot of people seem to act as if Craig's Bond is not just different, but better, than the five before his and that his Bond is above these sort of silly traditions. That is so foolish. Bond will go through many different styles of portrayal with many actors for years to come, but he will always be James Bond at the core and his traditions should follow him everywhere he goes. It is not as if Craig's style does not fit a proper gunbarrel or the theme music or a few minutes of flirting with Miss Moneypenny!
Anyways, I am done ranting now. Maybe Bond 23 will get things back to normal. With DAD's CGI, horrible dialogue and redundant plot coupled with CR's crapping all over the traditions of the franchise I feel that the last James Bond film to have the James Bond "feel" was TWINE. That is sad!
DC and Director Forster have said the script handed in by Mr Harris (just before the writer's strike) was not completely finished for filming.
So they added their own bits.
Other minus points are a rubbish theme and a return to girl silhouettes in the titles.
The CR Card titles were refreshingly different with a strong theme song.
I'll still see QOS a few times though!
De Bleuchamp.
"Well,well, look what the cat dragged in!" DAF.
I agree with you about the theme, but the female silhouettes count as a plus for me
-A PTS
-A theme song to dancing female silhouettes
-Bond drives an Aston Martin
-Bond carries a Walther PPK
-He's still working for MI6
-M is still his boss
-He meets beautiful women (and beds one)
-There are multiple exotic locations and sets
-There is a mysterious and powerful enemy organization that reminds one of SPECTRE
-Bond drinks martinis
-Bond wears several very nice suits including a dinner suit
-Felix Leiter
-Mathis
-"nods" to TSWLM and GF
-Car chases, foot chases, fights, explosions, boat chases, dofighting planes
-A gunbarrel sequence and the James Bond theme (even if they are at the end)
This sounds very much like a James Bond movie to me -{
Based on some of the early reviews (and let me hasten to add that I take all reviews with a grain of salt!), it appears that a consensus might be developing that the emphasis on action is disproportionate to the plotting and characterization. If this particular criticism turns out to have merit, I'll be somewhat surprised, given Forster's resume. Perhaps he let himself get bowled over by the 2nd unit...
Clearly QoS, although a direct sequel to CR, is a different beast altogether, and that is a good thing. The location of the gun barrel continues to puzzle; I'm looking forward to seeing what they do, and whether or not it works.
What they choose to do with Craigger's third picture begins to loom large...apparently Sony would very much like a '10 release, and maintain the standard 2-year span between films. Works for me...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My only real concern is the series going backwards with the same old after this one.
Dan Bradley can be a very commanding presence...
Perhaps so...
I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to go 'all out' action-wise this time round was a deliberately executed counter-balance against the longer CR with its static card game in Act 2. If the end result makes QoS somewhat lesser, it will be too bad, but also perhaps unavoidable. CR was such a phenomenon that its follow-up faces quite a high hurdle.
For me, though, this isn't too much of a legitimate concern---in my favourites list, the Bonds which surpass CR are a rarified short list indeed.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have a large number of concerns and worries re QOS, but none of them are to do with DC, who from what I have gleaned so far has turned in a great performance despite having little to do apart from running and jumping around.I'm going on saturday morning and really hope that it is good, but the short run time and much trumpeted action fest nature of QOS makes me wonder (a) why they chose Forster, and (b) why he agreed to do it. I have posted elsewhere that Forster seemed very concerned re the short time allowed to cut the film, and as I have said before I suspect that a much better version exists on the cutting room floor.
Also is it just me, or did DC seem a little downcast and not as enthusastic about the movie last night on the Jonathan Ross show (Ross has said seperatley that while he liked the film it is nowhere near as good as CR) as he had been while in production. only time will tell as we can resd and re-read the tea leaves as much as we like before seeing it, with anticipation being part of the fun. Here's hoping...
You could be right. Wossy is a truly terrible interviewer, who only seems concerned that he hogs the conversation and talks about himself almost constantly. I for one would like to see DC with a much more accomplished host.
In 'Bond On Set: Filming Quantum of Solace,' Marc Forster addresses the latter question: "Maybe it was a quote from Orson Welles who, when asked what was his greatest regret in life, said, 'That I never directed a commercial film.' Or maybe it was the challenge of having all odds against me that made me do it. It is those challenges that seem silly in the grand scope of life, but never fail to make my blood rush to my temples. It is in those challenges that life always seems magnified, as if in a room of light and dark."
As to the former question: I'd think that Forster was chosen specifically to wring as much character and story as possible out of the bits in-between these massive set pieces---this might prove paradoxical, if the bad reviews are even half correct in their analysis---which leads me to your other point:
Of course it's possible, but we'll likely never know for sure. It's a curious thing, with such relative time to spare, that he seems not to have availed himself of the opportunity to let things breathe a bit more...to slow down and savour the character and intrigue with a few longer dramatic 'beats.' Such opportunities in a franchise like Bond are rare enough; to hear that some might have been left on the table (!) is slightly frustrating. If so, perhaps we might be treated to a 'Director's Cut' DVD down the road.
Still, I remain unconvinced by reviews alone, and will have to view the film myself...when I am finally able ( X-( ). It could well be that these moments do exist in the finished film, but seem relatively fleeting in context to the action, and simply couldn't penetrate the occasionally thick critic's skull. These films have never been made for critics B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM