'Bonditics'...and QoS
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Following the U.K. premiere of Quantum of Solace, and the initial response of fandom, the one thing I find most striking is the obvious polarity. The film is both praised and condemned...with precious little 'middle ground' in-between. From the raves to the scathes, the common denominator seems to be the high quality of Daniel Craig's performance---but the old debate has resurfaced about how close he is to 'Fleming's Bond.'
Some time ago, in the "Your Bond Party Affiliation" thread, Tee Hee and I introduced the notion of BonditicsTM:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=29294
Essentially there are three parties: Flemingist (myself), Cinematic Bond Traditionalist (Tee Hee, Dan Same, et al.), and Bond-Centrist.
My own prediction model for QoS---where I foresaw an essentially Bonditical 'party line vote' (if you liked Craig/CR/the reboot) you'd like QoS, and if you didn't, you wouldn't)---is obviously in tatters. Marc Forster has played a wild card, apparently...and all bets are off!
My question, for those who participated in the Bonditical thread (or might now like to! :007) ): Since I can't experience the film until 14th November ( X-( ), I'm interested in how your Bond party affiliation might affected your reaction to the newest Bond film. If a Flemingist, was it the 'Fleming sweep' of the piece? If a CBT, was it the lack of traditional Bond accoutrements? If a Centrist, did it strike a proper balance? Or not?
For the sake of your comrades who haven't been able to see the picture yet ( X-( ), please try to avoid posting spoilers...and if you do, please use 'spoiler brackets.'
Perhaps together we can dig into the hows and whys of whether or not this controversial new Bond film 'works'...
Some time ago, in the "Your Bond Party Affiliation" thread, Tee Hee and I introduced the notion of BonditicsTM:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=29294
Essentially there are three parties: Flemingist (myself), Cinematic Bond Traditionalist (Tee Hee, Dan Same, et al.), and Bond-Centrist.
My own prediction model for QoS---where I foresaw an essentially Bonditical 'party line vote' (if you liked Craig/CR/the reboot) you'd like QoS, and if you didn't, you wouldn't)---is obviously in tatters. Marc Forster has played a wild card, apparently...and all bets are off!
My question, for those who participated in the Bonditical thread (or might now like to! :007) ): Since I can't experience the film until 14th November ( X-( ), I'm interested in how your Bond party affiliation might affected your reaction to the newest Bond film. If a Flemingist, was it the 'Fleming sweep' of the piece? If a CBT, was it the lack of traditional Bond accoutrements? If a Centrist, did it strike a proper balance? Or not?
For the sake of your comrades who haven't been able to see the picture yet ( X-( ), please try to avoid posting spoilers...and if you do, please use 'spoiler brackets.'
Perhaps together we can dig into the hows and whys of whether or not this controversial new Bond film 'works'...
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
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Personally, you can't really destroy the Bond saga with a bad film. Guns, girls, car chases, bad guys, explosions...most action films have these things anyway! Chuck in a few martinis and THAT name, and you're there.
Well, we know that because they tried repeatedly in the late Seventies/early Eighties to do that very thing :v
BTW, welcome to the forums, Mr. Underscore! :007)
Of course I haven't seen this one yet ( X-( )...but I've heard more than enough praise, from people whose opinions I trust, that I've come to sincerely doubt its a 'bad film'---merely a polarizing, challenging and controversial one. Sounds the opposite of bad, in my book.
Early response on another thread points toward this being more of a hit with Bond-Centrists---which interests me...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I liked the darkness and edginess. The moral ambiguity, and yet the simplification of Black and White attempted. Cutting through all the rubbish and getting down and dirty. Maintaining standards at the same time. The action. Lots of action.
I hope that's not too spoilerific?
I would like to hear why some people think it's not Bond, because I genuinely do not understand the view. If he's not Bond, then who is he? I can still see the same character from DN to QOS, despite the time difference. He's still Bond to me. They're just different sides of Bond. I mean, me five years ago will be subtly different to me now. I'm still me. So Bond is still Bond, at least to me.
Love those Flemingist leanings, Ravenstone!
Well said. I think many of the cries of it being not like Bond, or a Bourne copy, etc., would come largely from Cinematic Bond Traditionalists, who don't like the lack of Q, Moneypenny, and light-hearted (or even bordline slapstick) humour in the Craig Era. I also think they might prefer a bit less 'depth' to the character of Bond himself. Many CBTs simply prefer their Bond unflappable, infallible and mostly unaffected, as Connery and Moore played him---a straightening of the tie, a tossed-off quip, and on to the next escapade. And that's been a valid and commercially successful interpretation of the character in the past.
I don't think they're crazy about the notion of the character actually developing. The old Bonds were never particularly internalized. Dalton hinted at it, Brosnan wanted to (but was only allowed to dabble around the edges in his scripts), but Craig is motivated by showing us how 007 ticks...and Eon is letting him.
Does anyone call Bond "007" in this one, by the way? It only happened once in CR...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If I have to choose I would regard myself as a 'Felmingist' I loved CR and really really don't like QOS. I admire your determination to reframe Bad as 'challenging' or 'Polarising' but I have to disagree. I have seen it, and I really do think that it is a Bad film, and Bad on it's own terms.
It's not that it's to 'Flemingist' for some tastes, but the exact opposite, in as much as I don't recognise the Bond in QOS at all .If M did not use his name you could be forgiven for thinking him someone else. I know that this sounds odd, and possibly a gross over reaction, particularly little given the truly 'Bondian' portrayal in CR. I must stress ( as I'm keen not to be misunderstood to be an anti-reboot, Daniel hating refusnik )that this is in no way Daniels fault. He has the chops, he has the moves, but is given very little to work with.
This is a real shame as QOS is in Danger of not truly satisfying any of the camps that you have identified. I really look forward to hearing what you think once you have seen it. And please believe that it is with a heavy heart that I suggest that Fleming would not have recognised this emotionless killing machine as his character. For all his 'blunt instrument' assertions whether intentionaly or unintentionaly his Bond is more than that.This one unfourtunatley is not.
Yes, you definitely have the advantage, in that you've seen it. All I've seen is about twenty clips (each a minute or less in length) which show various plot points and action highlights. When I finally get to see it, it may well be every bit the stinker you've pronounced it to be. If so, I'll certainly say so.
We'll certainly see. For every fan who hates it, there seems another who likes it. The box office will tell the tale in the long run. Given the polarized nature of the reaction thus far, it seems possible that it won't match CR's numbers...but if it gets close, neither is it a failure from the producer's point of view.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
One never knows.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And that's YOUR opinion..and it's valid, but so is mine...and I love QoS..true..it's too subtle for some..but if you look...you will find lots to admire and love about it...
...lots of people I work with have seen it..and they all liked it...some regard it as the best Bond film they have ever seen...opinions, eh ? Everybody has one
Visually it is by far the most ambitious of the series: the use of colour and repeated visual motifs, and the very very self-aware editing all point to a slightly artsy action film (a style I would dub techno-Coppola). But the Bond formula is almost entirely dispensed with (no gambling sequence, a very odd use of the gunbarrel, a very odd use of M, a very odd use of the main Bond-girl)...
All in all I didn't just love it and I didn't hate it. I loved some parts and didn't like others. I think its characterization of Bond is intelligent and its characterization of M is dumb. I liked the use of the villain (scheme, motivations, MO, etc), though the actor cast to play him left me indifferent. Didn't like the action sequences and there's definitely one too many. The girls were okay though not memorable. the PTS was disappointing. The overall plot, I thought was good, with potential to be great.
All in all, I certainly feel the need to watch it again.
You are correct, visually the movie was very strong. The only thing I didn't like was the hotel room, was very busy.
What I really like was in the PTS, the use of no colors, only the reddish color of the sand.
I also remember a shot, tilting down, in the dessert with some kind of beautiful animal. Really liked this.
The opera editing was super!
Personally the new direction is what Bond should be like -perhaps pacing was the only issue with QOS -and the reason CR stands up so well is that the pacing is excellent -you get episodes of great action mixed with drama and tension -and is relatively close to the original Fleming novel.
So although parts of QOS I may have developed more -on the whole it gets a thumbs up from me and makes this Flemingist happy.-{
That's a nice way of insulting anybody who didn't like the film isn't it. 'Too subtle for some'? I can fully respect the opinion of anybody who enjoyed the film but to claim that people wouldn't like it because it's too subtle for them is way off I think.
There is nothing subtle whatsoever about having action sequence after action sequence with very little characterization in between.
But that is the whole point. It is not just action sequence after action sequence. The movie is very subtle in places. And it's those subtleties...those very quiet notes, the delicately played references to CR (both the film and the book) that makes this movie what it is.
I think that everybody who saw the film would see the references to CR. I also haven't seen many people complaining about the quiet notes so that isn't the issue. What I find irritating is when somebody tries to belittle other people's opinions by insinuating that they are unable to appreciate subtlety.
Now I can completely respect people's opinions if they enjoyed the film and felt that it was well directed, well acted, had the right blend of action and drama etc. I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of the views but I don't start trying to analyse why they disagree with me either.
Now the vast majority of negative reviews (and there are plenty of positive ones as well obviously) that I've read have said that they disliked the film due to the direction, editing, characterization, script, lack of Bondness etc. To try to dismiss all of those reviewers as not being able to appreciate subtlety is massively simplistic and patronising imo.
I was responding to this particular sentence.
I also think that a lot of reviewers, especially the negative ones, are criticizing the movie, because they don't get the subtle references to CR, or are particularly interested in Bonds psychological development, which he has to undergo with his feeling for Vesper. It's interesting you say there is little charactisation, when in fact we see the biggest insight to Bonds motives to date. Betrayal, lost love...revenge. Now these aspects of Bond may and do not appeal to a section of fans, but it's this particular direction that Forster took this movie that I found insightful and well played.
I was in no way suggesting that people should like the acting, editing or directing in which QoS has taken, I was just agreeing with Sir Miles, that some parts of the movie where delicately shown, and hidden under the cover of some brutal action scenes, which might have proved confusing or irrelevant for some.
I'm not trying to belittle anybody...didn't I say that EVERYBODYS opinion was valid ?:)
As is mine...and I stick by that...QoS is too subtle for some...that is not belittling anybody..unless they WANT to be belittled...and I have NEVER stated that some people can't appreciate subtlety...I said some people didn't GET the subtlety...big...BIG...difference...as to why some people didn't get it...who knows..?..for them it's probably bad direction..or poor script...it's up to the individual...
Now...what I find irritating is people who don't read posts properly and then fly off at a tangent...feeling all patronised...and if the hat fits...
absurd....
I have experienced Sir Miles to be the most liberal moderator I have ever found on any board.
Someone else would have kicked me and Asp9mm off the board much earlier (Asp9mm first!) and I can't imagine anyone better (sorry all other mods..
The only thing, what I find irritating about him is, how he can possibly enjoy QoS ?:)
By the way: Do we need a "praise your mod" thread??
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Ok, If you posted in another thread about why people may not have enjoyed QoS then apologies. Sorry as well if I over-reacted to your post but my reaction was actually based on what quite a few people have written and not just you and I should have made that clear.
It disappoints me when other people claim that those who didn't like the film left their brains at the door or weren't capable of understanding it or whatever. It was because of that that I wrongly interpreted your post so apologies again.
Where do I send the cheque ? :007)
But it is all true
Hey...QoS is a classic...you just need to take your brains into the cinema with you
No problem...apology accepted...lets move on.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be labelled or limited as any one 'type' of Bond fan; nor would I want any such labelling to be used as a way of 'explaining' my honest criticisms of QoS.
I'm a fan of Fleming and I'm also a fan of Bond in the cinema. I love the films from Cubby Broccoli's era and, beyond that, I thought CR was a good movie.
Outside Bond, I like a whole lot of other texts in a variety of genres... and that includes an appreciation of texts with subtlety, nuance and challenging narratives.
Having said that, I still can't see how and why QoS is admired for having these qualities. The storytelling is all over the place: let's not pretend that the holes and confusing shifts are anything other than weak and confused work... with a number of stale cliches tossed into the jumble. There's nothing genuinely sophisticated or intriguing about this jarring sequel to CR.
Hey...if you don't like it, you don't like it..it's fine by me...each to their own.
But some of the things that people don't like...I do. It's about personal choice..its what makes us different. You see...for me..the story is told very well..it's Bond trying to find the people behind Vesper's death...he's in a rage..perhaps that is why the film is edited that way...the story told that way..?..but...each to their own.
Okay... Well, when I come to watch the film for a second time I'll approach it with that reading in the foreground, to see whether it helps me appreciate the fractured style more positively. At the moment, the enraged revenge motif suggests to me that QoS is like an elongated version of the lurching pre-credits sequence of DAF (without the laffs but with extra nastiness). Nevertheless I think your explanation of your own liking for QoS may help me to arrive at some sort of accommodation with the movie in time.
Well, it's all in fun, of course. Thanks for participating anyway! {[]
BTW...generally, in Bonditics, those who don't want to be labeled---or limited in any way---are usually Bond-Centrists*
* A label, yes...but certainly not limiting -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hello Loeffs,
I have no idea, which Bond party to join and need your help.
As from my favourite list, I enjoy OHMSS and FYEO, I like DC, I like PB, I like RM without 5% of his silliyness, I am not too excited about SC and I dislike TD.
I have been reading (and enjoying most of them. My favs are OHMSS and surprisingly TSWLM) all the novels, don't find them really dark and I therefore disagree with everyone, who says, that QoS goes more Fleming.
I have a thing for reboots (OHMSS, FYEO, CR) and don't like Eva Green and Sophie Marceau as much as I find QoS pointless and bad.
Any suggestions, which party I should join, or will there be a new one called "they don't know much about Bond but enjoy most of it"?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sounds like you're basically a Centrist, Markus...interesting that you enjoy the TSWLM novel...but you're all over the board, so I'd say you're solidly in the middle. You have lots of company!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Now I did just got back from watching it, and I don't want to give any official rating until i see it again. But as of now its a low 4/10. That score doesn't do it any justice cause I loved the movie for what it was, but A Cinematic Bond Traditionalist can do nothing but sit there twitching in their seat for 2 bloody hours thinking how they could forget the staple of the Bond franchise and not be able to pay any attention to the movie. And right when I was about to cry at the very end they throw it out at me, and while comforted that they didn't toss it out completely I felt betrayed and played.
~SNS
Thanks Loeff, but how boring!
So, the fact, that I am permantently bashed in the other thread has more to do with my personality than with the way, that I am seeing QoS??
Thanks for the advise and where can I fill out my entry papers?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!