Quantum of Solace

I haven't seen Skyfall yet, should probably get on that...

I'm pretty much right there with you Kreugen. I enjoyed Skyfall quite a bit and wasn't terribly fond of QoS. I think it was all the brooding love bullshit that really threw me off. Casino Royale was great though. I really enjoyed the Parkour chase in the beginning.

The one thing about Skyfall I wasn't terribly fond about is that Daniel Craig is suddenly... the only Bond? Like all of the previous movies are null and void now? What with his parents having the last name of Bond and his real name being James (as per the old guy at Skyfall itself). I was under the impression (From the Pierce Brosnan films), that James Bond & 007 were identities given to a specific agent when the previous one passes away or retires. Skyfall made it seem like it's just him. He is Bond and nothing else happened previously. Yet at the same time, he had the Aston Martin from Goldfinger.

*shrugs*

Famm_sl said:

Not sure if serious because Araysar.

Click to expand...

No, you're sure=p

Kreugen_sl said:

The only reason its enjoyable is Daniel Craig. Which could be why I'm the only person on the planet that seems to have liked Skyfall.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed Skyfall, because it was the first Bond film since Casino Royale. QoS was just a boring, generic, action movie that for some reason had Daniel Craig and seemed to link up where a sequel to CR would have picked up.

Xarpolis_sl said:

The one thing about Skyfall I wasn't terribly fond about is that Daniel Craig is suddenly... the only Bond? Like all of the previous movies are null and void now? What with his parents having the last name of Bond and his real name being James (as per the old guy at Skyfall itself). I was under the impression (From the Pierce Brosnan films), that James Bond & 007 were identities given to a specific agent when the previous one passes away or retires. Skyfall made it seem like it's just him. He is Bond and nothing else happened previously. Yet at the same time, he had the Aston Martin from Goldfinger.

*shrugs*

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the idea that "James Bond" is an alias given to various individuals over the decades is a purely fan-made idea created to attempt to tie all of the films togetherwhile accounting for the incredibly long time that Bond has been having his adventures. It was never canon and it was never intended to be portrayed like that in any of the films. At most there are small references to previous Bonds and Bond films, but nothing that indicates the different actors are portraying different "versions" of Bond. If anything, the fact that there are several instances where current Bonds seem to have knowledge about events/gadgets of past Bonds implies that there is only one James Bond. While each iteration might look differently to us, in the James Bond universe he is the same man.

I've always thought this grasping for some kind of continuity was stupid. When Val Kilmer took over for Michael Keaton as Batman, no one said "Oh, the original Bruce Wayne retired and this new guy stepped in to assume his identity." Likewise when George Clooney adopted the role. It's the same thing with James Bond except on a much longer time frame--the realities of Hollywood and time force different actors to play the same character. That's all it is.

Up until Craig all of the Bonds were standalone sequels that could have taken place in any order. Very few of the movies referenced each other, beyond "I had a wife, she died." And obviously they just ignored the fact that they were spread out over 40 years. Craig Bond is a reboot.

I re-read what I wrote at the time of QoS's release the gist was: as much as I found the villain's plot original and interesting and as much as I like Amalric as an actor, this is not a very cinegenic master plan and it makes the antagonist into... basically a boring accountant. I think it's disappointing, I see how one might find that refreshing, but then they take their accountant and make him fight and that is just really really dumb. I also note that the Opera scene is great, but that Forster can't film action to save his life (on that note, neither does Mendes, but he has the courtesy to keep things simple and make the attraction come from elsewhere, like the lightning/jellyfishes in the HK scene).

Hydraulic despotism is not a James Bond plot, its a boring topic for UN conferences. Bond should be fighting insane villains who want to either destroy the world or are obsessed with one person or thing, Bond isn't interesting when he is fighting CEOs and corporations. What next, James Bond vs Halliburton or James Bond vs Al Gore's plot to sell all American TV networks to Al Jazeera?

Oh, good Bond movies also need a henchman who is crazier than the villain. Oddjob, Jaws, or the little dwarf guy in Man with the Golden Gun. The reboots have done poorly in that area.

Crazy enough I believe the Roger Moore bond movies have actually pulled in the most money out of all the Bond actors, which is just weird.

Dude.. really? I was talking about the editing of the chase scene, not the story of the goddamn movie. Is this the "being obtuse on purpose" from section B of The Art of Trolling? Or is discussing two points in the same post too hard to follow?

Point A) The Editing
* the stuff about the chase scene. Yes, I know he has the fucking guy in the trunk from CR, I'm not a goddamn moron.
Point B) The Script
* If it works for you, great. Most disagree.

araysar...your taste in movies sucks.
1st prometheus,now quantum of solace?
imo,quantum of solace was one of worst bond movies i've ever seen.

Chris_sl said:

I was dissapointed that Skyfall didn't continue the Mr. White storyline, I was waiting for the rebooted Blofeld reveal. I heard it was going to be somewhat of a triology?

Instead we got Home Alone in Scotland for the shittiest revenge ever. It felt like the finale of the old bonds (they mention him being old!?) instead of the 3rd film of the new ones (other than rediculous last 5 minutes).

Click to expand...

Agreed. I kept waiting for the twist or reveal in QoS that showed a hint of therealmaster plan of this shadow organization that Bond was chasing in both movies. It seemed like the plot was going to end up just a facet of their grander scheme and the next movie would have Bond blowing it more wide open. Instead, it never went anywhere and wasted the set up from CR, and as you said was completely abandoned for Skyfall. I still liked QoS better than Skyfall but they dropped the ball, there could have been a big story arc instead of the way the whole thing turned out.

I liked the premise of Skyfall, old ways bumping into new tech, attacks on MI6/English soil, retirement/death of Dench's M. But the villian and his plan wasted the premise and what should have been a slam dunk addition to the Bond villian gallery with Bardem's performance. The whole plot felt so clunky it made water-barons seem complex and refreshing by comparison.

After Casino Royale I went into the theater pumped for QoS. Spastic editing during the into scene immediately told me, "this is not going to be as good".

The action scenes are brutal and would have been amazing if only ANY given piece of footage would have lasted more than a fraction of a fucking second. The end of this car chase is intense and yet the crashed car doesn't even stay on screen, lol.


Jesus how many cuts are needed to make it 'action-y' enough? Later on say during the horse race/chase scene the editing was maddening.

The villain I liked, though I could not help but thinking he sounded like an elder scrolls elf battle screaming;

I was trying to count the cuts, but lost track quickly. over 50 of them in the first 45 seconds of that clip, and it just gets worse from there.