QOS - The Bigger Picture by Paul Rowlands

manfromjapan

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

PAUL ROWLANDS IS A GENIUS!!! :-bd

JWESTBROOK

Thats was a very good in-verydeep-depth look at Quantum. Still my favorite Bond film for now. (That's not saying much, it switches frequently).

But I like where it went with the character. The author of that article brings up very good points, especially in how Bourne was someone else's attempt at a Bond movie, but was still influenced by Bond.

Vancouver007

What a great review (though a little long winded in places) and he lays out exactly why I love QOS so much! It is going down as the most underrated Bond movie and I hope in 10 years more people will come to appreciate it like some Bond fans do.

Sandy

What an amazing review! Really in-depth, comparing individual scenes with previous films and with the books. Really good read.

tqb

This is a good review, having said that I think the movie could've be structured differently to tell the story.

4EverBonded

Yes, I read the whole review and found it to be excellent and illuminating.

fire_and_ice

Interesting review, still relieved jinx was not made irrespective of its said tone.

SaintMark

An interesting read with a lot of excuses and bollocks about the actual value of QoS, easily sidestepping admissions of Craig that the script was unfinished and they were writing as well filming it (due to the writers strike). Visually the Bourne movies were superiour in the actionscenes when compared to QoS. The end of the boatchase (the solution????) and the freefall with an impossible fall showed how poor the decisions were when putting together a poor product. Nice arty farty camerawork and explanations made around them just try to cover up the fact that it is easily the poorest endresult of the franchise.
They should have waited for the writers strike to end and come up with a decent story and better thought out actionscenes. Oh and fire that worthless editor, to compare his quality with the great work of that of Hunt in OHMSS is comparing a birthdaycake with an old biscuit. OHMSS might have a lesser actor in the role of 007 the movie was excellent visually, adventurous, great stunts and the story makes sense (otherwise blame Flemings original book) and even with that emotional tough ending it was a fun movie. That is what has been lacking from QoS all together.
So Forster should stick to arty farty and lets hope that with Mendes the franchise can redeem itself. However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

boldfinger

SaintMark said:
An interesting read with a lot of excuses and bollocks about the actual value of QoS, easily sidestepping admissions of Craig that the script was unfinished and they were writing as well filming it (due to the writers strike). Visually the Bourne movies were superiour in the actionscenes when compared to QoS. The end of the boatchase (the solution????) and the freefall with an impossible fall showed how poor the decisions were when putting together a poor product. Nice arty farty camerawork and explanations made around them just try to cover up the fact that it is easily the poorest endresult of the franchise.
They should have waited for the writers strike to end and come up with a decent story and better thought out actionscenes. Oh and fire that worthless editor, to compare his quality with the great work of that of Hunt in OHMSS is comparing a birthdaycake with an old biscuit. OHMSS might have a lesser actor in the role of 007 the movie was excellent visually, adventurous, great stunts and the story makes sense (otherwise blame Flemings original book) and even with that emotional tough ending it was a fun movie. That is what has been lacking from QoS all together.
So Forster should stick to arty farty and lets hope that with Mendes the franchise can redeem itself. However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

You got an interesting read there yourself @SaintMark. Even though I disagree with virtually every one of your points. ;-)

doubleoego

SaintMark said:
An interesting read with a lot of excuses and bollocks about the actual value of QoS, easily sidestepping admissions of Craig that the script was unfinished and they were writing as well filming it (due to the writers strike). Visually the Bourne movies were superiour in the actionscenes when compared to QoS. The end of the boatchase (the solution????) and the freefall with an impossible fall showed how poor the decisions were when putting together a poor product. Nice arty farty camerawork and explanations made around them just try to cover up the fact that it is easily the poorest endresult of the franchise.
They should have waited for the writers strike to end and come up with a decent story and better thought out actionscenes. Oh and fire that worthless editor, to compare his quality with the great work of that of Hunt in OHMSS is comparing a birthdaycake with an old biscuit. OHMSS might have a lesser actor in the role of 007 the movie was excellent visually, adventurous, great stunts and the story makes sense (otherwise blame Flemings original book) and even with that emotional tough ending it was a fun movie. That is what has been lacking from QoS all together.
So Forster should stick to arty farty and lets hope that with Mendes the franchise can redeem itself. However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

I agree with most of this. Furthermore, I couldn't help notice numerous parallels between QoS and a few other movies such as die hard 3 and QoS IMO failed miserably in conveying a tense, suspenseful and a sense of urgency that the film so clearly alluded to. QoS could and should have been great and it flirted with great ideas but in the end, to quote Daniel Craig, the film was just cobbled together.

actonsteve

SaintMark said:

So Forster should stick to arty farty .

"arty farty" is a truly philistine argument used by people to dismiss things they don't understand. Maybe they don't see anything artistic, maybe they don't want to see anything, maybe they are incapable of seeing anything artistic. But that doesn't mean it isn't there and isn't appreciated by others.

The Bonds have always had an artistic streak whether it be Claude Renoirs photography or Ted Moores cinematography or Ken Adams production design. This is just in that long line.

4EverBonded

actonsteve said:

SaintMark said:

So Forster should stick to arty farty .

"arty farty" is a truly philistine argument used by people to dismiss things they don't understand. Maybe they don't see anything artistic, maybe they don't want to see anything, maybe they are incapable of seeing anything artistic. But that doesn't mean it isn't there and isn't appreciated by others.

The Bonds have always had an artistic streak whether it be Claude Renoirs photography or Ted Moores cinematography or Ken Adams production design. This is just in that long line.

Nice points, actonsteve.

Vancouver007

SaintMark said:
... However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

Casino Royale a mistake? If that is your opinion I hope you realize you are in the major minority! I can accept people complaining about QOS because it was flawed and I choose to look past those flaws and enjoy the movie for what it is. But this 5% of people that moan about the whole reboot and Craig have to realize that CR is and will go down in Bond history as a classic! It is rated on every site (IMDB, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato) at the top, it has been hailed by life long Bond fans as the best since Connery and the series is finally being taken seriously again after decades of mostly fantastical and unrealistic (compared to the source material) story lines. I, like most people, will agree with you on DAD but to call out the producers on the last two movies, especially CR, is just naive. It is your choice and opinion to not like it but please don't present it like the rest of us (and the producers!) have "explaining" to do for these movies.

SaintMark

Vancouver007 said:

SaintMark said:
... However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

Casino Royale a mistake? If that is your opinion I hope you realize you are in the major minority! I can accept people complaining about QOS because it was flawed and I choose to look past those flaws and enjoy the movie for what it is. But this 5% of people that moan about the whole reboot and Craig have to realize that CR is and will go down in Bond history as a classic! It is rated on every site (IMDB, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato) at the top, it has been hailed by life long Bond fans as the best since Connery and the series is finally being taken seriously again after decades of mostly fantastical and unrealistic (compared to the source material) story lines. I, like most people, will agree with you on DAD but to call out the producers on the last two movies, especially CR, is just naive. It is your choice and opinion to not like it but please don't present it like the rest of us (and the producers!) have "explaining" to do for these movies.

CR is a decent enough movie but it has it flaws as well, the finishing part of the sinking houses is as stupid as the final act of DAD. Action over sense, and in the case of CR chosing something in acting/style/class over stupid action (Michael Bay may be a fan), but alas action first and then boasting about the acting skills of your lead actor, for pete's sake use them and be daring and different. The reboot was stupid as well, I have seen no need for it so far, unless they want to remake the whole series with would be the end of it anyhow.
QoS has no excuse whatsoever, even the leadactor admits that it wasn't a finished idea. Hiding flaws of a endresult in editing, colours doesn't hide bad actionscenes that make look a invisible car more realistic or are just subpar copies of better actionscenes from a franchise you are competing with. You may like QoS that is anybody's personal taste but calling it better than most earlier 007 movies shows you have no idea about cinematic history and no perspective in cinematic views when it comes to 007 movies. If you like Craig that is fine but not due to his glorious movies since 3/4th of his output is actually special (perhaps Mendes gives DC finaly what he deserves.).
And I do not blame DC, even if he admitted that he was involved in the writing of parts of QoS, but EON who should have had the wisdom to start earlier, the strike did not happen by surprise, or wait it out in order to maximum facilitate one great actor to be a great 007.

And arty farty is a description when directors find form and deep thoughts are more important than a decent story and decently filmed actionscenes in a bloody action/adventure movie. I do not mind all that stuff but get the priorities straigth first and then knock yourself out. QoS is an average actioner which is utterly forgetable when compared to other actionmovies of its time. And compared with earlier 007 movies it is a wasted chance by a average director way in over his head. ALL IMHO

O:-)

PS the writer of this piece needs way to many words and uses bad examples to make his case that QoS is great. He speaks so much that in the end it is all bla bla. Once more IMHO

AlexanderWaverly

SaintMark said:

And I do not blame DC, even if he admitted that he was involved in the writing of parts of QoS, but EON who should have had the wisdom to start earlier, the strike did not happen by surprise, or wait it out in order to maximum facilitate one great actor to be a great 007.

Actually, they did start earlier. Paul Haggis spent a considerable amount of time on an idea that was eventually rejected:

http://www.vulture.com/2008/11/how_james_bond_nearly_became_a.html

Of course, at the time, all concerned said there had been no problems with the script:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/news/1719930/3/a_james_bond_set_visit_and_seven_exclusive_quantum_of_solace_images/

And Marc Forster said, “I had to subversively inject my ideas to make the movie my own.”

http://nymag.com/movies/features/51819/

JWESTBROOK

AlexanderWaverly said:
Actually, they did start earlier. Paul Haggis spent a considerable amount of time on an idea that was eventually rejected:

http://www.vulture.com/2008/11/how_james_bond_nearly_became_a.html

Actually, as long as Vesper already had the kid in CR, with a different man, and Bond went out to try and meet the kid and explain what happened, it may have been an interesting plot.

But if you want to talk about copying Bourne, sounds exactly like Supremacy.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I'm so glad that didn't happen.

Vancouver007

SaintMark said:

Vancouver007 said:

SaintMark said:
... However one problem remains namely EON in the persons of Babs & Wilson that have made plenty of mistakes in the last three movies that rest solely on their plate. Mendes might be troubled by their insights.

Casino Royale a mistake? If that is your opinion I hope you realize you are in the major minority! I can accept people complaining about QOS because it was flawed and I choose to look past those flaws and enjoy the movie for what it is. But this 5% of people that moan about the whole reboot and Craig have to realize that CR is and will go down in Bond history as a classic! It is rated on every site (IMDB, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato) at the top, it has been hailed by life long Bond fans as the best since Connery and the series is finally being taken seriously again after decades of mostly fantastical and unrealistic (compared to the source material) story lines. I, like most people, will agree with you on DAD but to call out the producers on the last two movies, especially CR, is just naive. It is your choice and opinion to not like it but please don't present it like the rest of us (and the producers!) have "explaining" to do for these movies.

CR is a decent enough movie but it has it flaws as well, the finishing part of the sinking houses is as stupid as the final act of DAD. Action over sense, and in the case of CR chosing something in acting/style/class over stupid action (Michael Bay may be a fan), but alas action first and then boasting about the acting skills of your lead actor, for pete's sake use them and be daring and different. The reboot was stupid as well, I have seen no need for it so far, unless they want to remake the whole series with would be the end of it anyhow.
QoS has no excuse whatsoever, even the leadactor admits that it wasn't a finished idea. Hiding flaws of a endresult in editing, colours doesn't hide bad actionscenes that make look a invisible car more realistic or are just subpar copies of better actionscenes from a franchise you are competing with. You may like QoS that is anybody's personal taste but calling it better than most earlier 007 movies shows you have no idea about cinematic history and no perspective in cinematic views when it comes to 007 movies. If you like Craig that is fine but not due to his glorious movies since 3/4th of his output is actually special (perhaps Mendes gives DC finaly what he deserves.).
And I do not blame DC, even if he admitted that he was involved in the writing of parts of QoS, but EON who should have had the wisdom to start earlier, the strike did not happen by surprise, or wait it out in order to maximum facilitate one great actor to be a great 007.

And arty farty is a description when directors find form and deep thoughts are more important than a decent story and decently filmed actionscenes in a bloody action/adventure movie. I do not mind all that stuff but get the priorities straigth first and then knock yourself out. QoS is an average actioner which is utterly forgetable when compared to other actionmovies of its time. And compared with earlier 007 movies it is a wasted chance by a average director way in over his head. ALL IMHO

O:-)

PS the writer of this piece needs way to many words and uses bad examples to make his case that QoS is great. He speaks so much that in the end it is all bla bla. Once more IMHO

Hmm I don't remember saying anywhere that QOS was better then the earlier Bond's.... but maybe I've missed it, please point it out to me if this is the case. I do recall saying that QOS had it's flaws but I enjoyed it nonetheless.. that's it! Most of the response was regarding CR, which yes is as good as earlier Bond's plain and simple. It is my opinion but it is shared by many and that you cannot deny.

Also, though Craig admitted that the script was not finished he also stated in the same quote that it was a miracle the movie came out as good as it did, "we actually pulled it off" I believe was the quote. Until you can find an article that highlights anything remotely good about DAD, please don't compare it or Michael Bay to QOS, that is truly "no perspective in cinematic views" as you say. Again, I'm not saying QOS is without it's issues, it has many, but it also has some amazing moments, scenes and cinematography that blows a few previous Bond and in particular DAD away. IMHO

actonsteve

SaintMark said:
[
And arty farty is a description when directors find form and deep thoughts are more important than a decent story and decently filmed actionscenes in a bloody action/adventure movie. I do not mind all that stuff but get the priorities straigth first and then knock yourself out. QoS is an average actioner which is utterly forgetable when compared to other actionmovies of its time. And compared with earlier 007 movies it is a wasted chance by a average director way in over his head. ALL IMHO

O:-)

the editing of the action scenes is debatable. Some find it excruciating but it doesnt bother me and the Siena rooftop chase and the plane chase in Bolivia are two of my favourite action scenes of recent years. I love it when the plane goes into a climb and Camille and Bond slide to the bottom of the plane. But others cant cope with it - not even when viewed on the small screen.

But what is wrong with the story?

Nothing wrong with the tale tellling - its easy to follow. The story is all there and set in the real world. The three stories of a unseen power buying up the resources of a developing nation secretly egged on by a superpower, an agent who must fight his own battle between duty and revenge and a woman who is damaged inside and out and her life becomes driven to avenge her family.

Whats wrong with those stories? Or do you want another death spewing satellite Bond?

DaltonCraig007

actonsteve said:

But what is wrong with the story?

Nothing wrong with the tale tellling - its easy to follow. The story is all there and set in the real world. The three stories of a unseen power buying up the resources of a developing nation secretly egged on by a superpower, an agent who must fight his own battle between duty and revenge and a woman who is damaged inside and out and her life becomes driven to avenge her family.

Whats wrong with those stories? Or do you want another death spewing satellite Bond?

Because it's crap. The story is not interesting, it's boring, it's too mundane. And yes some of us prefer plots with satellites. So please don't disregard part of the fanbase because you don't agree with them.....

The QOS story is boring and dull to the extreme, there's no character development at all, no memorable or colourful characters, too many locations which negates all of them.

actonsteve

DaltonCraig007 said:

actonsteve said:

But what is wrong with the story?

Nothing wrong with the tale tellling - its easy to follow. The story is all there and set in the real world. The three stories of a unseen power buying up the resources of a developing nation secretly egged on by a superpower, an agent who must fight his own battle between duty and revenge and a woman who is damaged inside and out and her life becomes driven to avenge her family.

Whats wrong with those stories? Or do you want another death spewing satellite Bond?

Because it's crap. The story is not interesting, it's boring, it's too mundane. And yes some of us prefer plots with satellites. So please don't disregard part of the fanbase because you don't agree with them.....

The QOS story is boring and dull to the extreme, there's no character development at all, no memorable or colourful characters, too many locations which negates all of them.

Oh I am not disregarding it. I am addressing it. I have just pointed out the character development to you, colourful characters we have Mathis and the locations are part of the plot. They ARE the plot.

You can only do the deathspewing satellites plots for so long before it gets ridiculous. I have a feeling with Skyfall we are having a global peril plot. But there is nothing wrong with the QoS story.

DaltonCraig007

QOS has too many locations, and that is completly un-Bondian. There is no character development in QOS. And the characters are not colourful - Fields has 3 minutes of screentime, Camille is an insult to Bond girls. And everything is wrong with the QOS story. It's just dumb, uninteresting, cobbled together and dull.

To quote another member here, QOS really is the pimple on the ass of Bond films.

actonsteve

DaltonCraig007 said:
QOS has too many locations, and that is completly un-Bondian.

FRWL, GF, LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, TLD, and your beloved MR have more then three locations. The Bonds have been global spanning from the beginning. Its part of the attractions.

DaltonCraig007 said:
There is no character development in QOS.

I have just pointed out the character development of Bond and Camille. Did you catch that? I would also add M goes on a journey throughout the film as well.

DaltonCraig007 said:
Camille is an insult to Bond girls.

Why? I tend to think Camille is the kind of girl that would be written for Bond by Fleming in 2008. The 'bird with a wing down'. Very well played by Olga Kurylenko.

DaltonCraig007 said:
And everything is wrong with the QOS story. It's just dumb, uninteresting, cobbled together and dull.

One persons dullness is another persons exciting story. I like the geopolitics of QoS. The way the Americans are carving up the natural resources of a region and the people are suffering. Plus the revenge storylines are juicy.

DaltonCraig007 said:
To quote another member here, QOS really is the pimple on the ass of Bond films.

As much as I love it - I have seen that description applied to MR more going all the way back to 1979.

Getafix

DaltonCraig007 said:
QOS has too many locations, and that is completly un-Bondian. There is no character development in QOS. And the characters are not colourful - Fields has 3 minutes of screentime, Camille is an insult to Bond girls. And everything is wrong with the QOS story. It's just dumb, uninteresting, cobbled together and dull.

To quote another member here, QOS really is the pimple on the ass of Bond films.

You must have seen a different film from me. QoS is the was most entertaining Bond movie since TLD. Better than CR in my view, which was too long.

DaltonCraig007

actonsteve said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
QOS has too many locations, and that is completly un-Bondian.

FRWL, GF, LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, TLD, and your beloved MR have more then three locations. The Bonds have been global spanning from the beginning. Its part of the attractions.

ROFL !! =))

QOS visits 7 locations ( all in the first 50 minutes)... there's only 3 locations in MR (in 2 hours), 3 in GF (in 2 hours), 3 in LALD (in 2 hours)... have you seen any Bond movies recently ? it seems you don't remember much from them....

I'm always amused how many members don't understand how locations must be used in Bond films ! QOS visits 7 countries in the first 50 minutes... that's 7 minutes per location.... factually that is too many locations. That is un-Bondian to the extreme. A good use of locations in Bond films is 3/4 locations in 2 hours time, like all Bond movies did until TLD. Since Dalton arrived, there has been too many locations in each Bond film (only LTK had a good number of locations since 1987).

And what's even worse for QOS is that there's no epic scope at all !! The locations are so underused, that it doesn't come anywhere close of the epic scale of TB, YOLT and MR, all achieved with 2 times less locations than QOS.

7 minutes per location is just insulting the legacy of Bond movies and the Fleming legacy. So QOS is indeed an insult to the Bond name.

QOS is just globetrotting for the sake of globetrotting, which is NOT what Bond movies are. QOS did not have a good use of locations, whichever way you look at it.

QOS has a very bad use of locations... end of. For the film to work it should have been 5 hours long, which it wasn't, it was the shortest film in the franchise. Thus QOS is a failure in the locations department.

Mind you, I'm not saying the cinematography of QOS is bad, because it's very good. It's just that the film fails completly in the locations department.

007RogerMoore

Quantum should have had the world for ransome with a laser satellite or something. Selling expensive water isn´t really the coolest Bond plot so far. SF will hopefully hit the jackpot.

DaltonCraig007

I suggest members like actonsteve should study more the locations aspect of Bond films, because they don't seem to know much about it...

JWESTBROOK

DaltonCraig007 said:
I suggest members like actonsteve should study more the locations aspect of Bond films, because they don't seem to know much about it...

No need to attack. Clearly some people prefer a more film-Bond, and others a more Book-Bond.

Quantum's characters are very Fleming. If CR had a few more chapters, I'm sure we would have seen many elements of Quantum in his writing.

Its not so much 'too many' locations, but rather a poor use of them. I can't even tell you the order of them and its my most watched film.

But again, I can't stress enough... QoS is the closest to a true Fleming story than anything else (maybe besides GF and FRWL). And to all those smart-asses, I don't mean it follows book-Quantum closely. Its just very Fleming to its elements.

DaltonCraig007

There is nothing Fleming about QOS... it's much more Bourne and Statham than anything else. For me the closest we got to a through Fleming story are Connery's DAF, Moore's TMWTGG, and Connery's FRWL... and to a lesser extent Moore's MR and FYEO and Dalton's TLD.

Getafix

Perhaps the locations were overdone in QoS, but this is hardly a capital crime. Bad acting, dodgy scripts, dull characters and appalling casting during the Brozza era made those films much worse than QoS. With CR we saw the Bond series recover some self respect. With QoS we saw a Bond movie that actually respected and understood a little of the heritage and hopefully with SF we will finally, after almost 25 years of waiting, get a fully fledged, bona fide Bond movie. Although Bardem's hair is worrying me a little.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements