QOS - The Bigger Picture by Paul Rowlands

The_Reaper

QoS ain't perfect but it's a damn fine Bond movie.

SaintMark

The_Reaper said:
QoS ain't perfect but it's a damn fine Bond movie.

That disqualifies almost all other entries to a sublevel.

You'll be losing that QoS admiration in the years to come, one you'll realise that QoS is like the SW prequels full of good intentions but not very good and a shamefull addition to a franchise.

BAIN123

But the film takes it to a more extreme level. Space battles, Jaws falling in love with Dolly etc. In the book, its fairly grounded stuff.

What about the 50 Drax workmen all with shaved head and wearing moustaches ? Isn't that 'bizarre' ?

You're right. I'd forgotten about that to tell the truth.

bondbat007

SaintMark said:

You'll be losing that QoS admiration in the years to come,

I disagree, in the four years since its release, the feelings of QoS have only gone up. I don't think it'll ever be more than a sub par Bond film but it is not the disaster that many people (myself included) thought when it was first released

identigraph

Good review, still a rubbish film!

Vancouver007

DC007, do you find FRWL comical and fantasical? Because the book and movie are bloody close and neither comes across as anything but a good, grounded espionage story. Fleming did not change much from this formula so to call the books OTT is your interpretation that I believe you have warped with the direction the movies went during the Moore era and then claim they are "Flemingesque". There are no one liners and quips in the novels as examples, that is ALL EON movie based, starting with Connery and developing with Moore. I don't argue against it and believe that in many respects it kept the series alive. They just went to far with a few movies (ie MR) and they (EON) realized it and returned with FYEO, a much darker, more serious Bond because of it.

To be honest, other then FRWL and OHMSS, neither the lighter or darker Bond movies really capture how Bond talks and behaves in the books, he's much more grounded and normal then either portrayal. I don't find Fleming's Bond to be nearly as smooth talking and charismatic as the movies show him.... In the books he's just a normal joe who manages to fight his way out of stuff and when he does loose he never seems to get seriously injured...:-)

I don't for a minute believe the Bond stories are realistic but Fleming pulls you in and your convinced this "could" happen and that's what makes his style so appealing. The detail, the characters, the women... they all get presented in a realistic style and that is what the movies have to strive for. To be based on things and characters that would in reality never, or likely to never exist but are convincing enough to pull you in for 2 hours to make you believe they are. Thats Bond to me! And that is where movies like YOLT, MR and DAD loose me, because they become to "out there". Where the story and probability of such things happening is just to unbelievable. Don't get me wrong I still find them entertaining but they are not the quality movies of when they stick closer how Fleming presented his stories...

Just my 2 cents....

Vancouver007

I'll also add that to me FRWL and OHMSS are as close to Fleming's Bond as your going to get on the screen. And as good as those two movies are I'm not sure 22 of those would have sustained the series as long as it has. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact the series has altered its style over the times may be the reason for its longevity... who knows.

DaltonCraig007

Vancouver007 I don't think we've read the same novels... sorry but whenever I read Fleming I always picture Moore Bond, I find the books more comical than some day here.... IMO DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 are very Flemingesque, much more than CR '06, because they portrayed very well the eery feel, strange atmosphere and benign bizarre. Sorry, but even the darkest of the novels, MR, is nothing like Craig's CR. Don't you remember the 50 Drax workmen all with moustaches and shaved heads ? IMO such a strange thing is much closer with Connery's DAF and Moore's GG than Craig's CR.

Sorry, but Fleming's novels are very weird and strange at times, which CR '06 completly fails at. I don't know if some people here went blind while reading the novels, but for me the books are much closer to the atmosphere of DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 than CR ' 06.

You know, the novels aren't just plots, they are an atmosphere, a feeling. And this atmosphere is pretty much really eery, strange and bizarre at times. Which is why when I watch DAF or TMWTGG, I really think Fleming could have wrote such stories.

CR '06 is the furthest you can go from Fleming's writings. That film is nothing like Fleming. It's the polar opposite of what Fleming wrote.

Sorry if I offend people here, but IMO DAF and TMWTGG are the closest we got to Fleming, with TLD, FRWL and OHMSS coming 2nd, MR not far behind and CR and QOS far far away in the last 2 places.

BAIN123

The thing is both MR and DAF go into parody, something Fleming never did.

DaltonCraig007

BAIN123 said:
The thing is both MR and DAF go into parody, something Fleming never did.

I didn't say everything from DAF '71 and MR '79 or TMWTGG '74 could have been written by Fleming. I am merely saying that many things from the novels fits more in the Moore outings, and many things from the Moore films and the DAF film could have been written by Fleming.

Take the 50 Drax workmen with moustaches and shaved heads. Such a thing could come straight from Moore's TMWTGG or Connery's DAF. Even the darkest of novels is more similar to Moore and DAF than Craig's films...

And again, you have to realize that the novels are also an atmoshere, that only DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 conveyed very well. CR '06 couldn't be further from the Fleming atmoshere.

Germanlady

My humble opinion is, that had the action been put together in a decent way, we would have some incredible scenes to enjoy. That would up the overall film A LOT. I could weep, when I think of the roof top chase, the car chase and the Siena chase. The grandeur, that this film certainly has, ended up on the cutting floor and that is Forsters fault. Stupid idea with the fast as a bullit direction PLUS missing out on actually SHOWING all the locations EON paid to travel to.

007RogerMoore

I don´t think that the movies must follow the books, since Fleming sold the filming rights. Then they can do whatever they want with his creation. And they did, succesfully.

JWESTBROOK

007RogerMoore said:
I don´t think that the movies must follow the books

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is how to determine who or what is 'Bond'. The movies, or the books.

JWESTBROOK

deleted.

Vancouver007

DaltonCraig007 said:
Vancouver007 I don't think we've read the same novels... sorry but whenever I read Fleming I always picture Moore Bond, I find the books more comical than some day here.... IMO DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 are very Flemingesque, much more than CR '06, because they portrayed very well the eery feel, strange atmosphere and benign bizarre. Sorry, but even the darkest of the novels, MR, is nothing like Craig's CR. Don't you remember the 50 Drax workmen all with moustaches and shaved heads ? IMO such a strange thing is much closer with Connery's DAF and Moore's GG than Craig's CR.

Sorry, but Fleming's novels are very weird and strange at times, which CR '06 completly fails at. I don't know if some people here went blind while reading the novels, but for me the books are much closer to the atmosphere of DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 than CR ' 06.

You know, the novels aren't just plots, they are an atmosphere, a feeling. And this atmosphere is pretty much really eery, strange and bizarre at times. Which is why when I watch DAF or TMWTGG, I really think Fleming could have wrote such stories.

CR '06 is the furthest you can go from Fleming's writings. That film is nothing like Fleming. It's the polar opposite of what Fleming wrote.

Sorry if I offend people here, but IMO DAF and TMWTGG are the closest we got to Fleming, with TLD, FRWL and OHMSS coming 2nd, MR not far behind and CR and QOS far far away in the last 2 places.

No I don't think YOUR reading the same books. You keep mentioned the 30 workers with moustaches and shaved heads.... its explained in the novel why they did it and the LAST thing I would call it is benign bizarre. What exactly is that anyway? I'd be curious to hear more examples of this. Also, what "strange atmosphere" and "eery feelings" are there. To state these claims without examples is not making a particularly valid claim. Fleming describes some unique settings (the old western town in DAF for example) but I do not get any sort of eery or bizarre feeling.... and since you are the only one using these words to describe Fleming this way I'm pretty sure your on your own with these opinions. Thats fine but don't jam it down our throats like we're "blind" as you put it.

I mentioned it in my TMWGG thread that I agreed the first half of that movie was very Fleming but MR and DAF?? Sorry but I completely disagree with you there. Maybe there is moments but they are completely ruined by characters and cheap scenes that both those movies suffer from. Personally I think the ending of DAF could have been a great Bond ending in a Fleming style but they failed miserably!

BAIN123

DaltonCraig007 said:

BAIN123 said:
The thing is both MR and DAF go into parody, something Fleming never did.

I didn't say everything from DAF '71 and MR '79 or TMWTGG '74 could have been written by Fleming. I am merely saying that many things from the novels fits more in the Moore outings, and many things from the Moore films and the DAF film could have been written by Fleming.

Take the 50 Drax workmen with moustaches and shaved heads. Such a thing could come straight from Moore's TMWTGG or Connery's DAF. Even the darkest of novels is more similar to Moore and DAF than Craig's films...

And again, you have to realize that the novels are also an atmoshere, that only DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 conveyed very well. CR '06 couldn't be further from the Fleming atmoshere.

Perhaps. As would Bond being

Vancouver007 said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
Vancouver007 I don't think we've read the same novels... sorry but whenever I read Fleming I always picture Moore Bond, I find the books more comical than some day here.... IMO DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 are very Flemingesque, much more than CR '06, because they portrayed very well the eery feel, strange atmosphere and benign bizarre. Sorry, but even the darkest of the novels, MR, is nothing like Craig's CR. Don't you remember the 50 Drax workmen all with moustaches and shaved heads ? IMO such a strange thing is much closer with Connery's DAF and Moore's GG than Craig's CR.

Sorry, but Fleming's novels are very weird and strange at times, which CR '06 completly fails at. I don't know if some people here went blind while reading the novels, but for me the books are much closer to the atmosphere of DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 than CR ' 06.

You know, the novels aren't just plots, they are an atmosphere, a feeling. And this atmosphere is pretty much really eery, strange and bizarre at times. Which is why when I watch DAF or TMWTGG, I really think Fleming could have wrote such stories.

CR '06 is the furthest you can go from Fleming's writings. That film is nothing like Fleming. It's the polar opposite of what Fleming wrote.

Sorry if I offend people here, but IMO DAF and TMWTGG are the closest we got to Fleming, with TLD, FRWL and OHMSS coming 2nd, MR not far behind and CR and QOS far far away in the last 2 places.

No I don't think YOUR reading the same books. You keep mentioned the 30 workers with moustaches and shaved heads.... its explained in the novel why they did it and the LAST thing I would call it is benign bizarre. What exactly is that anyway? I'd be curious to hear more examples of this. Also, what "strange atmosphere" and "eery feelings" are there. To state these claims without examples is not making a particularly valid claim. Fleming describes some unique settings (the old western town in DAF for example) but I do not get any sort of eery or bizarre feeling.... and since you are the only one using these words to describe Fleming this way I'm pretty sure your on your own with these opinions. Thats fine but don't jam it down our throats like we're "blind" as you put it.

I mentioned it in my TMWGG thread that I agreed the first half of that movie was very Fleming but MR and DAF?? Sorry but I completely disagree with you there. Maybe there is moments but they are completely ruined by characters and cheap scenes that both those movies suffer from. Personally I think the ending of DAF could have been a great Bond ending in a Fleming style but they failed miserably!

Well there is the Castle of Death in YOLT @Vancouver007. That's pretty bazare. Not to mention a mute servant with a leathal, steel rimmed bowler hat.

actonsteve

BAIN123 said:
[q
Well there is the Castle of Death in YOLT @Vancouver007. That's pretty bazare. Not to mention a mute servant with a leathal, steel rimmed bowler hat.

Fleming wrote YOLT in 1963 after the films came out. So it could be argued he followed the films in adding bizzare stuff in. Certainly there are more straight thriller novels then fantasy (I count Dr No, GF and YOLT really)

Vancouver007

The Castle of Death is a bit odd, I'll agree there but Oddjob is just a unique character. These two things or the odd thing don't in my mind make Fleming "eery", "strange" or "bizarre benign".

BAIN123

actonsteve said:

BAIN123 said:
[q
Well there is the Castle of Death in YOLT @Vancouver007. That's pretty bazare. Not to mention a mute servant with a leathal, steel rimmed bowler hat.

Fleming wrote YOLT in 1963 after the films came out. So it could be argued he followed the films in adding bizzare stuff in. Certainly there are more straight thriller novels then fantasy (I count Dr No, GF and YOLT really)

I remember being rather suprised when I first read Dr No. I thought "Wow...Fleming's really going for it". So much for "gritty realism" ;)

The more I think about it the film of Dr No is more realistic than the book...but Fleming still hated it.

There's certainly a "quirkyness" to Fleming - I don't think you can argue that. The idea of the enemies setting up elaborate traps for Bond when he could just shoot him demonstrates the author's wild imagination. Most of the stuff Austin Powers makes fun of actually started in the books - not the films.

I think the "fantasy" stuff starts as early as LALD really. The elaborate Keel-hauling trap for Bond combined with the exotic setting and the plot involving "Mr Big" and "Vodoo"

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

BAIN123 said:

actonsteve said:

BAIN123 said:
[q
Well there is the Castle of Death in YOLT @Vancouver007. That's pretty bazare. Not to mention a mute servant with a leathal, steel rimmed bowler hat.

Fleming wrote YOLT in 1963 after the films came out. So it could be argued he followed the films in adding bizzare stuff in. Certainly there are more straight thriller novels then fantasy (I count Dr No, GF and YOLT really)

I remember being rather suprised when I first read Dr No. I thought "Wow...Fleming's really going for it". So much for "gritty realism" ;)

The more I think about it the film of Dr No is more realistic than the book...but Fleming still hated it.

There's certainly a "quirkyness" to Fleming - I don't think you can argue that. The idea of the enemies setting up elaborate traps for Bond when he could just shoot him demonstrates the author's wild imagination. Most of the stuff Austin Powers makes fun of actually started in the books - not the films.

I think the "fantasy" stuff starts as early as LALD really. The elaborate Keel-hauling trap for Bond combined with the exotic setting and the plot involving "Mr Big" and "Vodoo"

LALD is a travesty just all around. I got no enjoyment out of reading that thing.

actonsteve

BAIN123 said:
Most of the stuff Austin Powers makes fun of actually started in the books - not the films.

But the films took the sending up to extremes. Guy Hamilton could handle it but when you have a hack like Lee Hamahori cackhandedly trying it thats where it goes splat.

BAIN123 said:
I think the "fantasy" stuff starts as early as LALD really. The elaborate Keel-hauling trap for Bond combined with the exotic setting and the plot involving "Mr Big" and "Vodoo"

Keelhaulinging is standard potboiler material. As is tying the girl to the railway tracks ala DAF or TMWTGG.

BAIN123

actonsteve said:

BAIN123 said:
Most of the stuff Austin Powers makes fun of actually started in the books - not the films.

But the films took the sending up to extremes. Guy Hamilton could handle it but when you have a hack like Lee Hamahori cackhandedly trying it thats where it goes splat.

True but I suppose the books laid the groundwork for the films. As I recall both Mr Big and Drax spend ages explaining to Bond how he's going to be killed and how Bond has no chance of escape.

Keelhaulinging is standard potboiler material. As is tying the girl to the railway tracks ala DAF or TMWTGG.

Is it? I'm not really an avid reader to be fair but I've never seen (or heard of) other well known instances where keelhauling is used. I'm preparing myself to be proved wrong though ;)

Grant

When is Bond not Bond?

Babs and Co made a huge decision when they made Casino Royale. They turned their backs on all the Bond films that went before, I include the first two as well (they being more "realistic"). They opted for a modern Bond that put its film past far behind it.

They tried to soften this by saying that Casiono Royale's Bond was much closer to the books but even a blind monkey could see that is a lie.

So what is left? A character named Bond who does not act in anyway like his film predecessor or the character described in the books (looks and character).

Very strange.

Germanlady

I would like to bring this into the discussion - I haven*t and most other people neither read a Flmming novel. So - however his creation was, it really doesn*t matter, when it comes to go with the times and changing it here and there to keep the audience interested.

As opposed to above though - I can*t say how often I read and heard, that CR Bond or Dalton Bond with their gritty "realism" were much close to Flemming...Funny this...so obviously Moore (my fav) or Pierce were not very close to Flemming Bond - so what? Each time has their Bond and times change. After DC - who knows, what we will get. I doubt though, it will ever go down the Moore/Brosnan line again...

bondbat007

Well said @Germanlady. Some people here believe that we will get another Brosnan/Moore in the future. I do not. Do I think we will get something lighter after Craig? Maybe. Not as light as Moore though. But we'll all need to see what Skyfall has to offer. At this point, we have no idea on the tone of the film if it is as serious as CR/QoS or not. I'm hoping for a CR style tone but that's just me

boldfinger

SaintMark said:
You'll be losing that QoS admiration in the years to come, one you'll realise that QoS is like the SW prequels full of good intentions but not very good and a shamefull addition to a franchise.

Huh (:|? Everytime I re-watch QOS I like it more, exactly because it´s so untypical. Maybe it´s a stretch to even call it a Bond film, but why should I care? I enjoy its style, its pace (including the action scenes), and its way of storytelling, and Craig can be as untraditional a Bond as he likes to be, as long as he puts onto the screen such a massive performance.

I don´t think there´s any resemblance whatsoever to the SW prequels. And I sharply disagree on QOS being a shameful addition to the franchise.

AlexanderWaverly

It's Ian Fleming, one m.

Newer fans may not care whether there's a resemblance between Fleming's Bond and the film Bond. Differences in opinion are what makes a horse race. But his name is on every movie. With most of the films, it's immediately after the star's name and right before the title.

Tom Mankiewicz has a harder last name to spell but it's rarely misspelled on message boards. For some reason, here, Commander Bond and other message boards, people spell it Flemming. Not picking on anyone, just have seen it a lot.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

boldfinger said:

SaintMark said:
You'll be losing that QoS admiration in the years to come, one you'll realise that QoS is like the SW prequels full of good intentions but not very good and a shamefull addition to a franchise.
Huh (:|? Everytime I re-watch QOS I like it more, exactly because it´s so untypical. Maybe it´s a stretch to even call it a Bond film, but why should I care? I enjoy its style, its pace (including the action scenes), and its way of storytelling, and Craig can be as untraditional a Bond as he likes to be, as long as he puts onto the screen such a massive performance.

I don´t think there´s any resemblance whatsoever to the SW prequels. And I sharply disagree on QOS being a shameful addition to the franchise.

Exactly. And the only good thing about Star Wars is Yoda, about the only thing Lucas hasn't pissed with in an effort to ruin yet another famous franchise.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements