Mr Whites return

245

Comments

  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote:
    Don't dumb down the arc for the Transformers audience. Bring back QUANTUM.

    The problem is that Bond films are made for the general audience, which englobes the Transformers audience. They are the ones who dictate where the franchise should go, etc... I mean, these films aren't made for a recluse group of hardcore fans like us.

    You're attaching rather a lot of value to Quantum aren't you? As if the idea were some work of genius. All it is is a SPECTRE clone without any meat on the bones. In QoS they did nothing more than use it as a crutch for a ropey plot. If they're gonna do multi-film story arcs they need a long-term idea of where the story is going, something which was fairly absent from QoS. If you think the plot in QoS was quality then you either have very low expectations from your movies or you haven't seen some of the classic spy/thriller movies of the past, or both. Transformers may be trash, but at least it knows it's trash. I fear the Bond films have begun to take themselves so seriously they succeed neither as old-school entertainment, nor as serious thrillers - they seem to be falling between two stools and not doing anything very well. Although to be fair, QoS was hindered by the writers strike and they did the best of a bad job.
  • Posts: 165
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the actor who played White (can't recall his name at the moment) have some not so kind words for the Bond franchise a year or two ago? If memory serves, he was downright insulting to Bond, the filmakers and the audience. So, yeah, I'd love to see the return of Quantum, but I doubt he'll be back.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,680
    Well Getafix I didn't care much for Quantum in QOS as we learned barely nothing about them. But I was looking forward to learning more about them in a future film... problem is the general audience most likely do not care anymore /have forgotten most plot points about Quantum, so EON may very well be forced to give up and go back to one-offs for a while.

    That's the problem when you don't mention Quantum in 6 years - the general audience loses interest.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Well Getafix I didn't care much for Quantum in QOS as we learned barely nothing about them. But I was looking forward to learning more about them in a future film... problem is the general audience most likely do not care anymore /have forgotten most plot points about Quantum, so EON may very well be forced to give up and go back to one-offs for a while.

    That's the problem when you don't mention Quantum in 6 years - the general audience loses interest.

    Fair point. But I also feel if they wanted Quantum to reoccur, the should have given it more meat in QoS. But yes, I think the 6 plus year wait will have taken the wind out of Quantum's sails by the time Bond 24 arrives.
  • Posts: 165
    I think Quantum has the potential to be the perfect enemy in this post-cold war, post-globalisation world. It fits perfectly with the franchise's desire to get "more real".

    Look, the villians of today (and tomorrow) aren't going to be some maniacal scientists who builds his laboratory of evil in a hollowed out volcano. If nothing else, the Austin Powers films put an end to that and showed just how ridiculous that is.

    The villains of today are the gigantic multi-national corporations, corrupting the political system, manipulating the media and generally living above international law. Even though we see corporate corruption everyday in the headlines, one can't help but feeling there's much, much worse going on we don't know about.

    Even though we never learned all that much about Quantum, there's little doubt that's exactly where the filmmakers where going with it. I, for one, would love to see them continue that thought and "flesh out" Quantum.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    Problem is @Grinderman the general audience has most likely forgotten about key plot points about Quantum, and most likely won't care at all about Quantum in 2014. Us Bond fans may want to know more about Quantum, but the main issue is whether or not the general audience are invested in Quantum anymore. If they aren't, Quantum will be dropped.

    It is the general audience who dictate where the franchise will go in the future. They don't expect to have to use their brains when watching Bond films, so most likely everything that happened with Quantum in CR and QOS will be forgotten once the first action scene in Bond 24 will start,, if not already, so any effort to bring back Quantum is useless. When Bond 24 will be in theaters, the general audience don't expect to have to remember what happened in CR and QOS. And even if they start to think 'Who are these Quantum people again ?', they will stop thinking once the next action scene will start, because they will get their gun fights, fist fights and explosions, and that's all they need/care about.
  • Posts: 165
    I don't think it matter if they remember or not. If it's the evil organization from 2 films ago, or just the evil organization in the current film, will the general audience really care? I don't think so. If they're that vapid and memory-challeged, they'll still see: Bond=Good Guy, Quantum dude=Bad Guy.

    As hard core fans, we love continuity, but I don't think it impacts casual fans at all. They want to see the good guys beat the bad guys. If the bad guys were actually introduced 6 years and 2 films ago, it's still going to be obvious that they're the bad guys, right? For the casual movie goer, that's all that matters.
  • Posts: 12,506
    If you have a portion of fans who are against the idea Quantun returning? Then you can justify Spectre making a return as they have been gone decades ago!

    Greene told Bond what he wanted to know about Quantum before being left in the desert. So in theory Eon can speed up the process of fleshing out Quantum. And i think it will hopefully be played out by quality actors like they have in Skyfall.

    Quantum has alot of potential which Eon will capitlise on over the next couple of movies.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    I don't care if there is continuity or not, since I loved the first 40 years of the franchise, when continuity was non-existent.

    Grinderman wrote:
    I don't think it matter if they remember or not.

    Well if EON brings back plot points from CR and QOS, they will only confuse the general audience. Even if Quantum returned in Bond 24, which IMO is unlikely, they'd have to forget everything Quantum related in CR and QOS and start over again.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    I don't care if there is continuity or not, since I loved the first 40 years of the franchise, when continuity was non-existent.

    Completely agree. They introduced continuity with QoS because they felt they wanted to mimic the story arc in Bourne - journey of self-discovery and revenge etc. It is no coincidence that QoS was the first and only film to show continuity to such an extent.

    Now they should get back to making proper Bond movies and leave all that continuity nonsense at the door. Bond doesn't need continuity - never has.
  • Posts: 165
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    No. I didn't say they were bad films, only that hard core fans seem to like linking one film to the next. Perhaps I overstated how many fans like that sort of thing.

    But that doesn't speak at all to my point: that the casual fan won't be affected by, or care about, whether they remember the bad guys from the previous film or not.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Grinderman wrote:
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    No. I didn't say they were bad films, only that hard core fans seem to like linking one film to the next. Perhaps I overstated how many fans like that sort of thing.

    But that doesn't speak at all to my point: that the casual fan won't be affected by, or care about, whether they remember the bad guys from the previous film or not.

    Also a fair point. I boils down to whether you think Quantum is such a strong idea that it deserves to be brought back. I don't feel that they demonstrated in QoS that it was an idea that needed to be explored further, but thats just me.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    Well if in Bond 24 they mention Vesper's boyfriend, or Haines, or stuff like that... this will only confuse casual viewers, because they won't remember any of it. So if Quantum were to return in B24, they'd have to start the organization from scratch. And that would put off Bond fans because CR's and QOS's plot points won't be mentioned. So IMO it's best to leave Quantum and start making one-off films like they did before.
  • Getafix wrote:
    Well Getafix I didn't care much for Quantum in QOS as we learned barely nothing about them. But I was looking forward to learning more about them in a future film... problem is the general audience most likely do not care anymore /have forgotten most plot points about Quantum, so EON may very well be forced to give up and go back to one-offs for a while.

    That's the problem when you don't mention Quantum in 6 years - the general audience loses interest.

    Fair point. But I also feel if they wanted Quantum to reoccur, they should have given it more meat in QoS. But yes, I think the 6 plus year wait will have taken the wind out of Quantum's sails by the time Bond 24 arrives.

    Curious, how could they have done that with a writer's strike going on? It's a minor miracle that it made as much sense as it did. Another 15 minutes or so and maybe the meat would be there. In my opinion, not enough reason to drop the concept. But it doesn't matter what any of us think, because EON will do what they want and if they want QUANTUM back it will be back, and if they don't, it won't. They will be more worried about making a great movie than trying to figure out who remembers and who doesn't.




  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2012 Posts: 5,858
    The fact that the film was based on a Fleming novel and was Flemingesque is completly irrelevant, because 95% of those who saw CR have never read a Fleming novel. So it wasn't the Fleming touch that made CR successful.

    I respectfully disagree. The story was based on one of Fleming's strongest novels and that helped drive critical praise and good word of mouth. Whether the audience knew it or not, Fleming was one of the reasons they liked that movie.
    Getafix wrote:
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    I don't care if there is continuity or not, since I loved the first 40 years of the franchise, when continuity was non-existent.

    Completely agree. They introduced continuity with QoS because they felt they wanted to mimic the story arc in Bourne - journey of self-discovery and revenge etc. It is no coincidence that QoS was the first and only film to show continuity to such an extent.

    Now they should get back to making proper Bond movies and leave all that continuity nonsense at the door. Bond doesn't need continuity - never has.

    Except that there was continuity in the early Bonds, which are widely considered to be some of the best. FRWL made direct reference to "our operative Dr. No," and SPECTRE tied all of the movies from DN-DAF (save GF) together.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    All the people who approve of ditching Quantum would complain to their dying day about it decades down the road.
  • Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote:
    The fact that the film was based on a Fleming novel and was Flemingesque is completly irrelevant, because 95% of those who saw CR have never read a Fleming novel. So it wasn't the Fleming touch that made CR successful.

    I respectfully disagree. The story was based on one of Fleming's strongest novels and that helped drive critical praise and good word of mouth. Whether the audience knew it or not, Fleming was one of the reasons they liked that movie.
    Getafix wrote:
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    I don't care if there is continuity or not, since I loved the first 40 years of the franchise, when continuity was non-existent.

    Completely agree. They introduced continuity with QoS because they felt they wanted to mimic the story arc in Bourne - journey of self-discovery and revenge etc. It is no coincidence that QoS was the first and only film to show continuity to such an extent.

    Now they should get back to making proper Bond movies and leave all that continuity nonsense at the door. Bond doesn't need continuity - never has.

    Except that there was continuity in the early Bonds, which are widely considered to be some of the best. FRWL made direct reference to "our operative Dr. No," and SPECTRE tied all of the movies from DN-DAF (save GF) together.

    The continuity your refer to is minimal. Yes, the same characters reappear and so does SPECTRE, but the story arcs are fairly unrelated. SPECTRE provides a conceptual link but not really a narrative continuation.
  • Posts: 165
    I would absolutely agree that extreme continuity would be a bad thing (i.e. having the next film pick up with Bond walking away from M in the snow, a'la how QoS picks up a few minutes after the end of CR). But I do like the idea of having a villianous organization - especially one such as Quantum which could easily have it's hands in so many nefarious situations - continue to exists in a series of films.
  • Posts: 2,107
    I'd be happy if they even acknowledged that Quantum is done, over and dealt with. Even if it was for a few lines in Bond 24, or even Skyfall. Acknowledging that such organization existed and that during these years of hiatus mi6 and it's allies would have managed to tear down Quantum and finding the leading members of the organization.
  • Posts: 11,425
    What is the difference between Spectre and Quantum?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    echo wrote:
    The fact that the film was based on a Fleming novel and was Flemingesque is completly irrelevant, because 95% of those who saw CR have never read a Fleming novel. So it wasn't the Fleming touch that made CR successful.

    I respectfully disagree. The story was based on one of Fleming's strongest novels and that helped drive critical praise and good word of mouth. Whether the audience knew it or not, Fleming was one of the reasons they liked that movie.

    Sorry but you are quite wrong. 95% of the audience who saw CR had never read a Fleming novel. So how can Fleming be a reason for the film's success if barely anyone had read a Fleming novel ? How could the audience say 'WOW that's so true to Fleming, that was so Flemingesque' if they don't know what Fleming wrote ?

    Sorry but it's absurd to think that people would comment on how CR 2006 was close to the book when they never read the book.

    You can't comment on the faithfulness of the film in regard of the original book if you never read the novel. Sorry but that is a fact.

    Do you honestly believe that the audience were psychics and knew the novel by heart without ever reading it ?

    You have to explain how someone can comment on a book without reading it.

    The audience can only comment on whetherthe story was good or bad. They can't know if the story was faithful to the novel or Flemingesque when they have no idea on Fleming's style of writing or the original plot. Only Bond fans can comment on that. So Fleming was not the reason of the film's success in the minds of 95% of those who saw the film, because the have no information on the Fleming novels. It's like commenting on the Harry Potter books when you only saw the films.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 12,506
    Grinderman wrote:
    As hard core fans, we love continuity

    I don't. We've had 20 films with close to no continuity, so are they all bad Bond films because they weren't any continuity ?

    I don't care if there is continuity or not, since I loved the first 40 years of the franchise, when continuity was non-existent.

    Grinderman wrote:
    I don't think it matter if they remember or not.

    Well if EON brings back plot points from CR and QOS, they will only confuse the general audience. Even if Quantum returned in Bond 24, which IMO is unlikely, they'd have to forget everything Quantum related in CR and QOS and start over again.

    All they would have to do is watch CR and QOS? It's like saying you can't watch Skyfall because you don't know anything about James Bond as you have not seen any of the other films?

    This is why when new fans come along to the films they go back and watch the older movies surely?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited June 2012 Posts: 16,315
    Well if in Bond 24 they mention Vesper's boyfriend, or Haines, or stuff like that... this will only confuse casual viewers, because they won't remember any of it.

    Casual viewers can just go back and rewatch the previous films to refresh their memories of Quantum, Haines and Yusef. before watching the newest one. I watched all of the Marvel Films in order, days before watching the Avengers so I knew what was going on. it's simple logic.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote:
    Well if in Bond 24 they mention Vesper's boyfriend, or Haines, or stuff like that... this will only confuse casual viewers, because they won't remember any of it.

    Casual viewers can just go back and rewatch the previous films to refresh their memories of Quantum, Haines and Yusef. before watching the newest one. I watched all of the Marvel Films in order, days before watching the Avengers so I knew what was going on. it's simple logic.

    The man on the street would not do this. I got my father and grandfather TDKR tickets. They ain't gonna go back and watch BB and TDK.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    IMO the general audience aren't expecting to have to watch 2 films before watching a film, especially a Bond movie. For them these films do not require any hassle in order to enjoy them - ie. having to think during the film or watch previous outings. From experience while working at a movie theater, the general audience are pretty lazy. Not once in their minds would they ever think they had to use their brains in order to enjoy an action/Bond film. Give them a few puns, gun fights, explosions and fist fights and they will love any Bond film. But asking them to read a Fleming novel ? "sorry - too much work."
  • Posts: 1,492
    P
    It is the general audience who dictate where the franchise will go in the future. They don't expect to have to use their brains when watching Bond films, so most likely everything that happened with Quantum in CR and QOS will be forgotten once the first action scene in Bond 24 will start,, it.

    Never underestimate an audiences intelligence. After the age of 23 most audiences want something more then explosians and dumb oneliners. The Bonds are on TV alot and the audience will remember Quantum,

    In the post Cold war world they are the perfect setup of villains. And Eon know this..

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    actonsteve wrote:
    Never underestimate an audiences intelligence. After the age of 23 most audiences want something more then explosians and dumb oneliners. The Bonds are on TV alot and the audience will remember Quantum,

    In the post Cold war world they are the perfect setup of villains. And Eon know this..

    I've been working in a multiplex theater for 3 years, I know what I've seen. 'intelligent' casual moviegoers are a rare breed. Especially for blockbuster films like Bond.

    The times where I see the biggest amount of 'dumb' people, is for films like teenage-sensation 'Twilight', and action movies like Bond.

    Sorry to put Bond and Twilight together, but that is the reality in the city I work with. No film attract so many dumbies like Bond, and the popular films for teenagers like Twilight.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,315
    I've been working in a multiplex theater for 3 years, I know what I've seen. 'intelligent' casual moviegoers are a rare breed. Especially for blockbuster films like Bond.

    Nice! I'm a movie buff so I have to get all the info established in previous films to understand what's going on. :3
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,680
    Well, sorry to break the party here, but Bond films are some of the flicks that attract the biggest amount of 'dumbies' (to put it mildly). Twilight and Avatar also had the tendency to attract that kind of moviegoers.

    Maybe that's just in this particuliar multiplex... but I don't know. When QOS was released, I did not see many 'intelligent' people flocking in to see it.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Well, sorry to break the party here, but Bond films are some of the flicks that attract the biggest amount of 'dumbies' (to put it mildly). Twilight and Avatar also had the tendency to attract that kind of moviegoers.

    Maybe that's just in this particuliar multiplex... but I don't know. When QOS was released, I did not see many 'intelligent' people flocking in to see it.

    Not where I go to the cinema. You need an IQ test to get in,,,

Sign In or Register to comment.