Mr Whites return

135

Comments

  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    actonsteve wrote:
    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,,,

    I can picture you now settling down in your own personal dungeon to watch the latest release.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,593
    @actonsteve well I've also been to a smaller, local cinema where indeed there are more intelligent moviegoers. But in big multiplexes, where most of the money for Bond is made, the IQ level is quite low. In 3 years of work, QOS, the Twilight films, Expendables, the Bieber doc and Avatar are the films tha seemed to attract the biggest amount of dumb moviegoers. Nothing against QOS, just that Bond films are a big attraction for these moviegoers. Action films like Bond, where 'traditionally' there isn't much thinking needed to enjoy them, well they attract many simple-minded people. The 'mature/intellectual' parts go well above their heads, but they have their dose of explosions, chases, fights to keep them happy.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Some one explain to me how they can't bring back Quantum with no reference to any film ever?

    That's how SPECTRE was. You had Blofeld as teh common link, but Quantum doesn't even have that.

    Movie opens:
    Bond interrupts an 'illegal' money exchange in a Swiss private bank, with Mr. White in attendance. Bond kills White's men and White gets away from sheer luck or whatever.
    Title Sequence:
    MI6 questioning banker 'illegally'
    Bond goes after White
    Finish Movie.

    Yes, White is an arc from the first two, but the general audience doesn't need to know that to enjoy the film. It's like Prometheus. You don't have to know about the Alien franchise to enjoy it, but it's more enjoyable if you do.

    Why can't something like that happen?
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,246
    I'm with DaltonCraig on this one. The general audience will be extremely confused if the word "Quantum" came up in a future release - they will be like "what's Quantum?" "Wasn't that the title of the confusingly named movie a few years ago" if they even remember that. I would of course like to know Mr White and the orgnisations fate, but the general audience couldn't give two hoots. Doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't return, but it needs to be executed cleverly.

    @DaltonCraig007 While the audience may not know Fleming and his contribution to Bond and Casino Royale, I believe the general idea of the novel was one of the many factors that helped shape it into the successful movie it became.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    w2bond wrote:
    I'm with DaltonCraig on this one. The general audience will be extremely confused if the word "Quantum" came up in a future release - they will be like "what's Quantum?" "Wasn't that the title of the confusingly named movie a few years ago" if they even remember that. I would of course like to know Mr White and the orgnisations fate, but the general audience couldn't give two hoots. Doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't return, but it needs to be executed cleverly.

    @DaltonCraig007 While the audience may not know Fleming and his contribution to Bond and Casino Royale, I believe the general idea of the novel was one of the many factors that helped shape it into the successful movie it became.

    I've heard weak assumptions that CR ruined any semblance to the novel, and though it is spoken by people who just like to sound controversial for attention or kicks, it is an opinion that has been voiced. I though CR did a great modern adaption of the novel, but for the most part it was much its own film with its own additions, and did some things better than the novel, like the creation of love between Bond and Vesper for example.
  • Posts: 165
    I can't believe we're even debating this. Reminding your audience of who's who and what's what is one of the most basic aspects of storytelling.

    It's called exposition, people!

    It's done all the time, in almost every form of storytelling - film, books, TV series. There is absolutely no reason why a scene can't be written that would explain what Quantum is to those who didn't see (or don't remember) the last 2 movies.

    Geesh, look at Lord of the Rings. How many times were we "reminded" ofthe story of how the one ring was created, and that the ring "wanted to be found", or that Aragon was decended from kings, or that that elf chick gave up her immortality to be with the Aragon, or that the ring took Gollum's soul in the same way it was threatening to do to Frodo. I could go on and on.

    If you don't want to see Quantum return because you just didn't like that angle, then that's fine. I can respect that even if I don't agree. But don't try to make the case that reintroducing an organization or character into a plot can't be done. I can be done. It is done. All the time.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,593
    Lord of the Rings is completly different than Bond. in LOTR the general audience expected to have to use their brains. In Bond movies, they do not expect at all to have to use their brains, or think of anything. All they want is their puns, explosions, fights, chases and whatnot. For 40 years Bond movies were thought by the general audience to be mindless entertainment films. If EON really wanted to change that, they should have made a much better job at getting the ball rolling for a multi-film story arc. We've learned basicly nothing about Quantum, and now the general audience doesn't care at all about Quantum or no Quantum. With B24 released 6 years after QOS, the general audience will go back to their thoughts that Bond films are mindless entertainment films that require no brain work.

    Based on the audience I've seen which went to see QOS, a large majority of them are quite simple minded, and bringing up old forgotten plot points will only confuse them.

    Bond films aren't Lord of the Rings of clever tv shows like 'LOST' or 'The Wire'... Bond films are entertainment for the simple minded. Even if CR and QOS gave a bigger thought to the more mature adults, these films are still primarly made for the general audience. EON wanted to start a multi-film story arc, that is fine. But it has been a failure to get the ball rolling, and as of now the general audience has completly zapped Quantum. Bringing them back will only confuse people and put them off the film.

    Even if members of this website like @OBrady want more 'intellect' in Bond film, more fleshed-out stories and more Quantum, you have to realize the films are primarly made for people who think the films are just mindless entertainment film. Whether we like it or not, EON will always privilege those people more than us.

    When Mr White appeared at the end of CR, the general audience already had forgotten that he appeared at the start of the film. They can't even remember the start of a 2.5 hour film, so it will be even worse when they'll try to remember a plot point that took place 6 years ago.
  • Posts: 12,471
    As long as they pay there money and not watch a pirate copy? Let them watch the film! If they feel they have missed something then they will persue it? If not? Then let them carry on oblivious.

    As long as they have paid there money, enjoyed the movie, and made there financial contribution to the Bond box office. It means assuming the box office is bigger? Which i reckon it will! We get another adventure in 2014! :-bd
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I just have to take myself out of the "fan" role and look through the eyes of a common moviegoer, which I have a large reluctance to do.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,342
    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.

    Sorry, old chap, but I am not "quite wrong."

    The audience doesn't have to know the Fleming elements are there.

    But without Fleming, CR would not have Bond, Vesper, or Casino Royale. It would have basically the stunts of the first hour, Judi Dench, 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: 15,593
    echo wrote:
    But without Fleming, CR would not have Bond, Vesper, or Casino Royale. It would have basically the stunts of the first hour, Judi Dench, and QUANTUM.

    GE was not written by Fleming, yet most of the general audience would tell you it's the ultimate Bond film. Skyfall is not written by Fleming, yet I'm sure it will be quite Bondian.

    So why do you think it was impossible for EON to come up with a non-Fleming story for CR ? OK, it would have p*ssed of the hardcore Bond fans, but 95% of the audience would still have applauded CR even if the story was original and not from Fleming.

    CR was a success because the story was good, not because it was written by Fleming. If you had made CR 100% like the novel (meaning a 1950 period piece and no action at all), you'd have a huge flop on your hands. If CR was nothing like Fleming, but still 'movie-Bondian' (like GE), you'd have a huge success on your hands... and only the small vocal minority that we form on this website would be p*ssed off, but we only make for 5% of the box office gross... so if you remove us from the attendance, the film would still be massivly successful.

    Fact is, no-one cares about Fleming anymore. The general audience, the only audience who counts, want what they call 'Bondness', not 'Fleming-ness'. Give them a good, non-Fleming film like GE, and you have a huge success.

    It seems the hardcore Fleming fans don't want to accept reality that Fleming is totally irrelevant in today's world. The 2006 reboot did not have to follow Fleming's original intention at all, since barely no-one knows what his original intention is. As long as it follows their definition of Bondian (meaning movie Bond), the general audience will be happy.

    It seems for you that EON can't come up with an original story. How do you explain GE then ?

    You have to accept the fact that people are not asking for Fleming anymore, but for Bond. Give them a film what follows their idea of Bond (meaning movie Bond like GE), and you have a global success. As long as the films stay true to what the general audience think of Bond, the films will be successful. Their idea of Bond is not Fleming, because they have no idea what that is.

    The main difference between them and us is that they will applaud a good Bond film whether it is original or Flemingesque. Bond fans will detest a film if it disregards Fleming's intention. But for the general audience that doesn't matter, since they have no idea what Fleming wrote.

    The general audience will applaud a film that is the most radically different from Fleming, as long as it follows their idea of Bond. Only Bond fans will be angered by the disrespect of Fleming.

    If the 2006 CR reboot was another MR 1979, meaning a film that doesn't follow a word of the original novel ( but still made in the Craig era style), what do you have ? 5% of angered Bond fans, and 95% of overjoyed general audience.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited June 2012 Posts: 4,245
    Eon will let us remember Quantum. It is only 1 movie in between (Skyfall). 6 years is a bridge. I don't mind if there don't say something about Quantum in Skyfall.

    There is some mystery about Quantum, but is this not what we like from Thunderball.

    The skyfall trailer proof in my opion there are stil not finished with hinting.

    Camile wil help to remember , Olga said she be a special Bond girl at the time of QOS. There is enough there can remember ,we also stil have mysterious person from the hotel, Felix & Beam, Bond memory of Vesper, M and Mr White.
    Based on the audience I've seen which went to see QOS, a large majority of them are quite simple minded, and bringing up old forgotten plot points will only confuse them.

    Eon whant confusing. Iam a litle bit of simple minded my self in the meaning that i buy some movie's who i expext be dificult and haven't seen yet (The Departed) because i whant take the the time/to be in the mood. QOS i whant to at more in the group of The Matrix, need more views to understand or be liked (Tomorrow Never Dies, OHMSS and Octopussy). Old forgotten plot points is something nice to pick up something. If you don't whant Quantum don't whant returns, should we vergot that other Q then too because the last time a Quatermaster be seen be in DAD.
    They can't even remember the start of a 2.5 hour film, so it will be even worse when they'll try to remember a plot point that took place 6 years ago.

    Not everthing is done for the general people. For example
    Malfoy (Isaacs)
    and Harry hinted in the 2th Harry Potter movie something you understand not earlier before you have read the 7th novel or 8th movie, whyle not be hinted in the 2th book. 9 years it take.



  • Posts: 165
    Lord of the Rings is completly different than Bond. in LOTR the general audience expected to have to use their brains. In Bond movies, they do not expect at all to have to use their brains, or think of anything. All they want is their puns, explosions, fights, chases and whatnot. For 40 years Bond movies were thought by the general audience to be mindless entertainment films. If EON really wanted to change that, they should have made a much better job at getting the ball rolling for a multi-film story arc. We've learned basicly nothing about Quantum, and now the general audience doesn't care at all about Quantum or no Quantum. With B24 released 6 years after QOS, the general audience will go back to their thoughts that Bond films are mindless entertainment films that require no brain work.

    Based on the audience I've seen which went to see QOS, a large majority of them are quite simple minded, and bringing up old forgotten plot points will only confuse them.

    Bond films aren't Lord of the Rings of clever tv shows like 'LOST' or 'The Wire'... Bond films are entertainment for the simple minded. Even if CR and QOS gave a bigger thought to the more mature adults, these films are still primarly made for the general audience. EON wanted to start a multi-film story arc, that is fine. But it has been a failure to get the ball rolling, and as of now the general audience has completly zapped Quantum. Bringing them back will only confuse people and put them off the film.

    Even if members of this website like @OBrady want more 'intellect' in Bond film, more fleshed-out stories and more Quantum, you have to realize the films are primarly made for people who think the films are just mindless entertainment film. Whether we like it or not, EON will always privilege those people more than us.

    When Mr White appeared at the end of CR, the general audience already had forgotten that he appeared at the start of the film. They can't even remember the start of a 2.5 hour film, so it will be even worse when they'll try to remember a plot point that took place 6 years ago.


    With all due respect, you're totally contradicting yourself. If the audience is that stupid, then they won't care if they remember what Quantum is or not. They'll only know that they (Quantum) are the bad guys that Bond is blowing up. Bad guys vs. good guys. Mindless entertainment for the mindless.

    If they do get confused by the reintroduction of Quantum, then that suggests that the general audience is not as stupid as you say they are.

    So you can't have it both ways. Either:

    1) The general moviegoing audience is stupid, in which case bringing back Quantum won't matter to them so long as they identify Quantum as the bad guys in the current film they're watching; or

    2) The general moviegoing audience is not stupid, in which case they could easily remember, or be made to remember by some simple exposition, what Quantum is.

    Saying you can't bring back a villian because you'll confuse your audience is like saying you can't understand From Russia With Love if you haven't seen Dr. No first. Sure, you'll have a deeper understanding of FRWL if you had seen Dr. No (or the Godfather II without seeing The Godfather), but it's not like your going to be so lost you can't enjoy the movie.

    In any Bond movie, the bad guys are pretty obviously bad guys and Bond is obviously the hero. What's to be confused about?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2012 Posts: 5,342
    echo wrote:
    But without Fleming, CR would not have Bond, Vesper, or Casino Royale. It would have basically the stunts of the first hour, Judi Dench, and QUANTUM.

    GE was not written by Fleming, yet most of the general audience would tell you it's the ultimate Bond film. Skyfall is not written by Fleming, yet I'm sure it will be quite Bondian.

    So why do you think it was impossible for EON to come up with a non-Fleming story for CR ? OK, it would have p*ssed of the hardcore Bond fans, but 95% of the audience would still have applauded CR even if the story was original and not from Fleming.

    CR was a success because the story was good, not because it was written by Fleming. If you had made CR 100% like the novel (meaning a 1950 period piece and no action at all), you'd have a huge flop on your hands. If CR was nothing like Fleming, but still 'movie-Bondian' (like GE), you'd have a huge success on your hands... and only the small vocal minority that we form on this website would be p*ssed off, but we only make for 5% of the box office gross... so if you remove us from the attendance, the film would still be massivly successful.

    Fact is, no-one cares about Fleming anymore. The general audience, the only audience who counts, want what they call 'Bondness', not 'Fleming-ness'. Give them a good, non-Fleming film like GE, and you have a huge success.

    It seems the hardcore Fleming fans don't want to accept reality that Fleming is totally irrelevant in today's world. The 2006 reboot did not have to follow Fleming's original intention at all, since barely no-one knows what his original intention is. As long as it follows their definition of Bondian (meaning movie Bond), the general audience will be happy.

    It seems for you that EON can't come up with an original story. How do you explain GE then ?

    You have to accept the fact that people are not asking for Fleming anymore, but for Bond. Give them a film what follows their idea of Bond (meaning movie Bond like GE), and you have a global success. As long as the films stay true to what the general audience think of Bond, the films will be successful. Their idea of Bond is not Fleming, because they have no idea what that is.

    The main difference between them and us is that they will applaud a good Bond film whether it is original or Flemingesque. Bond fans will detest a film if it disregards Fleming's intention. But for the general audience that doesn't matter, since they have no idea what Fleming wrote.

    The general audience will applaud a film that is the most radically different from Fleming, as long as it follows their idea of Bond. Only Bond fans will be angered by the disrespect of Fleming.

    If the 2006 CR reboot was another MR 1979, meaning a film that doesn't follow a word of the original novel ( but still made in the Craig era style), what do you have ? 5% of angered Bond fans, and 95% of overjoyed general audience.

    We're talking about CR, not GE. And we're talking about the actual CR based on the novel by Ian Fleming, not some fantasized MR-like take on it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,593
    echo wrote:
    We're talking about CR, not GE. And we're talking about the actual CR based on the novel by Ian Fleming, not some fantasized MR-like take on it.

    What's your point ?

    Why couldn't EON NOT follow the CR novel at all, and make a totally original 'Bond origins' ?

    You just aren't accepting reality. 95% of the audience who saw CR had not read any Fleming novel, let alone read CR. So they would have loved the film the same even if the film was GOOD, but did not follow the original novel at all.

    Fact is that CR was not successful because it was faithful to Fleming or whatnot, because 95% of the audience was oblivious to that aspect of the film. They did not go 'WOW, that was so like the novel ! OMG, that was so Flemingesque !!' because they have no idea what's in the novel, or what's Fleming's writing touch. It was successful because it was a good film. The general audience can comment on whether the film was good or not. But they can not comment on whether the film followed the novel or not, because they never read the novel.

    CR simply wasn't successful 'because it was true to Fleming'. It simply isn't true. 95% of the audience had not read a single Fleming novel, so they did not know what was true to Fleming or what was not. So when they discovered CR in theaters, they applauded the film for being great, because that's the only way they can rate the film. How can they applaud the film for being 'true to Fleming' when they never read any Fleming novel ? Are they psychic ? They can't comment on the novel when they never read it, or comment on the film's faithfulness to the novel when they had no idea what was true to the novel or not. No, the bottom line is Fleming himself had nothing to do with the success of the film.
  • edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote:
    We're talking about CR, not GE. And we're talking about the actual CR based on the novel by Ian Fleming, not some fantasized MR-like take on it.

    What's your point ?

    Why couldn't EON NOT follow the CR novel at all, and make a totally original 'Bond origins' ?

    You just aren't accepting reality. 95% of the audience who saw CR had not read any Fleming novel, let alone read CR. So they would have loved the film the same even if the film was GOOD, but did not follow the original novel at all.

    Fact is that CR was not successful because it was faithful to Fleming or whatnot, because 95% of the audience was oblivious to that aspect of the film. They did not go 'WOW, that was so like the novel ! OMG, that was so Flemingesque !!' because they have no idea what's in the novel, or what's Fleming's writing touch. It was successful because it was a good film. The general audience can comment on whether the film was good or not. But they can not comment on whether the film followed the novel or not, because they never read the novel.

    CR simply wasn't successful 'because it was true to Fleming'. It simply isn't true. 95% of the audience had not read a single Fleming novel, so they did not know what was true to Fleming or what was not. So when they discovered CR in theaters, they applauded the film for being great, because that's the only way they can rate the film. How can they applaud the film for being 'true to Fleming' when they never read any Fleming novel ? Are they psychic ? They can't comment on the novel when they never read it, or comment on the film's faithfulness to the novel when they had no idea what was true to the novel or not. No, the bottom line is Fleming himself had nothing to do with the success of the film.

    DC007, you are wilfully missing Echo's point. This is nothing to do with whether or not the audience have read Fleming. It is about the film being a success because it is based on a good Fleming story. The same goes for countless other films based on a cracking literary source. The audience does not have to have read the book or source material to benefit from the excellent story that lies at the heart of the film. CR is a case in point. The movie was light years ahead of the 4 preceding films, at least partly because it had a good Fleming story at its heart. What happens when the Fleming material runs out again? They go back to lame Purvis and Wade stories and lo and behold we have the rather weak narrative at the heart of QoS.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,593
    Getafix wrote:
    What happens when the Fleming material runs out again? They go back to lame Purvis and Wade stories and lo and behold we have the rather weak narrative at the heart of QoS.

    So, in your opinion, Skyfall's story will be lame and weak because it was not written by Fleming ?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    EON had tried forever to get the rights to CR, so when they finally got the chance for another Bond to step in and do an origin, what better choice than the first Bond adventure?
  • If mr white and quantum were to come back in the future I don't think the general audience needs to remember who they are just like spectre in the old movies they worked as individual films and you don't really have to have seen the previous films but if you do it's nice to see them return.
  • Posts: 9,522
    If quantum doesn't comeback yet Blofeld does it will make Diamonds Are a forever A view to a Kill and Die another day look like the godfather trilogy compared to the stupidity of that move.

    quantum runs the world essentially they should get a few more films
  • They've got loose ends to tie up with regard to the character, so it's generally assumed that White will be back in some capacity in a future release, maybe even for 24 next year. They can't just expect audiences to conveniently forget about the character, or indeed the Quantum organization as a whole, so I'd expect to see him feature again sometime soon. Craig's Bond would seem to have unfinished business, and while Skyfall was a standalone release, some, if not most, would expect the Quantum angle to continue, and White with it, so he's far from out the picture one would assume
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 2,107
    After watching Skyfall yesterday, and listening M's speech about villains in the shadows got me thinking ; why couldn't they in some form or another bring back quantum in Sam Mendes helmed and John Logan written Bond film. It's not that hard to shoe-horn quantum into the plot.

    Also felt Craig has a lot of unfinished business in his career. The Golden Compass was left in a cliffhanger, never to be finished. TGWTDT sequel is still in the books, but years after the first movie. Don't know when that's happening, Quantum of Solace didn't give us Quantum on a silver plate and Bloodstone (yes, a videogame) had a cliffhanger ending. The guy just doesn't seem to get a break, when it comes to unfinished business.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    They can't just expect audiences to conveniently forget about the character

    I'm sure they can. If Mendes delivers with B24 sans Quantum, I don't think there will too many non-Bond fans wondering about White et al, they'll just be happy to see a great Bond movie.

  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    I don't think we will see Quantum again. Even though I would like to see were that was leading up to. The question is if that deleted scene counts as canon.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    SharkBait wrote:
    Also felt Craig has a lot of unfinished business in his career. The Golden Compass was left in a cliffhanger, never to be finished. TGWTDT sequel is still in the books, but years after the first movie. Don't know when that's happening, Quantum of Solace didn't give us Quantum on a silver plate and Bloodstone (yes, a videogame) had a cliffhanger ending. The guy just doesn't seem to get a break, when it comes to unfinished business.

    Yes, whatever happened to the Bloodstone sequel? The only thing confirmed was the title "Raven".

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Pajan005 wrote:
    I don't think we will see Quantum again. Even though I would like to see were that was leading up to. The question is if that deleted scene counts as canon.

    No.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    RC7 wrote:
    No.

    I guess that MGM aren't sure about the QoS storyline anymore. Better to do stand-alone stories.

    But they could give a mention to that whole story arc. QoS did happen since Rory Kinnear returned as Bill Tanner. Mi6 and Silva has pictures of Bond taken during that film. The explosion at the beginning was clearly made so that they could give a reason to why Mi6 had to rebuild and to change the look of the place.

    I think with SF they had the opportunity to either continue with the QoS story or just pretend like that movie never happened. Don't get me wrong I like SF very much, it's probably my favorite of the series. But, trying to pretend that a movie never happened is not a good idea since it's clearly canon in SF due to some evidence.

    We'll see what happens.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Seeing that EON has fallen in love with realism, it would be superrealistic for the super villains to get away. Even forgotten about.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2014 Posts: 13,345
    Pajan005 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    No.

    I guess that MGM aren't sure about the QoS storyline anymore. Better to do stand-alone stories.

    But they could give a mention to that whole story arc. QoS did happen since Rory Kinnear returned as Bill Tanner. Mi6 and Silva has pictures of Bond taken during that film. The explosion at the beginning was clearly made so that they could give a reason to why Mi6 had to rebuild and to change the look of the place.

    I think with SF they had the opportunity to either continue with the QoS story or just pretend like that movie never happened. Don't get me wrong I like SF very much, it's probably my favorite of the series. But, trying to pretend that a movie never happened is not a good idea since it's clearly canon in SF due to some evidence.

    We'll see what happens.

    That would be like watching Goldfinger and convincing yourself the first two films didn't happen. There is nothing stopping Quantum or other aspects from the series returning at some point. Of course the film happened, it was just not referenced in the last film. Except one line from M.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Pajan005 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    No.

    I guess that MGM aren't sure about the QoS storyline anymore. Better to do stand-alone stories.

    But they could give a mention to that whole story arc. QoS did happen since Rory Kinnear returned as Bill Tanner. Mi6 and Silva has pictures of Bond taken during that film. The explosion at the beginning was clearly made so that they could give a reason to why Mi6 had to rebuild and to change the look of the place.

    I think with SF they had the opportunity to either continue with the QoS story or just pretend like that movie never happened. Don't get me wrong I like SF very much, it's probably my favorite of the series. But, trying to pretend that a movie never happened is not a good idea since it's clearly canon in SF due to some evidence.

    We'll see what happens.

    I've no idea whether Quantum will return in some capacity or not, whether fleetingly referenced or integral to the story. My reply was in reference to your question about the deleted QoS scene being canon. My answer to which would be, no.
Sign In or Register to comment.