It Seems There Are More QoS Appreciaters Than Thought Before

1246718

Comments

  • @Getafix You weren't the only one not liking SF, but I commend you.

    Even those fans agreed that they were wondering what happened to Quantum and other elements from QoS with loose ends, etc...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 31,781
    Getafix wrote: »
    It actually feels like a lot more people agree with me now than in 2012 when I was practically the only one on here who dared criticise SF and took huge amounts of flak for doing so.

    I'd toss my name into that ring, too, you definitely weren't the only one (and I'm sure there were others besides us). It took me longer to voice my issues with it than SP because everyone wholeheartedly seemed to go nuts over SF, I truly felt there was something I was missing, some sort of beauty and magic about the film that I was completely overlooking, so I watched it over and over and over again to convince myself that was the case, but alas, it wasn't, and it's simply not for me.
  • Posts: 7,084
    For me SF was also a waste of time, they managed to miss the whole Fleming segment in the beginning of TMWTGG in which Bond returns from the dead and being turned into killing M who then uses him to to a job or die doing that. It would have given SF a far better opening.
    SF with Mendes turned for two movies into style over content. I am not anti Craig but anti Mendes. And that distrust is not yet mended.
  • Notice how when there is a more down-to-earth Bond movie that has more quality and story to it, the next ones always are more celebrated despite having their disappointing side to them which and are over marketed as was SF...for example FYEO followed by OP, or OHMSS followed by DAF, or even LTK followed by GE (which has a fair share of fans wishing is was more gritty and down to earth or possibly with Dalton back instead) ...QoS has gained more praise over the years while films like OP and SF are those types of films that seemingly have been overrated closer to their release.

    Hell, even DAD got a phony sounding "good job" letter sent to Hollywood Reporter magazine saying "good job" to the producers...QoS suffered lots of unnecessary bashing but the truth is coming out.

    Come on, SF?! It felt like an imitation of a Bond movie. CGI's,too many characters being introduced at once, having Craig's Bond rely on gadgetry, oh, and CGI! It was too obvious they gave Silva his scars to check mark the to-do list.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    My overall thought of QoS is that, it's an unnecessary film. But, I'll be damned if it's not enjoyable. If only it didn't serve as a direct sequel to CR and focused more on being an escapist thriller, omitting the shakycam dilemma in its full, it would have been much better. But, I do like the film. To me, it's Craig's finest hour.
  • Posts: 1,964
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It actually feels like a lot more people agree with me now than in 2012 when I was practically the only one on here who dared criticise SF and took huge amounts of flak for doing so.

    I'd toss my name into that ring, too, you definitely weren't the only one (and I'm sure there were others besides us). It took me longer to voice my issues with it than SP because everyone wholeheartedly seemed to go nuts over SF, I truly felt there was something I was missing, some sort of beauty and magic about the film that I was completely overlooking, so I watched it over and over and over again to convince myself that was the case, but alas, it wasn't, and it's simply not for me.

    That's me too! I really want to like SF, but I just can't. It has it's moments, but there are just not enough of them. And i dont find it remotely exciting! I came away on first viewing in such dour mood, and though I like it a little more than I did, I still feel it's Craig's weakest. The near universal praise for it I found baffling!
    Though SP last section was dire, I find lots more to enjoy in it up to the torture sequence, and would always choose to watch it over SF!
  • @Mathis1

    Agreed, would watch SP over SF any day.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Put me in that crowd, as well.
  • Posts: 573
    Getafix wrote: »
    It actually feels like a lot more people agree with me now than in 2012 when I was practically the only one on here who dared criticise SF and took huge amounts of flak for doing so.

    I didn't dislike it upon release, was just underwhelmed, especially in light of those glowing critical reviews and box office reception. I was on another forum at the time but don't recall if I commented on this or not. It was a strange time to be a fan when you don't feel the love practically everybody else does.

    A lot of my initial feelings have held up to this day: I really took to Dalton and his movies when the general public didn't; was annoyed when he didn't come back and had Brosnan as the natural heir to the role thrown about and felt underwhelmed by GE and most of his era; felt great about Craig's casting and CR the best film in years and that QoS was a good follow-up and had few complaints about it.
  • @BT3366

    I share the same views, Dalton not coming back truly watered down a script that was meant for his Bond. Not only was GE bloodless and formulaic, but it had no grit to it. 1995 was quite a year for careless sequels to thrive, if you think about it....the censors had already turned the Ninja Turtles franchise into a lighthearted comedy compared to the first film in 1990....Ace Ventura 2 had an almost entirely new cast and was basically Ace Ventura in the jungle.....Batman Forever was a completely different film, not even a sequel arguably to Batman Returns with a new actor as well taking the lead part (because the script was horrible).


    SF felt like it celebrated GE a lot, you don't need to dig too deeply to find out...Similarly, SF was just a lazy excuse to get the franchise back to a franchise instead of making a good movie.

    The public wasn't all that bad with Dalton...people were shocked at how different and maybe grumpy his Bond was compared to Roger Moore's...their eras were back-to-back...but many people like TLD, and for those of us who have actually watched LTK, without the interference of a summer blockbuster movie being relevant in the age of DVD and streaming....that movie really fit his Bond well and he was a return to Fleming-esque qualities of a novel. He has lots of respect for both Sean Connery's interpretation and also Fleming's writing....a class act.

    Sadly, the studios didn't want to let him sign a one-film deal but rather a three-film deal so that Dalton wouldn't call the studios out on trying to have him fired....anytime the studios get too involved, the fans lose out on what could have been a better quality movie that would gain momentum and more money (in fact) over time.

    SF was over-marketed, there was even a whole entire train promoting it somewhere in the planet. That wasn't the problem so much as it was flipping the middle finger to people who saw CR and QoS and suddenly calling Craig's Bond old and crediting him with work from Connery through Brosnan. Craig's Bond is probably one of the most unique and that should be celebrated on its own credit he earned.
  • Posts: 302
    Quantum and Spectre are more or less tied in my mind for the title of best Craig film. Both are obviously flawed, yet feel more earnest.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 9 Posts: 3,027
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me SF was also a waste of time, they managed to miss the whole Fleming segment in the beginning of TMWTGG in which Bond returns from the dead and being turned into killing M who then uses him to to a job or die doing that. It would have given SF a far better opening.
    SF with Mendes turned for two movies into style over content. I am not anti Craig but anti Mendes. And that distrust is not yet mended.

    I don't think Bond whas stil not far gone enough then. With trickers of M her death, Vesper reminder, his remeeting with his Brother and mi6 bulding destroyd mabey he is now.

    Don't vergot tricker on the finger is seen in maintitle of Spectre, i see as contuned of Mr White and Greene there words in QOS.

    With Bond 25 i am curious of Greene words and Mr White new words about the kite wil be more visible/visual.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,188
    I always drop onto this thread for a good laugh and boy you guys are excelling yourselves tonight!!!
  • @Shardlake , you're probably also not a huge fan of SF either, like us, are you? We respect your opinon but SF was just overrated and QoS & SP were underrated compared to that film.
  • Notice how both QoS and SP had more involvement from Craig on the script...the dramatic scenes of QoS (and SP)....that word "solace was not said by Monica Beluci in SP for no reason..."
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,188
    @Shardlake , you're probably also not a huge fan of SF either, like us, are you? We respect your opinon but SF was just overrated and QoS & SP were underrated compared to that film.

    I'd never say that SF was not overrated but SPECTRE is the absolute nadir of the series in my book.

    How people casually forget the huge crime it committed by turning Blofeld into an utter joke is beyond me.

    That's without getting into apart from PTS the action is utterly tensionless and truly sleep inducing. I could go on.

    Whereas SF has plenty of tension and suspense, one film the director turned up and was looking to impress the other he'd lost all his steam and didn't want to be there.

    It's not hard to work out which one.

    CR is no. 2, SF no. 5 and QOS inside the top 10 but SP no. 24 without a doubt, I utterly hate the film.

    It's an utter insult to the series.

    SF reputation will stay intact, just a bunch of fans have decided it's rubbish but it's position within the general public will be fine.
  • Posts: 2,769
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It actually feels like a lot more people agree with me now than in 2012 when I was practically the only one on here who dared criticise SF and took huge amounts of flak for doing so.

    I'd toss my name into that ring, too, you definitely weren't the only one (and I'm sure there were others besides us). It took me longer to voice my issues with it than SP because everyone wholeheartedly seemed to go nuts over SF, I truly felt there was something I was missing, some sort of beauty and magic about the film that I was completely overlooking, so I watched it over and over and over again to convince myself that was the case, but alas, it wasn't, and it's simply not for me.
    Me too#SF. I was also one of the original members here that showed an antipathy towards SF and for which I was totally lambasted for. I can recall it was mostly @Getafix that came to my defense back in 2012. I guess we hadn’t sipped the same kool aid as everyone else had at the time and were duly punished for it.
  • @Getafix @Creasy47 @bondsum

    I'm happy that this thread is letting us have our chance to shed some light on the SF kool aid. Let this thread provide you a quantum of solace.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 1,109
    I always recall an interview with Kevin Costner where he said some movies of his were popular when released. Others grew to have a following after their release. He said he took more satisfaction if the film grew an audience over time.

    I look at QOS this way. To me at the time of the movie's release I thought it was a let down from CR. It was too rough and different from Bond films of the past. But with each passing screening I have come to like this film more and more. I would probably place it ahead of SP and maybe just a bit behind SF.

    What have I come to like? I like Marc Forester's direction. I like the stylized way each new setting is introduced. I like the subtle humour of Mathis and Fields. I enjoy Greene has a villain and while I would have liked to have seen a more proper fleshing out of Elvis as a henchman I don't think the film suffers for it. Camille is beautiful and I like that she isn't a typical Bond girl. Even the fact there is no love interest or even romance makes sense given how Bond's heart was broken in CR.

    I think this film will grow in popularity as time moves on, especially when no longer viewed with so much hype after CR.
  • Elvis didn't get much script time but one of the obvious symbolisms that's used without coming across as too-gimmicky like the trite villain appearances used by Sam Mendes is the skull on his belt buckle.

    One of the most underrated aspects of the film is the chemistry between Felix and Beam...their dialogue was so naturally funny and really blended the idea of whether they were on the good or bad side, although Leiter remained loyal to Bond.
  • Posts: 573
    thedove wrote: »
    I think this film will grow in popularity as time moves on, especially when no longer viewed with so much hype after CR.
    Or maybe after the hype of SF has worn off. When they realize the film is basically Judi Dench is M in Skyfall. With Daniel Craig as James Bond.

    People rediscover with the availability of streaming and home video or when a new film is released, films they may have glossed over previously. Look what it did for OHMSS (although I am not saying QoS is anywhere near that) or Dalton's Bond in relationship to what Craig was trying to bring with his interpretation of the character.

    Honestly, QoS has no likely shot at being mentioned among the classics, but it is one that is ripe for rediscovery.
  • BT3366 wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I think this film will grow in popularity as time moves on, especially when no longer viewed with so much hype after CR.
    Or maybe after the hype of SF has worn off. When they realize the film is basically Judi Dench is M in Skyfall. With Daniel Craig as James Bond.

    Wow! This says it right! This film celebrated Judi Dench as M but wasted her off at two movies too soon.

    What if all the dumb hype of SF was coming from fans who wanted to see DC return as Bond after a few years and also the story related to CR and QoS?

    Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that she'd like to see Camille return. Nobody went to see SF for a lazy plot device known as hacking, CGI, or sudden shifts to deny a proper sequel for Craig's own Bond, as opposed to the prior actors' portrayals.
  • Posts: 10,365
    I was glad to see the back of Dench's M personally. The final scene of SF back in the old office is the best moment in the whole film
  • But still, SF was too much gimmick.
  • Does anyone think that Olga Kurylenko's involvement with November Man, being a spy thriller, hurt her chances of getting called back for a future Bond movie?
  • Posts: 10,365
    Does anyone think that Olga Kurylenko's involvement with November Man, being a spy thriller, hurt her chances of getting called back for a future Bond movie?

    I don't think so
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 618
    Don‘t think so, either. However, she would still be my first choice for a bond girl cameo comeback in B25. Won‘t happen unfortunately.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Some ten years ago, there have been discussions, apparently, to have Camille appear in a future Bond film, according to Kurylenko. But, seeing her arc is already wrapped and she is somewhere in Bolivia, possibly retired, I don't see Bond going back there and reconnecting with her, anyhow.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited February 12 Posts: 618
    I kinda disagree - she could have been a helpful local contact now stationed anywhere in Latin America - hell even Jamaica if the plot allows for it. A bit (but more involved) like Paula in TB. But - it won‘t happen so I keep my hopes we will at least see Wright as Felix Leiter again. But Camille, due to the nature of her relationship with Bond, would have been an interesting comeback in a smaller part.
Sign In or Register to comment.