What went wrong with QUANTUM OF SOLACE?

13567

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,566
    quantum_of_solace1.jpg

    I think undeniably, Craig was at his coolest in QOS. But I feel this Bond film also had his best ‘look.’ He channelled 007 with a touch of Steve McQueen cool…….

    The film has a ton of style and Forster really gave it a modern-vintage feel. There are a lot of really bold directorial choices in the film. Genuinely I think aesthetically the movie has great flair.

    But it's the storytelling that is weak - firstly, there is soooo much action. What made CR work was the focus on Bond as a human and the quieter more emotional scenes resonant. In QOS, they don't let Craig ruminate and that's really where he excels. Forster just makes Bond an 'action man'...........................

    The second big problem is the editing. It's too fast paced and it destroys the sense of thrill in the spectacle. There is such great craft in these films behind-the-scenes but Forster disguises it with shoddy editing. they should have let Stuart Baird edit the stunts. you'd never know it was made by the same team who did the tank chase in GE or the parkour chase in CR.

    Nonetheless, the visuals are impeccable. Right down tot he amazing locations, great cinematography and very pretty actors......

    7f89c9acace641f4d4f796447fec3402.jpg

    tumblr_mbv6aeRXxG1r1ult6o1_500.gif

    One of the best Bond films for Bond's casual looks. Lake Como, of course, but also the jacket he grabs from Slate's apartment, and his look when assaulting Perla De La Dunas (SP). Quoting your post because more of these photos is probably fine.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,353
    quantum_of_solace1.jpg

    I think undeniably, Craig was at his coolest in QOS. But I feel this Bond film also had his best ‘look.’ He channelled 007 with a touch of Steve McQueen cool…….

    The film has a ton of style and Forster really gave it a modern-vintage feel. There are a lot of really bold directorial choices in the film. Genuinely I think aesthetically the movie has great flair.

    But it's the storytelling that is weak - firstly, there is soooo much action. What made CR work was the focus on Bond as a human and the quieter more emotional scenes resonant. In QOS, they don't let Craig ruminate and that's really where he excels. Forster just makes Bond an 'action man'...........................

    The second big problem is the editing. It's too fast paced and it destroys the sense of thrill in the spectacle. There is such great craft in these films behind-the-scenes but Forster disguises it with shoddy editing. they should have let Stuart Baird edit the stunts. you'd never know it was made by the same team who did the tank chase in GE or the parkour chase in CR.

    Nonetheless, the visuals are impeccable. Right down tot he amazing locations, great cinematography and very pretty actors......

    7f89c9acace641f4d4f796447fec3402.jpg

    tumblr_mbv6aeRXxG1r1ult6o1_500.gif

    One of the best Bond films for Bond's casual looks. Lake Como, of course, but also the jacket he grabs from Slate's apartment, and his look when assaulting Perla De La Dunas (SP). Quoting your post because more of these photos is probably fine.

    Couldn't agree more.....

    This reminds me of how great the Bond girls in QOS were. The real question is who do you prefer.........

    Olga Kurylenko or Gemma Arterton?

    X0xAWum.gif
    tumblr_inline_mmne63OLN51qz4rgp.gif

    I go with Olga 😍
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,054
    Yeah me too but I have a thing with Russian girls.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,171
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Its a terrible film.Pretty much everything went wrong with it.While the writers strike did not help,i cannot understand how the producers viewed Forsters final cut of this film and found the incomprehensible editing acceptable.

    This has been said many times before but worth repeating,they success of Bourne ( Particularly Ultimatum the previous year ) made them think that this was the way to make Bond films now.Unfortunatley they forgot to actually include the crucial elements that makes a bond film enteraining.The plot is boring and very difficult to follow.The villains are uninteresting and their evil plan makes you go '' Ok whatever,less water in bolvia ''.

    There is no really good humour.The end of the plane sequence rivals DAD's ice surfing in pure ridiculousness,have i mentioned the terrible editing? Its the shortest Bond film but it feels like the longest.

    I have to say, that despite many attempts to like this film and I have found it more entertaining in recent times. However it does lack so many Bondian themes.
    The editing is probably the most discussed issue with QOS. A weak story with limited threat, after CR it just didn't add up. I wasn't thinking lightening would strike twice. However, I was expecting much better than what we got.

  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    While Quantum of Solace has it's positives, I think that unfortunately it's biggest failing is the fact that it wasn't a successful follow up to Casino Royale with a weak narrative and poor characters, IMO. I wish they had decided to bring back SPECTRE in QOS instead of the Quantum organisation. It's clear they didn't think it through and the film was slapped together.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,660
    Octopussy wrote: »
    While Quantum of Solace has it's positives, I think that unfortunately it's biggest failing is the fact that it wasn't a successful follow up to Casino Royale with a weak narrative and poor characters, IMO. I wish they had decided to bring back SPECTRE in QOS instead of the Quantum organisation. It's clear they didn't think it through and the film was slapped together.

    If only bringing back SPECTRE were possible at the time! It would have pre-empted some of the issues going forward regarding the awkward revisions in 2015.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,586
    What went wrong was the ceding of too much power to the director (editing--did Babs or MGW *never* pay a visit to the editing room during post-production?, title sequence decisions, etc.). SF gave us a brief reprieve but SP again showed how giving the director near-unlimited power leads to excesses....
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    Posts: 5,712
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah me too but I have a thing with Russian girls.

    I'm not sure where she stands but I've been told some Ukrainians don't like to be called Russian 😉

    I agree though, Olga is one of the most beautiful women alive!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,054
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah me too but I have a thing with Russian girls.

    I'm not sure where she stands but I've been told some Ukrainians don't like to be called Russian 😉

    I agree though, Olga is one of the most beautiful women alive!

    Yeah I know... perhaps because of politics but her mom is Russian and it’s common knowledge that in those countries daughters look like mom. :D
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,353
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah me too but I have a thing with Russian girls.

    Ukrainian* - I know people from the Ukraine who take particular offence to being called Russian.

    But, yes, Olga Kurylenko is stunning....









    Though, is it slightly problematic in 2020 that they cast a Ukrainian to play a South American and then covered her in fake tan? Probably not, as they did only use fake tan and Olga could probably tan if she spent years living in Boliva and they explain she had Russian ancestry....

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,660
    Do people not read previous comments before they type their own?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,054
    Yeah I know as I said before. Been more than 6 years in a relationship with a Russian girl and she has lot of friends from Ukraine. Anyway Olga’s mother is Russian. Plus Olga looks more like a Russian than a Ukraine and that’s why in that part of the world daughters look far more like the mother.
  • Posts: 1,693
    Olga over Gemma by far. Quite exotic and still resonates as a character.

    Not a fan of the Fields character, whose presence seems only just to give Bond a bedmate and another obligatory sacrificial lamb whose death is just an excuse to do a GF homage and it seems excessive since the death of Mathis has so much more impact in that way.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I didn't like any of them in the film, completely underused especially when both of the girls are breathtakingly stunning. But when i started watching their other film's i started loving Gemma more & more
    tumblr_ni97efWPxj1rlb6iho6_r1_500.gif
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,353
    I didn't like any of them in the film, completely underused especially when both of the girls are breathtakingly stunning. But when i started watching their other film's i started loving Gemma more & more

    Disagree. They both looked great....also feel that Camille could have been as iconic as Vesper had QOS been a stronger film.

    17a6108d5f5e885de9137c122cd3ae2b.jpg

    Obviously none of us have seen NTTD yet, but there is certainly a idea I've heard that Camille could of had replaced Paloma as the CIA contact that Bond meets in Cuba. I wouldn't have minded that. Though, having said that we do have Ana De Armas.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    @Pierce2Daniel I am not just talking about their role. Compare to other film's both of the actress didn't looked much sexy to me. Making Gemma redhead and fake tan on Olga looked hideous.

    That being said as much as i love Olga i doubt she has the same calliber as Eva Green. Only Lea seydoux came close to Eva.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,498
    What went wrong? Very little. QOS is a great movie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,387
    Remington wrote: »
    What went wrong? Very little. QOS is a great movie.

    My only complaint is that I don't have a Collector's Edition version of the film. Beyond that, it's totally incredible and one of my favorites in the series. Really hits a sweet spot for me, pure entertainment.
  • Posts: 4,279
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    What went wrong? Very little. QOS is a great movie.

    My only complaint is that I don't have a Collector's Edition version of the film. Beyond that, it's totally incredible and one of my favorites in the series. Really hits a sweet spot for me, pure entertainment.

    +1.
    Planning to watch it over Easter, cracking Bond movie! As for the choice between the ladies. Sorry, cant choose, love both of them!
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Octopussy wrote: »
    While Quantum of Solace has it's positives, I think that unfortunately it's biggest failing is the fact that it wasn't a successful follow up to Casino Royale with a weak narrative and poor characters, IMO. I wish they had decided to bring back SPECTRE in QOS instead of the Quantum organisation. It's clear they didn't think it through and the film was slapped together.

    If only bringing back SPECTRE were possible at the time! It would have pre-empted some of the issues going forward regarding the awkward revisions in 2015.

    Totally and I remember being extremely disappointed when it was revealed that Quantum was the Organization. I was then doubly disappointed when they decided to drop Quantum altogether and somehow convince the audience that it was apart of SPECTRE all along. Daft.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,054
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    While Quantum of Solace has it's positives, I think that unfortunately it's biggest failing is the fact that it wasn't a successful follow up to Casino Royale with a weak narrative and poor characters, IMO. I wish they had decided to bring back SPECTRE in QOS instead of the Quantum organisation. It's clear they didn't think it through and the film was slapped together.

    If only bringing back SPECTRE were possible at the time! It would have pre-empted some of the issues going forward regarding the awkward revisions in 2015.

    Totally and I remember being extremely disappointed when it was revealed that Quantum was the Organization. I was then doubly disappointed when they decided to drop Quantum altogether and somehow convince the audience that it was apart of SPECTRE all along. Daft.

    SPECTRE in the books is made up of individuals from different crime organizations from all around the world (Mafia etc etc). Fleming dropped SMERSH altogether and created SPECTRE and even members from SMERSH are part of the enterprise led by Blofeld so I don’t see any problem with Quantum being a subsidiary of the larger SPECTRE. It is definitely in line with Fleming and makes the organization even more shadowy.

    Plus knowing that SPECTRE was behind all five Craig adventures in different forms is cool if you ask me. :)
  • Posts: 623
    QOS loses me twice, and this is my problem with it. First, when they're questioning Mr White, and he says "we have people everywhere...", then, what happens? You can only really see in slow-mo. In the cinema I thought M was shot or even killed, but if you watch close there is a milli-second shot of her running off, then there's the chase and the scaffold fight is just a blur, such a shame as I bet it could have been thrilling if you could see what was going on.
    And then Bond goes to that hotel, and after the fight we get the "get in" bit, and I'm completely, utterly lost for the next ten minutes plot-wise. Who is the girl, the black guy on the bike? then she goes to the villain's place by the harbour, and she's wanting to be friends, he just tried to kill her, then there's a body in the water, who is that supposed to be? It's all over the place!
    By the time Bond is on the bike I haven't got a Scooby what's going on and - here's the thing - I've stopped caring! And that's the problem with Quantum. I can't follow the plot at all, and I still can't.
    I will concede I may be thick, as I couldn't make sense of the last Mission Impossible film either. But I haven't struggled with any of the other Bonds (well, TLD has me at times, I must admit).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,331
    I like the fact that Quantum of Solace has a fanbase, even though I don't care for the film myself. Same goes for LTK, I don't seem to enjoy the hardboiled, revenge-focused Bond. I think they would have done better to steer away from CR comparison by truly showing a Bond in his prime. I think in terms of what went wrong, the answer is the decision to start exactly where Casino Royale left off was the big mistake. I would have time jumped a few years into the future and started afresh with a more relaxed Bond, sitting comfortablly as M's top man. It would have been better to contrast against CR, and see the development in Bond, than continue the story straight away.
  • Posts: 1,693
    matt_u wrote: »
    Plus knowing that SPECTRE was behind all five Craig adventures in different forms is cool if you ask me. :)

    Interesting take. You may be quite lonely in it, though. The retconning is one of the big sticking points in SP criticisms along with Bro-feld.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,566
    BT3366 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Plus knowing that SPECTRE was behind all five Craig adventures in different forms is cool if you ask me. :)

    Interesting take. You may be quite lonely in it, though. The retconning is one of the big sticking points in SP criticisms along with Bro-feld.

    Totally. The idea was cool, the execution was poor.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,498
    BT3366 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Plus knowing that SPECTRE was behind all five Craig adventures in different forms is cool if you ask me. :)

    Interesting take. You may be quite lonely in it, though. The retconning is one of the big sticking points in SP criticisms along with Bro-feld.

    It's honestly my biggest issue with that film along with the color grading. Bloberhauser is stupid but I can look past that. Having that BS be connected to the previous films that I love is another story.
  • Posts: 25
    Very interesting points. I re-watched it a few months back and was much more charitable unlike my initial viewing. My main problem apart from the thin plot, was Bond behaving like a man who just got fleeced in his divorce after his wife ran off with her personal trainer. The constant petulance was off putting.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,570
    matt_u wrote: »
    SPECTRE in the books is made up of individuals from different crime organizations from all around the world (Mafia etc etc). Fleming dropped SMERSH altogether and created SPECTRE and even members from SMERSH are part of the enterprise led by Blofeld so I don’t see any problem with Quantum being a subsidiary of the larger SPECTRE. It is definitely in line with Fleming and makes the organization even more shadowy.

    Plus knowing that SPECTRE was behind all five Craig adventures in different forms is cool if you ask me. :)

    Yes to me that all fits just fine, @matt_u. Past and present and then some.

    It just piles on to why I'm looking forward to the new one, while the previous four are so easy to rewatch and enjoy. A great time to be a Bond fan.

    6eca1640badf26a8b2f971ca90ffc2d3418e7c4d.png

  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Birdleson wrote: »
    QUANTUM is excellent, I’m watching it now. If NTTD can even manage to scratch the belly of this one I’ll be ecstatic.

    It's second to last in my ranking, yet I find myself watching it more than any of Craig's other films. It's got such momentum, it doesn't waste a moment of its runtime.

    There's something horribly efficient about this film.
  • Posts: 4,353
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    QUANTUM is excellent, I’m watching it now. If NTTD can even manage to scratch the belly of this one I’ll be ecstatic.

    It's second to last in my ranking, yet I find myself watching it more than any of Craig's other films. It's got such momentum, it doesn't waste a moment of its runtime.

    There's something horribly efficient about this film.

    It's one of the most re-watchable for sure. I think it's because it's flawed, the more you watch it the more you start to see past the flaws and the plot, characters, themes become more apparent. Also, great fights such as the Slate one.

    I watched the sequence in slow motion and to my eye it looks as though Craig does the entire stunt. I think there is one second around 0:56-0:57 portion where the stuntman comes in. But its a very innocuous moment and Craig does the heavy lifting....

Sign In or Register to comment.