Quantum of Solace vs. Skyfall

1911131415

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    So it wasn't the cinematography that initially turned me off of QoS, but something else. I just can't put my finger on what it was. Perhaps it's because it just wasn't CR (there was a lack of romance and class to the dialogue).
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,281
    As Bond fans, I think we get bogged down in the detail . In terms of which is the better film, SF wins by a mile IMHO. It is very conventional with a classic, 3 part structure, good character developtment, deeper themes that dont detract from the action,memorable dialogue strong supporting charcters and a classic style of ending with great emotional depth. It's obviously not perfect (what movie is?), the faults with QoS are well documented and, despite the recent thrust to re-visit it, as an overall package, it just does not work.
    PS re cinematography, whilst appreciating it, in terms of priorities, its pretty meaningless if you have no emotional connection with the characters and their situation. It just sinks to the level of a classic pop video .
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,432
    bondjames wrote: »
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    You need a trip to the opticians, mate. On a technical level it isn't even close.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    You need a trip to the opticians, mate. On a technical level it isn't even close.
    My eyes are fine, but thank you for the medical diagnosis. I don't recall expressing a technical point of view. Just an opinion, which I'm quite entitled to on this forum.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    You need a trip to the opticians, mate. On a technical level it isn't even close.
    My eyes are fine, but thank you for the medical diagnosis. I don't recall expressing a technical point of view. Just an opinion, which I'm quite entitled to on this forum.

    Just saying it isn't better.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,899
    Even though I prefer Skyfall, I must admit that the basic concept of QoS was much more original and that the basic story was much more interesting than the one in Skyfall. Honestly, Skyfall's plot is pretty thin and does not really add anything new to the franchise. However, the execution was pretty fine. In QoS it is rather the other way around: creative concept but poor execution.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    You need a trip to the opticians, mate. On a technical level it isn't even close.
    My eyes are fine, but thank you for the medical diagnosis. I don't recall expressing a technical point of view. Just an opinion, which I'm quite entitled to on this forum.

    Just saying it isn't better.
    I never said it was, technically.

    I do personally prefer the day time scenes (particularly in Bolivia/Haiti/Italy or wherever they filmed it) in QoS to any daytime scenes in SF, which seem a bit monotone and washed out (in that SP way) in some instances, particularly in Istanbul and on the boat to Silva's island. When the bloody camera stays still, QoS is visually impressive to me.

    That night sequence during the Greene Planet fundraiser is superb as well, again imho.

    That's not taking anything away from SF or Deakins, who did magnificent work.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    GBF wrote: »
    Even though I prefer Skyfall, I must admit that the basic concept of QoS was much more original and that the basic story was much more interesting than the one in Skyfall. Honestly, Skyfall's plot is pretty thin and does not really add anything new to the franchise. However, the execution was pretty fine. In QoS it is rather the other way around: creative concept but poor execution.

    Spot on.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace has been the last enjoyable Bond film so far for me. It is a film that shows how to include artistic moments into a Bond film without getting pretentious.

    Skyfall on the other hand is nice enough on the surface but delivers nothing more than an anti-Bond with Joe Everyman being depressed and traumatised about his youth.

    Also Roberto Schaefer's cinematography for QOS is on par with Roger Deakins' work in SF in my book. David Arnold's score is a million times better than the elevator music Thomas Newman spits out and not a single character in SF comes close to Giancarlo Gianninni's Mathis.

    Yes, you are one after my own heart.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    One thing about QoS's cinematography that's really strong is its color palette. The visuals have earthy tones that fit perfectly with a plot all about the environment, and on that level the look and heart of the film meet.

    Deakins is great, nobody will deny that, but I don't think SF is such an easy winner. I like QoS because it doesn't strive to be a blockbuster looking feature; it's got a 70s feeling of rough and tumble that fits with the journey Bond is on. The frames are very introspective and melancholic at times, like when Bond is on the plane or holding Mathis when he dies. The shots really hold on these characters as they face hell, and the performances allow you to feel it too. The visuals help to support the performances in this way, and make QoS an ever stronger character piece.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,981
    doubleoego wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace has been the last enjoyable Bond film so far for me. It is a film that shows how to include artistic moments into a Bond film without getting pretentious.

    Skyfall on the other hand is nice enough on the surface but delivers nothing more than an anti-Bond with Joe Everyman being depressed and traumatised about his youth.

    Also Roberto Schaefer's cinematography for QOS is on par with Roger Deakins' work in SF in my book. David Arnold's score is a million times better than the elevator music Thomas Newman spits out and not a single character in SF comes close to Giancarlo Gianninni's Mathis.

    Yes, you are one after my own heart.

    Very well said, couldn't agree more with that assessment.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Éric Serra & Bond '83!
    Posts: 5,259
    I don't think anything in SF comes even close to these scenes:

    - Aston vs Alfa chase
    - Palio scene
    - "teachers on sabbatical"
    - Tosca scene
    - visiting Mathis
    - Mathis and Bond about what is keeping them awake
    - final scene in Kazan
  • Posts: 19,339
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't think anything in SF comes even close to these scenes:

    - Aston vs Alfa chase
    - Palio scene
    - "teachers on sabbatical"
    - Tosca scene
    - visiting Mathis
    - Mathis and Bond about what is keeping them awake
    - final scene in Kazan

    I would add the Greene/Beam/Elvis/Felix on the plane scene...i love that scene,the performances and the atmosphere,discussing their plans and Bond....
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
  • Posts: 444
    bondjames wrote: »
    With SF, the night photography really lifts it. I suspect this may be on account of the use of digital cameras by Deakins. I agree that the day work is average at best, and that Istanbul in particular looked far better in FRWL.

    It's funny, but when I first watched SF, I was blown away by the cinematography. What a step up from QoS, I thought. However, with time and more watches, I realize that QoS is as good if not better in many cases (particularly the day time work, which has a real old school panavision technicolour look to it).

    So it wasn't the cinematography that initially turned me off of QoS, but something else. I just can't put my finger on what it was. Perhaps it's because it just wasn't CR (there was a lack of romance and class to the dialogue).

    With the exception of SP I'd say the cinematography of the Craig films has been exquisite. The grittiness of CR, the sheen of QOS and the nightmare hellish inferno of the Skyfall lodge ablaze and Craig's run across the lake. I agree though that the Instanbul PTS looks incredibly dull and washed out.

    I was always impressed by the QOS cinematography from the first cinema showing. There's such a sharp clarity to the film. I like the Kubrik like framing of the brief shot in which Greene and his men stand off against Bond in the opera house and the overexposed and yet ominous desert shots. The panning shot of Camille swinging off from the roof to the veranda of Hotel Perla De Las Dunas is a great little shot.
  • Posts: 19,339
    My feeling on Craigbonds 4 adventures are that ,ok CR & QOS work either as stand-alones or as a two-parter,which is clever.
    QOS can be watched as a stand-alone quite easily,and the rookie gunbarrel at the start of CR and the gunbarrel at the end of QOS brings that story to a close,if you view it as a 2-parter.

    SF to me,wil ALWAYS be a stand-alone film,there is NO link per se,to Silva and the other 2 films...i enjoy it so much more if i see it as a stand-alone as i did originally.


    SP is the only dodgy entry and now leaves EON with a hell of a lot of hard work to do re BOND25 ...personally for me we need a stand-alone before Blofeld comes back.

    If Waltz doesnt want to wait then so be it ,Blofeld,on screen ,has always been played by different actor in each film in the past so thats not a problem,and he should be put on ice until BOND26.

    Whether its Craig having a last film (personally i think he should go now ,use the DB5 and Madeleine as his swann-song ,pardon the pun he he ),or BOND7 arrives,a new stand-alone film is in order.


  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Éric Serra & Bond '83!
    Posts: 5,259
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't think anything in SF comes even close to these scenes:

    - Aston vs Alfa chase
    - Palio scene
    - "teachers on sabbatical"
    - Tosca scene
    - visiting Mathis
    - Mathis and Bond about what is keeping them awake
    - final scene in Kazan

    I would add the Greene/Beam/Elvis/Felix on the plane scene...i love that scene,the performances and the atmosphere,discussing their plans and Bond....

    Yeah, I love that scene too.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,170
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.

    I like SF and QOS about equally (currently QOS has the edge), but I agree with the above completely. M's death (in fact the entire scene in the church) felt forced to me.
  • Posts: 3,322
    At the moment i prefer Skyfall by quite a big margin, as my last viewing of QoS was very dissapointing.
  • Definitely Skyfall. A much more suspenseful film with a better villain.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,202
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Oh definitely. Made me cry. M's death just made me sad.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
    I wouldn't have, at least not in front of Kincaide. There are ways to experience grief, but a more subtle expression would have been more appropriate imho. At the end of the day, M was his boss. That's it. I always felt that the overplayed 'mother' angle was supposed to be from her perspective, and not his.

    Having said that, narratively I realize that Mendes had to lock the scene down and move on. Having Bond show rage (like in CR) wouldn't have been appropriate in this instance, because the perpetrator was already dead. Moreover, they had to close it out and move to the 'Bond is back' finale with retro throwback to MP & M in classic office. So I understand why they did this.

    At the end of the day, it was a minor moment in an otherwise excellent film, so I'm nitpicking. As long as they leave the crying with the Craig era, I'll be fine.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,643
    Both are enjoyable for me in their own regards. I always enjoy QOS a lot more directly following CR. While as SF is great for me at any point. I havent been much in tune with Bond recently, I think the only film I've watched in the last month was the first half of YOLT so a marathon is in my future to get reacquainted
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
    I wouldn't have, at least not in front of Kincaide. There are ways to experience grief, but a more subtle expression would have been more appropriate imho. At the end of the day, M was his boss. That's it. I always felt that the overplayed 'mother' angle was supposed to be from her perspective, and not his.

    Having said that, narratively I realize that Mendes had to lock the scene down and move on. Having Bond show rage (like in CR) wouldn't have been appropriate in this instance, because the perpetrator was already dead. Moreover, they had to close it out and move to the 'Bond is back' finale with retro throwback to MP & M in classic office. So I understand why they did this.

    At the end of the day, it was a minor moment in an otherwise excellent film, so I'm nitpicking. As long as they leave the crying with the Craig era, I'll be fine.

    Seems like the most natural reaction to me. She was always the person he could count on, even when he thought he couldn't, and she showed him more care than most people he's ever known. She took him from a reckless man and molded him into her "legacy," the man we know him to be. It was her that helped him see what Vesper did to save him, when he was denying it, it was her that stood up for him when others didn't trust him, and she saved him from killing squads who wanted his head because she trusted him to do him job. And in her last moments, the only person she wanted to help her take down Silva was Bond, as it's always been Bond.

    I don't see them as just a boss and employee, though on the face of it, that is what they are. Bond and M in this incarnation were always trying as subtly as they could to share their appreciation and respect for each other, as they knew it'd be unprofessional to express it more overtly. But in M's final moments you can see all the care and respect she has for Bond, and how happy she is that he has become a man who they both could be proud of. They're both past it and don't exactly fit into how the world as it is now, but they keep on going because that's what they have to do to keep their people safe, at all costs. Tennyson's poem is just as much a story about Bond as it is M, two people of vintage facing modernity with reluctance, but marching on all the same. It's why M gives Bond the bulldog, the best and most symbolic thing she could push his way. It's the symbol of endearing stubbornness, telling Bond to keep going, keep surviving, as she molded him to do. She wasn't his surrogate mother by definition, but she was the closest thing he had to a maternal figure since he was a boy, and there's probably a part of him that feels guilty and angry in the moment, thinking he could've done more to protect her. But that's the inevitability of time, eh?

    Wrapping all this together, Bond would be a robot if he didn't get emotional.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I always felt the emotion when Connery and Moore did it, even though they didn't express it as openly. It's implicit and they conveyed it subtly. We know Bond is a decent fellow after all & not a robot. This sort of thing comes with the territory and the job.

    Like I said, I wouldn't have expressed it in front of Kincaide, or at least I would have tried to hold back. That's one of the reasons I can't stand the Baku breakdown in TWINE (apart from the horrendous overacting by the principal) - because I wouldn't have reacted that way.

    Again, I'm nitpicking. I'll never like the scene, but it's such an insignificant moment in an otherwise superb effort. They handled it well enough given how they'd built the whole thing up over so many films. In a way, the tears were meant to be for us (i.e. Bond was crying for us) as we said goodbye to a well known character.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    What's this about not crying in front of Kincade? He was getting emotional along with Bond, and he's not a patriarchal figure who follows Bond everywhere, telling him to, "Be a man." It makes sense for them to both be shaken and sad in that moment, as they respected the woman and wished they could've done more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Again, I've always seen Bond as a tough naval sort, who keeps his emotions under his vest - represses them. Even in a moment such as this, if I was him in his position & with his training and experience, I would have shown restraint. It's not about being a man. It's about control of one's emotions. That doesn't mean one doesn't feel it. It means one tries not to show it.

    Obviously Mendes and many others disagree with me.

    As I said, QoS was well handled, but it was Kurylenko who really nailed that scene, when she looks away.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I think that sort of feeling does have a foundation in hyper-patriarchal expectations of "men being men," as I see it crop up everywhere. Emotion is viewed as weakness, weakness defeats us, etc.

    I understand the possible utility of keeping a clear head on the job, keeping your chin held high for duty's sake, but for Bond the job/mission here was done, and all he was left with was a woman dying in his arms who meant more to him than probably anyone else in his life, because he is so reluctant to let people in. He keeps a very small circle of people in his life that actually mean something to him, and that he keeps around: M, Moneypenny, Q, Mathis and Vesper. Three of those are dead by the end of this film, and you can imagine where his head is at, especially since he thought he was betrayed by the latter two and eventually learned to forgive himself and them to move on.

    It's like expecting Bond not to get emotional when Tracy dies (which I know many have a problem with, curiously). These people are his world, the only ones that count. He will break, he can't not feel it.
Sign In or Register to comment.