It Seems There Are More QoS Appreciators Than Thought Before

13468964

Comments

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    For those who hated the last three movies, it may be worth considering that you will probably not like any future Bond films....
  • For those who hated the last three movies, it may be worth considering that you will probably not like any future Bond films....

    They have almost 20 other movies from 1962 to 2002 to go like, minus OHMSS.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    My history teacher asked us to email him a quote.

    I emailed him “ I don’t think the dead care about vengeance”
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    For those who hated the last three movies, it may be worth considering that you will probably not like any future Bond films....

    They have almost 20 other movies from 1962 to 2002 to go like, minus OHMSS.

    Why minus OHMSS?
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Doesn't like George obviously
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    For those who hated the last three movies, it may be worth considering that you will probably not like any future Bond films....

    They have almost 20 other movies from 1962 to 2002 to go like, minus OHMSS.

    Why minus OHMSS?

    Because it was the only film in that series that dared to be different. Sean Connery even said he wished he had done a film like that one.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 1,282
    My history teacher asked us to email him a quote.

    I emailed him “ I don’t think the dead care about vengeance”

    Let us know what the professor's response is if you get one about that! @JamesBondKenya
  • The snowfall during Bond and M's scene was quite symbolic.

    Bond and Camille traveled from the desert, representing their inner turmoil of dryness. Then Bond travels to the snowy icy part of Kazan, Russia to confront Yusef.

    Despite the coldness of the world, Bond comes to terms and has M on his side. If it wasn't for this film or this scene, SF wouldn't have been able to piggy back off of their relationship. The snowfall represented everything surrounding them despite having one another for support. Bond never left.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    My history teacher asked us to email him a quote.

    I emailed him “ I don’t think the dead care about vengeance”

    Let us know what the professor's response is if you get one about that! @JamesBondKenya

    He called me out the next day in front of the whole class and was like “ugh didn’t you have an interesting quote , what was it again.., something about the dead”. And I repeated the quote to which he said,” is that your own quote” and then I took credit for it like the sinful human I am.
  • My history teacher asked us to email him a quote.

    I emailed him “ I don’t think the dead care about vengeance”

    Let us know what the professor's response is if you get one about that! @JamesBondKenya

    He called me out the next day in front of the whole class and was like “ugh didn’t you have an interesting quote , what was it again.., something about the dead”. And I repeated the quote to which he said,” is that your own quote” and then I took credit for it like the sinful human I am.


    Quantum of Solace is the undiscovered gem that keeps on paying dividends to this day.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    For those who hated the last three movies, it may be worth considering that you will probably not like any future Bond films....
    That’s a very frightening thought. Especially when there’s truth to it.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 1,282
    If QoS had a proper follow-up that wasn't as indirect and so distant as SF was, we wouldn't have had this discussion. SF pulled Bond backwards into the version of the series that took place prior to CR, and it pushed him too much into being in his later years of service.


    Let's be frank, QoS exudes an atomosphere of melancholy in many aspects of the film. The dramatic scenes have not been matched yet and it was continuing to story of CR so it is an essential film but too much action caused a misunderstanding.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I’ve always been bummed that there was no conclusion to CR/QOS. Skyfall could have been made, but now is the time for that film. When the series is seemingly “played out”.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    If QoS had a proper follow-up that wasn't as indirect and so distant as SF was, we wouldn't have had this discussion. SF pulled Bond backwards into the version of the series that took place prior to CR, and it pushed him too much into being in his later years of service.


    Let's be frank, QoS exudes an atomosphere of melancholy in many aspects of the film. The dramatic scenes have not been matched yet and it was continuing to story of CR so it is an essential film but too much action caused a misunderstanding.

    It’s average at best. SF is far superior.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,983
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    Eye of the beholder and all that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.

    I’d definitely agree with that.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.

    Schaefer is certainly decent. The issue with QoS, for me, is that it’s listless and doesn’t have the gusto of SF. There’s a very definite vision for SF that is driven heavily by the cinematography. QoS, by comparison, is muddled, so where the cinematography is ‘good’ (I.e. shot composition) it’s essentially just a perfume ad. The narrative is flimsy so there’s no weight to anything.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,983
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.

    I’d definitely agree with that.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.

    Schaefer is certainly decent. The issue with QoS, for me, is that it’s listless and doesn’t have the gusto of SF. There’s a very definite vision for SF that is driven heavily by the cinematography. QoS, by comparison, is muddled, so where the cinematography is ‘good’ (I.e. shot composition) it’s essentially just a perfume ad. The narrative is flimsy so there’s no weight to anything.

    Just to avoid any confusion, I think that SF is infinitely better than QOS, though I don't think the latter is "bad". SF is my No. 2 Bond film right beind FRWL, not least of Deakins' cinematography, and regardless of what I think of any others. I do think, though, that the positive aspects of QOS deserve mentioning. It could have been so much better with a different kind of editing, kind of like OHMSS without Lazenby.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.

    I’d definitely agree with that.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.

    Schaefer is certainly decent. The issue with QoS, for me, is that it’s listless and doesn’t have the gusto of SF. There’s a very definite vision for SF that is driven heavily by the cinematography. QoS, by comparison, is muddled, so where the cinematography is ‘good’ (I.e. shot composition) it’s essentially just a perfume ad. The narrative is flimsy so there’s no weight to anything.

    Just to avoid any confusion, I think that SF is infinitely better than QOS, though I don't think the latter is "bad". SF is my No. 2 Bond film right beind FRWL, not least of Deakins' cinematography, and regardless of what I think of any others. I do think, though, that the positive aspects of QOS deserve mentioning. It could have been so much better with a different kind of editing, kind of like OHMSS without Lazenby.

    I absolutely think QoS has positives, I just don’t ascribe to the idea it’s a misunderstood masterpiece. It simply isn’t. It’s not even comparable to OHMSS for me, which is a virtuoso bit of work from Hunt.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited February 2019 Posts: 1,756
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The more realistic and down-to-earth, the better.

    The Roger Moore and Dalton era were both without the CGI shenanigans and were pretty good entertainment, down to earth Mendes Bond was pure crapiness, CGI galore and bad scripts, with a poor director.

    Right, because the special effects of the Moore era were amazing. Kananga's death for me is #1 special effect of all time. And let's not forget the totally believable stuntman on A View to a Kill. Totally does not break the immersion when a 50 year old has a 30 year old stunt double very obviously in the film!
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    RC7 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.

    I’d definitely agree with that.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.

    Schaefer is certainly decent. The issue with QoS, for me, is that it’s listless and doesn’t have the gusto of SF. There’s a very definite vision for SF that is driven heavily by the cinematography. QoS, by comparison, is muddled, so where the cinematography is ‘good’ (I.e. shot composition) it’s essentially just a perfume ad. The narrative is flimsy so there’s no weight to anything.

    Just to avoid any confusion, I think that SF is infinitely better than QOS, though I don't think the latter is "bad". SF is my No. 2 Bond film right beind FRWL, not least of Deakins' cinematography, and regardless of what I think of any others. I do think, though, that the positive aspects of QOS deserve mentioning. It could have been so much better with a different kind of editing, kind of like OHMSS without Lazenby.

    I absolutely think QoS has positives, I just don’t ascribe to the idea it’s a misunderstood masterpiece. It simply isn’t. It’s not even comparable to OHMSS for me, which is a virtuoso bit of work from Hunt.

    I have to say, I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I think it's underrated as a Bond film. There's also a lot of nostalgia for me for the film. When I listen to the soundtrack of QoS and I'm teleported back to the time I watched it, I feel more than just a soundtrack. I think everyone sort of has this connection with a Bond film.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    RC7 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I agree. There is great cinematography in the sixties Bonds, and all of Craig s films, but SF is in a league of its own. I believe it contributed greatly to its success.

    I’d definitely agree with that.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think the only things SF does better than QOS are the theme song, the villain, and arguably the cinematography. QOS is a beautiful looking film so it's hard for me to call.

    There’s no comparison. Deakins is as good as it gets. The way he lights the finale is art.

    I'm probably a Deakins fan second to none. But Roberto Schaefer is doing an excellent job in cinematography as well, if you look at his individual shots. It's just that Cheese and Pearson cut it apart so rabidly that one can't enjoy it ("one" means "I", I'm aware, but I have the feeling I'm not nearly alone). For me, the editing is what's sounding the death knell over anything one might like about the visual aspects of QOS. It's just a mess. They should re-edit and re-issue the entire film, and it might be a top-5 entry.

    Schaefer is certainly decent. The issue with QoS, for me, is that it’s listless and doesn’t have the gusto of SF. There’s a very definite vision for SF that is driven heavily by the cinematography. QoS, by comparison, is muddled, so where the cinematography is ‘good’ (I.e. shot composition) it’s essentially just a perfume ad. The narrative is flimsy so there’s no weight to anything.

    Just to avoid any confusion, I think that SF is infinitely better than QOS, though I don't think the latter is "bad". SF is my No. 2 Bond film right beind FRWL, not least of Deakins' cinematography, and regardless of what I think of any others. I do think, though, that the positive aspects of QOS deserve mentioning. It could have been so much better with a different kind of editing, kind of like OHMSS without Lazenby.

    I absolutely think QoS has positives, I just don’t ascribe to the idea it’s a misunderstood masterpiece. It simply isn’t. It’s not even comparable to OHMSS for me, which is a virtuoso bit of work from Hunt.

    I have to say, I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I think it's underrated as a Bond film. There's also a lot of nostalgia for me for the film. When I listen to the soundtrack of QoS and I'm teleported back to the time I watched it, I feel more than just a soundtrack. I think everyone sort of has this connection with a Bond film.

    Same here. I feel that way about all the Brosnan films and CR/QOS.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I mean I think QOS is a masterpiece. Second best of the whole series.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I am 100% sure in retrospect of the Craig era, 10 years from now QoS will be reviewed even more positively than it is right now. That‘s the aspect that film shares with OHMSS.

    I am nor sure though why that is. Because SP was a letdown (for many)? Or from a more distant view it shows that great amount of energy that in many ways was absent from SF and SP? Personally, I lean to the latter.

    I like Skyfall - no doubt. But CR and QoS are the „energy booster“ entries from Craig where SF is to me the melancholic one.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I am 100% sure in retrospect of the Craig era, 10 years from now QoS will be reviewed even more positively than it is right now. That‘s the aspect that film shares with OHMSS.

    I am nor sure though why that is. Because SP was a letdown (for many)? Or from a more distant view it shows that great amount of energy that in many ways was absent from SF and SP? Personally, I lean to the latter.

    I like Skyfall - no doubt. But CR and QoS are the „energy booster“ entries from Craig where SF is to me the melancholic one.

    Couldn't have said it better @SeanCraig
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I am 100% sure in retrospect of the Craig era, 10 years from now QoS will be reviewed even more positively than it is right now. That‘s the aspect that film shares with OHMSS.

    I am nor sure though why that is. Because SP was a letdown (for many)? Or from a more distant view it shows that great amount of energy that in many ways was absent from SF and SP? Personally, I lean to the latter.

    I like Skyfall - no doubt. But CR and QoS are the „energy booster“ entries from Craig where SF is to me the melancholic one.

    I don’t see or feel the energy. I find it sluggish. It opens well and then completely loses its way. CR and SF by comparison are paced excellently by comparison. It’s frenetically shot and cut, but that doesn’t translate because the narrative is turgid.
  • I thought I'd take this opportunity to share (again) video I made for QoS a while back...

Sign In or Register to comment.