QOS wrapped, expectations?

blueman

Principal photography for QOS is in the can, the production had its wrap party Saturday night. Saw somebody start a thread like this on another forum, I'm curious what folks are expecting from QOS now that all on-set stories are done.

For me I'm pleased all the accidents and the "curse" didn't seem to amount to much in the end - the film wrapped on time, which also points to a lot of competence from the director/producers IMO to keep things on track and even-keeled. And hope those injured heal quickly.

I'm excited the series is past the intro part of the reboot, and that QOS is back to Bond basics (sounds like). CR was nice with the big love story and all, but one of those every 35 years or so is about right. If the tone stays the same as established in CR, we'll be getting a Bond film like we haven't seen since the 60s: no quip-heavy wink-winks ala Moore, no dodgy script/plotting/direction ala poor Dalton's two films AND the entirety of the Brosnan era... damn it'll be a good thriller film about Bond. As it should be and about friggin' time. Thank you Babs for Craig, Haggis, and now Forster for whose Bond-work I have very high hopes.

And if it ain't all that oh well, I usually walk in with great expectations cuz it's Bond, can't help it (learned behavior as a child, no doubt ).

Anyhoo, others' thoughts?

cbdouble07

I've gotten the feeling that this is going to be a 60s type of Bond film, as well. We have Daniel Craig (best Bond since Connery) entrenched in the role, what should be another top notch screenplay by Haggis, great direction by Forster, the return of Felix Leiter and Mathis both played by the same actor (continuation that the series has rarely seen, but is very important IMO), and an assumed great score by Arnold. It also seems like the producers are sticking with what worked during CR by picking actors who can act versus just picking who is big in hollywood at the time. I've also read interviews in which Craig has talked about this feeling like more of a 60s era Bond film which makes me even more excited. I get the idea that QoS will be a welcome return to some of the traditional Bond elements, and hence should please the cinematic Bond traditionalists, but also retain the excellent writing, sharp dialogue, and Fleming elements that made CR such a success. In short, I think that this could be the best of both worlds.

blueman

cbdouble07 wrote:

I've gotten the feeling that this is going to be a 60s type of Bond film, as well. We have Daniel Craig (best Bond since Connery) entrenched in the role, what should be another top notch screenplay by Haggis, great direction by Forster, the return of Felix Leiter and Mathis both played by the same actor (continuation that the series has rarely seen, but is very important IMO), and an assumed great score by Arnold. It also seems like the producers are sticking with what worked during CR by picking actors who can act versus just picking who is big in hollywood at the time. I've also read interviews in which Craig has talked about this feeling like more of a 60s era Bond film which makes me even more excited. I get the idea that QoS will be a welcome return to some of the traditional Bond elements, and hence should please the cinematic Bond traditionalists, but also retain the excellent writing, sharp dialogue, and Fleming elements that made CR such a success. In short, I think that this could be the best of both worlds.

Oh yeah, I'm with you on all that. {[]

Loeffelholz

It's pretty much what I'm hoping for, as well---the best of both worlds. I think it's going to be action-heavy, especially given the wide variety of locations and set pieces we've either been told about or given hints about---so structure will be very important.

In addition, the fact that all of this action is going to be served up by a director who's known for character-driven pieces certainly makes it interesting.

If the rumours are correct, Eon are following up the most brief PTS in decades (CR) with perhaps the longest ever. To me this is exciting, and speaks to the overall unpredictable tack they seem intent upon taking with the post-reboot 007---what better tonic for a formula-rooted franchise than a bit of that? I'm curious about the talk about a 'Sixties'-style Bond film; if they're talking about overall tone and production design, I'm certainly happy about that.

If SAG does indeed strike early next month, Eon had better be sure they've nailed all of the retakes and 'pick-ups'...!

Shatterhand67

I too am glad that there is going to be continuity with respect to recurring characters. The reason Jack Lord did not re-appear is because he was so good it was feared that he would upstage Connery. I personally think that Rick Van Nutter was very good in the role as well. Jeffrey Wright is probably the most talented actor to have assumed the role of Felix Leiter so I hope that QOS has utilized Mr. Wright's amazing talent.

I am very happy with the return to reality...no invisible cars or ice castles. I thought the carved out volcano was cool when I was a kid but c'mon.

I think they will be successful as long as they follow in the traditions of movies like FRWL, OHMSS and CR. Can't wait to see what this one is like.

Tee Hee

If I told you that I had high expectations for QoS, I would be lying. Not that you would have believed me anyway. )

Afterall, we've got Daniel Craig (the worst Bond in my eyes) and a reboot that I believe does a disservice to forty years of Bond cinematic history.

I know there will be a handful of moments that bear a resemblance to the cinematic Bond of old, but as long as the producers continue down the path they chose for CR, the less I will recognize and appreciate the character of whom has brought us all here.

I'll be there opening night (with Loeff and sons most likely) and I'd like to be pleasantly surprised. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

blueman

Fair enough. Maybe the next fella/run of films will be more to your liking?

I think CR fits in very well with cinematic Bond circa '62-'69 (and is only a disservice to cinematic Bond '71-'04 ), so I'm hoping for more of the same with QOS.

Napoleon Plural

I'm moderately enthused; esp after so much CGI heavy blockbusters this summer like Wanted, Hulk and Iron Man. QoS is the way I think many want it to go.

It tooks good, though I'm not crazy about Panama locations. Hope the water features (lakes in opener) balance out desert locations towards the end, as with TSWLM.

Craig looks better in this one, less weedy and rubbery. Not really sure how the love interest will pan out, and the director does tend to let things drag half way thru this films. But generally I have an upbeat feel. Just hope the villain thing isn't too much of a retread, I'm never crazy about young villains, they don't seem to make much impact for me.

Strangeways

I am completely over excited (again, as always in a Bond year). For me the trailer next week will be the first real test of how the film is going to "look".

Once I am back from my own travels at the end of August then I will concentrate on getting ready for the premier etc.

Let the countdown commence.......{[]

Moonraker 5

Given how little I know about the film, I'm not quite sure what my expectations are. I wouldn't expect much of a deviation in tone. If it picks up exactly where the last one left off, then it's not going to be a nudge-nudge, wink-wink type of film. It's certainly going to continue with a serious step for now.

From all I've heard about action sequences, it sounds like it's going to be action-packed, therefore probably fast paced. I really hope that this isn't to the detriment of character building, though given Marc Forster's background and Haggis' CR script tidy-up, I'd be reasonably confident in betting it won't be.

I'm unsold on the "big, villanous, megalomaniac" organisation that's being introduced. Groups like SPECTRE I think I have their day. If indeed it's like SPECTRE. Granted, I don't know their motives or their ambition, but I do hope it's just not another crime organisation for-the-sake-of-a-plot-device type.

I don't expect it to be as glamourous or as exotic as CR looked on screen. With the locations here, it might be a bit grubby, bit rough round the edges. That's no bad thing, though.

In the end, it's got a lot to live up to with CR having been such a huge hit. The gamble has paid off, but now it's up to the producers to keep the momentum going. And with that in mind, I don't see it being lost with QoS. I think it's going to be a racy, edgy film, less emotional and more in your face.

All I want that I've so badly missed is the gunbarrel rolling across the screen at the very beginning. I've not had that fix in 6 years.

darenhat

I have ZERO expectations. By that, I mean I have neither good nor bad expectations (or any that I do have canceled each other out).

Pros:
- One more step in putting that messy re-boot behind us.
- Appears to be a solid cast with much prettier ladies than Eva Green.
- Craig is looking good and in form.

Cons:
- The short running time (coupled with the rumor of the longest pre-title sequence) bothers me a little.
- I don't like the idea of it picking up where CR left off. I grew bored with the Lake Como sequences, and I'm not looking forward to seeing more of the same location that was in a last Bond.
- More of Judi Dench back in action

Dan Same

I have moderate expectations. Like Tee Hee, the fact that this is a reboot (or at least the continuation of one) horrifies me. Similarly, Craig is my among my three least favourite Bonds. Add to this is the fact that Dench is involved, which will invariably mean either more psychoanalysing or more of 'let's take M out into the field.' 8-) The PTS apparantly being 20 minutes doesn't thrill me while I also don't love the title (not a great sign of things to come in my experience) and I am becoming more and more concerned about who will be singing the song.

But I like the Bond girls that have been chosen, I did enjoy CR and saw it twice so I am confident that I will enjoy QOS. In fact I adored the final scene of CR so I think it will be a great starting-off point for QOS. I am aslo hopeful that (reboot aside) QOS will be more like a 'traditional' Bond film than CR and I think it has a terrific plot (even though Haggis is co-writing the screenplay). Plus, at the end of the day it's a Bond film and there is no chance of me not seeing it opening weekend. :007)

TonyDP

I really don't have any expectations either. CR didn't do it for me at all; neither the plot nor the cast resonated with me on any level and I hated the notion of rebooting Bond. As such, I haven't been following QoS's production at all. I'm aware of the major casting choices made and the general plot (in very broad terms) but that's about it. Bond has really slid down the pecking order of films I'm interested in and I've really become quite indifferent to it. I'll just see what happens come November; I'm sure I'll be seeing it in the theaters, and not knowing anything will hopefully make for a fresher and more enjoyable experience this time around.

highhopes

I'm expecting a true James Bond thriller combining character, action, suspense and atmosphere. I think Bond finally returned with Casino Royale and I expect Quantum of Solacewill build on that foundation.

The upcoming trailer should say a lot about what the film will be like.

Corbism

TonyDP wrote:

I really don't have any expectations either. CR didn't do it for me at all; neither the plot nor the cast resonated with me on any level and I hated the notion of rebooting Bond.

I agree TonyDP. I was (still am) irritated with the whole reboot the series concept. It wasn't needed. If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. Bah, but, that's old history now.

I did enjoy Casino Royale (2006) and it was a good film but, I was slightly disappointed as it was missing a few traditional Bond elements (opening gunbarrel sequence, opening stunt sequence, Q, Moneypenny, gadgetry, etc). Guess I missed the formula that has worked so well for 40 years. I guess I am more of a cinematic Bond traditionalist if that is the proper term floating around here now

I am looking forward to the new film as I am a Bond fan but, I have no expectations at this time.

spectre7

blueman wrote:

no dodgy script/plotting/direction ala poor Dalton's two films AND the entirety of the Brosnan era...

The Living Daylights is better then the five films that followed it.

blueman

Corbism wrote:

Guess I missed the formula that has worked so well for 40 years. I guess I am more of a cinematic Bond traditionalist if that is the proper term floating around here now

Very amusing to me to see a statement like this in that context: for decades now I've been anti-EON cuz they weren't making Bond films like they did in the 60s, but now that they've returned (more or less) to that form the term "cinematic Bond traditionalist" (which I feel describes my POV to a T) is instead getting used to describe the intervening 35 years of (for me) anti-Bond films. Guess "traditionalist" Bond beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So be it. {[]

Loeffelholz

darenhat wrote:

- The short running time (coupled with the rumor of the longest pre-title sequence) bothers me a little.

I must have missed something. What's been said about the running time? Isn't it supposed to be 120 minutes? If so, it's only short compared to modern-era Bonds (which probably average 130-135), and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing---in fact, one might say that it's a course correction after the extended third act and coda of CR...and it would also put it solidly in the running time range of some of the most classic Bond pictures.

Loeffelholz

blueman wrote:

...for decades now I've been anti-EON cuz they weren't making Bond films like they did in the 60s, but now that they've returned (more or less) to that form the term "cinematic Bond traditionalist" (which I feel describes my POV to a T) is instead getting used to describe the intervening 35 years of (for me) anti-Bond films. Guess "traditionalist" Bond beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So be it. {[]

Did you ever check out the 'Bond Party Affiliation' thread, blue? 'Traditionalist,' in the context of Bonditics^TM, means just that: tradition established repeatedly over decades...which naturally includes Moore's run, the overall lighter tone, the regimented formula and trappings of Cinematic Bond---i.e., mandatory Q, Moneypenny, one-liners, et al).

You're probably more of a Flemingist---early Connery Bond, OHMSS and Craig---since we tend to regard the years between Connery and Craig with varying levels of affection

sharpshooter

I think QoS will be better than CR, which was a dynamite film. Large claim yes, but I can just feel it.

Napoleon Plural

He made you feel it, did he?

Loeffelholz

Napoleon Plural wrote:

He made you feel it, did he?

Not to worry. The second is---

Barry Nelson

I have no real expectations what so ever. The title is terrible, Craig will never be my style Bond and what I have seen of the female leads hasn't thrilled me either. When I saw CR in the theater I enjoyed it, but watching again on video a number of things bothered me. I haven't watched a third time.

I will see it, but I am not eagerly awaiting it.

I understand others enjoy this take on Bond, so to them I say enjoy.

Tee Hee

Barry Nelson wrote:

Craig will never be my style Bond.

Craig appears to be unpopular among the Chicago Trio (Barry Nelson, JennyFlexFan, and myself).

Craig is the ketchup to our hot dog! :v )

Strangeways

Loeffelholz wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

He made you feel it, did he?

Not to worry. The second is---

Yes - considerably!

blueman

Perhaps the thought of more traditional Bond film (as QOS is rumored to be) might be something for the CNBers to look forward to? I'm not wild about Brosnan in the role, but I do very much like TND taken as a whole, as it also is a nice little "more traditional" Bond film IMO.

Any port in a storm, maybe...

Loeffelholz

Strangeways wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

He made you feel it, did he?

Not to worry. The second is---

Yes - considerably!

:007) {[]

Virgil

I would be happy if they keep the level of CR. I would be terribly dissapointed if they just stick together action sequences (as in TND). Luckily, Daniel Craig is James Bond. I just need to see him doing the gunbarrel with walking dots with a full volume james bond theme,and QoS will be on the right track.

Sir Miles

Barry Nelson wrote:

I have no real expectations what so ever. The title is terrible, Craig will never be my style Bond and what I have seen of the female leads hasn't thrilled me either. When I saw CR in the theater I enjoyed it, but watching again on video a number of things bothered me. I haven't watched a third time.

I will see it, but I am not eagerly awaiting it.

I understand others enjoy this take on Bond, so to them I say enjoy.

And I say 'thanks'

I love the title - wanted them to use it for years, and I think Craig is fantastic as Bond. Haven't seen much of the female leads though.
The way you feel about CR is pretty much how I feel about DAD - except I didn't really enjoy it in the cinema either )
Each person has their own take on Bond and DC fits in with mine - I understand others will not like his style, or films, but they will get their turn eventually -{

frostbitten

QOS will probably be a good Bond film, but I have some doubts as to whether it will be better, or even as good as, CR. It's not because I think that Craig will give a worse performance, or because I don't like the director or supporting actors. To me, the main reason CR was such a good film was because it was quite faithful to Fleming's novel. Very few, if any, modern screenwriters can match Fleming when it comes to creating a great storyline. Certainly no screenwriter would be bold enough to come up with the idea of making a whole Bond movie revolve around a card game (I have to confess that I also was skeptical that they could make the concept work before I saw CR). Yet, CR really elevated to another level when it got to the casino scenes. It went from a run-of-the-mill action movie (I didn't quite like the Die Hard-ish airport sequence) to a great spy film. The ideas of going after someone not by killing him, but by preventing him from recovering the lost money and letting his organisation deal with him, and the angle of having Bond fall in love with a double agent, gave CR a depth not often seen in a modern spy/action film. And all that extra touch of class came from Fleming's pen. Now QOS is going to be an original screenplay. I'm not doubting the talent of the screenwriter; I just don't think that he will take as many chances as Fleming did, and the end product, as a result, won't feel as special.

blueman

Totally agree on Fleming, as a story-plotter he's in a rare class. But I was impressed with how Haggis worked with the source material, he seems to have a definite vision of Modern Bond comparable to what Young/Maibaum/Hamilton/Hunt/et al were doing with the series in the 60s IMO - at least going by CR. I'm hoping my expectations for a continuation of that Modern Bond from CR are met in QOS, Forster should be able to deliver the goods IMO, just gotta wait till November to see.