So taking the CBner pole and adding the 4 or 5 against-voices here to it, that still makes it a 3 to 1 ratio, but feel free to check my math.
As to the general tone of CBn, a casual glance over there looks like the rest of this thread page, lotsa QOS hate being vented very freely - toss up really which got more hate at this point, Craig two years ago or QOS now.
Does seem that here and elsewhere, the minority voices are the negative ones, even if they're the loudest, with quite a bit of middle ground. Polarization has happened with QOS, but it's not the driving force that I assumed it was (those loud voices, ya know, both for and against). Considering the history of Bond on film, not very surprising really that there is dissatisfaction with the new film, seems there always is... perhaps one defining quality of the dissenters would be they've never experienced it with Bond before Craig? Not to marginalize those old-timey fans who also hate Craig or QOS, but the outrage feels... newborn? Weird for me as the last three guys weren't my Bond, and even if a couple of the films in there made me smile, most I wrote off with a shrug, disappointment came to be expected and a near constant state with Bond (but always hope too, sure). Probably why I have a thin skin when it comes to sweeping statements about Bond fans (I was hating back before it was fashionable to do so), and a thicker one re bad Bond films: that's been EON's MO, to make that which pays the bills, as opposed to making a great Bond film. IMHO. Nice to see they've finally found a way to do both with Craig on board (minority voices excepted, as it will always be).
I absolutely disagree that those who don't like the movie are in the minority on here. And not elsewhere either. Other than CBN that is basically a huge Craig fansite, not simply a Bond site. Don't even try and talk me into "oh on CBN everyone's free to diss Craig" because I have been there in the past, and not only that is not true, but there are other things that went on there that I don't want to discuss in a public forum. And that I have message proof of, not just for me, but for other people who weren't happy with the direction as well. CBN really is a big, big Craig fansite. Not to mention the DAD review link posted above that was hilarious ) )
Why do you have to try to make the numbers on here look different from what they are, Blue, and on top of it try and make a poll done by a site that has a HUGE majority of Craig fans look as if it's incredibly reliable? I don't get this.
And frankly, I think the loudest voices are those of the positive reviewers, who diss us all the time (and have resorted to not so veiled personal attacks, as was discussed and solved previously on this thread) because God forbid anyone says anything negative about Craig. CR was a huuuge success among the fans. This one isn't, at all. It is extremely divided. Deal with it, I say. Can't the Craig fans just accept this and move on, just like all others had to accept the hype around CR? I really don't get this and it becomes very annoying to try and dismiss the negative reviews as "minority". They are not. Not here and not elsewhere (Other than CBN). As I said, box office results do NOT equal people liking the movie.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Thinking about it, though, we don't really want Hugh as Bond, because then we wouldn't have Hugh as Wolverine. And if there's one thing guaranteed in Wolverine, it's a lot of Hugh walking around without his shirt on. :x
Damn, you're right. It's ok, I can settle for Hamm or Cavill ) (Sorry jetsetwilly, and yes back on topic as per above, I just HAD to say something about this )).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
As I said, box office results do NOT equal people liking the movie.
Perhaps, although it is a large hint! Surely the amount of money a film makes has at least *some* correlation with how well the film is being received?
Perhaps, although it is a large hint! Surely the amount of money a film makes has at least *some* correlation with how well the film is being received?
Ahem. Die Another Day? 8-) Perhaps in the euphoria of the release, but in long run...ouch.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
And frankly, I think the loudest voices are those of the positive reviewers, who diss us all the time (and have resorted to not so veiled personal attacks, as was discussed and solved previously on this thread) because God forbid anyone says anything negative about Craig.
So this is 'moving on'.
Incredible.
Looks to me like the [whatever they approve of calling themselves {:) ] are running this thread. Just an observation...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Perhaps, although it is a large hint! Surely the amount of money a film makes has at least *some* correlation with how well the film is being received?
Ahem. Die Another Day? 8-) Perhaps in the euphoria of the release, but in long run...ouch.
Exactly my point. QoS is making large revenue mainly based on the success of CR. People go to see because they expect to see what was in CR. And many come out of the cinema sorely disappointed. Same for DAD, it banked on the success of all the previous Brosnan movies but it certainly didn't get great appreciation, especially not from fans. Yet revenue was record-breaking.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
Just seen it again -and it improves with every viewing as far as I'm concerned. I think it got a lot of plusses -and as for the lack of gadgets - quite honestly didn't miss them. I'm sure if there is a real need for one -he'd have one. But we must remember is that 007 shouldn't need to rely on gadgets - its his ability to deal with each occasion as he sees fit in that moment. Ingenuity (sp) is the name of the game.
All in all this film is up there with the best as far as I'm concerned -you just need to look at it objectively and associate it with what has happened before - (Casino Royale) Anyway as I say I thought it was excellent -just wish it had been a little longer.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
All in all this film is up there with the best as far as I'm concerned -you just need to look at it objectively and associate it with what has happened before - (Casino Royale) Anyway as I say I thought it was excellent -just wish it had been a little longer.
Agreed, scaramanga1. As I said in my review, we fans love to savour certain dramatic and character beats in Bond films, the way Bond himself loves to savour fine food and drink. One of my problems with QoS is that it doesn't allows us the time. It seems clear to me that this was purposeful on Forster's part, so it's part of the mix that QoS gives us.
I'd also add that if audience disappointment is as rampant as some say, the film's 'legs' will no doubt be going rubbery as we speak, and the box office will be tailing off quite sharply immediately, since no one that let down will see it twice.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And frankly, I think the loudest voices are those of the positive reviewers, who diss us all the time (and have resorted to not so veiled personal attacks, as was discussed and solved previously on this thread) because God forbid anyone says anything negative about Craig.
Looks to me like the [whatever they approve of calling themselves {:) ] are running this thread. Just an observation...
Don't think the "whatever they approve of calling themselves" are running any thread, because the mods run the threads? (and that's good ) I think that unlike what happened so far, with only praise being given out, this round there's also criticism, and this is by now not very acceptable to all those who love the Craig era, because they got too used to only positive voices, and really, God forbid anyone says anything negative about Mr Craig. The unconditional praise time is over, and I think that doesn't sit well with many.
And the whole sentence wasn't referred to you Loeffs, as it is a general statement about stuff that happened at the beginning of the discussion here, you weren't even involved in the discussion above, just posted after that, I'm not sure how you can twist that into a personal attack to you. It's not about you.
Also, to be fair it really is about QoS and not simply about DC, who after all does his best to salvage the movie as far as I'm concerned. He certainly wasn't the main problem in this case. Not even another actor looking like classic Bond would've saved QoS for me, so the problems lie elsewhere. Lack of plot, bad script, underdeveloped characters. On top of those there's the fact some of us just don't see DC as Bond, but the whole criticism here is not mainly about him but about the movie having little (or actually zero) Bond flavour, and a lot of Bourne flavour instead.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It's funny; I must have missed the "only positive voices" part of the Craig WarsTM! And I spent so much time around here... ?:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Oh about this thing on girls liking or not liking Craig, Sir Miles. Actually, I don't think any of us disliking Craig has even even remotely implied that people who like Craig are any different from those who don't in terms of looks, brains or anything else. It is merely taste and I have never seen anyone even remotely imply that those who like Craig are butch and manly. The only thing I ever said was that I find him to be more popular with British women, and that's because 90% of women I heard rave about Craig are British. I feel it really is the other way round, that people tried to tell us naysayers that we had tacky taste for liking Pierce (or were influenced by our "Italian nature" as Lexi said. But I absolutely embrace my Italian nature and am proud of our taste for everything stylish ))
By which you mean that DC is not stylish. Which is absolute bunkum ! Pierce was told to wear Brioni, Daniel insisted on Tom Ford clothes. Seems pretty stylish to me, either way.
The proportion of praise vs criticism after CR was probably 95 to 5. And I'm sure you have noticed, just like everyone else. Little to no criticism, and those who criticised were looked upon as basically heretics. We can ask Napoleon Plural about this? ) ) So now that it's very different, since basically it's 50-50, this just doesn't sit well with many of the Craig era lovers, just because they're used to hype and praise instead of criticism after CR. That's all I meant to say.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
When I speak in such generalizations, I tend to run into trouble...with people like you.
Enjoy your thread! {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
But really -can it be looked at like that? I mean there is a lot of style in the movie -you just need to watch the movie a couple of times to be able to soak it in. Every time you watch there will be little things that you may have missed before -and like I say this film is a sequel to CR -put it in context and realise this film is more about Bond himself than the mission -you will understand the frenetic pace to the movie. Sure the plot is not a huge one -we are only being introduced to what Quantum is about. It is ambigious for a reason. It is also a reflection of post 911 and global terror - you do not know what everyone is upto -therefore you are not always sure who the good guys and who are the bad guys. Bond gets a part of the mission done -but there is still an ongoing war. Quantum in essence is a metaphore for the hidden enemy that is terrorist organisations. the fact that their work is carried out in a variety of ways make them much scarier -and justifiably a really good adversary. So IMHO the plot is fine as it is -it is just taking some people a little longer to grasp what it is -and therefore such lack of understanding causes impatience and practically a closing down of the senses!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
The proportion of praise vs criticism after CR was probably 95 to 5. And I'm sure you have noticed, just like everyone else. Little to no criticism, and those who criticised were looked upon as basically heretics. We can ask Napoleon Plural about this? ) ) So now that it's very different, since basically it's 50-50, this just doesn't sit well with many of the Craig era lovers, just because they're used to hype and praise instead of criticism after CR. That's all I meant to say.
But what happened BEFORE CR, Alessandra ? It was probably only a 5% approval rating for DC back then...so us "Craig era lovers" are more than used to the criticism. It's you 'Pierce era lovers' that are having the problems....CR knocked DAD out of the park and QoS is well on the way to doing so too. That obviously must hurt.
For reference I'd like to add that I didn't/don't have a problem with PB being Bond...I enjoyed his films...I just enjoy DC's a whole lot more...he is MY Bond.
Perhaps, although it is a large hint! Surely the amount of money a film makes has at least *some* correlation with how well the film is being received?
Ahem. Die Another Day? 8-) Perhaps in the euphoria of the release, but in long run...ouch.
Exactly my point. QoS is making large revenue mainly based on the success of CR. People go to see because they expect to see what was in CR. And many come out of the cinema sorely disappointed. Same for DAD, it banked on the success of all the previous Brosnan movies but it certainly didn't get great appreciation, especially not from fans. Yet revenue was record-breaking.
Whilst I was certainly no fan of Die Another Day, I would be the first to accept that it was really rather popular with the movie-going public. Of course some people will go into the cinema having loved Casino Royale. Some will like QoS, others will not. We are dancing on a pinhead over something that is impossible to quantify. My point is that a financially successful film is a *reasonably* good guide to how the movie is being received by the general movie going public (i.e. not you, not me, not anyone here!). Obviously this is not exact, but I should think it is as good a guide as any we have.
Had the inverse been the case, and QoS had 'bombed', I'm fairly sure we would have heard how, to paraphrase, 'box office equals people not liking the movie'.
Here's what happened to me today...
(I do not intend this to be prohetic or a scientific poll of future box office returns)
I and a new co-worker sat down in our boss's office today for a meeting, but before the meeting began, some small talk ensued. My new co-worker let it slip that his girlfriend slept through a movie they saw over the weekend. My boss asked what movie they saw and my co-worker replied "Quantum of Solace." My boss asked how it was and my co-worker answered something to the effect that it was not very good. My boss then turned to me and said "That's what you had said, wasn't it?"
As I was leaving work for the day, I said goodnight to my boss, who then claimed that he probably wasn't going to see QoS until it was showing at the second-run theaters.
Anyway, for what it's worth, there's one ramification of a 'quick' review from a casual non-bond fan.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The proportion of praise vs criticism after CR was probably 95 to 5. And I'm sure you have noticed, just like everyone else. Little to no criticism, and those who criticised were looked upon as basically heretics. We can ask Napoleon Plural about this? ) ) So now that it's very different, since basically it's 50-50, this just doesn't sit well with many of the Craig era lovers, just because they're used to hype and praise instead of criticism after CR. That's all I meant to say.
But what happened BEFORE CR, Alessandra ? It was probably only a 5% approval rating for DC back then...so us "Craig era lovers" are more than used to the criticism. It's you 'Pierce era lovers' that are having the problems....CR knocked DAD out of the park and QoS is well on the way to doing so too. That obviously must hurt.
For reference I'd like to add that I didn't/don't have a problem with PB being Bond...I enjoyed his films...I just enjoy DC's a whole lot more...he is MY Bond.
I am happy if people make money in general, and even more so if it's a franchise I like, so not only I don't have a problem with CR and QoS making a lot of money, but I'm actually glad about this, don't want to get in the stage where the franchise is at risk, and not to be able to EVER see another Bond!! ) )
So that really isn't even a minor issue here. Before CR was like ages ago!! ) And it was just and merely spec, so it's not like anyone involved had any means to actually know what would be going on. Spec is one thing, actual critic is another, that was my point. And the DC/CR fans have been used to hugely positive amount of reviews, so accepting the whole QoS process is not easy for some. Not all of them of course. But many just can't accept criticism and jump on it, because they're not used to it, that's all. Pierce is always being criticised, and has been throughout his tenure so it's not really anything new to see that, and it's fine, we can't all like the same things....
And what darenhat just reported is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. Just like my brother, went to see it (and while he didn't deem it sensational, he quite liked CR) and came out disappointed. That's all I mean.
If people do not go seeing a movie that means they have no interest in it from the beginning, which is different. Can be for various reasons, but not going makes a stance much more so than going. When you go you give it a chance and you may or may not like it, when you don't go you just aren't interested and/or don't like actors, genre etc, so that is a completely different thing I believe. But in any case, and this is valid for any movie, going to see it doesn't mean liking it. I went to see "the beach" with Di Caprio at the movies and wanted to walk out mid-movie. It was the worst thing I ever saw in a movie theater. Yet I did go to see it, so I did give it money at the box office. That was what I meant by people going to see. CR was great for many people and they're banking on that success, just like the Pierce movies were successful and they banked on those for people to go see DAD. The fact DAD was equally appreciated is another story. And I don't think it was, especially not from hardcore fans.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Oh about this thing on girls liking or not liking Craig, Sir Miles. Actually, I don't think any of us disliking Craig has even even remotely implied that people who like Craig are any different from those who don't in terms of looks, brains or anything else. It is merely taste and I have never seen anyone even remotely imply that those who like Craig are butch and manly. The only thing I ever said was that I find him to be more popular with British women, and that's because 90% of women I heard rave about Craig are British. I feel it really is the other way round, that people tried to tell us naysayers that we had tacky taste for liking Pierce (or were influenced by our "Italian nature" as Lexi said. But I absolutely embrace my Italian nature and am proud of our taste for everything stylish ))
By which you mean that DC is not stylish. Which is absolute bunkum ! Pierce was told to wear Brioni, Daniel insisted on Tom Ford clothes. Seems pretty stylish to me, either way.
NO actually by which I imply that telling me that liking Pierce is tacky and it's my Italian nature influencing me is absolute bunkum as you say. About DC not being stylish, that is a totally different point and not what I said above. If I'm accused of being tacky and being influenced by my Italian taste for liking Pierce, I say I embrace my Italian nature and our like for eveything stylish. Which has got nothing to do with the other point (that anyway I deem valid, one of my biggest problems with Craig is his total lack of class/style, but that is for another discussion, and not what I was replying to above). I'd never compare Tom Ford suits to Brioni in any case. Like comparing Hermes to Dolce & Gabbana. Not exactly the same thing and/or level. But that's fashion and it's a better topic for Bond girl style watercooler ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
So taking the CBner pole and adding the 4 or 5 against-voices here to it, that still makes it a 3 to 1 ratio, but feel free to check my math.
As to the general tone of CBn, a casual glance over there looks like the rest of this thread page, lotsa QOS hate being vented very freely - toss up really which got more hate at this point, Craig two years ago or QOS now.
Does seem that here and elsewhere, the minority voices are the negative ones, even if they're the loudest, with quite a bit of middle ground. Polarization has happened with QOS, but it's not the driving force that I assumed it was (those loud voices, ya know, both for and against). Considering the history of Bond on film, not very surprising really that there is dissatisfaction with the new film, seems there always is... perhaps one defining quality of the dissenters would be they've never experienced it with Bond before Craig? Not to marginalize those old-timey fans who also hate Craig or QOS, but the outrage feels... newborn? Weird for me as the last three guys weren't my Bond, and even if a couple of the films in there made me smile, most I wrote off with a shrug, disappointment came to be expected and a near constant state with Bond (but always hope too, sure). Probably why I have a thin skin when it comes to sweeping statements about Bond fans (I was hating back before it was fashionable to do so), and a thicker one re bad Bond films: that's been EON's MO, to make that which pays the bills, as opposed to making a great Bond film. IMHO. Nice to see they've finally found a way to do both with Craig on board (minority voices excepted, as it will always be).
I absolutely disagree that those who don't like the movie are in the minority on here. And not elsewhere either. Other than CBN that is basically a huge Craig fansite, not simply a Bond site. Don't even try and talk me into "oh on CBN everyone's free to diss Craig" because I have been there in the past, and not only that is not true, but there are other things that went on there that I don't want to discuss in a public forum. And that I have message proof of, not just for me, but for other people who weren't happy with the direction as well. CBN really is a big, big Craig fansite. Not to mention the DAD review link posted above that was hilarious ) )
Why do you have to try to make the numbers on here look different from what they are, Blue, and on top of it try and make a poll done by a site that has a HUGE majority of Craig fans look as if it's incredibly reliable? I don't get this.
And frankly, I think the loudest voices are those of the positive reviewers, who diss us all the time (and have resorted to not so veiled personal attacks, as was discussed and solved previously on this thread) because God forbid anyone says anything negative about Craig. CR was a huuuge success among the fans. This one isn't, at all. It is extremely divided. Deal with it, I say. Can't the Craig fans just accept this and move on, just like all others had to accept the hype around CR? I really don't get this and it becomes very annoying to try and dismiss the negative reviews as "minority". They are not. Not here and not elsewhere (Other than CBN). As I said, box office results do NOT equal people liking the movie.
Alle, you obviously haven't been over at CBn lately, the hate for QOS is loud and long over there, as it is here. Not much difference these days between forums IMO in that respect, a lot of water goes under bridges in two years.
Again, it would appear to be minority opinion - with the general public who keep going to see it in record numbers all over the planet; and with fans, most of whom seem to think QOS is alright, nothing special but not as bad as some critics are calling it. Then there's the polar extremes, and seems the lovers outnumber the haters (but conduct your own poll if you still think CBn is "tainted").
Actually, for some very interesting "tainting" (Lexi and lavabubble might like this), some interesting comments in this thread re women and Craig/QOS.
Not sure I buy your take on the BO either, Bond history has shown lots of poor releases following popular ones, QOS is obviously doing something right for general public audiences to be lapping it up as they are - repeat, record breaking BO all over the world. How that doesn't equate to people liking the film, I'll leave to bigger brains than mine to figure out, seems as plain as upped BO for each Brosnan Bond film as they were released. But maybe that rule doesn't apply to blond Bonds... :v :x
The fact that QoS raked in more in its opening weekend in the USA than TBU, means finally Bond has won the battle with Bourne in the US.
It also shows that Craig's Bond in CR is popular with US audiences, due to the high opening weekend. If we had believed the doom-mongering from anti-Craigers, no one would have turned up to see QoS in the US, because Craig isn't popular there.
Thankfully this has put that theory to bed once and for all. Will QoS top CR? Probably, both globally and in the US. But that argument is now almost irrelevant anymore. The opening weekend in the US speaks volumes about how popular Craig is as Bond.
After QoS, I'm beginning to appreciate some of DAD's redeeming features...clean editing, coherent action sequences, and just plain fun-ness. If I had to (in the sense that someone put a gun to my head) re-watch either DAD or QoS, DAD wins. At the bottom of my favorites list, I don't think its worth spending too much time trying to distinguish which one I like more.
I agree with you. I really enjoyed the first half of DAD, and I sure can't say the same about QoS ) )
Speaking of our cave, I have a guest... starring as James Bond...
Fresh from the Australia premiere.... sigh, he really does look like James Bond... who was it that said he saw him in the trailers before QoS and noted how much he looks like Bond? I want my Hugh...
Agree with you about Jackman. I think he would have been superb.I have warmed to Craig, who I think of as a very good Bond although not my ideal at all by focusing upon what he does well, rather than where he falls short.
I think Jackman could be just as tough & physical and for me he has 'the look'.
Depending on who you believe, Jackman fell out with Eon about points (Eon are notoriously cheap) or was unimpressed by the lack of a script
(if anyone knows the details I'd love to know)
It may be now that he is too famous for Bond as Eon favour less international association with high profile roles (which cash notwithstanding) I can understand. for me he along with Daniel Day Lewis is one of the great lost/non Bonds
Oh and I agree with you re DAD, the most schizoid film in the series. first half very good, second half...
By which you mean that DC is not stylish. Which is absolute bunkum ! Pierce was told to wear Brioni, Daniel insisted on Tom Ford clothes. Seems pretty stylish to me, either way.
Hello Sir Miles,
I think, being stylish has not so much to do with your preferred suit brand.
It is more the combination of looks, personality and the right clothing.
As an example: You may put Ron Wood in a TF suit, he'll still not look elegant.
Same here with Craig in my opinion:
He looks good in wearing casual and I like how he looks in a tux, but I think, he's looking terrible with a suit.
And to my opinion, Tom Ford is very much overrated compared to the traditional high-end suit makers in terms of quality.
P.S. I know, very off-topic, but I did not start it ;%
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The fact that QoS raked in more in its opening weekend in the USA than TBU, means finally Bond has won the battle with Bourne in the US.
It also shows that Craig's Bond in CR is popular with US audiences, due to the high opening weekend. If we had believed the doom-mongering from anti-Craigers, no one would have turned up to see QoS in the US, because Craig isn't popular there.
Thankfully this has put that theory to bed once and for all. Will QoS top CR? Probably, both globally and in the US. But that argument is now almost irrelevant anymore. The opening weekend in the US speaks volumes about how popular Craig is as Bond.
Scoreboard.
Also: this MI6 poll has similar stats to the CBn one (80% rate QOS at least 7/10). And there are some mighty BIG Craig-haters over there from way back.
More fodder for something: this poll has two thirds of Bond fans voting they like CR better than QOS - very surprising it's not a bigger margin for CR.
He looks good in wearing casual and I like how he looks in a tux, but I think, he's looking terrible with a suit.
And to my opinion, Tom Ford is very much overrated compared to the traditional high-end suit makers in terms of quality.
P.S. I know, very off-topic, but I did not start it ;%
I have to say, I thought Craig looked terrible in all his suits in CR. I didn't think they fit well at all. It may have just been that he was too jacked in that movie, but he didn't look good.
Fast forward to QoS - Craig's suits were far better. He looked incredibly stylish in every one. The cut of the Tom Ford suits were perfect.
I'm not quite sure what Alessandra was getting on about regarding Brioni vs Tom Ford, but I think in terms of what looked better on Craig, Tom Ford wins hands down.
And for Brosnan-Bond being stylish? Err... not exactly classic in my eyes (those ties! Those three-button suits!) He did look great in a tux, though.
Thank you Lady Rose, though I must say someone preceded you last night and sent me a PM about this to make me happy Riiiight??
{[]{[] If Hugh isn't the sexiest man alive, I don't know who is! Damn right for People this time! I'm thrilled he won! (Not that this makes him earn any more money or prizes, but still ))
I'm not quite sure what Alessandra was getting on about regarding Brioni vs Tom Ford, but I think in terms of what looked better on Craig, Tom Ford wins hands down.
Sorry, I'll explain. I wasn't talking about how they fit on Craig at all. I was talking about style and quality, and the fact that Tom Ford cannot be compared to Brioni. It isn't the same prestige and it isn't the same quality most of all. Like comparing, as I said, Hermès to Dolce & Gabbana. Or Armani and Valentino to Tom Ford. There is no comparison, it's different leagues of fashion. It was merely a fashion brand observation, not related to how things fit on Craig. For all I know Craig can look great in Benetton, but that can't be compared to Brioni (or Tom Ford for that matter in this case )). It's neither as classy nor same quality. That was my point. Merely a "label" comparison, not a comparison on how things fit on Craig.
Also, what Bondtoys says above finds me in total agreement. If you put Angelina Jolie in a dress Audrey Hepburn wore, she will still look unclassy and vulgar. There's different levels within different brands of fashion, but most of
all style is something that comes with how a person wears things and moves and behaves, not just with the brand s/he is wearing. I am fairly sure Audrey Hepburn would've made a Cavalli dress look classy, yet Cavalli makes really tacky stuff in general. And as I said Angelina Jolie would still look unclassy in Givenchy.
And that's how I feel about Brosnan and Craig. To me Brosnan is like Audrey Hepburn (and I say this having seen both actors in person, in "non-red carpet" circumstances). Even with a polo and a pair of swimming trunks Pierce looks classy. And Craig is like Angelina Jolie compared. For my taste, he doesn't look classy or stylish even when wearing a tux. It's the way he wears things and moves in them, I find it unclassy. And it's my personal take obviously.
I didn't find any improvement in that compartment from CR to QoS.. actually if anything I found CR more stylish in general than QoS :O I found Craig's style to be very Bourne instead of very Bond in QoS (tux aside). Again, my personal take.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Comments
I absolutely disagree that those who don't like the movie are in the minority on here. And not elsewhere either. Other than CBN that is basically a huge Craig fansite, not simply a Bond site. Don't even try and talk me into "oh on CBN everyone's free to diss Craig" because I have been there in the past, and not only that is not true, but there are other things that went on there that I don't want to discuss in a public forum. And that I have message proof of, not just for me, but for other people who weren't happy with the direction as well. CBN really is a big, big Craig fansite. Not to mention the DAD review link posted above that was hilarious
Why do you have to try to make the numbers on here look different from what they are, Blue, and on top of it try and make a poll done by a site that has a HUGE majority of Craig fans look as if it's incredibly reliable? I don't get this.
And frankly, I think the loudest voices are those of the positive reviewers, who diss us all the time (and have resorted to not so veiled personal attacks, as was discussed and solved previously on this thread) because God forbid anyone says anything negative about Craig. CR was a huuuge success among the fans. This one isn't, at all. It is extremely divided. Deal with it, I say. Can't the Craig fans just accept this and move on, just like all others had to accept the hype around CR? I really don't get this and it becomes very annoying to try and dismiss the negative reviews as "minority". They are not. Not here and not elsewhere (Other than CBN). As I said, box office results do NOT equal people liking the movie.
Damn, you're right. It's ok, I can settle for Hamm or Cavill
One has to consider the ratio of shirtless Hugh a film has to offer. The higher the better
It strikes me that other boards have a QOS poll, but we haven't here. Can that be remedied? Then perhaps we'll have some other statistics to massage?
(I don't know how to do polls - or even if they can be done - on here.)
So this is 'moving on'.
Incredible.
Looks to me like the [whatever they approve of calling themselves {:) ] are running this thread. Just an observation...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Exactly my point. QoS is making large revenue mainly based on the success of CR. People go to see because they expect to see what was in CR. And many come out of the cinema sorely disappointed. Same for DAD, it banked on the success of all the previous Brosnan movies but it certainly didn't get great appreciation, especially not from fans. Yet revenue was record-breaking.
All in all this film is up there with the best as far as I'm concerned -you just need to look at it objectively and associate it with what has happened before - (Casino Royale) Anyway as I say I thought it was excellent -just wish it had been a little longer.
Agreed, scaramanga1. As I said in my review, we fans love to savour certain dramatic and character beats in Bond films, the way Bond himself loves to savour fine food and drink. One of my problems with QoS is that it doesn't allows us the time. It seems clear to me that this was purposeful on Forster's part, so it's part of the mix that QoS gives us.
I'd also add that if audience disappointment is as rampant as some say, the film's 'legs' will no doubt be going rubbery as we speak, and the box office will be tailing off quite sharply immediately, since no one that let down will see it twice.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Don't think the "whatever they approve of calling themselves" are running any thread, because the mods run the threads? (and that's good
And the whole sentence wasn't referred to you Loeffs, as it is a general statement about stuff that happened at the beginning of the discussion here, you weren't even involved in the discussion above, just posted after that, I'm not sure how you can twist that into a personal attack to you. It's not about you.
Also, to be fair it really is about QoS and not simply about DC, who after all does his best to salvage the movie as far as I'm concerned. He certainly wasn't the main problem in this case. Not even another actor looking like classic Bond would've saved QoS for me, so the problems lie elsewhere. Lack of plot, bad script, underdeveloped characters. On top of those there's the fact some of us just don't see DC as Bond, but the whole criticism here is not mainly about him but about the movie having little (or actually zero) Bond flavour, and a lot of Bourne flavour instead.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
By which you mean that DC is not stylish. Which is absolute bunkum ! Pierce was told to wear Brioni, Daniel insisted on Tom Ford clothes. Seems pretty stylish to me, either way.
Enjoy your thread! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
But what happened BEFORE CR, Alessandra ? It was probably only a 5% approval rating for DC back then...so us "Craig era lovers" are more than used to the criticism. It's you 'Pierce era lovers' that are having the problems....CR knocked DAD out of the park and QoS is well on the way to doing so too. That obviously must hurt.
For reference I'd like to add that I didn't/don't have a problem with PB being Bond...I enjoyed his films...I just enjoy DC's a whole lot more...he is MY Bond.
Had the inverse been the case, and QoS had 'bombed', I'm fairly sure we would have heard how, to paraphrase, 'box office equals people not liking the movie'.
(I do not intend this to be prohetic or a scientific poll of future box office returns)
I and a new co-worker sat down in our boss's office today for a meeting, but before the meeting began, some small talk ensued. My new co-worker let it slip that his girlfriend slept through a movie they saw over the weekend. My boss asked what movie they saw and my co-worker replied "Quantum of Solace." My boss asked how it was and my co-worker answered something to the effect that it was not very good. My boss then turned to me and said "That's what you had said, wasn't it?"
As I was leaving work for the day, I said goodnight to my boss, who then claimed that he probably wasn't going to see QoS until it was showing at the second-run theaters.
Anyway, for what it's worth, there's one ramification of a 'quick' review from a casual non-bond fan.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I am happy if people make money in general, and even more so if it's a franchise I like, so not only I don't have a problem with CR and QoS making a lot of money, but I'm actually glad about this, don't want to get in the stage where the franchise is at risk, and not to be able to EVER see another Bond!!
So that really isn't even a minor issue here. Before CR was like ages ago!!
And what darenhat just reported is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. Just like my brother, went to see it (and while he didn't deem it sensational, he quite liked CR) and came out disappointed. That's all I mean.
If people do not go seeing a movie that means they have no interest in it from the beginning, which is different. Can be for various reasons, but not going makes a stance much more so than going. When you go you give it a chance and you may or may not like it, when you don't go you just aren't interested and/or don't like actors, genre etc, so that is a completely different thing I believe. But in any case, and this is valid for any movie, going to see it doesn't mean liking it. I went to see "the beach" with Di Caprio at the movies and wanted to walk out mid-movie. It was the worst thing I ever saw in a movie theater. Yet I did go to see it, so I did give it money at the box office. That was what I meant by people going to see. CR was great for many people and they're banking on that success, just like the Pierce movies were successful and they banked on those for people to go see DAD. The fact DAD was equally appreciated is another story. And I don't think it was, especially not from hardcore fans.
NO actually by which I imply that telling me that liking Pierce is tacky and it's my Italian nature influencing me is absolute bunkum as you say. About DC not being stylish, that is a totally different point and not what I said above. If I'm accused of being tacky and being influenced by my Italian taste for liking Pierce, I say I embrace my Italian nature and our like for eveything stylish. Which has got nothing to do with the other point (that anyway I deem valid, one of my biggest problems with Craig is his total lack of class/style, but that is for another discussion, and not what I was replying to above). I'd never compare Tom Ford suits to Brioni in any case. Like comparing Hermes to Dolce & Gabbana. Not exactly the same thing and/or level. But that's fashion and it's a better topic for Bond girl style watercooler
Again, it would appear to be minority opinion - with the general public who keep going to see it in record numbers all over the planet; and with fans, most of whom seem to think QOS is alright, nothing special but not as bad as some critics are calling it. Then there's the polar extremes, and seems the lovers outnumber the haters (but conduct your own poll if you still think CBn is "tainted").
Actually, for some very interesting "tainting" (Lexi and lavabubble might like this), some interesting comments in this thread re women and Craig/QOS.
Not sure I buy your take on the BO either, Bond history has shown lots of poor releases following popular ones, QOS is obviously doing something right for general public audiences to be lapping it up as they are - repeat, record breaking BO all over the world. How that doesn't equate to people liking the film, I'll leave to bigger brains than mine to figure out, seems as plain as upped BO for each Brosnan Bond film as they were released.
Top marks Sir {[]
It also shows that Craig's Bond in CR is popular with US audiences, due to the high opening weekend. If we had believed the doom-mongering from anti-Craigers, no one would have turned up to see QoS in the US, because Craig isn't popular there.
Thankfully this has put that theory to bed once and for all. Will QoS top CR? Probably, both globally and in the US. But that argument is now almost irrelevant anymore. The opening weekend in the US speaks volumes about how popular Craig is as Bond.
Agree with you about Jackman. I think he would have been superb.I have warmed to Craig, who I think of as a very good Bond although not my ideal at all by focusing upon what he does well, rather than where he falls short.
I think Jackman could be just as tough & physical and for me he has 'the look'.
Depending on who you believe, Jackman fell out with Eon about points (Eon are notoriously cheap) or was unimpressed by the lack of a script
(if anyone knows the details I'd love to know)
It may be now that he is too famous for Bond as Eon favour less international association with high profile roles (which cash notwithstanding) I can understand. for me he along with Daniel Day Lewis is one of the great lost/non Bonds
Oh and I agree with you re DAD, the most schizoid film in the series. first half very good, second half...
Hello Sir Miles,
I think, being stylish has not so much to do with your preferred suit brand.
It is more the combination of looks, personality and the right clothing.
As an example: You may put Ron Wood in a TF suit, he'll still not look elegant.
Same here with Craig in my opinion:
He looks good in wearing casual and I like how he looks in a tux, but I think, he's looking terrible with a suit.
And to my opinion, Tom Ford is very much overrated compared to the traditional high-end suit makers in terms of quality.
P.S. I know, very off-topic, but I did not start it ;%
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Also: this MI6 poll has similar stats to the CBn one (80% rate QOS at least 7/10). And there are some mighty BIG Craig-haters over there from way back.
More fodder for something: this poll has two thirds of Bond fans voting they like CR better than QOS - very surprising it's not a bigger margin for CR.
This is for you Alessandra
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1087587/Aussie-hunk-Hugh-Jackman-voted-Sexiest-Man-Alive--007-Daniel-Craig-follows-close-behind.html
{[]
I have to say, I thought Craig looked terrible in all his suits in CR. I didn't think they fit well at all. It may have just been that he was too jacked in that movie, but he didn't look good.
Fast forward to QoS - Craig's suits were far better. He looked incredibly stylish in every one. The cut of the Tom Ford suits were perfect.
I'm not quite sure what Alessandra was getting on about regarding Brioni vs Tom Ford, but I think in terms of what looked better on Craig, Tom Ford wins hands down.
And for Brosnan-Bond being stylish? Err... not exactly classic in my eyes (those ties! Those three-button suits!) He did look great in a tux, though.
Thank you Lady Rose, though I must say someone preceded you last night and sent me a PM about this to make me happy
{[]{[] If Hugh isn't the sexiest man alive, I don't know who is! Damn right for People this time! I'm thrilled he won! (Not that this makes him earn any more money or prizes, but still
Sorry, I'll explain. I wasn't talking about how they fit on Craig at all. I was talking about style and quality, and the fact that Tom Ford cannot be compared to Brioni. It isn't the same prestige and it isn't the same quality most of all. Like comparing, as I said, Hermès to Dolce & Gabbana. Or Armani and Valentino to Tom Ford. There is no comparison, it's different leagues of fashion. It was merely a fashion brand observation, not related to how things fit on Craig. For all I know Craig can look great in Benetton, but that can't be compared to Brioni (or Tom Ford for that matter in this case
Also, what Bondtoys says above finds me in total agreement. If you put Angelina Jolie in a dress Audrey Hepburn wore, she will still look unclassy and vulgar. There's different levels within different brands of fashion, but most of
all style is something that comes with how a person wears things and moves and behaves, not just with the brand s/he is wearing. I am fairly sure Audrey Hepburn would've made a Cavalli dress look classy, yet Cavalli makes really tacky stuff in general. And as I said Angelina Jolie would still look unclassy in Givenchy.
And that's how I feel about Brosnan and Craig. To me Brosnan is like Audrey Hepburn (and I say this having seen both actors in person, in "non-red carpet" circumstances). Even with a polo and a pair of swimming trunks Pierce looks classy. And Craig is like Angelina Jolie compared. For my taste, he doesn't look classy or stylish even when wearing a tux. It's the way he wears things and moves in them, I find it unclassy. And it's my personal take obviously.
I didn't find any improvement in that compartment from CR to QoS.. actually if anything I found CR more stylish in general than QoS :O I found Craig's style to be very Bourne instead of very Bond in QoS (tux aside). Again, my personal take.