Quantum Of Solace - A Look at it as a Sequel and Bond Film

MilleniumForce

QoS stands out to me as one of the 'odd ones out' of the Bond franchise. Where it succeeds at an action film, it fails as a Bond film. It has great action, but it's the type of action you associate with Bourne, not Bond. A lot of people say the franchise is too Bourne Like now, but I have to disagree - QoS is the only one I see that is like a Bourne film. That's because, unlike CR and SF, QoS doesn't focus as much on story, but more just to look cool.

It standing out as a Bourne - like film also means, that for me, it fails at being a sequel to CR. CR never needed a sequel in the first place; I feel Vesper is thrown in the story just to turn it into a sequel. And a change in directors and style bother me as well. We're supposed to see CR and QoS as one story, and thus we should be able to watch it as one film, which is where a change in director's style bother me.

Finally, I have a problem with sequels like this. We go from a terrorist who is funding terrorism, something that is quite realistic; and then onto a villain who wants to control the water supply of a whole country, a plot that could slip into the Brosnan era and would fit in. The problem I have with sequels like this is that it is trying to be bigger than the previous film, and takes away from the tone. Whilst CR was realistic, QoS doesn't feel that realistic to me. It's an action film that happens to have Bond as the hero.

Now, this isn't against QoS. It works as an action film, one that's good but it's nobody's favourite, forgettable, or one of those films that just slip past without much notice. It just doesn't work as a Bond film, or a sequel.

Absolutely_Cart

When I look at the merits of the film, I more so see its potential of what it could have been if professional writers were allowed to work on it than the merits of the film itself.

One point where I'd disagree with you is the part about Greene's plan being unrealistic. It's probably one of the most believable plots because it's on such a small attainable scale. I mean, how realistic is bombing Fort Knox or engulfing a space shuttle?

Matt S

The action in QoS is quite similar to the action in the first half of CR, before Fleming's story comes in. The CR action filmed much differently (better), but it's still just pointless action that tries to look cool (fighting on top of cranes and trucks) and really takes away from the substance of Fleming's story.

QoS actually seems the most like a traditional Bond film to me of any of Craig's Bond films since it follows the Bond formula. It's executed quite poorly in trying to be like Bourne, but Greene trying to control a water supply isn't much different from Goldfinger trying to control gold or Zorin trying to control microchips.

Absolutely_Cart

Right. QoS is mostly a more grounded version of Goldfinger. I can't say it really innovated much. But where it strayed from the formula is what it took out: Moneypenny, the gadgets, the camp, etc. So, it's a tough sell. On one hand, it wanted to avoid the cliches but on the other hand, it couldn't think of anything to subvert them with.

Gassy Man

On its own, Quantum of Solace is not a bad film so much as stunningly mediocre. Repeated viewings show there is almost nothing innovative in it, despite its being filmed in a self-consciously arty way and featuring what should have been a solid cast. Another 30 minutes of story would have helped. However, as a sequel to Casino Royale, it is a disappointment. It lacks the character-driven story of the previous film, muddies the plotlines with vague dialogue and character motivations, and wedges in vengeance in a paint-by-numbers way. While Casino Royale felt fresh and exciting, Quantum of Solace felt tired and distant, like watching the outline for a better film. Skyfall is not markedly better, but it is saved by two significant differences: Its plot is much more conventional (in part because we basically already saw it in The Dark Knight) and it took its time to set things up. It is as shallow as Quantum of Solace in terms of characterization, but the audience is distracted enough by the goings on not to realize or to care.

Absolutely_Cart

Quantum of Solace had lots of content. It probably would've been 20-30 mins longer if edited conventionally. Perhaps it just focused on all the wrong things.

Skyfall succeeds over Quantum of Solace, plainly because it has more personality and environmentalism in 2008 wasn't as big as cyberterrorism in 2012. A critic said of QoS that its plot is more trendy than scary. I might have to agree in all honesty.

Skyfall made for a better trailer. It's what the people wanted to see.

Matt S

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace had lots of content. It probably would've been 20-30 mins longer if edited conventionally. Perhaps it just focused on all the wrong things.

But I think the editor made the right decision to keep it as short as possible. There wasn't anything interesting enough in the film to draw it out longer.

Sir Miles

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace had lots of content. It probably would've been 20-30 mins longer if edited conventionally. Perhaps it just focused on all the wrong things.

But I think the editor made the right decision to keep it as short as possible. There wasn't anything interesting enough in the film to draw it out longer.

I would have preferred an extra 30 mins or so as well - have said that for years...I think it's a great film as it is but that little bit extra would have helped tremendously....

I also disagree with anyone who claims it isn't a Bond film - it's one of the most Bondian to me -{

Plus the title track is great -{

Barbel

Sir Miles wrote:

the title track is great -{

You left this in the bar last night:

Absolutely_Cart

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace had lots of content. It probably would've been 20-30 mins longer if edited conventionally. Perhaps it just focused on all the wrong things.

But I think the editor made the right decision to keep it as short as possible. There wasn't anything interesting enough in the film to draw it out longer.

i mean, i would've probably increased the time by just 10 minutes, so it would still have that sense of speed with just a little more emphasis on the scenes that matter.

Sir Miles

Barbel wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

the title track is great -{

You left this in the bar last night:

I did...it's for you, so you can listen to the title track properly

AlphaOmegaSin

It's not my favorite of the Craig Era, but it's got a good overall Story and the PTS always amazes me -{

The Film suffered from the Writers Strikes, which didn't help.

Thunderpussy

Agreed, I used to hate it " Big Time" but I managed to hide it, don't
think anyone noticed. Now I quite like it, but it took some time. -{

M 'n' M

I've never quite been won over by the Craig films but decided to rewatch them all again in the last few weeks. Casino Royale comes across as slick and smart and very enjoyable. Skyfall - despite being hugely overrated by the critics - is good fun and very much back in the old Bond style.

But QOS?

In terms of the story i'm guessing that they were trying to do something like The Empire Strikes Back after Star Wars - ie launch you right into it. But Star Wars had an incredibly simple and strong storyline. Even if it didn't, you could probably watch TESB fresh and pick up pretty quickly that Darth Vader was a baddie and Luke and Han were heroes. But the storyline of Casino Royale (and particularly Vesper's deception) was oblique to begin with and couldn't carry forward with any real conviction

As for the film itself, i found the action sequences tedious - based on a childish notion that fast editing and speed makes things exciting. Actually, it just makes them blurry. But then, if you slowed things down it'd allow the audience time to think - what's happening? why? who are they? does it matter? does anyone care?

Sorry - it's a below-Bourne film and a bad apology for a Bond film.

broadshoulder

MilleniumForce wrote:

QoS stands out to me as one of the 'odd ones out' of the Bond franchise. Where it succeeds at an action film, it fails as a Bond film. It has great action, but it's the type of action you associate with Bourne, not Bond. A lot of people say the franchise is too Bourne Like now, but I have to disagree - QoS is the only one I see that is like a Bourne film. That's because, unlike CR and SF, QoS doesn't focus as much on story, but more just to look cool.

It standing out as a Bourne - like film also means, that for me, it fails at being a sequel to CR. CR never needed a sequel in the first placel.

Of all the films needing a sequel casino royal needs one. Too many unanswered questions is who was vesper afraid of, what's quantum etc. QoS answers these

As for those ridiculous Bourne comparisons? Show where me where Barbara broccoli went for Bourne

Bourne 3 films, bond getting on for 24

Gassy Man

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace had lots of content. It probably would've been 20-30 mins longer if edited conventionally. Perhaps it just focused on all the wrong things.

Skyfall succeeds over Quantum of Solace, plainly because it has more personality and environmentalism in 2008 wasn't as big as cyberterrorism in 2012. A critic said of QoS that its plot is more trendy than scary. I might have to agree in all honesty.

Skyfall made for a better trailer. It's what the people wanted to see.

I'm not sure I'd agree that it has lots of content. Like most modern films, including Skyfall, it mostly pays lip service to its ideas. Take environmentalism, for instance. What do we really see about Quantum's efforts? We see what purports to be an underground dammed river, a spigot that slowly runs out of water, and a claustrophobic party where fraudulent fundraising for is going on. Oh, and I guess they order some pipe at an opera and later get General What's-is-face to sign on a line that is dotted. Not exactly gripping moments of villainy. That's a far cry from, say, the opening of You Only Live Twice where we actually see the hijacking of a spacecraft, leading to the rest of the film that features everything from the Kobe docks fight to Little Nellie to an all-out assault on a volcanic lair. There's a lot of talk in Quantum of Solace, much of it as exposition to the largely nonexistent plot line involving the villain's efforts, which is odd given how the action sequences are sped up to the point of almost being gibberish.

Absolutely_Cart

Gassy Man wrote:

I'm not sure I'd agree that it has lots of content.

I'm not saying it had a lot of merit or a lot of information but it had a lot of scenes.

If every scene was emphasized the way scenes were in movies like DN or TSWLM, Quantum of Solace would've probably been just as long as Casino Royale.

For example, instead of Bond looking at a car and then cut to him being inside of it (like in QoS), Bond would have slowly walked to the car, opened the door, and sat inside. Minor changes like this could have easily affected the length by 20-30 minutes.

QoS had plenty of scenes. And plenty of deleted ones. They just weren't effective ones.

Gassy Man

Maybe, but there's a difference between economy of storytelling and what Quantum of Solace did, which is mostly pad a few sporadic action scenes with a lot of expository dialogue and actors posing for artsy images. That's the modern take. Lots of scenes -- and often just lots of quick cuts -- without much meaningful in them

To put it another way, watch an old episode of The Avengers 67-68. That show manages in 52 minutes to provide as much or more plot than Quantum of Solace and in about half the time. The same could be said for the average episode of Seinfeld. at only 24 minutes. It all comes down to the writing. When the writing is weak, the director adds a lot of ponderous moments, and the editor tries to make sense of what is left to create some kind of coherent narrative.

Matt S

Gassy Man wrote:

To put it another way, watch an old episode of The Avengers 67-68. That show manages in 52 minutes to provide as much or more plot than Quantum of Solace and in about half the time. The same could be said for the average episode of Seinfeld. at only 24 minutes. It all comes down to the writing. When the writing is weak, the director adds a lot of ponderous moments, and the editor tries to make sense of what is left to create some kind of coherent narrative.

I agree with this. I've been going through the first season episodes of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. lately and find there to be so much in them. They come up with some complex stories that could really use more than 52 minutes, but there's no padding in there like there feels like in a quickly-cut Quantum of Solace. They didn't have the scenery to have actors pose for artsy images or the ability to do action stunts for fun. They really made every moment count to the story.

Gassy Man

Yep! I was actually going to reference that show, too, especially the first season. Or Mission: Impossible! Pretty much anything made in the 50s and 60s is superior, especially in terms of the writing. Some time in the 1970s, under the auspices of the Lucases and Spielbergs, filmmakers figured out that the writing didn't have to be strong anymore so long as the ideas and visuals were ponderous or extreme. We started getting sweeping shots of vistas or actors in poses that really didn't contribute much but looked "cool" to people, or elaborate special effects shots or action sequences that eat up lots of screen time.

Had Quantum of Solace been made in more or less current form in the 1960s, it would have been dismissed as empty and one-dimensional. The writing is always the most critical thing. A good writer can figure out how to turn even the most mundane of events into something interesting. Teamed with a director who shares the vision and knows how to make it a reality, and the result is often something remarkable. But take a director who believes the visuals are the most critical thing or a writer who learned a paint-by-numbers approach to telling a story by watching other paint-by-numbers approaches, and the result is tediousness.

AlphaOmegaSin

You could say that QOS was marred by the same Production Issues that LTK had.

Matt S

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

You could say that QOS was marred by the same Production Issues that LTK had.

They did have many of the same problems, but the writing for LTK was much better. Did Michael G. Wilson become part of the WGA by the time of QoS? He did a pretty good job finishing LTK on his own, so why couldn't he have finished QoS after he came up with the story?

CmdrAtticus

I agree wholeheartedly on the the look over substance of modern films. Take MI Ghost Protocol. Love the film - have it on DVD and love watching it - it would make a great Bond film with some EON tweaks to it. However, it's the stunts and the locations. The plot is the unimaginative plot of a villain who wants to nuke a city or get the whole planet cleaned out. What saves it is the aforementioned locations (not sound stages or effects), some levity in the right spots and good performances.

Then I watch episodes of The Twilight Zone. Amazing. It tells simple but imaginative stories with complex characters played by amazing actors and it does it all in less than thirty minutes! I've sat through three hour film behemoths full of special effects and poor dialogue and worn out plots that could not hold a candle to some of the episodes from TTZ.

Now, I have to give EON a little slack for being up against their schedule and the writers' strike. I give NO slack to the director for having NO idea of how to handle action scenes or edit them. As far as being a sequel to CR, this was not a bad idea to begin with in itself. Fleming has Bond go after Blofeld after derailing the SPECTRE TB plot, then after killing Tracy encounters him in YOLT and kills him. That's the same villain through three novels.

This wasn't necessary for QOS. CR was Fleming's story and it had no sequel. Vesper was left in the past and Bond moved on. Instead, they tied QUANTUM to her so Bond could get his revenge. Was this their reboot answer to the OHMSS/YOLT novel? They throw in the woman getting her revenge plot from FYEO (quit reusing your own plots) even having the motel cabins on fire from the end of the novel (translated to the hotel in the desert).

Now for me in some of these aspects it plays like a Fleming story since they are retreading these ideas from him, but it's superficial and dressed up with million dollar sets and cinematography then mangled by it's editing. Craig and Fleming and the reboot deserved better than this. I have to keep telling myself it suffers because they are trying to emulate Fleming and veer away from the old films and they just can't create like Fleming, but it doesn't sell. Weak writing is weak writing and good actors can help prop it up to a degree and make you myopic enough on the first viewing to not notice as much, but on repeated viewings it just bleeds through the screenplay paper.

QOS is unfortunately for me one of those that I cannot watch all the way through. I enjoy certain moments, but that's it.

clublos

Seven years and counting...

What is the statute of limitations until one can heap praise? How long did it take for OHMSS?

I've said it before on other forums and I'll say it again: QOS was beautifully shot, framed and acted. Granted, the editing decisions would most likely have been reversed had they more time in post-production and a few tweaks to the script would have done wonders. But I don't believe Foster performed editing functions, nor do I agree with the sentiment that LTK suffered the same productions woes. And I love the costuming for QOS as well.

Just search on the internets for the screencaps, they look amazing. Certainly the parts are bigger than the whole, but AVTAK and TMWTGG have their flaws as well.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. For me, QOS gets better with subsequent viewings; SF, regrettably, suffers the opposite effect. But, then again, I cannot sit through an entire viewing of DAD...

Colonel Shatner

Hmmmm, on hindsight I'd put it up there alongside Iron Man 2 - a somewhat over hated film that had a troubled production and was sacrificed as a chapter film to act as a epilogue to the previous more popular "first" instalment and to lay down groundwork for later movies (like M's relationship with Bond evolving in QoS then climaxing dramatically in Skyfall and the Quantum saga fleshed out in QoS then going to be concluded with the upcoming SPECTRE).

CmdrAtticus

The director is responsible for what ends up on the screen. The do not physically edit the film but they do work closely with the editor who is responsible for giving them their vision of how it's supposed to unfold. It's why the director watches the daily rushes to make sure there is enough coverage to supply the visuals he needs to make a coherent narrative. That is Filmmaking 101. As far as the editing of the action sequences, whether or not the editor thought it was a good idea to chop them up so much and to use so many closeups was at his suggestion or Foster's, the fact is that is what Foster decided to use and it's just poor directing. There is also the possibility some cuts were done (even in the non action scenes) in order to shave off the running time after the film was sewn together - and that's not unusual for directors to do. However, if not done in the right way as it was done in this film, it ends up creating a visual "itch" while watching it that we can't quite put our finger on, but it's there and it bothers a lot of viewers. If parts of scenes are "rushed" visually, or the entire sequence is (as in the action scenes - particularly when they are intercut with another parallel scene), then it's similar to going to see a famous landmark then driving past it at breakneck speed. Hey - there it - was! You saw it, but didn't get to really appreciate it or even see all of it - you only got to see it from one vantage point.

If you watch the best directors who work with the best editors - Hitchcock, Spielberg, Huston - you really appreciate the care they put into every scene they put out. That's not to say they don't have some mediocre films in their resumes - but even those are photographed and edited with the eye of an artist.

Here's another example. Peter Hunt. I at first liked his cutting of the action scenes in OHMSS because they were a little different than what he had done before. As I rewatched it over the years I became to dislike them a little (not a LOT) because they're rushed cutting (as was done in QOS) as well as speed ramping (manipulating the shutter speed) makes them appear as unnatural effects on what I'm seeing and can be disorienting. They still work for me to a degree because it emphasizes the brutality and speed at which such combat can occur. However, when done too much and too long (as in QOS) it ends up just being visual overkill.

There are many aspects of QOS I like. They're is a bizarre hint of Fleming's darkness that he would put in his novels that pervades the film. Though the harsh realities of how governments deal with geopolitical power struggles is shown here and may have been something Fleming would have written about today, it's not what he did much in the Bond novels. He did have Bond weigh in on such matters as after he fought Le Chiffre, but after that and Vesper's betrayal, he spend the remainder of the novels just doing his job. I realise the world today is all too familiar with how corrupt everything is everywhere and the
world of spying and war and ethics keeps blurring, but it should not be in the EON films.
In TB, Fleming knew the Cold War was cooling and came up with SPECTRE. He knew the new villains would be groups like this - men who would threaten to destroy a whole city just to improve their bottom line. However, in his world, governments did not make deals with them, nor were they full of traitors working for them. All the intel agencies worked together to defeat them to a certain degree (Leiter and Bond taking down Le Chiffre).

QOS veers out of Bonds fictional world into the real one too much for me (much like the Bourne films are), and from what I have read, it seems as though SPECTRE is going to stay on this course unfortunately. Even SF does this with it's take on electronic verses human intel - but it wins me over because it shows how relevant Bond still is and it still becomes a personal battle, not just a patriotic one. Had they spend more time in QOS on how Bond was dealing with his place in the story instead of just rushing him from one place to the next, they would have had a much better film.

Colonel Shatner

CmdrAtticus wrote:

world of spying and war and ethics keeps blurring, but it should not be in the EON films.
In TB, Fleming knew the Cold War was cooling and came up with SPECTRE. He knew the new villains would be groups like this - men who would threaten to destroy a whole city just to improve their bottom line.

SPECTRE was a great idea (a middle man or freelance criminal/terror syndicate) but the Cold War's conclusion was still whole decades away when Fleming penned Blofeld.

However, in his world, governments did not make deals with them, nor were they full of traitors working for them. All the intel agencies worked together to defeat them to a certain degree (Leiter and Bond taking down Le Chiffre.

A bit naive and outdated when even in the Marvel verse you have the pastiche of SPECTRE, HYDRA, heavily depending on and recruiting traitors from within a legitimate Western security agency.

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

The Film suffered from the Writers Strikes, which didn't help.

Strangely, I feel it both suffered AND benefited. Suffered because of lack of narrative scope, benefited from lean-ness and intensity. It's truly a unique Bond movie any way you look at it.

CmdrAtticus

Colonel Shatner wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

world of spying and war and ethics keeps blurring, but it should not be in the EON films.
In TB, Fleming knew the Cold War was cooling and came up with SPECTRE. He knew the new villains would be groups like this - men who would threaten to destroy a whole city just to improve their bottom line.

SPECTRE was a great idea (a middle man or freelance criminal/terror syndicate) but the Cold War's conclusion was still whole decades away when Fleming penned Blofeld.

However, in his world, governments did not make deals with them, nor were they full of traitors working for them. All the intel agencies worked together to defeat them to a certain degree (Leiter and Bond taking down Le Chiffre.

A bit naive and outdated when even in the Marvel verse you have the pastiche of SPECTRE, HYDRA, heavily depending on and recruiting traitors from within a legitimate Western security agency.

Yes the Cold War's conclusion was (though not sure if it ever really concluded) further away, but it's intensity had started to wane to a degree. However, when given further thought, even SPECTRE used a traitor - Petacchi - to steal the plane. Then there's also Major Dexter Smythe and even Hugo Drax, so Fleming really did use these traitor themes in his novels.

Lady Ice

I think it does a good job as a sequel; it almost stands alone but works best when paired with Casino Royale. Like Licence to Kill, it bravely tests the waters of how dark a Bond film can be and gives a deeper insight into Bond's psyche. Skyfall is a big leap from QoS; he seems to regress. Whilst in QoS he was troubled and a liability, at the end he reconciled himself to the fact that his emotions had been clouding him. Suddenly in Skyfall, we're back to breakdown Bond- it's not Vesper's death making him sad now, it's his childhood 8-) It's implausible that M wouldn't boot him out; she was annoyed and conflicted about him in QoS but now she's clearly kept him on out of misplaced sentiment.

Bondage007

Can't really forgive the "troubled production" and give QoS bonus sympathy points for that. Might as well give Thunderball bonus points for the pacing because it was "acceptable back in those days" or DAF more points because it had "Connery in it".

The script is an incoherent mess, I have no idea how he managed to let Vesper go, the action is incomprehensible. There's no Bond moments in it. Oh wait there is. Stolen 99% from Goldfinger except black not gold.

When I was a teen and watched them on dvd I was fascinated by every Bond movie. If I was a child right now and QoS was my first Bond movie, there would've been none of the awe and wonder of the earlier films that got me hooked onto Bond in the first place. As Matt S pointed out, CR suffers the same problem but at least it has some class. I'm glad they shook things up with the reboot. The films had become too stale and formulaic as early as the 1970s which turned the average audience away, with a few exceptions. SF was a slow return to form, with many magic moments.

Gassy Man wrote:

Skyfall is not markedly better, but it is saved by two significant differences: Its plot is much more conventional (in part because we basically already saw it in The Dark Knight) and it took its time to set things up. It is as shallow as Quantum of Solace in terms of characterization, but the audience is distracted enough by the goings on not to realize or to care.

That is such a good point. A bit like Avatar. SF was a good step in the right direction and from the looks of things SP will be a return to form