I have grown to like QOS, over many, many viewings. Which I feel is
Quite an achievement, as my starting point was sheer unbridled hatred ! )
The problems with the writers strike is well documented, so perhaps having
a professional screenwriter, give it a final polish would have greatly helped.
It has indeed many good points, with a few weaknesses, it really is a case of
" What might have been ". -{
I just get sea sick every time I try to watch it. So I don't bother. I thought AVTAK would never be beaten as the worse Bond film ever, unfortunately for me QOS holds the wooden spoon of the series to date.
I do think that QOS was a little rushed in to production, they had a fantastic hit
With CR, and needed a follow up. Sadly because of the writers strike, the script
What there was of it had to be completed or tweaked by actor and director. So
Fair play to them for doing their best.
Even Mark Gatiss in the recent TV programme on the Bonds said that Bond was
More thug that agent in QOS. Don't know if I totally agree with that but it is very
Different in tone and style to CR.
I think QOS will continue to devide opinions for years, it is as many have described
it " The Marmite" Bond. Strangely from reading the Fleming novels again, I can now
Understand the defenders of the film saying it was intact " very Bond" , This didn't
Make sense to me until I went back to those wonderful books. Because yes there is
Plenty of Bond in it, not the traditional film 007 but more of the literary, Fleming agent
who regularly had to kill on behalf of the government, Fleming even states that Bond
took no pleasure in killing but he did take a pride in doing it well, almost shutting his mind
down to the horrors he had to inflict.
I doubt it will be in my top five Bonds but it is now somewhere in the middle of the pack.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
thanks for breaking them down...I do have a sense that Arnold wasn't happy at not getting the theme tune gig
{[] Oh, I could waffle on about this sort of stuff endlessly- some would say I already do. And once again, Arnold was following Barry's lead re the theme tune gig (one of the reasons JB quit).
Imaginary phone call:
MGW: Hi John, it's Michael. We'd like you to do the music for our next picture Tomorrow Never Dies.
JB: Sure thing, Michael, I'll start on the theme song right away.
MGW: Ah... we only want you to write the score, the marketing people want Sheryl Crow to write and sing the song.
JB: I don't mind who you get to sing it, but I should be writing it- you know, like I did for GF, TB, YOLT, DAF etc etc.
MGW: No, she gets to write the song.
JB: Then let me give you David Arnold's phone number....
Oh I enjoy your wafflings )
And I would assume that 'imaginary' phone call to be pretty accurate !
I do think that QOS was a little rushed in to production, they had a fantastic hit
With CR, and needed a follow up. Sadly because of the writers strike, the script
What there was of it had to be completed or tweaked by actor and director. So
Fair play to them for doing their best.
Even Mark Gatiss in the recent TV programme on the Bonds said that Bond was
More thug that agent in QOS. Don't know if I totally agree with that but it is very
Different in tone and style to CR.
I think QOS will continue to devide opinions for years, it is as many have described
it " The Marmite" Bond. Strangely from reading the Fleming novels again, I can now
Understand the defenders of the film saying it was intact " very Bond" , This didn't
Make sense to me until I went back to those wonderful books. Because yes there is
Plenty of Bond in it, not the traditional film 007 but more of the literary, Fleming agent
who regularly had to kill on behalf of the government, Fleming even states that Bond
took no pleasure in killing but he did take a pride in doing it well, almost shutting his mind
down to the horrors he had to inflict.
I doubt it will be in my top five Bonds but it is now somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Slightly off topic but backing up the point that in the novels Bond kills but he doesn't like killing.
I watched American Sniper which is based on a true story last night.
Theres a scene where the main character Chris Kyle is presented with a scenario that he may have to kill a small child and the emotions involved in that horrendous situation.
Now I won't tell you whether he does or doesn't kill the child because I don't want to spoil that film if you haven't seen it.
I thought of Bond from the novels as soon as I saw the scene.
This is exactly it. While Bond is a dark and gritty character, he wouldn't travel 50 miles in a desert to kill a crazed faux-environmentalist if he didn't need to and he could be lounging at a dinner party smoking a cigar instead.
This is exactly it. While Bond is a dark and gritty character, he wouldn't travel 50 miles in a desert to kill a crazed faux-environmentalist if he didn't need to and he could be lounging at a dinner party smoking a cigar instead.
Also I think, smoking was beginning to be frowned upon in movies. It could
Land your film with a higher censorship rating. One of the things I find funny
Now are films and programmes set in the 60s and 70s. Like the fantastic spy
Show from the BBC " The Game" in which, basically, everyone smoked, all the time
and everywhere. ) rooms thick with smoke.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
one problem for me is that basically all the Daniel Craig movies so far showed Bonds emotional problems
I kinda miss the days where Bond himself stood for a tough secret agent noone can come close to
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
We're in a different period. At one time, it was considered manly to keep your problems to yourself, steel yourself against the world, and persevere, making it as best you can. The world wars and those that followed had taught that ordinary men could do extraordinary things, and problems -- some of them seemingly overwhelming -- were just a part of life, so deal with it.
The Bond we see the first 20 years is very much this character. He is not invincible or unemotional, but he channels his energy into what he can do rather than can't, and seeks pleasure in the things that afford it in life rather than wallows in the pain and misery, which is where the scales have now tipped.
Fast forward to current times. Today, the heroes must all be emotionally damaged, and wear those emotions on their sleeves. There is a diagnosis for anything that ails a person, emotionally or otherwise, and the idea that life is "tough" has been supplanted by the idea that we are all wounded in some way and how we deal with it is a measurement of our depth of character. In fact, some people equate this with character period.
A good example of this is how Bond faces things at the end of the book Casino Royale. Obviously, he is ripped up, but he will swallow this, perhaps in anger, to supplant his grief. In the film, though, we have to see additional scenes that suggest this is not enough. "Manning up" in the book is replaced with "being sensitive" in the film, or at least the pretense of it. That is the contemporary paradigm. Had they made one more Bond film with Craig in that four-year gap, we might be past the point to have to keep dealing with it, but as we're not and the Bond films re aping the Dark Knight . . .
Up until 1897, it was illegal for a British man to express any emotion
In public and up until 1903, for a man to cry in public, was immediate
Deportation to one of the colonies, usually Australia.
The stiff upper lip was the way things were done, emotions were like port
To be bottled up for 40 or 50 years then passed on to the next generation.
Sadly today lead characters in film and TV have to show their emotions
So the audience can " connect" with them I.E. ....
... The six million dollar man, was a great action sci-fi show about an injured
Astronaut. Who gets rebuilt with super artificial legs, an arm and an eye. In
The old show any trauma etc was glossed over but be assured today well get
Hours of his inner anguish and turmoil,over being " part machine" .
I myself hold to those great old Victorian ideas of never showing emotion and
Keeping a stiff upper lip, no blubbing at child birth or getting married. Perhaps
A tear on the death of a beloved Dog, but that's to be understood. We are a nation
Of animal lovers.
So please Keep the emotional baggage to a minimum, there was enough in QOS, let's have
No more in Spectre. . After all we are not French !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Up until 1897, it was illegal for a British man to express any emotion
In public and up until 1903, for a man to cry in public, was immediate
Deportation to one of the colonies, usually Australia.
The stiff upper lip was the way things were done, emotions were like port
To be bottled up for 40 or 50 years then passed on to the next generation.
Sadly today lead characters in film and TV have to show their emotions
So the audience can " connect" with them I.E. ....
... The six million dollar man, was a great action sci-fi show about an injured
Astronaut. Who gets rebuilt with super artificial legs, an arm and an eye. In
The old show any trauma etc was glossed over but be assured today well get
Hours of his inner anguish and turmoil,over being " part machine" .
I myself hold to those great old Victorian ideas of never showing emotion and
Keeping a stiff upper lip, no blubbing at child birth or getting married. Perhaps
A tear on the death of a beloved Dog, but that's to be understood. We are a nation
Of animal lovers.
So please Keep the emotional baggage to a minimum, there was enough in QOS, let's have
No more in Spectre. . After all we are not French !
00 agents having emotions is illogical. They need to be Vulcans!
I feel like I can connect better with Connery's and Moore's Bonds, who don't show emotion, than Craig's Bond who does. Or basically, I'd rather not connect with Bond on an emotional level. There are enough other movies that can do that.
The violent emotionally damaged brooding male hero has become an archetype over the past 10 years in action films and video games. Craig was one of the progenitors, but Eon better abandon this ship before Craig gets lampooned.
The violent emotionally damaged brooding male hero has become an archetype over the past 10 years in action films and video games. Craig was one of the progenitors, but Eon better abandon this ship before Craig gets lampooned.
SP promises to be a return to form; I shan't be too worried on that front, mate.
The cons for me are:
- The theme tune; Alicia Keys' vocal might have been all right on her own but with Jack White, it just sounds harsh and clashes. A Bond song needs either a male or female voice, not both, and certainly not ones that don't go together.
- how they used Strawberry Fields. Gemma Arteton is a good actress but she's wasted here. Fields isn't allowed to have a personality, she's just fodder and jumps into bed with Bond in a matter of seconds. (I love the Goldfinger reference though)
- some of the stunts look a bit cartoony (particularly when characters are falling)
Despite this, I think the film is underrated and unfairly overshadowed by the writers' strike. It follows on nicely from Casino Royale and opens up a new direction, with Quantum replacing Spectre. The theme of government corruption works really well, with the Bolivian corruption and even the British Foreign Secretary. No wonder Bond doesn't know who to trust. I really like Camille and how Bond sees that her predicament matches his. It feels like there's something reminiscent of License to Kill.
I liked Rory Kinnear as Tanner and thought Judi Dench was on top form as M. The relationship between M and Bond is really moving; in general, I find it one of the most moving Bond films, particularly the ending. Its lack of slickness adds to its charm in my opinion- and despite the lack of slickness, Bond's arc is clear and effectively handled. As a film, it might not be as good as Casino Royale but it adds extra layers to Bond and pushes his story to the next level.
I rewatched it today; I quite enjoyed it first time round but this time around I've developed more of an appreciation for it. I think Skyfall tries to do some of the things Quantum of Solace does (M as surrogate mother to Bond, woman scarred by abuse, Bond as one step away from a breakdown, Bond in a modern political climate) but in a way that feels more manipulative and trite.
To quote Higgins' favourite actor: I got the message (bursts balloon) 8-) .
Right: (rolls up sleeves) it's nothing to do with age. It's not the right song, that's all. James Bond music does evolve but it does have to fulfill its function. I love YKMN, and that does its job particularly well (it was, for want of a better word, Bondian: it fitted the times, it fitted the story, and its melody could be used within the film in various contexts). AWTD doesn't meet those criteria.
An old fart view would be to yearn for the days of ATH or LTK but Bond films don't have to have lush, highly-orchestrated ballads to start them off on the right foot- take YKMN, AVTAK, TLD, LALD for example. Those were appropriate and contemporary while being far from, say, NDIB or MR.
It's tricky to define the exact qualities which make a good Bond song: for the sake of argument let's say that DAF hits the spot while TMWTGG doesn't yet they're both by the same composer and lyricist (both with excellent Bond track records, puns not intended) and in the same time period. The music that was popular at the time didn't have too much of an influence on the Bond songs, which have been cited as existing in their own world outside of whatever's going on- that isn't strictly true, of course, but has some accuracy: Adele's successful SF song could be described as "retro" or simply Bondian.
A great post. For me, a good Bond theme tune should be big and dramatic. That doesn't necessarily mean belting but it should be bold and cinematic.
Comments
I just get sea sick every time I try to watch it. So I don't bother. I thought AVTAK would never be beaten as the worse Bond film ever, unfortunately for me QOS holds the wooden spoon of the series to date.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
With CR, and needed a follow up. Sadly because of the writers strike, the script
What there was of it had to be completed or tweaked by actor and director. So
Fair play to them for doing their best.
Even Mark Gatiss in the recent TV programme on the Bonds said that Bond was
More thug that agent in QOS. Don't know if I totally agree with that but it is very
Different in tone and style to CR.
I think QOS will continue to devide opinions for years, it is as many have described
it " The Marmite" Bond. Strangely from reading the Fleming novels again, I can now
Understand the defenders of the film saying it was intact " very Bond" , This didn't
Make sense to me until I went back to those wonderful books. Because yes there is
Plenty of Bond in it, not the traditional film 007 but more of the literary, Fleming agent
who regularly had to kill on behalf of the government, Fleming even states that Bond
took no pleasure in killing but he did take a pride in doing it well, almost shutting his mind
down to the horrors he had to inflict.
I doubt it will be in my top five Bonds but it is now somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Oh I enjoy your wafflings
And I would assume that 'imaginary' phone call to be pretty accurate !
OHMSS was not liked back in the day imo because Connery was not Bond and that's it pure and simple.
As a Bond film it has all the other elements necessary, plus the added bonus of it being based on the best Bond novel (imo).
Spectacular stunts, great cinematography, it was just missing Connery.
Now 35 years after the event, the fact that Connery isn't in it is no big deal, and folk now view it as the Bond film it is and should have been.
QOS is a different kettle of fish. The main reason I don't like it is the editing, pure and simple.
I would love them to re-edit into a format that doesn't try to be "Paul Greengrass-Bourne esq", then I may enjoy it.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
Slightly off topic but backing up the point that in the novels Bond kills but he doesn't like killing.
I watched American Sniper which is based on a true story last night.
Theres a scene where the main character Chris Kyle is presented with a scenario that he may have to kill a small child and the emotions involved in that horrendous situation.
Now I won't tell you whether he does or doesn't kill the child because I don't want to spoil that film if you haven't seen it.
I thought of Bond from the novels as soon as I saw the scene.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Roger Moore smoked cigars, not James Bond.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Land your film with a higher censorship rating. One of the things I find funny
Now are films and programmes set in the 60s and 70s. Like the fantastic spy
Show from the BBC " The Game" in which, basically, everyone smoked, all the time
and everywhere.
Fleming hated cigars and would not be doing either thing you mentioned.
I kinda miss the days where Bond himself stood for a tough secret agent noone can come close to
The Bond we see the first 20 years is very much this character. He is not invincible or unemotional, but he channels his energy into what he can do rather than can't, and seeks pleasure in the things that afford it in life rather than wallows in the pain and misery, which is where the scales have now tipped.
Fast forward to current times. Today, the heroes must all be emotionally damaged, and wear those emotions on their sleeves. There is a diagnosis for anything that ails a person, emotionally or otherwise, and the idea that life is "tough" has been supplanted by the idea that we are all wounded in some way and how we deal with it is a measurement of our depth of character. In fact, some people equate this with character period.
A good example of this is how Bond faces things at the end of the book Casino Royale. Obviously, he is ripped up, but he will swallow this, perhaps in anger, to supplant his grief. In the film, though, we have to see additional scenes that suggest this is not enough. "Manning up" in the book is replaced with "being sensitive" in the film, or at least the pretense of it. That is the contemporary paradigm. Had they made one more Bond film with Craig in that four-year gap, we might be past the point to have to keep dealing with it, but as we're not and the Bond films re aping the Dark Knight . . .
In public and up until 1903, for a man to cry in public, was immediate
Deportation to one of the colonies, usually Australia.
The stiff upper lip was the way things were done, emotions were like port
To be bottled up for 40 or 50 years then passed on to the next generation.
Sadly today lead characters in film and TV have to show their emotions
So the audience can " connect" with them I.E. ....
... The six million dollar man, was a great action sci-fi show about an injured
Astronaut. Who gets rebuilt with super artificial legs, an arm and an eye. In
The old show any trauma etc was glossed over but be assured today well get
Hours of his inner anguish and turmoil,over being " part machine" .
I myself hold to those great old Victorian ideas of never showing emotion and
Keeping a stiff upper lip, no blubbing at child birth or getting married. Perhaps
A tear on the death of a beloved Dog, but that's to be understood. We are a nation
Of animal lovers.
So please Keep the emotional baggage to a minimum, there was enough in QOS, let's have
No more in Spectre.
00 agents having emotions is illogical. They need to be Vulcans!
I feel like I can connect better with Connery's and Moore's Bonds, who don't show emotion, than Craig's Bond who does. Or basically, I'd rather not connect with Bond on an emotional level. There are enough other movies that can do that.
The violent emotionally damaged brooding male hero has become an archetype over the past 10 years in action films and video games. Craig was one of the progenitors, but Eon better abandon this ship before Craig gets lampooned.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But crying fits into the Personality of Craig's Bond more then any other previous Incarnation.
007s excuse is he knew M longer then Tracey
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I highly disagree with the statement above :v
There is a much better match in Bond history in that regard!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
He sends his Regards :v
- The theme tune; Alicia Keys' vocal might have been all right on her own but with Jack White, it just sounds harsh and clashes. A Bond song needs either a male or female voice, not both, and certainly not ones that don't go together.
- how they used Strawberry Fields. Gemma Arteton is a good actress but she's wasted here. Fields isn't allowed to have a personality, she's just fodder and jumps into bed with Bond in a matter of seconds. (I love the Goldfinger reference though)
- some of the stunts look a bit cartoony (particularly when characters are falling)
Despite this, I think the film is underrated and unfairly overshadowed by the writers' strike. It follows on nicely from Casino Royale and opens up a new direction, with Quantum replacing Spectre. The theme of government corruption works really well, with the Bolivian corruption and even the British Foreign Secretary. No wonder Bond doesn't know who to trust. I really like Camille and how Bond sees that her predicament matches his. It feels like there's something reminiscent of License to Kill.
I liked Rory Kinnear as Tanner and thought Judi Dench was on top form as M. The relationship between M and Bond is really moving; in general, I find it one of the most moving Bond films, particularly the ending. Its lack of slickness adds to its charm in my opinion- and despite the lack of slickness, Bond's arc is clear and effectively handled. As a film, it might not be as good as Casino Royale but it adds extra layers to Bond and pushes his story to the next level.
I rewatched it today; I quite enjoyed it first time round but this time around I've developed more of an appreciation for it. I think Skyfall tries to do some of the things Quantum of Solace does (M as surrogate mother to Bond, woman scarred by abuse, Bond as one step away from a breakdown, Bond in a modern political climate) but in a way that feels more manipulative and trite.
A great post. For me, a good Bond theme tune should be big and dramatic. That doesn't necessarily mean belting but it should be bold and cinematic.