Summary of Concerns
Strangeways
London, UKPosts: 1,469MI6 Agent
Well, only two weeks to go and I just thought we could start to list what concerns we have about QOS. I sooooooo want this film to be better that CR, better received by the critics, better loved by the fans (and non fans) and better at the box office. I do still have concerns though, all of which will be answered by this time next week.
1. Gunbarrel. Traditional one please!
2. Running time. Although GF was under 2 hours, will this work in the 21st century? Most blockbusters are over the 2 hour mark these days.
3. Script changes. TND was plagued by script changes, let's hope this time they are for the better.
4. Direction. I am not familiar with Marc Foster's work, but I hope that QOS does not head too far down the Bourne path.
5. Music. Will we ever hear a true rendition of the James Bond Theme again I wonder?
6. Pre-titles sequence. For a film under 2 hours, the PTS should be no longer than 10 mins at the absolute maximum. Agreed?
7. Titles sequence. Having seen the Coke advert, how will this work I wonder?
As I have said, I am totally committed to wanting to love QOS as I have CR. However, as someone else said on this forum hope for the best, expect the worst. I just hope that we do get at the very least a great Bond film, and not a Christmas Turkey!
{[]
1. Gunbarrel. Traditional one please!
2. Running time. Although GF was under 2 hours, will this work in the 21st century? Most blockbusters are over the 2 hour mark these days.
3. Script changes. TND was plagued by script changes, let's hope this time they are for the better.
4. Direction. I am not familiar with Marc Foster's work, but I hope that QOS does not head too far down the Bourne path.
5. Music. Will we ever hear a true rendition of the James Bond Theme again I wonder?
6. Pre-titles sequence. For a film under 2 hours, the PTS should be no longer than 10 mins at the absolute maximum. Agreed?
7. Titles sequence. Having seen the Coke advert, how will this work I wonder?
As I have said, I am totally committed to wanting to love QOS as I have CR. However, as someone else said on this forum hope for the best, expect the worst. I just hope that we do get at the very least a great Bond film, and not a Christmas Turkey!
{[]
Comments
New poster here so forgive me if this has already been said but I'd like to add a couple more concerns to the list if I may.
1. I understand that in QOS at no stage does Daniel say Bond, James Bond.
2. He doesn't drink Vodka Martini shaken not stirred.
3. And there is still no sign of Q branch.
Has anyone else heard this?
However, I was sceptical about CR and it's turned into one of my favourite Bond films. I really want to love QOS so going to give it the benefit of the doubt.
You are correct
I'm not sure the Bond theme really fits with Daniel Craig. The swagger of it belonged to the Connery era but sort of worked for other incarnations, though not Dalton. This is no insult to Craig, but he's more Fleming's Bond, more an anti-hero than hero in this context. Albeit anti-hero like Bogart, McQueen and Sinatra, I was going to start a thread on this actually.
As I wasn 't convinced by the Vesper thing, I'm not sure that a whole movie with Bond chasing revenge is going to work, though it could. I'd like Bond to find out something more about Vesper that makes him realise he never actually knew her.
I'm interested in what the villain brings to the bag. And also how it follows on from CR. I mean, if it's only 10 mins after how come Bond will be shagging his way thru a slew of leading ladies just shortly after grieving? Unless it's a Peaches style solution... (F... the pain away).
Roger Moore 1927-2017
An opinion, but not one I agree with at all. The Bond theme is for the character of James Bond, not the actor that plays him.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I would have loved to see this past the 2 hour mark, purely to have my desires of the title...A Quantum of Solace...played and told properly. Vesper's betrayal...and subsequently Bond's vengeance..needs to have room to breathe, and I really hope, even in this short running time, it can be achieved.
Cubby Broccoli believed that the best Bond films were of less than two hours duration.
He was prone on occasion to making statements which were more persuasive than accurate & it is very easy to think of at least two exceptions to this rule. That having been said, I think we can safely assume that QoS, unlike many films, will not contain any extraneous padding inserted simply to increase the running time.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
With the two films being 'connected', it could turn out that CR was the 'A' movie and QofS is just the remaining 'B' movie.
I wish the film ran 120 minutes, mostly because I want as much Bond as possible (a film every two or three years isn't enough!), but the idea of a lean and mean action thriller appeals to me, and I appreciate the way in which Eon is moving from the longest film of the franchise to the shortest---and from the shortest PTS since FRWL to perhaps the longest ever! Unpredictability is a novel thing in a 46 year-old franchise :007)
The gunbarrel will be there, the consequences of the script's travails can't be evaluated until we've seen the picture, Forster's a very talented director, I predict the score will be chock-full of the Bond theme, and I welcome the return of the dancing nudies to the titles :x
I can't imagine why anyone would expect a Marc Forster film to lack story or characterization (his forte, IMO), no matter how much action there is. Now, if Michael Bay were directing...
Perhaps my biggest concern with QoS has nothing to do with the film itself...but rather the looming probability of the same old Craig WarsTM-style polarity amongst fandom, which can be a bit boorish in its most undisguised form, expecially inasmuch as the actual reviews tend to be rather predictable. But nothing can be done to change that, so I won't sweat it.
In summary, I have questions...but no true concerns! :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
These are troubling times...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't expect the film to lack story or characterization. All I'm saying is that the advance reports point to QoS having even more action than CR (Craig himself said so), and since QoS is quite a bit shorter than CR in length, I'm just wondering if there is enough time to develop a reasonably complex plot, or to delve into the new characters (like Camille or Greene) fully. However, Haggis is very talented, and so is Forster, so maybe they can achieve the perfect balance in 106 minutes. We'll see.
BTW, my review of CR was probably not predictable. I gave it a very favourable 6 out of 7 (I used a 7 scale in honour of 007)
More action than CR...maybe, maybe not, regardless of what's been said. A long action-packed PTS will certainly add to the illusion of more action. The exact same amount of action as CR will seem like more in a 105-minute picture.
I foresee a picture with a great deal of forward momentum, with breaks in-between the set pieces where character and story exposition are given their due. Like I said, this isn't Michael Bay, and the scalpel isn't being held by a ham-sized fist.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Personally, I think this is great news. Opinions?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't think length has any bearing on how much I enjoy a PTS. It could be thirty seconds or thirty minutes. However, the more the PTS deviates from the average five-minute-or-so mark, the greater the burden is on the filmmakers to make it work. I count TWINE as an example of where it worked.
If it is true that QoS's PTS will be a six-minute car chase, our disagreement is moot for the time being. I don't think we will be disappointed...
I am officially taking an "innocent until proven guilty" approach with the whole thing. There was far too much Craig bashing and apprehension going into CR (I don't exclude myself from the list of naysayers either) and that film turned out to be one of my favorites.
I've learned my lesson and will reserve any judgments for after I've seen the film in its entirety.
As far as traditions are concerned, I am glad to hear some are returning. The gunbarrel and the James Bond Theme are essential to a 007 film and I can only hope Q and Moneypenny return in Bond 23 to get things back to normal. Whoever said the James Bond Theme does not fit Craig is wrong. The theme music is iconic and has fit five actors before now and will continue to fit them all because the films are about James Bond and not the actors who portray him. Quit acting like Craig is so damn special and above all the traditions of the franchise.
The runtime is a bit of a let down but it could work if there is indeed lots of action because I feel that is Craig's only strength as 007. CR ran too long so this 106 minutes may feel better.
In conclusion, I am confident this film can be the best since GE because some traditions are returning, I do not already know the plot and outcome (like with CR) and Bond has an excuse to go on a thrilling revenge mission. Plus I am used to the Craig hype and the whole "reboot" thing (even though I still refuse to see it that way). Hopefully Craig's films can only get better from CR, which won't be that hard to do!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How the gunbarrel can look or feel right at the end of a Bond film is beyond me, I'm afraid. Whoever came up with that idea want's punting off the franchise.
So, Mr Foster and Mr MG Wilson - when asked if the traditional gunbarrel is returning, next time please answer truthfully and say no. A gunbarrel at the end of a Bond film is not traditional.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That to one side, over the years we have seen ALL of the following in the gun barrel sequence:Actor playing Bond does not appear,Bond dropping to one knee,behatted Bond,Bare-headed Bond, Bond in day wear,Bond in evening dress,round discharged by Bond "travelling" through the gun barrel, gun barrel sequence incorporated into the story line,gun barrel sequence signalling the start of the PTS & gun barrel sequence signalling the end of the PTS.
If all (or even most) of these many "variations on a theme" are deemed to be traditional , then surely we must conclude that a tendency to experiment with,& diversify this sequence is part of that tradition.
If we accept that then the logical entailment would appear to be that the latest gun barrel sequence represents a continuation of, rather than a break with, that "tradition".
I don't miss Q, or Moneypenny. "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, not stirred". The reviewers have said the film lacks humour, has humour, lack action, has too much action, is too long, is too short. So, in short, they're pretty useless.
The only thing I really care about is how I'm going to feel straight after seeing the film. You can't really judge a Bond on one film, so QOS is going to be important to me, as a defining moment in what kind of Bond we've got on our hands. Personally, I think we've got a pretty good one so far, but I need one more film to convince me.
I can understand the gunbarrel being where it is. Makes sense, because this isn't the same Bond as Goldfinger. This is the rougher, less polished Bond straight out of SBS and Special Ops. Anyway, I can't wait. I don't care what the reviews say.
If I'm disappointed, I only hope it's not as disappointed as I was with TND.