Quantum Of Solace=Casino Royale 2?

Q and M · June 2011

after watching it for the first time in ages, i realised that it really has no separate storyline apart from the small sub-plot about the quantum group, who were associated with CR. My thought after watching it again was that it was like what Harry Potter films had done. The last film was split into 2 parts. Interesting i thought. Basically this movie is a carry on from CR

DanielCraig007 · June 2011

I like to see CR and QoS back to back as a 4 hour complete bond experience.
When you look at QoS as just a big action finale to CR its not half bad.

zaphod · July 2011

Once again the lengths that people will go to to rescue QOS never ceases to amaze me. Now we are being urged to see it as an action packed second half to CR, & even then if the best we can say is that it's not half bad it certainly seems like faint praise. I have of course done it myself, watched it on numerous occasions to try and see if it can be rescued, or try to see what others whose opinions I respect manage to see in it, but without success. Oh well, 'back to the salt mines' to watch it again until I get it right..Emperors not so new clothes anyone?

Thunderpussy · July 2011

I know on seeing it the Phrase " Number 2" did spring to mind

)

zaphod · July 2011

Thunderpussy wrote:

I know on seeing it the Phrase " Number 2" did spring to mind )

Very good Thunderpussy, very good indeed.

i expect u2 die · July 2011

whilst it is indeed a stretch to suggest that we can merit the film as an 'expansion pack' of sorts to CR, when watching the films back to back, there is a sense that QoS makes quite an effective 'third act' to the story. Intentional or not, this doesn't stop the film from being a lousy entity on its own...

blueman · July 2011

Huh.

I think QOS stands alone just fine, is one of the best films in the franchise, and is a marked improvement over CR's good intentions/not quite so good follow through. But as the best parts of CR are the tenser moments with LeChiffre, I can see the argument about QOS being the continuation/filling out of the Quantum storyline, sure. Hoping that 23 has more of the same. :007)

pyrat · July 2011

I don't find QoS one of the worst Bond films by a long shot, but it certainly is not among the best, either. I think the problem is it's a close out on the Vesper relationship and as such carries a lot of baggage that works against it. I do feel it makes the point that the closer they stick to the original Fleming storylines the better the Bond films seem to be.

Sir Miles · July 2011

pyrat wrote:

I don't find QoS one of the worst Bond films by a long shot, but it certainly is not among the best, either. I think the problem is it's a close out on the Vesper relationship and as such carries a lot of baggage that works against it. I do feel it makes the point that the closer they stick to the original Fleming storylines the better the Bond films seem to be.

IMO the very fact QoS closes out the Vesper/Bond relationship is the main reason why I love this film....as did MANY people whom ventured to the cinema to watch it - that's a fact that is proven by it's box office take....

I'm not convinced by your second point either....other than OHMSS the other films don't really stick THAT close to the original Fleming storylines....some of them do use the basic premise of the book (to a more or less extent) but more don't than do...unless you only like a few Bond films that is

)

Napoleon Plural · July 2011

Come off it Sir Miles, a high box office take counts for not much, many go in and see it once simply because they liked its predecessor, CR. To be a big hit, you just have to get everyone in to see it once, they pay the same whether they liked it or not.

I'd argue CR was a success because of adhering to Fleming's writing, QoS represented a failure of nerve.

pyrat · July 2011

Come to think of it, my top five are those which more closely parallel the Fleming novels.

Thunderpussy · July 2011

I recently read on another forum :v that M forster has given an Interview stating that QOS didn't turn out the way he wanted, Glad he's come round to my way of thinking.

)

zaphod · July 2011

Sir Miles wrote:

pyrat wrote:

I don't find QoS one of the worst Bond films by a long shot, but it certainly is not among the best, either. I think the problem is it's a close out on the Vesper relationship and as such carries a lot of baggage that works against it. I do feel it makes the point that the closer they stick to the original Fleming storylines the better the Bond films seem to be.

IMO the very fact QoS closes out the Vesper/Bond relationship is the main reason why I love this film....as did MANY people whom ventured to the cinema to watch it - that's a fact that is proven by it's box office take....

I'm not convinced by your second point either....other than OHMSS the other films don't really stick THAT close to the original Fleming storylines....some of them do use the basic
premise of the book (to a more or less extent) but more don't than do...unless you only like

few Bond films that is )

We don't know for sure that it does close it out...I hope so as I have had more Vesper than I can possibly take, her ghost haunts QOS and I'm hoping that 23 ploughs new ground. Part of the problem is that in order to work we must also fall a little in love with her, and the listless
performance by Eva Green did little to help. CR was a success in both a commercial and artistic sense inspite of her and not because of her (she is no Tracy when all said and done)

Even if you disagree and feel that EG did a great job as Vesper. Surely you would agree that the script never gave the relationship the space to develop and be credible, I for one never bought it. It does not stop me feeling that CR was a noble addition to the franchise , however it did mean that it was a very weak foundation to lay for QOS (I kept thinking ' cheer up mate, there are plenty more scrikey miserable looking women around son')

I agree that Box Office is a very poor criteria to fall back on, and is frankly beneath you to resort to it.

pyrat · July 2011

Box office is an indicator of how the general public reacts to a film. It is not without faults as some very good films are not widely received or even distributed. But it does indicate how the larger group reacts to a given product. In the final analysis, even though we have great fun arguing the finer points, on an individual basis, only the viewers personal preferences are relevant, and no more right or wrong then the next fellows. Think of box office as sociology and an individual review as psychology, group behavior vs individual behavior.

blueman · July 2011

Factoring in inflation, there isn't much difference in BO for the last 6 Bond films, CR leads them all but it seems a slim margin, easy to point to it riding the reboot fever of the past decade, it pulled in few extra ticket buyers but generally speaking, Bond has a finite audience. That's striking to me considering what I think of as the radically significant differences between some of the last 6 films. But again, I guess for the general public, it's just all a bunch of Bond, and they go see it regardless of who is Bond or if it's set in outer space or grounded with choppy editing or whatever. We can debate our likes/dislikes, but really hard to say what the world thinks of DAD or QOS or GE except that they drug in the usual Bond audience, give or take (actually as much as it curdles me to say it, one can point to GE as establishing the modern Bond audience, the gap from the 80s plus Bond entering the video game age was quite the hurdle, and that film cleared it with ease).

We're sitting pretty in a new Bond fan era like we haven't seen since at least the 70s. Doesn't suck. :007)

Sir Miles · July 2011

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Come off it Sir Miles, a high box office take counts for not much, many go in and see it once simply because they liked its predecessor, CR. To be a big hit, you just have to get everyone in to see it once, they pay the same whether they liked it or not.

I'd argue CR was a success because of adhering to Fleming's writing, QoS represented a failure of nerve.

Nap, I expected far better from you....

A high box office take does count for a lot....and you know damn well it does....if the first Bond film hadn't done well at the box office, then there wouldn't have been a second...let alone another 21 !

And trying to get everyone in to see it once is easy ?:) You ask the makers of Green Lantern how they managed to get everyone in to see it once...oh no, you can't...because they didn't ! Perhaps not as easy as you think, eh ?

You really think the entire box office for QoS didn't include repeat business...???....and if the film was really THAT bad then word-of-mouth alone would have adversely affected the box office take....and it didn't....

Come on Nap - despite what people say - you ARE better than that

Sir Miles · July 2011

zaphod wrote:

I agree that Box Office is a very poor criteria to fall back on, and is frankly beneath you to resort to it.

I can only assume that your comment is aimed at me...so....

Explain why box office take is "very poor criteria to fall back on"...?...it's what most of the studios use to measure success...

And why is it beneath me to resort to it ??? That phrase is normally trotted out by people whom cannot construct a decent counter-arguement....and, frankly, that's beneath you !

Thunderbird 2 · July 2011

To me whether a film is a financial success or not is not part of the equation of its quality. Its a question of whether I think its good or not. Narratively and technically. Although repeat viewings was not something I understood until I realised I saw CR 6 times at the cinema - simply because I had the option and loved watching it on the big screen. By and large, Modern tv and film has shown high rating figures and quality do not often go hand in hand. - But high ratings means money, so we get more of the same. Look at reality tv!

QoS is the first Bond film I did not enjoy, because the flash editing literally hurt my eyes. - I saw it twice at the cinema, and in spite of everyone's good intentions (except the director who simply made an arty-farty mess) it just didn't work. - My take on its technical flaws.
The only saving grace for me WERE the scenes that touched upon CR - specifically, the initial portion of White's torture (when he realises MI6 are in the dark,) Bond and Mathias in Italy and later on the plane while Bond gets blotto (Dave Arnold's music helps here) and the final scene when Bond finishes speaking with M,and walks away dropping Vesper's love knot in the snow. - Certainly this film is not part two of Casino Royale, it is a film entry by itself. Trouble is, it did not do a decent enough job of establishing that. - To me, resolving Vesper's storyline left over from CR, is its only positive legacy. On the down side it creates the impression its a straight carry on of that story.

As a villain Greene is uninteresting, we learn nothing about Quantum worth knowing, the plot is too cryptic and complicated, Bond himself is out of character - a rebellious, cold killing machine, with M in the wings looking over his shoulder at every turn. (and location?!) The lack of any humour. - Not to mention gratuitous hit you on the head references to the previous films in the franchise. Dr No style dinner suit, Goldfinger death by body coating, even Quantum itself seems to be an ill defined shadow reprise of Spectre for the reboot era! Etc etc. - These ingredients a good Bond film do NOT make. - To me these are the Narrative flaws. Bond films should be setting standards for others to follow, not falling back on history, and also running on the spot!

I'd be the first to say the Bond films have ebbed and weaved over the decades. That's why the film series is still with us. - Compare the elements of Dr No with OHMSS, Moonraker, TWINE, and CR and you have films that are radically different in style and content. But for me, QoS is the first where I can say I went to see a Bond film at the cinema and came out confused and very disappointed.

- Twice.

Sir Miles · July 2011

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

To me whether a film is a financial success or not is not part of the equation of its quality. Its a question of whether I think its good or not.

I agree with you...but the film studios may not

)

And just because YOU think it's a good film does not make it so....but, again, I agree with the sentiment of your post.

Thunderbird2 wrote:

But for me, QoS is the first where I can say I went to see a Bond film at the cinema and came out confused and very disappointed.

- Twice.

Really ??? You enjoyed DAD ?:)

Napoleon Plural · July 2011

Sir Miles wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Come off it Sir Miles, a high box office take counts for not much, many go in and see it once simply because they liked its predecessor, CR. To be a big hit, you just have to get everyone in to see it once, they pay the same whether they liked it or not.

I'd argue CR was a success because of adhering to Fleming's writing, QoS represented a failure of nerve.

Nap, I expected far better from you....

A high box office take does count for a lot....and you know damn well it does....if the first Bond film hadn't done well at the box office, then there wouldn't have been a second...let alone another 21 !

And trying to get everyone in to see it once is easy ?:) You ask the makers of Green Lantern how they managed to get everyone in to see it once...oh no, you can't...because they didn't ! Perhaps not as easy as you think, eh ?

You really think the entire box office for QoS didn't include repeat business...???....and if the film was really THAT bad then word-of-mouth alone would have adversely affected the box office take....and it didn't....

Come on Nap - despite what people say - you ARE better than that

C'mon Sir Miles, you're going mad. It's as bad as highhopes in his darkest hour.

On that basis, TB is the best Bond movie hands down if you look at another thread based on admissions, it's streets ahead. Now I like TB, but its success is down to Bond fever and how brilliant GF was. Green Lantern didn't work because nobody got the concept or the franchise and it has no built-in audience, unlike Bond. And it got bad reviews. It is easy to get people in once to see a movie, if you have brand loyalty and a gimmick of sorts, or the last one in the series was good. (I'm thinking Spidey 3, or any of the Star Wars prequels) All which applied to QoS. For QoS to fail, it would have to have worked hard indeed.

Sir Miles · July 2011

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Come off it Sir Miles, a high box office take counts for not much, many go in and see it once simply because they liked its predecessor, CR. To be a big hit, you just have to get everyone in to see it once, they pay the same whether they liked it or not.

I'd argue CR was a success because of adhering to Fleming's writing, QoS represented a failure of nerve.

Nap, I expected far better from you....

A high box office take does count for a lot....and you know damn well it does....if the first Bond film hadn't done well at the box office, then there wouldn't have been a second...let alone another 21 !

And trying to get everyone in to see it once is easy ?:) You ask the makers of Green Lantern how they managed to get everyone in to see it once...oh no, you can't...because they didn't ! Perhaps not as easy as you think, eh ?

You really think the entire box office for QoS didn't include repeat business...???....and if the film was really THAT bad then word-of-mouth alone would have adversely affected the box office take....and it didn't....

Come on Nap - despite what people say - you ARE better than that

C'mon Sir Miles, you're going mad. It's as bad as highhopes in his darkest hour.

On that basis, TB is the best Bond movie hands down if you look at another thread based on admissions, it's streets ahead. Now I like TB, but its success is down to Bond fever and how brilliant GF was. Green Lantern didn't work because nobody got the concept or the franchise and it has no built-in audience, unlike Bond. And it got bad reviews. It is easy to get people in once to see a movie, if you have brand loyalty and a gimmick of sorts, or the last one in the series was good. (I'm thinking Spidey 3, or any of the Star Wars prequels) All which applied to QoS. For QoS to fail, it would have to have worked hard indeed.

Who said best box office equals best film ? I said that a films success can be measured by its box office return.
Keep clutching for those straws Nap

zaphod · July 2011

Sir Miles wrote:

zaphod wrote:

I agree that Box Office is a very poor criteria to fall back on, and is frankly beneath you to resort to it.

I can only assume that your comment is aimed at me...so....

Explain why box office take is "very poor criteria to fall back on"...?...it's what most of the studios use to measure success...

And why is it beneath me to resort to it ??? That phrase is normally trotted out by people whom cannot construct a decent counter-arguement....and, frankly, that's beneath you !

Really don't want to get into a spat with you, and my ' beneath you ' comment was intended asa compliment rather than a put down as I felt it fell short of your normally high standard of argument. It smacked of pique that's all, no offence intended. Of course Box office matters' but on the back of such a high profile success as CR QOS was almost bomb proof, despite at best mixed critical and fan reaction. I think 23 could suffer if early notices and vibes are anything less than euphoric. Personally I have a really good feeling about 23. There have been mutterings that EON, DC, & Forster have misgivings re the way QOS Panned out despite and not because of it's box office take. Maybe I should have elaborated along those lines in my earlier post so as not to cause offence. The great joy of this virtual space for me is the fact that we can and do debate so passionately about something that most of the world regards as fluff.

So, bygones?

Sir Miles · July 2011

zaphod wrote:

Really don't want to get into a spat with you, and my ' beneath you ' comment was intended asa compliment rather than a put down as I felt it fell short of your normally high standard of argument. It smacked of pique that's all, no offence intended. Of course Box office matters' but on the back of such a high profile success as CR QOS was almost bomb proof, despite at best mixed critical and fan reaction. I think 23 could suffer if early notices and vibes are anything less than euphoric. Personally I have a really good feeling about 23. There have been mutterings that EON, DC, & Forster have misgivings re the way QOS Panned out despite and not because of it's box office take. Maybe I should have elaborated along those lines in my earlier post so as not to cause offence. The great joy of this virtual space for me is the fact that we can and do debate so passionately about something that most of the world regards as fluff.

So, bygones?

No spat going on here....just a frank exchange of views (not THAT frank really)....it's great when people can 'argue' and still keep it civil....or just understand that different people have different views, and can live with that

So....

I honestly don't think many films (if any) are bomb proof...of course QoS would do good business...but QoS did exceptional business...even more remarkable when you consider the film really does split people...it's certainly the 'marmite' of the series...
...I've yet to read any mutterings from the people you mention that they were disappointed with QoS...any chance of some links from all these people/organisations to back this up please...?...

And no offence was taken...passions can (and do) run high at times...as long as we give each other a bit of slack for that...it's all fine by me -{

Thunderbird 2 · July 2011

Sir Miles wrote:

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

To me whether a film is a financial success or not is not part of the equation of its quality. Its a question of whether I think its good or not.

I agree with you...but the film studios may not )

And just because YOU think it's a good film does not make it so....but, again, I agree with the sentiment of your post.

Thunderbird2 wrote:

But for me, QoS is the first where I can say I went to see a Bond film at the cinema and came out confused and very disappointed.

- Twice.

Really ??? You enjoyed DAD ?:)

Oh I learned very quickly the only person who is qualified to critique a film (or any other art / media form) - is that individual themselves. Professional critics are just paid because they are very good at spouting what THEY think in professional terms! None of us are any different, except we have integrity - because we are not part of the press machine!

You will have to forgive me M - but although at the cinema I cringed at DAD, and only saw it at the cinema once, I have seen it on tv a few times and yes, I prefer it to QoS! DAD is over the top, far too much tech, Toby Stevens (poor man) is questionable casting as Graves, the film has a risible ending, - but its the Brosnan version of Diamonds or Moonraker. Not the best, but still watchable and in places quite enjoyable. - Plus Rosa Pike is entertaining as Frost! - The DVD commentary by Brosnan and Pike is entertaining and thoughtful.

As an aside, I agree with your Marmite analogy for QoS. Can't help but wonder how much money it made from all that product placement? - I wouldn't mind as much if I actually liked Sony phones, or Tom Ford suits!

Sir Miles · July 2011

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

You will have to forgive me M - but although at the cinema I cringed at DAD, and only saw it at the cinema once, I have seen it on tv a few times and yes, I prefer it to QoS! DAD is over the top, far too much tech, Toby Stevens (poor man) is questionable casting as Graves, the film has a risible ending, - but its the Brosnan version of Diamonds or Moonraker. Not the best, but still watchable and in places quite enjoyable. - Plus Rosa Pike is entertaining as Frost! - The DVD commentary by Brosnan and Pike is entertaining and thoughtful.

If you enjoyed DAD more than QoS...that's fine with me...you are obviously wrong...but I forgive you

)

Thunderbird2 wrote:

As an aside, I agree with your Marmite analogy for QoS. Can't help but wonder how much money it made from all that product placement? - I wouldn't mind as much if I actually liked Sony phones, or Tom Ford suits!

Isn't that money put towards the cost of making the film and not used as profits ?

I'm not over keen on Sony mobiles either...but I'd happily take a Tom Ford suit

77007 · September 2011

"Bond himself is out of character - a rebellious, cold killing machine,"

I don't see this much at all. M and other authorities in the film seem to think this, but we as the audience know more than they do. Mi6 seem to think Omg he's all pissed and killing people for revenge. When really Bond is doing what it takes to succeed. Like he says at the end he's just doing his job. Looking for info from people that end up dead. Following where that takes him and so on. All while gathering Greene/Quantum info along the way.

This behavior from Bond was already established in Casino Royale. Bond would see the mission through with or without the direct help or blessing from M or Mi6. People die around Bond all the time. I don't see him being out of character much at all. Bond has always been a rebel with a cause.

Mr Beech · September 2011

I knew it was direct continuation, I hadn't thought of it like the Harry Potter finale before. Those movies were stated by the director as one movie edited into two parts. If you were to watch Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2 by itself, it would seem rather low like it was taking you on a ride but one you didn't remember getting on and ready for. But if you have clear memory and know that it is the rest of the footage to finish the first part, then the Harry Potter finale is satisfying and emotional because Part1 gave the character development and emotion that you know it took to get to Part 2. Thinking of it like that, Quantum of Solace is even better to me. I liked it already, but now as the vengeful angry close of Casino Royale, it makes it more satisfying. It isn't the same thing as Casino Royale, but it relies on it to be its first and more developed half. Thus, two good films, but one incredible backstory in Casino Royale.

Quantum Of Solace=Casino Royale 2?

Comments