• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dear god Quantum of Solace is so boring

Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Captain Craig said:
QoS did good because like most sequels its BOX was showing the confidence and overall enjoyment most still felt about Royale. You'll see a likely good drop for Bond 23 cause even more feel let down by QoS. That is why the CraignotBond folks will be having the last laugh.
Click to expand...

So what'll be your excuse when the next Bond movie makes more than $500 million worldwide, which it most certainly will? And how many Bond movies have to make more than $500 million before you admit that the CraigNotBond guys were wrong?
Click to expand...

Hey Transformers 2 has made over $300m US domestic, doesn't mean its a quality film. Craig's James Bond isn't quality either and QoS proves that. Posters on this very board are even coming around that Royale doesn't hold up on repeated viewings. More fans see that. Could the next one flop? I doubt it but it could make much less. Less enough to show the studio that fans have soured to this direction and Craig as Bond.

If the next one makes over $500m WW it'll be cause the international market picks up the slack. Bond did not grow its US audience by any significant margin and I see the brand as on the downside for the next one here.
 
Broccoli said:
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Captain Craig said:
You'll see a likely good drop for Bond 23 cause even more feel let down by QoS. That is why the CraignotBond folks will be having the last laugh.
Click to expand...

The idea that the next Bond film will bomb or even make significantly less money than Quantum of Solace is just plain silly. The CraigNotBond nutters can laugh all they want, meanwhile the studio and the filmmakers will be laughing themselves all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

What L2D said.

QoS has certainly divided the fanbase, but if the movie intake does drop for Bond 23, I doubt very much that the movie will flop. We are talking about James Bond here. Even the bad ones and the ones after the bad ones do great Box Office. If B23 is a good movie liked by many with good reviews, it'll have lasting power, like CR did after much distained Die Another Day (though, I personally liked it).
Click to expand...
I agree with you on your last point, but it is important to note that even though it got good reviews and shows the bounce-back power, they added a new Bond which I would imagine definitely helped the initial surge of the movie since people were anxious to see how Craig did.

With Craig still on for 23 it's going to have to be hitting it out of the park with reviews. Hope Martin Campbell is back for that one then.
 
SlyCardie said:
Broccoli said:
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
The idea that the next Bond film will bomb or even make significantly less money than Quantum of Solace is just plain silly. The CraigNotBond nutters can laugh all they want, meanwhile the studio and the filmmakers will be laughing themselves all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

What L2D said.

QoS has certainly divided the fanbase, but if the movie intake does drop for Bond 23, I doubt very much that the movie will flop. We are talking about James Bond here. Even the bad ones and the ones after the bad ones do great Box Office. If B23 is a good movie liked by many with good reviews, it'll have lasting power, like CR did after much distained Die Another Day (though, I personally liked it).
Click to expand...
I agree with you on your last point, but it is important to note that even though it got good reviews and shows the bounce-back power, they added a new Bond which I would imagine definitely helped the initial surge of the movie since people were anxious to see how Craig did.

With Craig still on for 23 it's going to have to be hitting it out of the park with reviews. Hope Martin Campbell is back for that one then.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you that (the new Bond thing). Interestingly, the thing that I notice from many of the reviews I read, while people were disappointed with the storyline of QoS, they kept praising Craig as Bond.

Out of curiosity, how well, money-wise did TWINE and DAD do when compared to the movie preceding them? If memory serves, TND and TWINE got mixed reviews.
 
I have no problem with this version of James Bond. With every new actor comes a new, fresh take. The Sean Connery films were serious entertainment (at least the early ones), the Roger Moore films were campy fun, the Dalton films were gritty and tough, the Brosnan films were less gritty, but still serious with a tinge of Moore's witty fun. The Craig films are more in the vein of Dalton's films, with the Ian Fleming style of noir mixed in. I would say though that Craig's films are far more character-oriented than any other iteration of Bond; it seems the filmmakers are much more interested in exploring who Bond is as a person.
 
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Broccoli said:
Out of curiosity, how well, money-wise did TWINE and DAD do when compared to the movie preceding them? If memory serves, TND and TWINE got mixed reviews.
Click to expand...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

According to that chart, the last Bond movie to earn less than its predecessor at the US box office was License to Kill. Grosses for the Brosnan movies only went up as the series continued.
Click to expand...

Is that adjusted for inflation?

In any event, even if QoS was disappointing, it doesn't necessarily mean the next one will drop.

But does it really even matter? At this point in the series, James Bond will always return.
 
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Broccoli said:
Out of curiosity, how well, money-wise did TWINE and DAD do when compared to the movie preceding them? If memory serves, TND and TWINE got mixed reviews.
Click to expand...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

According to that chart, the last Bond movie to earn less than its predecessor at the US box office was License to Kill. Grosses for the Brosnan movies only went up as the series continued.
Click to expand...
On the subject of money, I couldn't believe it when I looked at the-numbers.com's list of the most expensive films ever made and saw that QoS was at #5 with a $230 million budget. WTF? Obviously, budget figures always have to be taken with a pinch of salt (they're invariably suspiciously well-rounded, for a start), but how could it possibly be that high? It's more than double Casino Royale's $102m budget, and even outdoes the previous most-expensive Bond, Die Another Day ($142m).

IMDb lists a lower number, but it's still $200m. What on earth did they spend all that money on? There were no mega-sets, the action sequences were no bigger than in any earlier Bond movie, it wasn't wall to wall visual effects... and it definitely didn't go on the script. ;)
 
I find GoldenEye overrated, because it had a script that was almost as stupid as Die Another Day's and had several non sequinters, but that was the script, however the directing, action scenes, and casting on the other hand...
 
payndz201 said:
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Broccoli said:
Out of curiosity, how well, money-wise did TWINE and DAD do when compared to the movie preceding them? If memory serves, TND and TWINE got mixed reviews.
Click to expand...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

According to that chart, the last Bond movie to earn less than its predecessor at the US box office was License to Kill. Grosses for the Brosnan movies only went up as the series continued.
Click to expand...
On the subject of money, I couldn't believe it when I looked at the-numbers.com's list of the most expensive films ever made and saw that QoS was at #5 with a $230 million budget. WTF? Obviously, budget figures always have to be taken with a pinch of salt (they're invariably suspiciously well-rounded, for a start), but how could it possibly be that high? It's more than double Casino Royale's $102m budget, and even outdoes the previous most-expensive Bond, Die Another Day ($142m).

IMDb lists a lower number, but it's still $200m. What on earth did they spend all that money on? There were no mega-sets, the action sequences were no bigger than in any earlier Bond movie, it wasn't wall to wall visual effects... and it definitely didn't go on the script. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow...that's really high. Especially since it is double that of CR. Has there been any other movie that has had a sequel with a doubled-sized budget?
 
Strawberry Fields is horribly underused. She fit the bill of the classic Bond girl,right down to the clever name.


Camille was garbage and I hate to say it about a fellow Ukrainian who is one of my favourite actresses but she wasn't Bond Girl material, imo.


Casino Royale was awesome when I first saw it in theatre but it has been on TV a few times and I haven't been able to watch it again. I was actually bored.


Either way, Sean Connery is the greatest actor to ever live, kthanx.
 
payndz201 said:
Level 2 Diagnostic said:
Broccoli said:
Out of curiosity, how well, money-wise did TWINE and DAD do when compared to the movie preceding them? If memory serves, TND and TWINE got mixed reviews.
Click to expand...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

According to that chart, the last Bond movie to earn less than its predecessor at the US box office was License to Kill. Grosses for the Brosnan movies only went up as the series continued.
Click to expand...
On the subject of money, I couldn't believe it when I looked at the-numbers.com's list of the most expensive films ever made and saw that QoS was at #5 with a $230 million budget. WTF? Obviously, budget figures always have to be taken with a pinch of salt (they're invariably suspiciously well-rounded, for a start), but how could it possibly be that high? It's more than double Casino Royale's $102m budget, and even outdoes the previous most-expensive Bond, Die Another Day ($142m).

IMDb lists a lower number, but it's still $200m. What on earth did they spend all that money on? There were no mega-sets, the action sequences were no bigger than in any earlier Bond movie, it wasn't wall to wall visual effects... and it definitely didn't go on the script. ;)
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, it was because of the ridiculously extensive location shooting. There were very few sets in the film, it seemed -- the hotel in the desert at the end, the cave that Bond and Camille land in after they bail out of the plane, the traitor's apartment, MI6. Almost everything else, as I recall, was on-location shooting.

Also, if action sequences took longer to shoot because of Forster's inexperience with such filming, that could easily contribute to cost increases, as well.
 
I have seen every movie in this series multiple times, and I can say that I was generally uninterested in QoS as the movie went on. The writing was just putrid, and the pacing was even worse. I swear that the writers threw out everything good that they did with CR, because QoS had nothing in common with its predecessor (besides some plot points).

One of the telling things (which we can see already in this thread) is how much of the movie people actually remember. All of the good Bond movies have memorable scenes/characters/moments that we still think about. I can't think of one instance in QoS where I could say 'I'll remember this for some time', except maybe the opening. The villains were bland and inconsequential, along with the side characters and the 'Bond girls'. The fact that the producers hired the stunt coordinator who did the 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies showed to me that they are a little too enthralled with the Bourne series. Honestly, all of the 3 Bourne movies were far better than QoS.

I've already voiced my dissatisfaction with the plot on this board in the past, and most of it has already been covered in the thread. I don't know why they insisted on this film being so short, but I believe it hurt in the end.
 
Incidentally, an amusing little fact I read (I think it was in an article from American Cinematographer or a similar trade journal) was that in the opening car chase, there were originally three cars pursuing Bond, and Forster for some reason later decided to cut it down to two. Which means that any shot where three Alfas were visible either had to be discarded or cut down. No wonder that sequence was so choppy!
 
What Craig's films definetly need are better villains IMO. So far we've had two kind of second bananas that Bond didn't even finish off, but were killed by Quantum instead.

Plus the henchmen haven't been that memorable either. Mr.White's OK but was underused in both films.



Villains were a problem with Dalton's films too. Out of LIVING DAYLIGHTS only Necros is a real threat, Whitaker and Koskov seem more like comic relief than anything. LICENSE TO KILL showed some improvement in that department, though, although the villains were more down-to-earth than previous Bond baddies.


For all the criticism about Brosnan, he did have some decent villains.
 
If you want to see what happens when a franchise takes the humor out of a movie, look no further than Quantum of Suckatude and Terminator Salvation. It's not pretty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top