Sorry. I just hate Quantum of Solace so much that it drives me to utter incomprehensibility.
What's up with the next James Bond movie?
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Sorry. I just hate Quantum of Solace so much that it drives me to utter incomprehensibility.
Nice analysis.
I would argue that the Dalton films suffered not only from not only being viewed as generic action films; but being viewed generic action films in what has to be the height of generic action films. The cineplex and growing video market at that time was bulging with them in numbers we haven't seen since. In that environment a stripped down Bond was bound to suffer with nothing to set it apart. The Dalton films, while good, were not good enough to rise above the competing noise.
CR and QoS were not films fighting in the same market place. Shedding Bond of some of the more cumbersome elements did not leave them to be compared to other generic action films - in part because generic action films no longer litter the screens - but largely because CR and QoS are strong films even without traditional Bond elements.
I like CR and QoS a great deal. I also feel a lighter tone and introducing some of the more traditional Bond elements won't hurt, if done with great restraint. The problem with Bond films is they pile on these elements and more and more trying to top what came before, and soon you have invisible cars and ice palaces. If they can avoid those urges toward excess, we can get a recognizable and grounded Bond.
Otherwise, 12 years from now, they'll be stripping it down all over again.
How about Sean Connery as M? That would be awesome.
Only in a fanwanky fanboy way
In the States, yes (as with your post, this is all IIRC). In the UK it was one of the more successful Bonds at the box office (possibly because in the UK it opened ahead of some of the 1989 summer releases which it went head-to-head with in the States - Indy 3, Ghostbusters 2, Trek V, Batman...).
I recall that seemed ironic at the time, as a lot of the British reviews of LtK said things like, "It's not a Bond film, it's an action movie aimed at the Americans who like Miami Vice..." Yet if flopped in the US and did well in the UK.
TheArsenal said:
I should probably have been a little more precise in my previous post. When I said that QOS was criticised as being a generic action movie, I should probably have said it was criticised for being an action movie that wasn't actually a Bond movie. I think the consensus was it was a good action movie - but a lot of critics and fans felt that it wasn't like a James Bond movie. 'Generic' perhaps implied that it could have been any big dumb action movie - it was never going to be that with people like Marc Foster or Paul Haggis involved.
Not sure that I'd necessarily agree with you that generic action movies no longer litter the screens - how else are Brett Ratner, Michael Bay, Len Wiseman etc making a living? And there are still plenty of good action movies about - the Bourne series, the recent Batmans (ironically, TDK, which opened in the same year as QOS knocked the 1989 movie into a tin hat, but its success didn't detract from this year's Bond movie), etc, etc. You're probably right to some extent though - a lot of the sort of dreck that would have opened in cinemas in 1989 now go direct to DVD.
I think it also has to be acknowledged that QOS is a much better movie than LTK - LTK took some chances with the formula but the script wasn't as good as QOS and its journeyman director John Glen was always a rather dull and uninspiring helmsman.
Furthermore, Quantum of Solace actually faced competition thinned by the writers strike. I wonder how well it would have done had it actually gone head to head with Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince and Star Trek XI as originally planned. But then, even something as awful as Die Another Day thrived amidst the competition of Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
^ Interesting point. Wasn't Star Trek Nemesis also up against DAD and Potter & The Chamber of Secrets? Wonder how Trek v Bond & other franchises would have panned out third time around, had the original releases gone to plan.
I always thought that cinema-wise 2008 was a bit like 1989 all over again, with both featuring a much hyped Batman movie featuring a must see performance as The Joker, both having a gritty, grim Bond movie and both featuring an Indiana Jones movie with a father-son relationship. Throw a Trek movie in and it would have been total deja-vu all over again!
I always thought that cinema-wise 2008 was a bit like 1989 all over again, with both featuring a much hyped Batman movie featuring a must see performance as The Joker, both having a gritty, grim Bond movie and both featuring an Indiana Jones movie with a father-son relationship. Throw a Trek movie in and it would have been total deja-vu all over again!
All that has happened before will happen again............
Wait 20 years and a new Batman and new Star trek movie will be out again......again.....again......
Set the next one in between one of the adventures like Goldfinger and Thunderball. Or even between the years of Connery and Moore. In fact what if they made films that connect with each of the series that was in between Moore and Dalton, & Daltain and Brosnan? In those eras, you could get into things like gadgets, one liners, and other Bondery without running into continuity problems. So technically, the Craig era could be the Prequel/Sequal era. If that makes any sense.
D&D came out a month prior (November 22 IIRC). Harry Potter replaced it in the box office then Maid in Manhattan (which opened the same weekend as Nemesis) after that. Then came the juggernaut LOTR: TTT.
Potter and Bond opened a month before LOTR (Potter on 11/15/02, Bond on 11/22, LOTR on 12/18), so they'd already made the bulk of their money by then. Bond was #4 and Potter #6 the weekend Star Trek: Nemesis opened at #2 (12/13-15/02). The subsequent weekend, NEM, Potter and Bond were #8, 9, and 10 respectively.
They do that anyway. Every so often a Bond movie goes over the top, and the next one brings it back down to earth. Moonraker begat For Your Eyes Only, which was probably the closest to a traditional Cold War story they'd done since From Russia With Love. Die Another Day of course begat Casino Royale. And to a certain degree, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was a reaction to You Only Live Twice (followed by the counterreaction of Diamonds Are Forever, which not only brought back the gadgets, but was only slightly less campy than the '60s Batman show).
I like Craig, though, and I hope they can keep him in the role for a while, and come up with some better stories. Quantum was okay, but only when viewed side-by-side with Casino. By itself it's a nearly incoherent mess of explosions and chases.
I just got the QOS dvd. Maybe it was my audio system or something but I could not understand half of what is said especially Mathis's death speech and Camille's wimpering as the flames close in on her and Bond.
The CGI paracuate jump was okay but I could still tell it was CGI. I thought the short running time would hamper the movie but it was okay.
The CGI paracuate jump was okay but I could still tell it was CGI. I thought the short running time would hamper the movie but it was okay.
The run time seemed OK. I do think the next movie needs a little more glamor and humor, though.
One thing I do like about QoS is the motivation of the villain. It was significant, but not over the top (it also wasn't completely obvious. We thought it was one thing and it turned out to be something else).
One thing I do like about QoS is the motivation of the villain. It was significant, but not over the top (it also wasn't completely obvious. We thought it was one thing and it turned out to be something else).
Great minds, and all that ...
I don't know why everybody says QoS doesn't have any humor. A few scenes had me laughing, like "Is she your mother?"
"She likes to think she is."
Granted the lines aren't cheesy-Schwarzenegger-wannabe one-liners, but I thought they were amusing enough.
I also read that Craig wanted the next one to be lighter and to have Moneypenny and Q in them, and I started wondering who they would cast. I liked John Cleese as Q's assistant R, but I thought he was a pretty poor Q. So, I kinda hope they recast him. The first name that popped into my head was Ricky Gervais. I'm not too sure about Moneypenny, though (I wonder if Kylie Monogue would be good?).
"She likes to think she is."
Granted the lines aren't cheesy-Schwarzenegger-wannabe one-liners, but I thought they were amusing enough.
I also read that Craig wanted the next one to be lighter and to have Moneypenny and Q in them, and I started wondering who they would cast. I liked John Cleese as Q's assistant R, but I thought he was a pretty poor Q. So, I kinda hope they recast him. The first name that popped into my head was Ricky Gervais. I'm not too sure about Moneypenny, though (I wonder if Kylie Monogue would be good?).
^I've suggested either Michael Caine or Christopher Eccleston as the new Q. (Although, I wonder if John deLancie can affect a sufficient English accent.
)
In that respect, I thought it was obvious. No use trying to surprise us if you're constantly tipping us off that you're trying to surprise us.
)In that respect, I thought it was obvious. No use trying to surprise us if you're constantly tipping us off that you're trying to surprise us.
Well, the short time length made me think they wouldn't have time for a twist (and wouldn't be creative enough either). So I was pleasantly surprised.
