Quantum of Solace in Review

clublos wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys, that has to be the most intelligent and coherent post you've ever made (yes, I read a lot here and on cbn but don't post very often).

Agreed. It's a great rebuttal. It's the kind of inspired writing I would have expect myself to have written, which is why I had to look twice at it to make sure I wasn't the author. It perfectly and logically lays out one of the biggest flaws in the movie.

I would also add that the films don't work well together, especially when you consider that QOS is a direct sequel to CR and is supposed to have taken place an hour after the events of CR. Casino Royale ends with the viewer getting the impression that Bond got Mr.White's location off Vesper's phone and then immediately tracked him down to his lake-side villa. From there he puts Mr.White in the boot of the car and takes off. Yet QOS tells us that Mathis had been detained for weeks/months while MI6 'sweated' him and that he's been living in that island estate as compensation for being wrongly accused by MI6 ever since. That is a glaring plot hole that the film wisely doesn't dwell on, mostly because viewers have probably forgotten that point over the two years between CR and QOS.

I think the film is just too short, it moves too quickly, and the viewer simply has zero time to try and figure out what is going on, and as PrisonerMonkey's stated, Bond goes through 9 relationships to get to Greene, who was only tangentially responsible for Vesper's death in the first place, thereby undermining the revenge theme of the film.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So, who do we blame for this? Personally, I'd have to say it's Paul Haggis. Haggis was more interested in writing a political angle into the story, and clearly had no idea what he was doing with Mathis (he was a traitor, then he wasn't a traitor - again, no evidence was presented for this; at least P&W gave Bonda read to doubt him in the first place - then he was dead, and then he wasn't even Mathis, and then Bond fell out of a plane with no parachute and the audience had no time to process any of it).

Was Haggis interested in that?

The story Haggis was interested in telling with BOND 22 was kiboshed by EON. After that, he was just doing a rush job trying to connect bullet points given to him by Forster, who didn't like P&W's draft or Haggis' initial work.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I think the film is just too short, it moves too quickly, and the viewer simply has zero time to try and figure out what is going on, and as PrisonerMonkey's stated, Bond goes through 9 relationships to get to Greene, who was only tangentially responsible for Vesper's death in the first place, thereby undermining the revenge theme of the film.

I think EON got it right at the press conference announcing the film. They said that Bond was going out looking for answers, but everyone around him thought he was looking for revenge. And this holds true throughout the film - Bond never shows any indication that he actually wants revenge until he gets to Russia. He's been wrestling with the idea of it all through the film, but he never really settles on it one way or the other until he confronts Yusuf. The film makes a lot of sense if you keep this in mind.

However, when the media started reporting on QOS at the announcement, they dumbed "Bond goes out looking for answers, but everyone around him thinks he is out for revenge" down to "Bond goes out for revenge", and although EON tried to correct it to begin with, the dumbed-down version stuck and they never really made an effort to fix it. In that respect, QOS will probably go down as one of the most poorly-marketed films in the franchise, since everyone went in believing one fundamental element of the film was different to what was actually intended.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I think the film is just too short, it moves too quickly, and the viewer simply has zero time to try and figure out what is going on, and as PrisonerMonkey's stated, Bond goes through 9 relationships to get to Greene, who was only tangentially responsible for Vesper's death in the first place, thereby undermining the revenge theme of the film.

I think EON got it right at the press conference announcing the film. They said that Bond was going out looking for answers, but everyone around him thought he was looking for revenge. And this holds true throughout the film - Bond never shows any indication that he actually wants revenge until he gets to Russia. He's been wrestling with the idea of it all through the film, but he never really settles on it one way or the other until he confronts Yusuf. The film makes a lot of sense if you keep this in mind.

However, when the media started reporting on QOS at the announcement, they dumbed "Bond goes out looking for answers, but everyone around him thinks he is out for revenge" down to "Bond goes out for revenge", and although EON tried to correct it to begin with, the dumbed-down version stuck and they never really made an effort to fix it. In that respect, QOS will probably go down as one of the most poorly-marketed films in the franchise, since everyone went in believing one fundamental element of the film was different to what was actually intended.

So PM, but it has taken you this long to realise that Bond wasn't getting revenge? I sort of got that at my first viewing, and have been arguing it since...

No, I knew that from the first viewing, too. I'm just pointing out that EON failed to correct it when the media dumbed their comments down to the lowest common denominator.

Harmsway wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So, who do we blame for this? Personally, I'd have to say it's Paul Haggis. Haggis was more interested in writing a political angle into the story, and clearly had no idea what he was doing with Mathis (he was a traitor, then he wasn't a traitor - again, no evidence was presented for this; at least P&W gave Bonda read to doubt him in the first place - then he was dead, and then he wasn't even Mathis, and then Bond fell out of a plane with no parachute and the audience had no time to process any of it).

Was Haggis interested in that?

The story Haggis was interested in telling with BOND 22 was kiboshed by EON. After that, he was just doing a rush job trying to connect bullet points given to him by Forster, who didn't like P&W's draft or Haggis' initial work.

Yeah, the whole thing wouldn't have been as much of a hatchet job if EON had just put their foot down to Forster instead of sitting in awe of him. Everyone knew the writer's strike was coming, It was silly to let the director throw out both scripts (and at least one must've been workable, because if P&W don't produce drafts that could at least be filmed and not collossolly negatively received it beggars belief how they've now drafted more scripts than anyone but Maibaum) when they knew what was looming.

Harmsway wrote:

Was Haggis interested in that?

The infamous bar scene, with Bond criticising American imperialism (when he was always an unspoken proponent of British imperialism in the novels) seems to suggest as much. Not to mention the way that large parts of the plot - Greene manipulating Beam into supporting Medrano - seem to hinge on the CIA not being accountable for its actions, and everyone's willingness to trade with people they know cannot be trusted. Parts of the script reek of the same hand that wrote IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH: heavy-handed Hollywood liberalism by an armchair expert.

Still, if one good thing came out of the script, it was the way it demonstrated how good Purvis and Wade can be when they are given a bit of freedom. When Paul Haggis was announced as script doctor for CASINO ROYALE, I remember the way everyone credited "all the good bits" of the film to him. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE demonstrated just how self-absorbed Haggis could really be, particularly when it came to politics. It made me rethink CASINO ROYALE, and wonder if Purvis and Wade don't get enough credit for their abilities at times.

Vesper wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So, who do we blame for this? Personally, I'd have to say it's Paul Haggis. Haggis was more interested in writing a political angle into the story, and clearly had no idea what he was doing with Mathis (he was a traitor, then he wasn't a traitor - again, no evidence was presented for this; at least P&W gave Bonda read to doubt him in the first place - then he was dead, and then he wasn't even Mathis, and then Bond fell out of a plane with no parachute and the audience had no time to process any of it).

Was Haggis interested in that?

The story Haggis was interested in telling with BOND 22 was kiboshed by EON. After that, he was just doing a rush job trying to connect bullet points given to him by Forster, who didn't like P&W's draft or Haggis' initial work.

Yeah, the whole thing wouldn't have been as much of a hatchet job if EON had just put their foot down to Forster instead of sitting in awe of him. Everyone knew the writer's strike was coming, It was silly to let the director throw out both scripts (and at least one must've been workable, because if P&W don't produce drafts that could at least be filmed and not collossolly negatively received it beggars belief how they've now drafted more scripts than anyone but Maibaum) when they knew what was looming.

I know Haggis' story was about Bond searching for Vesper's child, I don't think even EON would have gone for that. Which leaves Purvis and Wade, I'm extremely curious about what they were aiming for because as far as I know NOTHING of their work made it into the final product. Odd that they even get credited at all unless it's a contract thing.

Purvis and Wade have a "Story by" credit, which means they wrote the full treatment, outlining what happens in the story and when.

They actually have a screenplay credit, they're not marginalized like Michael France's credit for GoldenEye.

Then I believe they turned in a script that Foster was unhappy with, so Haggis was drafted in to write a new one (he was originally supposed to be script doctor again). The basic story was retained, but the detail was all Haggis.

Then there was Joshua Zetumer brought in after Haggis turned in a bare bones script right before the strike.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Purvis and Wade have a "Story by" credit, which means they wrote the full treatment, outlining what happens in the story and when.

It can also mean that their screenplay influenced the story sufficiently enough to give them credit, but not enough details.

Haggis stated that there *was* a full script for BOND 22 when he came on board by P&W, but that Forster didn't like it at all.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The infamous bar scene, with Bond criticising American imperialism (when he was always an unspoken proponent of British imperialism in the novels) seems to suggest as much. Not to mention the way that large parts of the plot - Greene manipulating Beam into supporting Medrano - seem to hinge on the CIA not being accountable for its actions, and everyone's willingness to trade with people they know cannot be trusted. Parts of the script reek of the same hand that wrote IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH: heavy-handed Hollywood liberalism by an armchair expert.

Given Forster/Craig's extensive script doctoring, to say nothing of the later stuff by Zetumer, who knows whether that was Haggis' scene? You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Hell, Haggis stated that in his draft, there wasn't even an opera scene! Bond just snuck in and listened to a THUNDERBALL-style meeting of villains. A lot of stuff changed between Haggis' draft and the finished product.

Harmsway wrote:

Hell, Haggis stated that in his draft, there wasn't even an opera scene! Bond just snuck in and listened to a THUNDERBALL-style meeting of villains.

I think the end result was actually quite good, and if we have Foster to thank for changing that - and the story about Vesper having a child that Bond needed to protect - then the changes he made can't be all bad.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Hell, Haggis stated that in his draft, there wasn't even an opera scene! Bond just snuck in and listened to a THUNDERBALL-style meeting of villains.

I think the end result was actually quite good, and if we have Foster to thank for changing that - and the story about Vesper having a child that Bond needed to protect - then the changes he made can't be all bad.

Indeed imo the Opera scene is the only scene in the last 15years that evoked anything of what made the Bond films special, about the only sequence that encourages me to think some of the old magic is still attainable.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Hell, Haggis stated that in his draft, there wasn't even an opera scene! Bond just snuck in and listened to a THUNDERBALL-style meeting of villains.

I think the end result was actually quite good, and if we have Foster to thank for changing that - and the story about Vesper having a child that Bond needed to protect - then the changes he made can't be all bad.

Sure. But the political stuff might only partially belong to Haggis.

When I first watched QOS, I hated it. Although over many screenings my views have softened.
Still hate the shaky camera work and frantic editing, but I think Craig is good, love Arnold's score
and think Camille is Hot ( But in many ways under used )
   Thankfully for me  Most of the changes I was looking for, Happened with Skyfall.

So, I re-watched QOS yesterday, and there are a few things that I really liked:

- First, the MI6 set. I know, it took criticism, but I think it's supposed to. It's cold, clinical, and made up entirely of shapes too square to be anything but natural. It is its own little world, and I think that dovetails nicely with an intelligence agency that is inefficient, has fallen into a spiral of constant micro-management, and is unwilling to give its own operatives the freedom to make their own decisions, even when they are in the best position to make that decision. M wanted Bond to detain Slate for questioning, but if he had done so, he would have missed the opportunity to catch up to Camille.
- Matthieu Amalric. His character might have been weak, but he threw himself at it. It helps that he looks like a Bond villain to begin with. At the very least, he was better than Stromberg, Carver and Graves.
- The pacing of the action sequences. Whatever their problems with the editing (and I have noticed that the steadicam only happens when Bond's vehicle is hit), they're short and sweet and to the point. The PTS is four minutes long, which is about as long as it should be. It would have been easy to include another two Alfa 159s and extend the chase by another four minutes, and overstay its welcome.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So, I re-watched QOS yesterday, and there are a few things that I really liked:

- Matthieu Amalric. His character might have been weak, but he threw himself at it. It helps that he looks like a Bond villain to begin with. At the very least, he was better than Stromberg, Carver and Graves.
- The pacing of the action sequences. Whatever their problems with the editing (and I have noticed that the steadicam only happens when Bond's vehicle is hit), they're short and sweet and to the point. The PTS is four minutes long, which is about as long as it should be. It would have been easy to include another two Alfa 159s and extend the chase by another four minutes, and overstay its welcome.

I'd certain agree with these two, Pacing in Bond has always been one of its more problematic aspects (acutely so in the case of Martin Campbell) and coupled with the modern edict to extend and overegg every action set piece the film's often end up feeling disjointed as a result (CR actually feels like two opposing films in collision imo)....while I am sometimes underwhelmed by what is going on in QoS it does compensate to a degree by feeling organic and connected in moving you forward.

Interesting… I find GE breezes through, and QOS (esp. the last few viewings) tends to drag a little bit more.

Blast from the past:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

Quote :

Here's what each word of the subtitle means:

   Quantum: Noun

       1. A discrete amount of something that is analogous to the quantities in quantum theory.

   Solace: Noun

       1. The comfort you feel when consoled in times of sadness or misery.

So the title literally translates to "James Bond: A discrete amount of comfort felt when consoled during a time of sadness." In the final scene of the movie, James Bond finally catches some dude he was chasing for revenge, and then Bond (Daniel Craig) shows off his acting chops by showing the tiniest glimmer of a smirk, an almost infinitesimally small, but measurable amount of consolation. It's hard to describe how incomprehensibly stupid this scene was with mere words, so here's what it looked like:


A literal quantum of solace.