Is Quantum Of Solace the worst ever James Bond film?

[Bond's ghost]

Hiding by crouching down behind an invisible car works how?

[katied]

It really was a low point gadget-wise

[FelixLeiterRocks]

I just watched Die Another Day for the first time.

All you Craig haters need to just take that in before you hate on QOS.

DAD is a movie that Cubby would have been proud of. There area parts of it I'd change but the main one is not Brozza.
That is tired overplayed company talking point. It came up only after Craig was cast and the SDF (Sony Defense Force) needed an angle.
If you think that movie (DAD) was so bad that things had to change your talking out of your ass mate.

Yeah DAD was that bad. I can't say if it's the worst, but it's up there, and QOS is a masterpiece by comparison, and I have been very honest in saying QOS had problems.

First off, you can't be a good Bond film and be a bad movie. DAD is a horrible movie that was met with horrible reviews. As much as people complain about the Craig movies being a reaction to Bourne and 24, DAD is a reaction to high paced Hong Kong action flicks and ultra CGI action movies like the Matrix. There's nothing to be proud of about that movie because it's a bad movie. They put in all the hommages to the old movies, just for the sake of putting them in, not to make a good story.

I'll give you Brosnan, because I always though he was a good Bond, mired by mediocre writing and horrible directors. He was good in Goldeneye. I will even say that the way they treated Pierce was shameful, by dragging him along. They should have told him right out they were going in another direction.

Not all things last forever eventually Pierce was going to be replaced. Sure I would have liked to have seen him do a couple of more films, but not Casino Royale. I cannot immagine him doing Bond in that movie. That movie was balls to the walls and the only person I could have seen doing it other than Craig is a young Sean Connery.

[katied]

Yeah DAD was that bad. I can't say if it's the worst, but it's up there, and QOS is a masterpiece by comparison, and I have been very honest in saying QOS had problems

Yes, it did. Though I was surpised at how much I liked QOS despite all the flaws

First off, you can't be a good Bond film and be a bad movie. DAD is a horrible movie that was met with horrible reviews. As much as people complain about the Craig movies being a reaction to Bourne and 24, DAD is a reaction to high paced Hong Kong action flicks and ultra CGI action movies like the Matrix. There's nothing to be proud of about that movie because it's a bad movie. They put in all the hommages to the old movies, just for the sake of putting them in, not to make a good story.

The "Bourne lite" stuff in QOS was better than Tamahori's ham handed attempt at making a HK style action movie

I'll give you Brosnan, because I always though he was a good Bond, mired by mediocre writing and horrible directors. He was good in Goldeneye. I will even say that the way they treated Pierce was shameful, by dragging him along. They should have told him right out they were going in another direction.

Yeah.EON screwed Pierce over. Among EON's many screwups

Not all things last forever eventually Pierce was going to be replaced. Sure I would have liked to have seen him do a couple of more films, but not Casino Royale. I cannot immagine him doing Bond in that movie. That movie was balls to the walls and the only person I could have seen doing it other than Craig is a young Sean Connery.

Pierce couldn't have done CR. It's true.

[wrenchhands]

I just watched Die Another Day for the first time.

All you Craig haters need to just take that in before you hate on QOS.

DAD is a movie that Cubby would have been proud of. There area parts of it I'd change but the main one is not Brozza.
That is tired overplayed company talking point. It came up only after Craig was cast and the SDF (Sony Defense Force) needed an angle.
If you think that movie (DAD) was so bad that things had to change your talking out of your ass mate.

Talking point? I watched it myself. Halle Barry is terrible. There was a pun overload. I can deal with invisible cars, what I can't deal with is an invisible car sneaking up on people, as if it was tip-toeing. I don't care what Cubby thinks, he isn't financing private movies for his own entertainment, he's in a business.

As for Pierce, he was in 4 Bond films, and was 49 when DAD was filmed. Not a bad run, especially considering how close to dead Bond was between 89 and 95. For kids of the 90's like me, he'll always be the face of Bond, especially if you consider Goldeneye the game.

But 4 films is a good enough streak. (Could we have lived without YOLT, DAF, Octopussy or AVTAK? Yes) He had enough chances to not make a craptastic movie, instead, he made the MOST over the top movie. Which I can appreciate it, but how do you top it? You don't. And that's why I'm glad we moved on and tried something new.

I'm gonna have to rewatch TND and TWINE.

[Kristatos]

I don't care what Cubby thinks, he isn't financing private movies for his own entertainment, he's in a business.

If QOS makes less money than DAD, watch this argument suddenly fly out of the window. You heard it here first, folks.

[Mazer Rackham]

Yeah DAD was that bad. I can't say if it's the worst, but it's up there, and QOS is a masterpiece by comparison, and I have been very honest in saying QOS had problems.

First off, you can't be a good Bond film and be a bad movie. DAD is a horrible movie that was met with horrible reviews. As much as people complain about the Craig movies being a reaction to Bourne and 24, DAD is a reaction to high paced Hong Kong action flicks and ultra CGI action movies like the Matrix. There's nothing to be proud of about that movie because it's a bad movie. They put in all the hommages to the old movies, just for the sake of putting them in, not to make a good story.

Hum, put Homages in not for the sake of the story, sounds damned familiar. Both in CR but especially in Quark.
"First off, you can't be a good Bond film and be a bad movie."
There used to be a standard of what met a Bond film, so yes there were good bond films and bad movies even when Connery was doing them.
Quark is bad a Bond movie (hands down the worst) and bad movie. CR was a bad Bond and good movie (to some. To me if it wasn't a Bond movie, which it wasn't, not really. Then it was slow paced poker match with a stupid plot and uncharismatic lead).

Quark gets hit hard for forgetting it was supposed to be a Bond movie. Why? By your standard there is no such thing only good or bad movies. By that standard Quark also fails because it is a dismal failure as a action movie.

DAD got decent reviews at the time not great but decent and the word of mouth was much better than Quarks.
Dad had plenty of

Code: Select all

Bond is back with a bang!
this Bond will leave you both shaken and stirred.
A good solid entry in the Bond series
Delivering on every count, Die Another Day is one of the best Bond films ever
The kick in the pants the Bond franchise so desperately needs.
Welcome back, 007. It's about bloody time.
If anything, Die Another Day shows that Brosnan makes a good Bond.
Brosnan is more feral in this film than I’ve seen him before

I don't agree with all of the fluff, most of the critics seem to recycle the same catch phrases over and over. While DAD did have Bad reviews at the time, more came after the fact once Craig was cast, becasue there was no reason to for Craig or a reboot so one had to be invented.
Compared to some of the outrageous Connery and Moore entires, DAD was down to earth.
Personally I'd have fired the writers after reading the scripts second half becasue the first half was d**n near perfect. Even the use of Korea was a good move. The gene therapy shouldn't have been done. The invisible car was what people expected and one audiences responded very well to it. Still do.
Sadly Berry wasn't need neither was a NSA protagonists. Interesting how they recycled that idea in Quark more or less. Also Berry's Jinx still scores higher than any of the other recent Bond girls in polling.

I'll give you Brosnan, because I always though he was a good Bond, mired by mediocre writing and horrible directors. He was good in Goldeneye. I will even say that the way they treated Pierce was shameful, by dragging him along. They should have told him right out they were going in another direction.

Not all things last forever eventually Pierce was going to be replaced. Sure I would have liked to have seen him do a couple of more films, but not Casino Royale. I cannot immagine him doing Bond in that movie. That movie was balls to the walls and the only person I could have seen doing it other than Craig is a young Sean Connery.

Code: Select all

If anything, Die Another Day shows that Brosnan makes a good Bond.
Brosnan is more feral in this film than I’ve seen him before

These two quotes I do agree with. I remember hearing lot of remarks about Brosnan's feral Bond at the time of DAD. Why is this important, we'll get to that.

You'll be surprised to learn that CR was basically Brozzas idea. Brozza also had complaints about DAD and he wanted to make CR a bloodier more balls to the wall basic Bond movie. Since Bond was not a agent beginning his career in CR there was not reason not to have Brozza make it. Not after making so many of the movies out of order of the books.
you say you can't imagine Brozza in CR its only becasue you haven't tried. The feral Bond he was able to pull off in DAD and the darker characters he has done show he could have easily brought a lot more to the role, if they had let him.

Personally I think Eon screwed the pooch with CR story they way they did it. They striped it to the bones and then threw a ton of clay from a Vin Diesel vehicle to supplement the meat they took away from it.
CR still has yet to be done in decent manner. It is a very warm story with a lot of excellent trappings which were never used in the 3 versions of it.

[Mazer Rackham]

Talking point? I watched it myself. Halle Barry is terrible. There was a pun overload. I can deal with invisible cars, what I can't deal with is an invisible car sneaking up on people, as if it was tip-toeing. I don't care what Cubby thinks, he isn't financing private movies for his own entertainment, he's in a business.

As for Pierce, he was in 4 Bond films, and was 49 when DAD was filmed. Not a bad run, especially considering how close to dead Bond was between 89 and 95. For kids of the 90's like me, he'll always be the face of Bond, especially if you consider Goldeneye the game.

But 4 films is a good enough streak. (Could we have lived without YOLT, DAF, Octopussy or AVTAK? Yes) He had enough chances to not make a craptastic movie, instead, he made the MOST over the top movie. Which I can appreciate it, but how do you top it? You don't. And that's why I'm glad we moved on and tried something new.

I'm gonna have to rewatch TND and TWINE.

Same wornout talkingpoint the studios came up with to justify Craig, if you use it the same way the studio did, yep you going to be lumped in with a talking point crowd.

I don't care what Cubby thinks, he isn't financing private movies for his own entertainment, he's in a business.

If QOS makes less money than DAD, watch this argument suddenly fly out of the window. You heard it here first, folks.

[wrenchhands]

You can slander my opinion, but this isn't the winter of 2006, CR did great, sold well, and was a solid movie with Craig as a solid bond. DAD was corny and over the top, and I'm glad there was a change.

As for Brosnan, maybe he could have done CR great. Again, this isn't 2006, he isn't Bond anymore and Craig is. Done and done. He'll be close to 60 by the time Craig is out. It sucks imagining what could have been, but you are gonna have to bide your time and open your mind. That's your choices right now.

And QOS is making more money than DAD, and it isn't even a month old.

[Kristatos]

And QOS is making more money than DAD, and it isn't even a month old.

Not according to the figures Sweeney posted. Die Another Day made $546.5 million in 2008 dollars, while QOS's current worldwide total on Box Office Mojo is $492,071,523 (and losing steam fast).

[Mazer Rackham]

And QOS is making more money than DAD, and it isn't even a month old.

Not according to the figures Sweeney posted. Die Another Day made $546.5 million in 2008 dollars, while QOS's current worldwide total on Box Office Mojo is $492,071,523 (and losing steam fast).

Actually DAD did better than that. In the US alone it was a 196m film.

[Mazer Rackham]

You can slander my opinion, but this isn't the winter of 2006, CR did great, sold well, and was a solid movie with Craig as a solid bond. DAD was corny and over the top, and I'm glad there was a change.

As for Brosnan, maybe he could have done CR great. Again, this isn't 2006, he isn't Bond anymore and Craig is. Done and done. He'll be close to 60 by the time Craig is out. It sucks imagining what could have been, but you are gonna have to bide your time and open your mind. That's your choices right now.

slander you opinon? What the f**k! You follow the talkingpoints precisely and then accuse those not agreeing with the pabulum you swallowed as slandering you. All this after "not wanting to start a flame war" then lighting matches and pouring gasoline

CR only did 75m more than DAD adjusted to 2006 numbers, considering the 4 years of time and the expansion of the market it wasn't and isn't that impressive.
CR is poor telling of the book's story, also CR was hindered with Craig's inability to play Bond, becasue of that limitation he had to have the stunted character of a beginning Bond as crutch


So in you opinion I either love Craig or I'm not a Bond Fan?
Apparently to your mind just because someone is cast in role that makes automatically makes them Bond. I'm sure Hulk Hogan would have been grateful for your support had he got the role.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

And QOS is making more money than DAD, and it isn't even a month old.

Not according to the figures Sweeney posted. Die Another Day made $546.5 million in 2008 dollars, while QOS's current worldwide total on Box Office Mojo is $492,071,523 (and losing steam fast).

Actually DAD did better than that. In the US alone it was a 196m film.

No it was 142 million domestic, 432 million world wide. QOS has so far made 151 million domestic and 492 million world wide.

[Kristatos]

No it was 142 million domestic, 432 million world wide. QOS has so far made 151 million domestic and 492 million world wide.

Ah you must be using unadjusted figures - a convenient way to tilt the playing field in order to favour more recent releases.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Apparently to your mind just because someone is cast in role that makes automatically makes them Bond. I'm sure Hulk Hogan would have been grateful for your support had he got the role.

I reall don't have anything to say for the rest of your comment, because it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However this is the biggest straw man argument you've thrown out there. The equivalence of Hulk Hogan and Daniel Craig is beyond rediculous and if you really want to have an intelligent conversation about this, then I suggest you stop making rediculous analogies.

I respect that most on this site don't like Craig's Bond. That's fine, I happen to think he's brilliant in the roll. He may not fit all of the physical attributes that previous Bond actors have, that does not mean I'd accept anyone in the roll. Michael Keaton wasn't exactly a perfect fit for Batman, but with his acting skills he was one of the best actors to play him.

[wrenchhands]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

The fact is, we've never had linking bond films like CR/QOS. We've never seen such a dark/serious Bond. (Even LTK, LD and OHMSS we're pretty freaking upbeat).

I just hope Daniel Craig and company get to pursue their vision of Bond for 1 or 2 more films, and then we can go back to zany "Use the gadget at just the right moment before he sleeps with whatever hot girl of the moment" Bond. It's time for something new. No gadgets? Fine. No corny sex scene? Fine. Let Bond be a spy and the agent of force he can be.

And yes, your only options are to bide your time or open your mind. I never said you have to love Craig, just saying that this is Bond right now, and you are gonna have to deal with it until this pictures become financially un-viable.

I for one am glad they are trying something new, even if QOS was no CR.

[katied]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

The fact is, we've never had linking bond films like CR/QOS. We've never seen such a dark/serious Bond. (Even LTK, LD and OHMSS we're pretty freaking upbeat).

I just hope Daniel Craig and company get to pursue their vision of Bond for 1 or 2 more films, and then we can go back to zany "Use the gadget at just the right moment before he sleeps with whatever hot girl of the moment" Bond. It's time for something new. No gadgets? Fine. No corny sex scene? Fine. Let Bond be a spy and the agent of force he can be.

And yes, your only options are to bide your time or open your mind. I never said you have to love Craig, just saying that this is Bond right now, and you are gonna have to deal with it until this pictures become financially un-viable.

I for one am glad they are trying something new, even if QOS was no CR.

I suspect there will be a return to the "popular" Bond formula.I just hope it's years and years down the line is all

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

The fact is, we've never had linking bond films like CR/QOS. We've never seen such a dark/serious Bond. (Even LTK, LD and OHMSS we're pretty freaking upbeat).

I just hope Daniel Craig and company get to pursue their vision of Bond for 1 or 2 more films, and then we can go back to zany "Use the gadget at just the right moment before he sleeps with whatever hot girl of the moment" Bond. It's time for something new. No gadgets? Fine. No corny sex scene? Fine. Let Bond be a spy and the agent of force he can be.

And yes, your only options are to bide your time or open your mind. I never said you have to love Craig, just saying that this is Bond right now, and you are gonna have to deal with it until this pictures become financially un-viable.

I for one am glad they are trying something new, even if QOS was no CR.

The problem that I see is that the Roger Moore films were so incredibly corney, yet have been considered cannon. Those films were so outside what the Connery, Lazenby and Dalton films were, yet were accepted as part of the "formula". After Goldeneye, instead of going after the serious Bond, they made more Roger Moore type films. Yes DAD was a financial success, but it was a horrible movie. There are lots of bad movies that make alot of money. Independance Day is one example that comes to the top of my mind.

CR and QOS are much more in line with what the Bond films were other than Moore's films. To me they are most comparable to DN and FRWL, because that was before we got all the whackey gadgets and corney sex jokes. As I said before, I don't view these movies as a reboot, but more of a prequel.

Katied is right, in that there seems to be more of a return to the traditional Bond movies. Even Craig has said he wants to do a film introducing Moneypenny and Q.

[Kristatos]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

But they're not. QOS needs to make $600 million in order to show a profit, due to its outsize budget. It seems unlikely to do so. No Bond film has ever lost money before, in the entire 46-year history of the franchise, not even LTK. Hopefully, one money-loser won't be enough to kill the franchise, but it may cause some heads to roll.

[wrenchhands]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

But they're not. QOS needs to make $600 million in order to show a profit, due to its outsize budget. It seems unlikely to do so. No Bond film has ever lost money before, in the entire 46-year history of the franchise, not even LTK. Hopefully, one money-loser won't be enough to kill the franchise, but it may cause some heads to roll.

How do you figure?