# James Bond - Quantum of Solace



## Iron Fist (Feb 7, 2008)

I noticed there wasn't a James Bond thread, so I thought this could be the official thread for the new Bond movie: Quantum of Solace.

If anyone hasn't heard news about the movie, I got plenty to get you up to date and really, the movie sounds and looks like it will be a great follow up to "Casino Royale."



First, here is the official site for "Quantum of Solace"


The title of the 22nd James Bond film is "Quantum of Solace". MI6 reports on the new film, plus an exclusive first look at the cast and characters...

*Bond 22 Is "Quantum of Solace"
24th January 2008*



> The title of the 22nd James Bond film has been officially confirmed as "Quantum of Solace". The title is from an Ian Fleming short story first published in the 1960 collection "For Your Eyes Only".
> 
> Co-producer Michael Wilson told the BBC today name had only been decided "a few days ago", adding the story's start point would be "literally an hour after the last film left off. "We thought it was an intriguing title and referenced what happened to Bond and what is happening in the film," he said.
> 
> ...




=

The first official synopsis of the 22nd James Bond film "Quantum of Solace" has been released...

*Quantum Of Solace - Synopsis
24th January 2008*

*Official Synopsis
*QUANTUM OF SOLACE continues the high octane adventures of James Bond (DANIEL CRAIG) in CASINO ROYALE. Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (JUDI DENCH) interrogate Mr White (JESPER CHRISTENSEN) who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined. 

Forensic intelligence links an MI6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille (OLGA KURYLENKO), a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene (MATHIEU AMALRIC), a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organisation.

On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world?s most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano (JOAQUIN COSIO). Using his associates in the organisation, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.

In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene?s sinister plan and stop his organisation. 



*'Quantum of Solace' Press Conference Video Online*

The cast and crew discuss the newest James Bond film
Written by  on 24 Jan, 2008



> The wait is over! After teasing you with several pictures from the from the press conference held at Pinewood Studios earlier today where Quantum of Solace was announced as the title of Daniel Craig?s second James Bond film, the video coverage of the event is now online.
> 
> The event was attended by Quantum of Solace star Dame Judi Dench, director Marc Forster and producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.
> 
> ...


*Click here to view the complete Quantum of Solace plot synopsis*

The link below contains all interviews from Craig, the rest of the cast and exclusive scenes being filmed for Quantum of Solace!

MI6 rounds up the first video diary from the "Quantum of Solace" press conference, including b-roll footage, photocall, and interviews with the principal cast and crew...

*Video Diary (1)
27th January 2008*

=


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 7, 2008)

Quantum of Solace teaser poster:


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 7, 2008)

New footage for Quantum of Solace! 

[YOUTUBE]HVDgYYFTX9w[/YOUTUBE]

The new footage above really has me excited for the movie.


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 7, 2008)

Also, I forgot to add this:



The link above is a section dedicated to QoS only. All types of info can be found there.


----------



## Denji (Feb 8, 2008)

Wow. I need to catch up badly.

Thanks for posting all the info! I'm definitely looking forward to this!


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 8, 2008)

Lol, no need for quadruple post, you could edit to include new info.

BUT FUCK YEAH! I really like that they are doing more of the original stories. To be honest, the last of the Brosnan ones were rather crummy.

I can't wait. At first I was hesitant with Craig but he's proved himself quite well for the part. But when he's done, no more blondies


----------



## Sean Connery (Feb 8, 2008)

Sean Connery is the best and only James Bond


----------



## Graham Aker (Feb 8, 2008)

I hope it'll have the same quality of action scenes as Casino Royale.


----------



## Dio Brando (Feb 8, 2008)

I hated Casino Royale 

Craig still doesn't convince me as Bond.

So I hope this one actually has a proper car chase and gadgets and not lame Bond who gets tricked by womens.


----------



## Mori` (Feb 8, 2008)

so you kind of missed the point of casino royale then? >_>

--

QoS looks interesting and I'd guess it'll probably be enjoyable xD


----------



## Dream Brother (Feb 8, 2008)

Dio Brando said:


> So I hope this one actually has a proper car chase and gadgets and not lame Bond who gets tricked by womens.



I hope that it doesn't, personally. I agree with Mori in that I think you missed the point.

I absolutely loved _Casino Royale_ -- my only concern for this upcoming movie is if they can match that level of quality again or not. We'll see.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 8, 2008)

Sean Connery said:


> Sean Connery is the best and only James Bond


Sean Connery was damn good. But imo Roger Moore was the best. Sean Connery did the bad ass side of his character, Roger Moore did the cool side. Hell he shagged a girl in space! His series of films were my favorite. I loved the recurring characters like Jaws and then the midget with Ze PLANE! Ze PLANE! He was great.

I also loved the first couple of Brosnan films but Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough were just ridiculous >_>


> so you kind of missed the point of casino royale then? >_>


Yeah this was intended as the first Bond mission. It was when he was a n00b and he learned to trust no one and what it takes to do it rite.

I loved the Miami scenes though


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm gonna watch it because of the fanservice


----------



## Sean Connery (Feb 8, 2008)

Sunuvmann said:


> Sean Connery was damn good. But imo Roger Moore was the best. Sean Connery did the bad ass side of his character, Roger Moore did the cool side. Hell he shagged a girl in space! His series of films were my favorite. I loved the recurring characters like Jaws and then the midget with Ze PLANE! Ze PLANE! He was great.
> 
> I also loved the first couple of Brosnan films but Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough were just ridiculous >_>
> 
> ...



the sad thing about roger moore was he was a flaiming homo in real life


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> I'm gonna watch it because of the fanservice


 It wouldn't be a Bond movie without it. Though that annoyed me from Casino Royale, unnecessary fanservice for chicks. 


Sean Connery said:


> the sad thing about roger moore was he was a flaiming homo in real life




WHY!?!?!?!


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 8, 2008)

Sounds decent. I agree that Casino Royale was a good movie and I'm hoping this one will be up to that same standard. Daniel Craig is a great Bond imo, but Sean Connery will still probably be my favorite. 



			
				Sean Connery said:
			
		

> the sad thing about roger moore was he was a flaiming homo in real life



That's been rubbished time ago.


----------



## Purgatory (Feb 8, 2008)

This new Bond sucks.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 8, 2008)

God, I miss cringe-inducing one-liners, deus ex machina gadgets ("This cock-propelled rocket Q made today is just what I need for this predicament!"), and judo chops! [/sarcasm]


----------



## dwabn (Feb 8, 2008)

awesome new bond coming


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 8, 2008)

New photos of Craig and Gemma on set filming in Panama:


----------



## Violent-nin (Feb 8, 2008)

Looks good so far, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it in theaters.


----------



## lavi69 (Feb 9, 2008)

awweeeeessssssommmmmeeeeeeee i loved casion royale, if this is half as good it'll still be great


----------



## Bathroom_Mop (Feb 9, 2008)

Both girls are HOT!!!!
Bathroom_Mop Approves

Just hope they dont mess this one up. I dont like Daniel Craig, but the new movies have a much higher quality than the Pierce Brosnan ones. I liked Pierce Brosnan, but whoever was incharge of those movies should never be allowed to have a say in these ones. Atleast it is going in the right direction this time


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 10, 2008)

I think Craig is the best Bond next to Connery.


----------



## Suigetsu (Feb 10, 2008)

If its not pierce or sean connery then I dont care.


----------



## Fighting Spirit (Feb 11, 2008)

Wow looks promising. Can't wait!


----------



## Slayz (Feb 11, 2008)

Iron Fist said:


> I think Craig is the best Bond next to Connery.



It doesn't get more badass than those two when it comes to Bond flicks as far as I'm concerned 


I fuckin' love this new one's title 

The Bond Females look promising as well


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 11, 2008)

I agree, Olga and Gemma are really beautiful.  For anyone who has seen Olga in "Hitman" should already know she has a great body.


----------



## Jotun (Feb 11, 2008)

Craig is to Bond as Bale is to Batman. A very refreshing new take on the character.

This movie seems to be going alone nicely so far, hopefully my expectations don't get to high.


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 12, 2008)

New photos of Craig and Gemma on set:


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 12, 2008)

Continued...


----------



## JBarnz008 (Feb 12, 2008)

Painkiller said:


> This new Bond sucks.



kill yo self foo'

Daniel Craig was great on Casino Royale, can't wait for this one.


----------



## saint_Reginold (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm not a big fan of this new bond. He has no suave element to him. He is definetly not Roger Moore who has some of the most memorable movies in the whole series.


----------



## Graham Aker (Feb 13, 2008)

If you don't like it, don't watch it double O whiners.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Feb 13, 2008)

when i first saw this bond i thought that it would never work. I was glad to be proven wrong...i think he's one of the best bonds, if not THE.

He really is what Bale is to Batman...and the fact that Casino Royale didnt have those stupid gadgets and the over the top "suave" moments mae it all the better.

This cat is far more realistic and convincing.


----------



## Iron Fist (Feb 13, 2008)

Yeah, the action was great in CR. With the footage we've seen so far (the ones I posted) I think it's going to be great.


*Spoiler*: __ 



I really look forward to the scene where there is an assassination attempt on Bond when he's in an elevator.


----------



## brokenpoem (Feb 14, 2008)

i enjoyed the last bond movie, hopefully this one is just as good.


----------



## Iron Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

New pics!!


----------



## Vonocourt (Apr 5, 2008)

*"I'm so cool, I don't need to button up my collar. Reap my awesome chest hair!"*


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 5, 2008)

Sunuvmann said:


> Lol, no need for quadruple post, you could edit to include new info.
> *
> BUT FUCK YEAH! I really like that they are doing more of the original stories. To be honest, the last of the Brosnan ones were rather crummy.*
> 
> I can't wait. At first I was hesitant with Craig but he's proved himself quite well for the part. But when he's done, no more blondies



_Quantum of Solace_ is the title of an original Bond story, but otherwise they are unrelated. The actual story is about Bond attending a Dinner Party, and how ordinary people can have dramatic lives too. A lot of the Bond films are only partly based on the books that they share a title with (_The Spy Who Loved Me_, for example). 

In other words, this is'nt really based on any of the stories. 

And the Brosnan films were okay. It's only really _Die Another Day_, his very last one, that was truly approaching a bad film.


----------



## Sasuke (Apr 5, 2008)

I'm so pumped for this movie!

The last one was the best ever.

I hear the dude form Blade the series..the english guy will be a villain too & Bond has a fight scene with him. Awesome.


----------



## Acidblood7 (Apr 5, 2008)

Painkiller said:


> This new Bond sucks.



He did great in casino royal, so go suck on your momma tit little boy.


----------



## sel (Apr 5, 2008)

Casino was actually my favourite as it we actually got to know Bond's Character and see its development up nice and close. I'm just hoping this can carry on in it's vein and not revert to the old (Though I do like the films) style of shoot shoot bang bang gadget gadget


----------



## Niabingi (Apr 5, 2008)

I worry very much about this film for a few reasons, firstly Daniel Craig is like the least affable Bond ever! Casino Royale was a good film don't get me wrong but it only worked because it was pre-bond bond. I don't see that they can do that for more than one film, I also don't see Daniel Craig pulling off Bond Bond. He lacks, charm and likeability all through out Casino Royale I was like this guy is an arse. It didnt matter in that film because it was Bond developing into the character he is but in this film it shall matter. I want to still see Bond as being cool not a borderline alcoholic, murdering, slave to the government, man whore... which is how Daniel Craig's lack of affability may make me view the character.

My favourite bond's remain Sean connery and pierce brosnan both deadly charming and have great likeability and the ability to deliver the most tacky of all lines with awesomeness. Plus Sean gets bonus points for being the first Bond and starting of the movie franchise, Brosnan gets bonus points for ressurecting the DEAD franchise with so much awesomeness (goldeneye <3).


----------



## Fenris (Apr 5, 2008)

Bah, I read of an interview were Sean Connery stated he was interested in playing a Bond villain. Was so hoping it would be the one next in line. Obviously it isn't, seeing lack of any promotion of that fact. Maybe next one.

Oh well.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Apr 6, 2008)

hope it will be as good as the first one craig did, and hope he doesnt go the route of brosnan , where goldeneye was awesome and the rest sucked


----------



## Lord Snow (Jun 28, 2008)

Quantum of Solace new trailer footage:

[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK9hI-CmGMk]Quantum of Solace - New Footage[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWA3cs4VAI]MORE NEW Quantum of Solace footage[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Chee (Jun 28, 2008)

I've never seen the first one.

-shot'd-


----------



## illusion (Jun 28, 2008)

Niabingi said:


> I worry very much about this film for a few reasons, firstly Daniel Craig is like the least affable Bond ever! Casino Royale was a good film don't get me wrong but it only worked because it was pre-bond bond. I don't see that they can do that for more than one film, I also don't see Daniel Craig pulling off Bond Bond. He lacks, charm and likeability all through out Casino Royale I was like this guy is an arse. It didnt matter in that film because it was Bond developing into the character he is but in this film it shall matter. I want to still see Bond as being cool not a borderline alcoholic, murdering, slave to the government, man whore... which is how Daniel Craig's lack of affability may make me view the character.
> 
> My favourite bond's remain Sean connery and pierce brosnan both deadly charming and have great likeability and the ability to deliver the most tacky of all lines with awesomeness. Plus Sean gets bonus points for being the first Bond and starting of the movie franchise, Brosnan gets bonus points for ressurecting the DEAD franchise with so much awesomeness (goldeneye <3).



Every Bond movie Pierce Brosnan was in sucked major donkey balls. It was so unrealistic, that it came across as borderline comedy. You remember the time he jumped off a cliff after a plane, got in, started it and pulled it up before it hit the ground? Yea, nuff said. I guess I can't blame Pierce as much as I should blame the director, but he was in it and it completely turned me off to the franchise. 

As for Connery? Well gotta agree with you, I don't think anyone can play Bond better than him.

The last Bond was the most realistic and the best Bond movie to date (IMO of course) and I can't wait for the new one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2008)

Dio Brando said:


> I hated Casino Royale
> 
> Craig still doesn't convince me as Bond.
> 
> So I hope this one actually has a proper car chase and gadgets and not lame Bond who gets tricked by womens.



Oh so you want the old mindless shit? This is the bond that Ian envisioned, in the last movie it was very much the Bond from the books, none of that silly shit. I hope they keep all of that to a minimum and focus on the character, the fights, and more classy and beautiful women like Eva Green. 



Dream Brother said:


> I hope that it doesn't, personally. I agree with Mori in that I think you missed the point.
> 
> 
> I absolutely loved _Casino Royale_ -- my only concern for this upcoming movie is if they can match that level of quality again or not. We'll see.



I loved it too, I loved it more than any of the other Bond movies except maybe the first few.



masamune1 said:


> _Quantum of Solace_ is the title of an original Bond story, but otherwise they are unrelated. The actual story is about Bond attending a Dinner Party, and how ordinary people can have dramatic lives too. A lot of the Bond films are only partly based on the books that they share a title with (_The Spy Who Loved Me_, for example).
> 
> In other words, this is'nt really based on any of the stories.
> 
> And the Brosnan films were okay. It's only really _Die Another Day_, his very last one, that was truly approaching a bad film.



It's only really a short story in the "For Your Eyes Only Collection" but I like this name better.


----------



## masamune1 (Jul 2, 2008)

Niabingi said:


> I worry very much about this film for a few reasons, firstly Daniel Craig is like the least affable Bond ever! Casino Royale was a good film don't get me wrong but it only worked because it was pre-bond bond. I don't see that they can do that for more than one film, I also don't see Daniel Craig pulling off Bond Bond. He lacks, charm and likeability all through out Casino Royale I was like this guy is an arse. It didnt matter in that film because it was Bond developing into the character he is but in this film it shall matter. I want to still see Bond as being cool not a borderline alcoholic, murdering, slave to the government, man whore... which is how Daniel Craig's lack of affability may make me view the character.



The film is a direct sequel to _Casino Royale_, still set in Bond's early years as a Double-0; the film actually starts just where that film left off, with Bond having just shot Mr White. 

It's a bit like _Batman Begins_ in that it's a fresh start, a new series, though to a lesser extent since the Bond films always had a loose continuity anyway (and since Judi Dench reprises M).

Anyway, I don't quite agree with your description. He's not borderline alcoholic (not any more than he's ever been, anyway) and he's no slave to the government (M complains throughout about how much of a loose cannon he is). He's a lot closer to Fleming's original character, which happens to be one portrayed by Connery early on and on-and-off by the other actors depending on the films, esp. Timothy Dalton.  

This is an immature Bond, but it's still noticeably Bond.



Fenris said:


> Bah, I read of an interview were Sean Connery stated he was interested in playing a Bond villain. Was so hoping it would be the one next in line. Obviously it isn't, seeing lack of any promotion of that fact. Maybe next one.
> 
> Oh well.



That rumour has been floating around for years, and if he ever said it was probably about a decade ago. 

Sean Connery has retired from acting, and has said as much- he has stated that it would take a Mafia-style offer to get him to work again (ie. death threats, etc.). He said he thinks Hollywood is being run by idiots nowadays, though theres also the fact that he does'nt quite know how to choose films anymore (he's admitted that too)- he turned down roles in _The Matrix_ and _LotR_ (don't know what ones), and only signed up for _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ because he was surprised by the success of those two.

In other words, he probably won't be doing this.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's only really a short story in the "For Your Eyes Only Collection" *but I like this name better.*



As opposed to what?


----------



## Ryuk (Jul 2, 2008)

Sean Connery said:


> Sean Connery is the best and only James Bond



Quoted for epic truth.

I need to see this movie.


----------



## Vanity (Jul 2, 2008)

I watched the trailer for this the other day. It looks like it's going to be pretty good. I enjoyed the last one so I'm probably definitly going to go see this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> As opposed to what?



Just calling it "For Your Eyes Only" the Quantum of Solace story barely has Bond in it really.


----------



## Violent-nin (Jul 3, 2008)

illusion said:


> Every Bond movie Pierce Brosnan was in sucked major donkey balls. It was so unrealistic, that it came across as borderline comedy. Y*ou remember the time he jumped off a cliff after a plane, got in, started it and pulled it up before it hit the ground? Yea, nuff said. I guess I can't blame Pierce as much as I should blame the director*, but he was in it and it completely turned me off to the franchise.
> 
> As for Connery? Well gotta agree with you, I don't think anyone can play Bond better than him.
> 
> The last Bond was the most realistic and the best Bond movie to date (IMO of course) and I can't wait for the new one.



You do realize that the same director that made that movie (GoldenEye), was the same guy who directed Casino Royale? 

For me GoldenEye was the best Bond movie, the rest of the Bond movies featuring Pierce Brosnan weren't very good at all.

Though I loved Connery as Bond, I tend to like Pierce more because of GoldenEye.


----------



## masamune1 (Jul 3, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Just calling it "For Your Eyes Only" the Quantum of Solace story barely has Bond in it really.



Yeah, but...that's already a Bond film. From the 70's. Roger Moore.
(it's also actually the name of one of the stories, not just the collection). 

It does'nt have a lot to do with the book version either, though I guess more than the new one does.

And "For Your Eyes Only" is the better title.


----------



## Shadow (Jul 3, 2008)

i don't know what the other people were complaining about the last movie or about craig.......oh not charming.....borderline alcoholic......he isn't likeable......no gadgets......seriously grow up the last bond was so good and had better action than any of the pierce brosnan movies......you'll be lucky if he can do half of the stuff that craig did in the last movie.....

i've been waiting on this movie for a while now....this should be good


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2008)

People like that silly bullshit I guess, I didn't miss the gadgets or any of that, the fights were beautiful and the action sequences were some of the best I have seen in years.


----------



## Jotun (Jul 3, 2008)

Plus, Eva Green or w/e her name is, was just fucking stunning


----------



## illusion (Jul 3, 2008)

Violent-nin said:


> You do realize that the same director that made that movie (GoldenEye), was the same guy who directed Casino Royale?



Seriously? (inserts foot in mouth)

He really did a great job in Casino Royale, everything was alot more realistic and a little less over the top, with a great storyline. He's really improved as a director if that's the case, because Golden Eye had some scenes that were pretty rediculous.


----------



## masamune1 (Jul 3, 2008)

^The Bond films always go through such a cycle, with some films being serious and others over the top. 

And just because a film is over-the-top does'nt make it _bad_, and _Goldeneye_ is far from being the most over-the-top Bond film (a series which includes a hollowed-out Volcano lair, an attempt to poison the Earth's populace from a space station, two attempts to start WW3 with a plan to rule the nuclear wasteland that lies afterwards, homicidal midgets, steel-toothed assassins, killer bowler hats, and cars armed with rockets, machine guns, lasers, and GPS tracking systems...in the 60's).

_Goldeneye_ was actually done as it was partly because people thought Timothy Dalton's Bond was _too_ gritty and realistic, and _Goldfinger_ is usually considered the best Bond film despite it beign the one that first brought in the really silly stuff (eg. the Aston Martin DB5, with "accessories").

Anyway, yes- Martin Campbell did direct both films. He also did _The Mask of Zoro_, though sadly he did _The Legend of Zoro_ as well. He usually does well though.


----------



## illusion (Jul 3, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> ^The Bond films always go through such a cycle, with some films being serious and others over the top.
> 
> *And just because a film is over-the-top does'nt make it bad, *and _Goldeneye_ is far from being the most over-the-top Bond film (a series which includes a hollowed-out Volcano lair, an attempt to poison the Earth's populace from a space station, two attempts to start WW3 with a plan to rule the nuclear wasteland that lies afterwards, homicidal midgets, steel-toothed assassins, killer bowler hats, and cars armed with rockets, machine guns, lasers, and GPS tracking systems...in the 60's).



I never said it was *bad*, but I said it turned me off to the franchise, though other people may like that sort of thing which isn't wrong. Just a different taste. 



> _Goldeneye_ was actually done as it was partly because people thought Timothy Dalton's Bond was _too_ gritty and realistic, and _Goldfinger_ is usually considered the best Bond film despite it beign the one that first brought in the really silly stuff (eg. the Aston Martin DB5, with "accessories").



The Aston Martin or the accessories weren't too over the top, matter of fact I liked that in the Bond films. It's when he jumps after a plane, off a cliff and manages to pull it up before it hits the ground, now that's over the top.

Casino Royale had nothing in it that had you thinking, c'mon, you can't be serious. I compare it to Batman Begins, only because it takes a more serious approach, as apposed to "most" of the films before it. It was well directed and acted with a great storyline and I can't wait for Quantum Solace.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Jul 4, 2008)

trailer looks good, i hope craig does better than bronsan, because both had there first movies be one of the best bond films of all time, but out the other three movies, tomorrow never dies was only watchable and the other two were terrible


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2008)

lesss talky, more gratituous daniel craig's shots!


----------



## Chee (Sep 9, 2008)

I didn't really care for the first one, but I'll give it a go.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> trailer looks good, i hope craig does better than bronsan, because both had there first movies be one of the best bond films of all time, but out the other three movies, tomorrow never dies was only watchable and the other two were terrible



They just got worse and worse really. 



Chee said:


> I didn't really care for the first one, but I'll give it a go.



How can you say that?


----------



## Rukia (Sep 9, 2008)

It will make over 100 million, Bond films always do.  This franchise doesn't seem like it will ever falter.

I wouldn't expect it to be any better than a mediocre film...but it might be good for some mindless entertainment.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Rukia said:


> It will make over 100 million, Bond films always do.  This franchise doesn't seem like it will ever falter.
> 
> I wouldn't expect it to be any better than a mediocre film...but it might be good for some mindless entertainment.



Considering the last one was fantastic, I don't think it will be mediocre if they keep the same formula they did with the last one. It might be that the series ever falters, but a lot of people who hated the previous Bond films were really turned on by Casino Royal, while very few old fans were turned off...I think we might see a shift. 

Bond movies going from mindless action to story driven movies where the plot and characters are given more importance.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 9, 2008)

i still need to see the first one..i missed the last james bond -_-


----------



## Chee (Sep 9, 2008)

> How can you say that?



Eh, I hated the romance in it.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 9, 2008)

Chee said:


> Eh, I hated the romance in it.



theres romance? what the hell? james bond don't fall in love with girls..he just fuck them


----------



## Chee (Sep 9, 2008)

gesy hyuga said:


> theres romance? what the hell? james bond don't fall in love with girls..he just fuck them



Yea, that's why I hated it. Bond fell in love with this chick and I was like "WHUT?"


*Spoiler*: __ 



Thank god the bitch died but it stil pissed me off.


----------



## MartialHorror (Sep 9, 2008)

Actually, I thought the love-story was surprisingly well-done. I think the problem was that as always, it was kind of shallow. I bought his feelings for her, but not her feelings for him(Which is ironic)

Anyway, as this was supposed to be a prequel, I now understand why Bond tends to treat women as objects. 

Anyway, I thought Casino Royale was a good action movie, but I'm not a huge Bond fan so I can't say I loved it.


----------



## Chee (Sep 9, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> *Actually,* I thought the love-story was surprisingly well-done. I think the problem was that as always, it was kind of shallow. I bought his feelings for her, but not her feelings for him(Which is ironic)
> 
> *Anyway, *as this was supposed to be a prequel, I now understand why Bond tends to treat women as objects.
> *
> Anyway,* I thought Casino Royale was a good action movie, but I'm not a huge Bond fan so I can't say I loved it.



lol.

Anyway (), this was supposed to be a prequel?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Chee said:


> lol.
> 
> Anyway (), this was supposed to be a prequel?



You didn't know, its not a prequel, its a reboot, they started over from the beginning. The whole first part about him just getting 00 status is pretty obvious about it. 

And to those who don't think Bond should fall in love, you never saw that he was married before right? His wife died, but that book is well after Casino Royal. 

Not only that, but no character can start off that hard and just be a static creature the whole time. This shows an actual person growing and developing, unlike many of the films.


----------



## MartialHorror (Sep 9, 2008)

Duh? The first scene has Bond officially becoming 007, which he already was in all the other films. lol, bad Chee.

Also, the actor is younger than all the other Bonds(or at least he looks younger)


----------



## Even (Sep 9, 2008)

new trailer looks awesome  I'm definitely watching this


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Duh? The first scene has Bond officially becoming 007, which he already was in all the other films. lol, bad Chee.
> 
> Also, the actor is younger than all the other Bonds(or at least he looks younger)



He is younger and that was intentional. Also this one sticks closer to the book than the previous few entries made from the books.


----------



## Chee (Sep 9, 2008)

Cause I'm not a Bond fan, Martial.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

The old Bond was a representation, an every man type thing where you have a character that seems all glorious and flawless (despite the fact that in one of the movies with Dalton he practically forces himself on a woman) in this movie you see Bond as an emotional human being, who wants to look tough, but has to put on this armor to cover whats underneath.


----------



## MartialHorror (Sep 9, 2008)

Nor am I. In fact, I only vaguely remember the Brosnan Bond movies....I know I've seen some of the older ones, but the only scene I can remember from any of them took place in space and had Jaws(not the shark) in it.....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Nor am I. In fact, I only vaguely remember the Brosnan Bond movies....I know I've seen some of the older ones, but the only scene I can remember from any of them took place in space and had Jaws(not the shark) in it.....



That's from Moonraker...I saw it but I was so young all I remember was it was in space.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 9, 2008)

well i like the suave womanizer bond


"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

gesy hyuga said:


> well i like the suave womanizer bond
> 
> 
> "



He still is, he just a has a personality now...


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 9, 2008)

lol i won't judge it since i haven't seen casino royal yet. i hope the falling in love part was just a rookie mistake..with a job like that..love will only make you do stupid things (thats what the second movie is about right?)


----------



## Bender (Sep 9, 2008)

Seriously, I hated the last one because the girl was a lover not a sex toy I do not approve.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 9, 2008)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Seriously, I hated the last one because the girl was a lover not a sex toy I do not approve.



chee feel the same i wonder if she wants to be my sex toy


----------



## Bender (Sep 9, 2008)

Woah woah!! 

Chee's a she  

Why.. Chee...I...


----------



## ~SAGE~ (Sep 9, 2008)

This movie oughta be awesome. IMO bond was losing his appeal but now its all or nothing and this movie will meet the standards of the former movies


----------



## Even (Sep 9, 2008)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Woah woah!!
> 
> Chee's a she
> 
> Why.. Chee...I...



you honestly didn't know that??


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Woah woah!!
> 
> Chee's a she
> 
> Why.. Chee...I...



Welcome to the late show.


----------



## Vonocourt (Sep 9, 2008)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Woah woah!!
> 
> Chee's a she
> 
> Why.. Chee...I...



Wait, so you found out I was before you found out Chee was?

Crazy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Wait, so you found out I was before you found out Chee was?
> 
> Crazy.



Wait a Goddamn minute? Your a girl...son of a bitch. I thought you were some dude with a beard.


----------



## Vonocourt (Sep 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I thought you were *some dude with a beard.*



You're not the first...>_>


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> You're not the first...>_>



You ruined my world...I need a drink now...(and some more Ellen Page pictures)


----------



## Lord Snow (Sep 9, 2008)

This film looks like it's going to be insane.


----------



## Adonis (Sep 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You ruined my world...I need a drink now...(and some more Ellen Page pictures)



I was thinking more along the lines of mutton chops.

My reaction was the same, though.


----------



## Buskuv (Sep 9, 2008)

Oh come on, guys; you should have become accustomed to gender ambiguity by now.

[Not sure if I'll pay to see this movie, but if someone else is buying...]


----------



## Bender (Sep 9, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> You're not the first...>_>



YOU GOTTA BE SHITTING ME! 

First Chee and now you 

My god I feel so confused 

A while ago I...I thought you were a dude cuz you posted in a dudish thread and what not..  

I'm so confused


----------



## Adonis (Sep 10, 2008)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Oh come on, guys; you should have become accustomed to gender ambiguity by now.
> 
> [Not sure if I'll pay to see this movie, but if someone else is buying...]



I found out about Chee and Vonocourt's betrayal a month or two ago.

Amaretti was my first big shock.


----------



## masamune1 (Sep 10, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He is younger and that was intentional. Also this one sticks closer to the book than the previous few entries made from the books.



Well, I would'nt go _that_ far.

There are a couple that probably stick a little bit closer than this one did.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The old Bond was a representation, an every man type thing where you have a character that seems all glorious and flawless (despite the fact that in one of the movies with Dalton he practically forces himself on a woman) in this movie you see Bond as an emotional human being, who wants to look tough, but has to put on this armor to cover whats underneath.



The flawed human thing started off with Dalton and continued throughout Brosnan's run (excluding _Die Another Day_); it's just more pronounced in these films because Craig's Bond is only just starting out. 

Also, Dalton's treatment of women was'nt the worst. It was at leats on-par with what Conery and Moore did in their respective earlier outings. You don't see Dalton's Bond have sex with a woman, then put a gun to her head, and explaining to her that if he was going to kill her, he wanted to wait until after they had sex. The worst Dalton did was put a knife to a girl's throat as part of a sneaking "mission", and he did'nt care about having his way with her (you know, at that point).


----------



## Even (Sep 10, 2008)

Vono is a *chick*!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 10, 2008)

Screw James Bond; vono is a woman?


----------



## MartialHorror (Sep 10, 2008)

Whoa, Vono is a she too? I thought Vono was some Ellen Page fanboy!

Amaretti is a she too? Damn.

Guys, I have something to admit.................I am a she as well.















(yeah, no I'm not)


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 10, 2008)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Screw James Bond; vono is a woman?


----------



## Vonocourt (Sep 10, 2008)

I should've just kept my mouth shut.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 10, 2008)

You should post pics.


----------



## Chee (Sep 10, 2008)

lol, poor Vono. :3



gesy hyuga said:


> chee feel the same i wonder if she wants to be my sex toy



Of course! pek



Blaze of Glory said:


> Woah woah!!
> 
> Chee's a she
> 
> Why.. Chee...I...





I thought this was obvious. 2 months of hawt hawt hawt Joker whoring and you thought I was a dude?


----------



## Even (Sep 10, 2008)

maybe he thought you were gay


----------



## Chee (Sep 10, 2008)

If I was a dude, I'd totally go gay for Joker. 

But this is a James Bond thread so I'll shut up now.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 10, 2008)

^i never thought you were a guy...maybe because i met you when you began going joker crazy lol


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 19, 2008)

New Bond theme, by James White and Alicia Keys.

Mcduck


----------



## JBarnz008 (Sep 20, 2008)

Watching this movie like 4 times in a row when it comes out.


----------



## maximilyan (Sep 20, 2008)

One of the must see films of the year for me. I think he is one of the best if not the best bond ever. Saw the trailers for this when i went to the cinema last week, cant wait for it.


----------



## uchiha611 (Sep 21, 2008)

this film is going to be awesome


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 22, 2008)

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/news/weve-been-expecting-you-mr-er-new-bond-blockbuster-drops-the-catchphrases-936999.html

No, 'Bond.. James Bond' and 'shaken, not stirred' in QoS. 



> "There was a 'Bond, James Bond' in the script," he said. "There are several places where we shot it as well, but it never worked as we hoped. I just felt we should cut it out, and Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson [the film's producers] agreed, and Daniel [Craig, who plays Bond] agreed, too. It's nice to be open-minded about the Bond formula. You can always go back to them later on."





> The move is welcomed by fans who have seen the films veer away from how Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, originally envisaged his cold-blooded hero.
> 
> Graham Rye, who edits the online 007 Magazine said that Craig, who made his debut in last year's Casino Royale, is much closer to Fleming's vision.
> 
> ...


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 7, 2008)

*Quantum of Solace*

This has been out in Britain for a week, and hence someone should have made this thread since that time.

But they have'nt, so I'm posting it now, before it is soiled by non-British perspectives.

Since not everyone has seen it (Americans- I laugh at this fact) I will keep the following review spoiler-tagged. Those who _have_ seen it should put in their own opinions, to keep this thread alive.

There _is_ another thread on this film, but it's several pages behind so there is no real point in bumping it, esp. since that Dark Knight thread we have here is at least the second, despite now being the "official" one.

Anyway, on to 007.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Great film. 

Not the best Bond film by any means, but still a great film: well acted, good script, and filled with plenty of action. 

Though _Casino Royale_ is better overall, _Quantum of Solace_ manages to do a lot of the things that film did'nt do well. Action is the main one- _Casino_ was lacking in that department, at least when compared to your average Bond film. This one, however, has action scene after action scene- in fact, the first third of the film is almsot nothing _but_ action.

But it is good action, and like I said it makes up for _Casino_'s relative lack of it. I don't think any of the action scenes qualify as "classics", but they are tough, hard hitting, and definitely enjoyable. There are three or four-slightly Bourne-ish- fights, car chases, air battles, boat chases, and an explosive (if pedestrian) finale. My only problem is some of it is very noticeably CGI, but that does'nt matter too much since the majority of it really was done for real, as Bond films should be. 

Mathieu Almaric is great as the bad guy, one Dominic Greene, a phony eco-warrior and philanthropist who is secretly part of a major trrorist/ crminal organization calle Quantum. He does'nt have much depth, and is ultimately just a venomous psychopath, but he's a _scary_ venomous psychopath, who is especially menacing with Bond girl Camille, his girlfriend whom he spends a good part of the film trying to kill (though it makes him "feel sad").
He is clearly crazy and evil, and in the end that makes him a good villain.

Olga Kurylenko is equally good as Camille, the main Bond girl out for revenge for the death of her family. She does have depth, and is also good with the action bits- she is at least as interesting as Vesper Lynd from the last one. There are a couple of scenes reminiscent of the shower scene in that filmm too- one at the end, and another a bit earlier involving another body in a boot.

The plot is a bit weak- Greene wants to restore an exiled Bolivian dictator, as well as seize control of that nations water supply. The problem is we don't really know _why_ he wants to do that- he makes a bid deal out of it in one scene, but ultimately control of Bolivia just seems to be one part of Quantum's grand scheme, which we don't get told what is. It might look smarter in context with the next films, but other than that all I can say is at least it's more threatening than a card game (even if we don't know why).

The film is also pretty short- 103 minutes long, and the ending while good was also slightly anti-climatic because of the short build-up. Also the very lasst scene looks a lot like the one from the Bourne Supremacy, though this film isn't as much like that film as some critics seem to think. 

There are still few Bond-isms, but they are there if you look for them. Agent Fields has a cheeky name if you wait for the end credits, Bond's famous Sniper Scope opening is now his sniper scope ending (just for this film, from the looks of things), and most importantly of all we see Bond reveal just what a snob he is- actually refusing to sleep in a crappy hotel and swapping it for a 5-star suite. The dialogue is also every bit as witty/ cheesy as usual- this is definitely a *Bond* film no matter what anyone says. Oh, and there is a homage to _Goldfinger_ that is pretty brutal and well done.

Overall, I'd say it works best as a companion piece. If you have'nt seen _Casino Royale_, well not only may you not have a clue what is going on in some scenes but you also may enjoy this film less. Watch that film first since this one serves to tie up many loose ends, and will feel more "complete" in that context.

The first two "proper" Bond films were _Dr No_ and _From Russia With Love_, and this is more or less a more action-packed _From Russia With Love_. It was'nt until _Goldfinger_- the third one- that all the classic Bond elements came together, and you get the sense that this reboot is trying to go by that same route. The _next_ Bond film is going to be the one that feels most like a _proper_ Bond film, with a proper opening, a stand-alone story (though Quantum will probably be the bad guys), and maybe even Moneypenny and Q- all the things that these last two films have been missing. The next James Bond film will be a _proper_ James Bond film.

But, until then, this is a film that should keep most fans satisfied, and manages to be a very good film in it's own right. I'll give it an *8/10*, to the slightly more sophisticated _Casino_'s 9. Taken together, they would probably score a 10, and that I think is how they are meant to be taken.


----------



## excellence153 (Nov 7, 2008)

Good review.  I look forward to seeing it.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 8, 2008)

excellence153 said:


> Good review.  I look forward to seeing it.



Thanks you; hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Para (Nov 8, 2008)

Thanks for the review; I do plan on seeing this, and will post again once I have.


----------



## Tenderfoot (Nov 8, 2008)

Watched it yesterday. I was really, really, disappointed.Waste of time and money. 
*Spoiler*: __ 



 The plot/story felt lacking a lot. Climax was boo hooo. For me this film was a failure. They tried with the comedy action and all, but this is James Bond damit, they shouldn't try they should execute. This movie didn't feel like James Bond at all. No gadgets O.o .... wtf?


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 8, 2008)

They tried to make it too realistic, its a bond movie ffs!!!


----------



## keiiya (Nov 9, 2008)

For the most part I agree with the OPs review.
I'm being lazy and posting some of what I posted in another thread. ><


*Spoiler*: _ ^_^_ 



I initially gave it a 9/10 but thinking back I think I want to chnage it to a 8/10. I would have given it 10/10 but I felt that this film was missing the edge that Casino Royale seemed to possess. This might be because I already knew what kind of Bond to expect or maybe it was because I thought the plot felt a little broken in places. Saying that I loved the continuity from the first film. It had all the explosions, car chases and fight scenes I had been looking forward to. No one could do a better Bond than Daniel Craig. He is much more like the one in Ian Fleming's books.

I did find the villain to be a little underpowering. Also it lack shirtless Craig scenes which I was looking forward to, hehe. >///<


----------



## Violent-nin (Nov 9, 2008)

Nice review, I'm interested in checking the film out.


----------



## Seany (Nov 9, 2008)

Naruto-sen said:


> No gadgets O.o .... wtf?


And? there was none in Casino Royale either. They have remade Bond, so it's believable and not cheesy shit. Gadgets=SHIT.

The movie was pretty good, but it was lacking in suspence..
The villains were just boring and lame, and also the camera was *awful*. It was like Batman Begins camera but worse. Alllll over the place. 
I prefer the first one, but this was still good. 
I'll give it a 7/10


----------



## Jon Snow (Nov 9, 2008)

*Spoiler*: __ 



No scope-opening
No Monnypenny
Q well, the actor is dead, and remember, Q passed on the legacy to R didn't he?
No fucking introduction to gadgets
NO MISSILES IN THE CAR. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

So much missing. This is like RE4, completely taking out classic elements


----------



## Ziko (Nov 9, 2008)

Killua said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, except RE4 kicked the old games ass


----------



## Jon Snow (Nov 9, 2008)

In your opinion.

In mine, no, not a chance


----------



## Draklin (Nov 9, 2008)

i didnt like it, wish i could redo the time it took to watch that movie, i got bored about 1/2 way through, just about fell asleep, literally, i am angry about what killua said too, they took out too many of the good things of the old movie


----------



## root (Nov 9, 2008)

Saw it a couple of days ago, and I'm sorta torn between the two popular opinions it seems.

On the one hand I agree that it didn't feel like a Bond film and was missing a lot somehow, the villain was severely laking and the story didn't really seem to have a point. On the other hand, I enjoyed it and I know that if I were to watch Casino Royale and this one back-to-back I'd enjoy it a whole lot more. This is the perfect addition to Casino Royale and a nice build-up to the next one, where they'll hopefully take what's good about both movies, add some gadgets, and make it a real Bond movie.

Also, Daniel Craig remains awesome.


----------



## Graham Aker (Nov 9, 2008)

As the OP said, it's a good companion piece to Casino Royale. Not much as a stand alone Bond film, which it wasn't anyway.

Olga is fucking hot.


----------



## Rod (Nov 10, 2008)

Shit, i'm disapointed, wtf I left the room thinking I saw James "Bourne" ( nothing against, IMO Jason's movies are great and Matt even better for the role actually one of my fav movies is this trilogy, anyways shouldn't make a confusion between what is the sucessful formula of Bourne and Bond, even more it seems they're trying to approach Bond to Bourne, however this is killing 007's essence, in this case prefer to stick with Jason as it is a thing that matches perfectly).




Moreover, that's the truth, fuckers:


----------



## Rokudaime (Nov 11, 2008)

I like this movie.

But seriously, why is everyone prefer gadget usage in the bond series? Is it a "gadget" is the blood life of the Bond or what? I always thought gadget is just a addon or bonus in this franchise , am i wrong?

Most of the negative critic I read, it is all about how bad is CR and QoS because it lacked of gadget usage.


----------



## Horrid Crow (Nov 11, 2008)

Can't wait to see it.
I loved Casino Royale, Craig is such an awesome Bond.

Also, I'm glad they got rid of the gadgets _for now_. It all got waaaay out of hand, especially in Die Another Day.
Actually, I think only GoldenEye was a good Bond film from Brosnan. Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day were rubbish. The World is Not Enough was okay...

Going to see it by the end of the week. 
Already got myself in the mood by watching all films during the past 2 and a half weeks.



Killua said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> No scope-opening



*Spoiler*: __ 





Casino Royale didn't really have a classic gunbarrel opening as well.
But I liked how they put it right before the opening theme. How does Quantum of Solace handle this?


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Horrid Crow said:


> Can't wait to see it.
> I loved Casino Royale, Craig is such an awesome Bond.
> 
> Also, I'm glad they got rid of the gadgets _for now_. It all got waaaay out of hand, especially in Die Another Day.
> ...



_Tommorow Never Dies_ was a perfectly fine film, though _Die Another Day_ was stupid- worst Bond film ever.



> [Casino Royale didn't really have a classic gunbarrel opening as well.
> But I liked how they put it right before the opening theme. How does Quantum of Solace handle this?



The gunbarrel scene is the very last one.

From the tone of the film (as well as interviews with Craig, etc.), it would seem that the next one will be a return to these classic Bond-isms like that scene, since Craig said the first two films (focusing on Bond's early Double-0 years) are all about "earning" them.

Like I said, it's like _Dr No_ or _From Russia With Love_- looking back, it's like they were the set-up for _Goldfinger_ (ignoring SPECTRE), since that was the first one to have all the elements of a "proper" Bond film.


----------



## Horrid Crow (Nov 11, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> _Tommorow Never Dies_ was a perfectly fine film, though _Die Another Day_ was stupid beyond compare- worst Bond film ever.



Well maybe I was overreacting.
I liked Tomorrow Never Dies a lot when I watched it for the first time, but now I've watched it for the 5th time or something and it has lost it's touch, it's just not very strong compared to GoldenEye for instance. I very much like the motor chase scene though. 
Die Another Day is indeed much worse then Tomorrow Never Dies. Man did I hate that movie. 



masamune1 said:


> The gunbarrel scene is the very last one.
> 
> From the tone of the film (as well as interviews with Craig, etc.), it would seem that the next one will be a return to these classic Bond-isms like that scene, since Craig said the first two films (focusing on Bond's early Double-0 years) are all about "earning" them.
> 
> Like I said, it's like _Dr No_ or _From Russia With Love_- looking back, it's like they were the set-up for _Goldfinger_ (ignoring SPECTRE), since that was the first one to have all the elements of a "proper" Bond film.



It's shown at the end of the movie? Hmm, why's that?
And for the next movie, I've heard rumours about John Cleese (Q) and other typical Bond characters showing up.
Not that I _really_ minded their absense in Casino Royale though, to me it was a nice fresh breeze. Same goes for the gadgets.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2008)

This is a duplicate thread...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2008)

Posting to bump this back to the front because people apparently can't find things.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is a duplicate thread...



I very clearly stated in my post that the old thread was pages and pages behind, and from months ago, so this was more convenient. 

I also pointed out that The Dark Knight had several threads for it- the most popular one (the current one that has been bumped) is at least the second.

So I really see no problem.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Posting to bump this back to the front because people apparently can't find things.



The last post om this thread is almost two months old. When a thread is so old a new thread is natural.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> I very clearly stated in my post that the old thread was pages and pages behind, and from months ago, so this was more convenient.
> 
> I also pointed out that The Dark Knight had several threads for it- the most popular one (the current one that has been bumped) is at least the second.
> 
> So I really see no problem.



The Quantum thread was only two months old, and you could have just posted that info there. We don't need a million threads for one movie. I don't care how much you want to see your name on the first page. It makes it easier and that's why people subscribe to threads. 

I've already reported it and given the original link, so just wait and see what the mods think.




masamune1 said:


> The last post om this thread is almost two months old. When a thread is so old a new thread is natural.



Stop your belly aching, first off the rule given was if a thread is three months behind make a new one and this is clearly not three months, second there was no reason you couldn't revive this a week before the movie or so, its always done.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The Quantum thread was only two months old, and you could have just posted that info there. We don't need a million threads for one movie. I don't care how much you want to see your name on the first page. It makes it easier and that's why people subscribe to threads.
> 
> I've already reported it and given the original link, so just wait and see what the mods think.



I don't care about my name on the front page. That thread was pages behind, and any news on it was at least two months old. 

This thread is about the film _now_, as it has just been released. The last one was about it coming out months from then. 

So this thread serves a different purpose, and it provides up-to-date information. The freshness of it was supposed to attract more attention than it has; regardless, it ha been up for several days already so I hope the mods don't waste their time with it.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

*Damn you all!*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> I don't care about my name on the front page. That thread was pages behind, and any news on it was at least two months old.
> 
> This thread is about the film _now_, as it has just been released. The last one was about it coming out months from then.
> 
> So this thread serves a different purpose, and it provides up-to-date information. The freshness of it was supposed to attract more attention than it has; regardless, it ha been up for several days already so I hope the mods don't waste their time with it.



They're merged already.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They're merged already.



Yes, I noticed. Hence-



masamune1 said:


> *Damn you all!*


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 12, 2008)

Just keeping this where it's needed.....


----------



## sworder (Nov 13, 2008)

Amazing movie. There's no pussy James Bond cant get


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

I loved it, it was non-stop this time. I don't know why the reviewers were calling it worse than the first, I felt like this is just Casino Royal part two. I think that the fights were amazing, it was the Jason Bourne movies only more face paced. At the same time there was probably more character development than I have seen in a Bond movie in a while.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

I found that this film had less emphasis on character development than that last. Bond appeared to be much too indifferent in this film. He just seemed to be another hero motivated by revenge and this is nothing new. Even though I liked this film as well to some degree, it seems to me that when making this one they seemed to have forgotten about everything that made Casino Royale sucessful in the first place. I didn't find the storyline as intriguing. The action scenes were what made the film watchable.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

keiiya said:


> I found that this film had less emphasis on character development than that last. Bond appeared to be much too indifferent in this film. He just seemed to be another hero motivated by revenge and this is nothing new. Even though I liked this film as well to some degree, it seems to me that when making this one they seemed to have forgotten about everything that made Casino Royale sucessful in the first place. I didn't find the storyline as intriguing. The action scenes were what made the film watchable.



I totally disagree, this was more or less an expansion of Casino Royal. This was the reaction I would expect Bond to have, especially since this is the first direct Bond sequel, I think this is the only way it could have turned out. 

It's like Kill Bill 1 and 2, only this time 1 was the modeling of the characters and the set up...and 2 was action blow out. 

Plus the plot was subtle, yet present, and the action linked it all together. Really, they could make a third movie in this same story, the idea that links this is complex yet simple at the same time.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

When I compare it against Kill Bill I can see where you are coming from. I guess Casino Royale could be seen as the calm before the storm.

I still feel that Bond was pretty static. It might be because I was expecting some huge emotional release in this film that never came and what did come out at the end was a little too subtle. Still, the last two lines of the film made up for this I guess, hehe. ^_^ 

I am hoping Bond 23 is a mix of these two films and that they don't go back to the old style Bond films. ><


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

keiiya said:


> When I compare it against Kill Bill I can see where you are coming from. I guess Casino Royale could be seen as the calm before the storm.
> 
> I still feel that Bond was pretty static. It might be because I was expecting some huge emotional release in this film that never came and what did come out at the end was a little too subtle. Still, the last two lines of the film made up for this I guess, hehe. ^_^
> 
> I am hoping Bond 23 is a mix of these two films and that they don't go back to the old style Bond films. ><



The last two lines, I totally forgot, but I will have to go look it all up. 

One thing is that Bond seems more generally observant and intelligent in this movie.

Ah nevermind, you showed me...

And that is something I think that has never been so...prominent and amusing in the recent Bond movies, his relationship with M seems almost like a mother son relationship and this is something I really like about how the two work. 

At one point someone referred to her as mum when talking to her (not Bond).


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 14, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And that is something I think that has never been so...prominent and amusing in the recent Bond movies, his relationship with M seems almost like a mother son relationship and this is something I really like about how the two work.
> 
> At one point someone referred to her as mum when talking to her (not Bond).



Bond called her that in the last one, though, after he broke into her home.

Of course, I'm not sure if they are actually calling her "Mum", or if it just "Ma'am" confused by their English accent. I _do_ know that M is not the only female authority figure down there to be reffered to as such, however. I think Thatcher, for example, might have been addressed like that. 

Also, on the plane with Camille he does smile and tells her that M likes to think of herself as his mum.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

masamune1 said:
			
		

> If course, I'm not sure if they are actually calling her "Mum", or if it just "Ma'am" confused by their English accent.


I think it's Ma'am (rhymes with jam). It's the same way we address the Queen here.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 14, 2008)

keiiya said:


> I think it's Ma'am (rhymes with jam). It's the same way we address the Queen here.



Yeah, thought so. 

Weird English accents.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

My accents not weird. 

Daniel Craig does speak much posher than most though, hehe.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 14, 2008)

keiiya said:


> My accents not weird.
> 
> Daniel Craig does speak much posher than most though, hehe.



Forgive me. I'm Scottish- insulting the English is just instinct.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

The Scottish accent is really nice. I always think of Trainspotting when I try to imagine it. ^_^

Now I'm trying to imagine Bond with one. D:


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 14, 2008)

keiiya said:


> The Scottish accent is really nice. I always think of Trainspotting when I try to imagine it. ^_^
> 
> Now I'm trying to imagine Bond with one. D:



Well, I'd say Sean Connery, but his accent sounds pretty unique to me. 

There is Scottishness _in it_, but it still is unmistakably _his_ Scottish accent.


----------



## keiiya (Nov 14, 2008)

Connery's accent is like a silky purr. Very recognisable. I always felt he was an interesting choice for Bond.

Makes me want to have a Scottish accent now. So sexy.


----------



## Toad Hermit (Nov 14, 2008)

this movie was garbage would rather watch gayniggers from outerspace


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 14, 2008)

Watched it, liked it........The action was superb, but th plot was pretty weak.


----------



## Tenderfoot (Nov 14, 2008)

The movie was an utter waste of time and money. The story was very watery, i mean it was very lacking, it lacked thickness. No gadgets? In James Bond? wtf O.o?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Naruto-sen said:


> The movie was an utter waste of time and money. The story was very watery, i mean it was very lacking, it lacked thickness. No gadgets? In James Bond? wtf O.o?



Did you see Casino Royal...that basically was the plot. And the gadgets? ...when will people stop bringing that goofy shit up? Bond apparently didn't need gadgets and why would they give him gadgets when he's going rogue?


----------



## sworder (Nov 14, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Did you see Casino Royal...that basically was the plot. And the gadgets? ...when will people stop bringing that goofy shit up? Bond apparently didn't need gadgets and why would they give him gadgets when he's going rogue?



So true. I'm willing to bet all those saying the plot was weak dont know what was going on cuz they never followed the first one


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 14, 2008)

I didnt mind the gadgets...but the plot was pretty lame.

The evil agency stuff early on was interesting....but then it goes to the same, boring plot-type that felt too familiar to Casino Royale.

Also.....why did they bring back Felix and Mathas again? Nice to see them and all.....but Mathas especially was pointless to the story.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I didnt mind the gadgets...but the plot was pretty lame.
> 
> The evil agency stuff early on was interesting....but then it goes to the same, boring plot-type that felt too familiar to Casino Royale.
> 
> Also.....why did they bring back Felix and Mathas again? Nice to see them and all.....but Mathas especially was pointless to the story.



The plot in Casino Royale was great...and Felix deserves some progression, the old Felix characters were just simple plot devices. They gave him some depth.


----------



## Tenderfoot (Nov 14, 2008)

He's gon rogue, so what, he should still have gadgets from previous missions. I understood the plot and yes i watched Casino Royale. Irregardless, no matter how you look at it this film was a total Fail. In my eyes anyway. I have no idea why it even has a rating of 7.2 ... Oh well at the end of the day its all opinion.


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 14, 2008)

I liked the plot of Casino Royale. I am refering to THIS movie.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Naruto-sen said:


> He's gon rogue, so what, *he should still have gadgets from previous missions*. I understood the plot and yes i watched Casino Royale. Irregardless, no matter how you look at it this film was a total Fail. In my eyes anyway. I have no idea why it even has a rating of 7.2 ... Oh well at the end of the day its all opinion.



Obviously you didn't get Casino Royale, this movie takes place minutes later...Casino Royale was his first mission and he had no gadgets.


----------



## Tenderfoot (Nov 14, 2008)

Irregardless Casino Royale was still better. Minutes after? Dude that felt like weeks or months after. The action in this movie was great though, but whats action with no story, James bond with no gadgets .. just another action movie i could have got Tfrom blockbusters. This movie wasn't for me, I hope watchmen won't let me down.


----------



## Violent-nin (Nov 14, 2008)

Just finished seeing it.

The action was good, the plot was non-existent at times and the music was alright I suppose. All in all it was a decent movie, but wasn't as good as Casino Royal in the slightest.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Naruto-sen said:


> Irregardless Casino Royale was still better. Minutes after? Dude that felt like weeks or months after. The action in this movie was great though, but whats action with no story, James bond with no gadgets .. just another action movie i could have got Tfrom blockbusters. This movie wasn't for me, I hope watchmen won't let me down.



No it was minutes after, the guy he shot in the leg was in the trunk? I mean who didn't catch that?

And the gadgets thing was over done, from what I remember of the books they almost don't exist in there. They had gotten to be little more than stupid gimmicks.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Nov 14, 2008)

People remember that this is a reboot of the Bond Franchise: The Invincible super-agent from the past 20 films is gone.

Casino Royal is the story of James Bond obtaining the 00 rank it also tells the story of the woman who almost made him walk away from MI6. Its also the 1st appearance of the Quantum Organization through the onscreen pressence of Mr. White and Le Chiffe who are the middleman and bank roller of the organization. Casino Royal ends with the death of Vesper and Bond holding Mr. White at gunpoint.

The Quantum of Solace is very much Casino Royal 1.5 as it begins where episode 1 ended. So whats the plot then: its Bond hunting down the people
responsible for putting Vesper in the spot that led to her death and its about Bond coming to terms with himself about her death and moving forward with his life.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> People remember that this is a reboot of the Bond Franchise: The Invincible super-agent from the past 20 films is gone.
> 
> Casino Royal is the story of James Bond obtaining the 00 rank it also tells the story of the woman who almost made him walk away from MI6. Its also the 1st appearance of the Quantum Organization through the onscreen pressence of Mr. White and Le Chiffe who are the middleman and bank roller of the organization. Casino Royal ends with the death of Vesper and Bond holding Mr. White at gunpoint.
> 
> ...



I don't know how people don't get that, its like did they forget the other movie completely. And how the Hell could they not know the series was rebooted? That's as dumb as someone saying "How is there two Jokers in the Batman movies?" 

This was a righteous reboot and I loved both these movies. While, like you said this could have been part of one, I would have gladly paid to see twice the price to see Casino Royale if they had just tacked this on there. 

That having been said I am glad for this new direction. I hope it never gets back how it was. The realism and the current events mixed in with a more realistic model for Bond is much better than the movies use to be.

When you think about it, the first movie wasn't even the major problem. They were just handling the one person from the syndicate, where as here we have them taking on the group.


----------



## Rukia (Nov 14, 2008)

Casino Royale was a lot better.

I'm a guy; so the girls are obviously one of my favorite aspects of this franchise.  This movie failed in that regard.  Sure...Camille was attractive...but she was also incredibly stale/boring.  And I don't think her chemistry with Bond was all that great.  She was better than Denise Richards of course...but Eva Green's Vesper was a far superior Bond girl.  (And I can name several other girls that were better as well.)


----------



## Superrazien (Nov 14, 2008)

I liked this movie alot actually, mostly because I liked Casino Royal a lot and it was good to see it concluded for the most part, and the action kicked ass, best action in any bond film.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Nov 14, 2008)

In regard to the Camille character remember she is not like Bond Girls of the past she's just as damaged as he is and both are targeting the same person
that is or is linked to the persons who damaged them.


----------



## Cair (Nov 14, 2008)

I've been planning to see this with my friends, but I've heard others saying that the plot was crappy and such...so I'm neutral.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Superrazien said:


> I liked this movie alot actually, mostly because I liked Casino Royal a lot and it was good to see it concluded for the most part, and the action kicked ass, best action in any bond film.



I agree with you, I think that I can't even rate this move seperate from CR because its just CR continued. So as a whole I am CR the best Bond movie ever. 



Rukia said:


> Casino Royale was a lot better.
> 
> I'm a guy; so the girls are obviously one of my favorite aspects of this franchise.  This movie failed in that regard.  Sure...Camille was attractive...but she was also incredibly stale/boring.  And I don't think her chemistry with Bond was all that great.  She was better than Denise Richards of course...but Eva Green's Vesper was a far superior Bond girl.  (And I can name several other girls that were better as well.)



I never have really watched the Bond movies and been concerned with the girls that much. But I didn't like that girl's looks. I thought Strawberry Fields blew her out of the water. Along with the sexy little accent. 



Hellrasinbrasin said:


> In regard to the Camille character remember she is not like Bond Girls of the past she's just as damaged as he is and both are targeting the same person
> that is or is linked to the persons who damaged them.



She was effective in that regard.


----------



## Rukia (Nov 14, 2008)

Yeah; I liked Strawberry Fields better as well.  And not just because of the partial nude scene.

She brought something to the screen as soon as she arrived.  A hot accent like you said and I loved the trench coat look.  She looked good at the party too btw.  


Hellrasinbrasin said:


> In regard to the Camille character remember she is not like Bond Girls of the past she's just as damaged as he is and both are targeting the same person
> that is or is linked to the persons who damaged them.


Regardless of their intention with her character...it doesn't change the fact that she was boring.  And I will be really disappointed if she's in the next film.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Nov 14, 2008)

I think that the majority of the bitching from Casino Royale onward is the fact that the films are no longer stand-alone episodes but are connected and
the plot and characters will grow and change with each new film where as in the last 20 no character evolution, just the bad guy with a twirly mustache


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Rukia said:


> Yeah; I liked Strawberry Fields better as well.  And not just because of the partial nude scene.
> 
> She brought something to the screen as soon as she arrived.  A hot accent like you said and I loved the trench coat look.  She looked good at the party too btw.  Regardless of their intention with her character...it doesn't change the fact that she was boring.  And I will be really disappointed if she's in the next film.



I doubt she returns.



Hellrasinbrasin said:


> I think that the majority of the bitching from Casino Royale onward is the fact that the films are no longer stand-alone episodes but are connected and
> the plot and characters will grow and change with each new film where as in the last 20 no character evolution, just the bad guy with a twirly mustache



I have to say there is one slight change in the old movies, Bond was briefly married, but that is one of the few things they ever bring up again. 

I do like that Judi Dench is M, her relationship with Bond is dare I say the most healthy relationship he's had with a female yet.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 14, 2008)

Just got back from the theatre and I am wondering why everyone is complaining and saying it was horrible.

Plot? You complain about the plot because you didn't watch CR.
Gadgets? He's fucking going rogue. Why would they give him gadgets?

I'm gonna leave it at that. Overall I liked this better than CR and I thought it was a great movie. *8.5/10*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> Just got back from the theatre and I am wondering why everyone is complaining and saying it was horrible.
> 
> Plot? You complain about the plot because you didn't watch CR.
> Gadgets? He's fucking going rogue. Why would they give him gadgets?
> ...



LMAO, I told my friend in the theater they need to learn that the guns he keeps getting are from the guys they send after him...


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> LMAO, I told my friend in the theater they need to learn that the guns he keeps getting are from the guys they send after him...


Lmao. That's so true. It's like they were supplying him anyway.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> Lmao. That's so true. It's like they were supplying him anyway.



I like how Felix Lighter calls him brother all of the time, I might watch CR tonight.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 15, 2008)

I made sure to watch CR before I went to see Quantum.

What did you think of the title song though?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> I made sure to watch CR before I went to see Quantum.
> 
> What did you think of the title song though?



It was so-so...the graphics on it were much more active than before. I liked that though. 

Also I have seen CR like 20 times, so I think that's why its set in so well.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 15, 2008)

I didn't like the title song that much compared to CR.

I actually am probably gonna watch CR again right now. I'm still in a Bond mood.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> I didn't like the title song that much compared to CR.
> 
> I actually am probably gonna watch CR again right now. I'm still in a Bond mood.



I know right, I felt like I should drive fast and cause massive property damage, then fuck some girl and leave her behind with some cliche quip.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 15, 2008)

Yay this movie is finally out in theatres!

I'm going to go see it this Saturday with my parents who also want to see it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! 



> *Future*
> 
> In January 2009, writers will be hired and begin work on _Bond 23_, for release in mid or late-2011. The film will be set after _Casino Royale_ and _Quantum of Solace_, and Daniel Craig will return as James Bond (he is also contracted for a fourth film and a fifth final film). Judi Dench and Jeffrey Wright will probably return as M and Felix Leiter respectively. MGM hoped the film would be out in 2010, but the 22nd film left Michael G. Wilson_ Quantum of Solace_ director Marc Forster said he will not return to direct. Craig and Barbara Broccoli expressed interest in filming in New York City for _Bond 23_. Wilson reiterated Q and Miss Moneypenny will only reappear if they serve the plot. Broccoli hopes Quantum and Camille Montes will reappear. exhausted.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 15, 2008)

So we're missing a director for Bond 23? Ugh, I don't wanna wait 3 years for the new movie.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> So we're missing a director for Bond 23? Ugh, I don't wanna wait 3 years for the new movie.



Yeah, Craig is gone in five, brings a tear to my eye  I hope they pick a good director.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, Craig is gone in five, brings a tear to my eye  I hope they pick a good director.


I can't see how they will replace Craig. I mean how do you follow him up from what we have seen so far?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Irvine Kinneas said:


> I can't see how they will replace Craig. I mean how do you follow him up from what we have seen so far?



James Bond is a Human Wrecking Ball now, him being loose in your city is just like having a Hurricane hit...Craig does it up big.


----------



## batanga (Nov 15, 2008)

I thought it was kind of "flat", I don't know exactly what I mean by that but it's the only word I can think of.

They should've done more with Greene's organisation.


Also too much shaky cam.


----------



## Jotun (Nov 15, 2008)

As a standalone movie, it didn't do much. The action sequences were pretty good, and that was about it. Even having watched CR, I felt this movie was missing a few key scenes. It was also kind of short. I was slightly disappointed, oh well.


----------



## Rukia (Nov 15, 2008)

So Camille will be back in the next Bond film?  Why?  She killed that general...her boring story should be over now.


----------



## Tenderfoot (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it was minutes after, the guy he shot in the leg was in the trunk? I mean who didn't catch that?
> 
> And the gadgets thing was over done, from what I remember of the books they almost don't exist in there. They had gotten to be little more than stupid gimmicks.



  .....

Still wish i had saved my money, and got a bootleg, it wasn't as good as i expected it to be, in fact it was worse 

I hope the next one will be better.


----------



## Ha-ri (Nov 15, 2008)

Rukia said:


> So Camille will be back in the next Bond film?  Why?  She killed that general...her boring story should be over now.



She still killed(or kicked) more ass than that dead girl from the first movie.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 15, 2008)

Rukia said:


> So Camille will be back in the next Bond film?  Why?  She killed that general...her boring story should be over now.



Her story was'nt boring. And at least she _had_ one- a good chunk of Bond's girls hardly get anything.

She did'nt sleep with Bond- that's why she's coming back. 

And maybe to be killed.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> Her story was'nt boring. And at least she _had_ one- a good chunk of Bond's girls hardly get anything.
> 
> She did'nt sleep with Bond- that's why she's coming back.
> 
> And maybe to be killed.



I didn't see where it said she's coming back, hardly any Bond women do that.


----------



## typhoon72 (Nov 15, 2008)

i saw it last night

it was pretty good besides the shaky cam. Was > Casino Royal. I found CR to be boring as hell. Good action scenes and this one and a decent story. I think i need to see it again though (not in theaters). The only thing that was really weird was how his bones never broke. Mutha fucka jumped out a plane, parachuete came out at the last second. Then he get up, "Want my coat?"

WTF
i was laughin at that after the movie


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

typhoon72 said:


> i saw it last night
> 
> it was pretty good besides the shaky cam. Was > Casino Royal. I found CR to be boring as hell. Good action scenes and this one and a decent story. I think i need to see it again though (not in theaters). The only thing that was really weird was how his bones never broke. Mutha fucka jumped out a plane, parachuete came out at the last second. Then he get up, "Want my coat?"
> 
> ...



The fall almost made me sick because of the speed, but it was a really bad ass effect.


----------



## typhoon72 (Nov 15, 2008)

yeah i thought that scene was really well done and was cool as hell

but still i had to laugh on how he pretty much wasnt hurt at all the whole movie. Like when he was running through fire and stuff and leaping from buildings a crackin his head on walls.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

typhoon72 said:


> yeah i thought that scene was really well done and was cool as hell
> 
> but still i had to laugh on how he pretty much wasnt hurt at all the whole movie. Like when he was running through fire and stuff and leaping from buildings a crackin his head on walls.



They changed the dynamic of the fights ALOT in this one.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I didn't see where it said she's coming back, hardly any Bond women do that.



Barbara Broccoli has said they are interested in bringing her back.

As you said, hardly any do that-aside from Moneypenny, there is only Sylvia Trench from the very first two films (though actress Maud Adams played two different Bond girls in _The Man with the Golden Gun_ and _Octopussy_)- but then again this is a different type of series. 

Her story is tied in- loosely- to the Quantum storyline so that will probably be part of the rationale, but like I said she did'nt bed Bond and so we should'ne consider her a proper Bond girl until that happens.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 15, 2008)

Okay I saw it earlier today. I liked it, and lots of action as usual.

I like Casino Royale better but this one was definitly still good in my opinion.


----------



## LovesToSpooge (Nov 15, 2008)

the villain in this one sucked...ass.


----------



## Gentleman (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They changed the dynamic of the fights ALOT in this one.



That was probably one of my favorite things about the movie, the constant change of perspective and dynamic in almost everything. I thought a lot of the camera work was really good and really helped with a lot of the effects. The action was great. The bond girl was a little boring, but I still think she did a good job. The acting was good, but I still feel it was a lacking in story; nevertheless, I feel like the great action scenes made up for it. I didn't care too much for the villain. I didn't think he was cool enough, sure his plan was kind of interesting, but in the end all he was was a crazy man with an axe who screamed like a girl. His eyes creeped me out a little bit though. I think Craig followed up with a nice performance from Casino Royal. I think that they were both quite good in their own aspects. Quantum definitely wins in the action and excitement column, but Casino Royal definitely had a great story and enough action to the point that I wasn't left dissatisfied. I think I might have been a little disappointed with this bond movie, but I still think it's a good movie and worth watching.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

I think the days of creepy cat petting villains with metal teethed henchmen or hat tossing midgets is gone.


----------



## Hana (Nov 15, 2008)

Although my main reason for watching this film was the Star Trek trailer in the beginning (which I need to find a bootleg for in order to get a better opinion of it), I actually enjoyed the film more than I expected. By itself, it doesn't have a very strong plot, but if you think about it as a continuation of Casino Royale then you won't be disappointed. The action and effects were top-notch and the Bond girl wasn't too bad.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 15, 2008)

just saw it. Excluding some shaky cams moment, it was perfectly executed...

Whatever it was...


----------



## Gentleman (Nov 15, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think the days of creepy cat petting villains with metal teethed henchmen or hat tossing midgets is gone.



I agree, but at the same time, this guy was kinda a loser.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2008)

Gentleman said:


> I agree, but at the same time, this guy was kinda a loser.



I laughed at his axe fighting capability, because he used it like a poking stick. And I told my friend TSS28 at the theater, "Could you imagine James Bond's Luck stat in an Final Fantasy Game?"


----------



## Vanity (Nov 15, 2008)

So people are talking about the villain in the movie now? The one with the axe....yeah that guy was rather a lame villain in my opinion. He had nothing going for him really. o_O

I think the villain in Casino Royale was better(that guy who had the strange eye).


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 16, 2008)

Terrible Movie...

I didn't see Casino Royale so take that in mind.

What I see in a good movie is that
1.It has a good main plot.
2.It executes the main plot well.
3.Depth of the main plot
4.Nice side plots that fill in well.
5.Side plots that are tied up in the end.
6.Main character with depth.
7.Side characters with detph and REASON.

QOS failed at all these categories.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Terrible Movie...
> 
> I didn't see Casino Royale so take that in mind.
> 
> ...



You didn't see the first half of the movie, in all honesty all the stuff you said is invalid if you didn't see CR


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 16, 2008)

I thought it would be like Indiana Jones....where you didn't have to see the first movie...guess not.

Seriously though, my friends that saw the first movie were still confused with all the loose ends of the side plots. THe main side plot(saving Bolivia from Greene) was poorly constructed as well as the plot was poorly executed. The movie really had NO depth on any character. That girl had a boring plot. Bond wanting revenge was okay(even though that plot is overused in any hero movie) but the whole go sit down and come out thing? Not working for me.
Too many action scenes with no reason.

What the hell happened to the character at the beginning that got away? Or all of Greene's alliances? What would happen to Greene's plans and deal now that he is dealth with? SO many loose ends....I guess that is waht the next movie is for...but it wasn't satisfying.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> I thought it would be like Indiana Jones....where you didn't have to see the first movie...guess not.
> 
> Seriously though, my friends that saw the first movie were still confused with all the loose ends of the side plots. THe main side plot(saving Bolivia from Greene) was poorly constructed as well as the plot was poorly executed. The movie really had NO depth on any character. That girl had a boring plot. Bond wanting revenge was okay(even though that plot is overused in any hero movie) but the whole go sit down and come out thing? Not working for me.
> Too many action scenes with no reason.
> ...



I suggest when this comes out on DVD, watch both of them back to back. I bet it will be like watching one movie with a near perfect plot. This movie literally takes place minutes after the first.


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 16, 2008)

Really?
The first one should have alot of plot because the second one opened up alot of shitty plots while finishing a boring one. Also brought alot of characters with no development.

What was the point of Fields? What was the point of half the characters?

A good movie or book is one that can go in depth with the side characters as well...anyone can concentrate on one main character and a simple plot and execute it but the masters of movies can take a complicated plot as well as side plots and tie them up well WHILE making the characters more deep than a puddle.


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 16, 2008)

Summary of Quantum Solace and Review.
Spoilers are present.
FIRST, I want to say, I HATED this movie.
Second, I want to say, I didn't watch Casino Royale, which would probably explain alot of things.
Third, there will be spoilers.

I came into the theaters expecting this move to be a classic. I was not only disappointed but utterly stripped away of $8.75.

I came thinking it will be like Indiana Jones or any other big time names making movies....a one hit wonder. Of course, it wasn't...it was an addition to Casino Royale.
Now the addition was that James wants to get revenge for his wife or at least an explanation. I know...anoter simple overused plot used in action movies.


So the start of the movie is an intense shaky car chase scene which pretty much signifies THIS HAS ACTION in the movie. I let this go on although I was confused thinking....well the director sure has experience in action movies and wants to show it.

So James is being chased but of course escapes the car chase and seems to be in the middle of Italy. He drives up to some random Batman wanna be entrance which seems to be a hideout.

He opens his trunk and reveals someone who SEEMS to be very plot related. The man is tied up and interrogated by Bonds and his boss White Wig(don't know her name) while above the underground mansion, a useless horse race is going on. This horse race and the interrogating are shown back and forth while the man reveals that an organization that the British know nothing of and says they have friends everywhere.

Next thing you know, the body guard shoots Bond from around 10-12 feet away and the other girl but manages to miss and than runs. Remember, the annoying horse race is still being flashed back every two or three minutes. Bonds goes through ANOTHER series of shaky camera action and ends up killing the guy. He comes back only to find that the original captive has ran away and that White WIg is still alive and well. That is the end of the original captive who seemed to have no purpose.

White Wig is now trying to figure out about this new orginization and James is sent to kill some man and pose as him to get info. He does that in a span of 10 minutes of action again.

He rides the car with some chick named Camille(who later we find out is Bolivian secret agent..or was...I know, terrible explanation) that ends up thinking Bonds was sent to kill her from her boss and she escapes to her boss to confront him. All this happens while some black person on a scooter chases them for no reason. Bonds then follows her and finds her boss, Dominic Greene, wanting to buy a desert from a fat guy in exchange for Bolivia.

Next thing you know the girl who JUST found out she was going to be killed gets on the boat with the fat man(who we find out later killed her family) and Bonds saves her from a death set out for her again. This of course, took another ten minutes. She is unconcious and left into a man's arm and than not seen again into a long while later.

Greene seems to be the main villian and is head of Greene Planet, some planet saving doodoo organization. Greene is seen in a scene where he talks to American affairs about oil and land.

Bonds then goes to a fancy party opera magiger after finding Greene was going to be there and finds that Greene has some friends he is negotiating with(international affairs over land and oil) from listenting with some random transmitter he happened to find from a random important international and then Bond tells all to stand and takes photos from 500 feet away and manages to get a good enough picture and IDS them. He gets into the party by the way, but just sneaking in and stealing clothes from a man. GREAT SECURITY FOR A HIGH CLASS PARTY RIGHT!??!

He than manages to confront Greene and other HIGH CLASS BODY GUARDS and escapes.

HE goes to some friend Mathis who decides to travel with Bond due to experience and tells Bond to forgive his dead wife. Bond is like W/E.

Bonds and Mathis land in some random place and meets some girl name Field.


OH BY THE WAY, IF YOU ARE LOST BY NOW AND STILL SEE NO PLOT, THIS IS HALF THE MOVIE. MY EXPLANATION OR SEQUENCING ISN'T TERRIBLE, THE MOVIE'S SEQUENCING WAS AND I'M JUST SAYING EXACTLY WHAT I SAW.


Field happens to be someone to send Bonds back but she fails. HE has sex with her and than goes to some party which Greene invited him to. Greene says he wants to help the world in a speech with his corporation Green Planet which is world friendly. After the speech, Greene is talking to some high class international which then the girl, the bolivian agent Camille, who says Greene was buying land for oil which screws him over. He brings her over to cliff to kill her when Bond walks in.Greene gives up the attempt and Bond and the Camille walk away to a car.Bond brings Camille so he can find more info on Greene. Field is left behind.

They are pulled over by cops who tell Bond to open his trunk. He does and finds Mathis in there injured. He then gets shot but uses his good friend Mathis as a cover. He manages to kill the cops, throw MAthis in a dumpster after Mathis tells him a heart warming "forgive her" speech and leaves with Camille.

Next scene, they drive to some desert all of a sudden and buy an airplane. They try to leave somewhere but is shot down in another long action scene and end up in some deep drilled hole with alot of water. Bonds and the girl survive a fall from around 5000 feet high by opening a parachute 20 feet from the ground...yeah right...
THe girl tells Bond a sob story of revenge and Bonds tell the girl about revenge too. Bonds and the girl find that Greene wanted water and not oil(I know, I'm confused by the poor explanation of the movie) and wants to cause a drought in Bolivia.

They leave and go to the hotel where Bodns and FIelds had sex and M(white wig) says Bonds is no longer needed.Bonds tells of the water plot. Bonds finds Field dead and covered with oil. Bond rides and elevator with people who took his weapon away and manages to beat four professionals up and runs away. M is happy.

Camille and Bonds then go to a random mansion in the desert which is run by the fat man wanting bolivia. HE is negotiating with Greene and is forced to sign a deal that Greene gets to run the facility department of Bolivia.Bond and Camille sneak in this ultimate villian mansion really easily(seriously, even you or I can sneak in) and than split. Camille goes to kill the fatty while Bonds goes for Greene. Fatty is pissed with his new deal and decides to rape a chick who was serving beer to him and ends up getting killed by Camille later on.

Bonds on the other hand manages to shoot some gas tank which starting blowing up the entire mansion(which happens to be half a mile long, yes even longer than that mansion on HIghland) and finds Greene. Greene fights Bonds with an axe screaming like an idiot and manages to stab his foot. While the whole mansion is exploding, Bonds leaves Greene and finds teh girl. He escapes with her and finds Greene limping away. He leaves Greene inthe middle of the desert with only motor oil to drink(Ivan says this is great because Fields die in oil which REALLY DOESN'T MATTER SINCE FIELDS IS POINTLESS) and Greene dies.

The girl Camille is then set free in Bolivia after a touching kiss.

Bonds than goes to Russia and FINALLY goes to the main plot...revenge for his wife. I was like, FINALLY, THE PLOT!!! He captures the guy in NO action scene but in a two second gun pointed to the head scene. He sits down with the guy, who happens to be with a girl, and tells her to leave. She does. Bond's than says tell me about Vesper my wife. Next scene, Bonds walks out and meets M. M ask if the guy is dead and Bond's says no. He says his wife never betrayed him and the movie ends.








WHAT!??!?!??!?! Almost EVERYTHING I SAID was POINTLESS except the last paragraph. THAt was the plot and nothing else. The other scenes were just pointless. No character depth, no humor, just mindless action and poorly executed plot. Action movies are great but usually have a great story along with it. No Country for Old Men is an example. THis also had character depth and filled loose ends of all characters and had characters that were there for a purpose. It didn't have a useless horse race, a useless captive, a useless chick killed in oil, and etc.

Quantum of Solace was a poor man's Jason Bourne...scratch that, a broken retarded hobo's Jason Bourne.

I should watch Casino Royale but w/e. This movie sucked. Its ratings aren't so high either.

In the end, I give it a 1.5/4 stars.


----------



## Taleran (Nov 16, 2008)

Only the older bonds before Craig were unconnected movies


neway I liked it aside from


Half the time I couldn't understand what the hell was going on cause of all the annoying unclear shots of shaky shit. You'd get that there was one guy chasing another guy, but that was about it. The entire time I was kind of like "Could you just hold the camera still for 5 fucking seconds so I can see what the stunt men are doing?"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2008)

Taleran said:


> Only the older bonds before Craig were unconnected movies
> 
> 
> neway I liked it aside from
> ...



I never even noticed it.


----------



## Vonocourt (Nov 16, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I never even noticed it.



Yeah, but you liked Cloverfield.

I wanna see it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Yeah, but you liked Cloverfield.
> 
> I wanna see it.



I loved it, and I love your little big planet men.


----------



## Urarenge2005 (Nov 16, 2008)

As far as I'm concerned anybody who didnt see Casino Royale has no right to an opinion on this. This is a sequel. Actually No, it is the second half of what is probably a 3 parter. This is "The empire strikes back" in bond terms.

but as a Standalone movie this was an action movie, not a Bond flick.

3/5


----------



## Shippingr4losers (Nov 17, 2008)

Meh. I watched this movie, but got confused with all the plotlines and the cinematography. Seriously, that camera and that editing was way too shaky. The rest of the elements didn't really develop into a story. Bond's revenge plotline got too little attention while the whole 'let's steal water from Bolivia' plot didn't really connect to anything. Craig's great as Bond, but if he has no where to roam, no emotional hurdles to leap, he can't go anywhere.

2/5.


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 17, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Terrible Movie...
> 
> I didn't see Casino Royale so take that in mind.
> 
> ...



On your points,

1) Agreed, the main plot was weak.
2) Agreed, most of it felt like a rehash of the first film.
3) Er, explain this......most Bond movies don't have much depth in their plot. Do you mean something like "The stakes must be high?". If so, then I really disagree.

4) Agreed, the side plots were pretty lame.

5) Mostly agreed.......the Mr. White bit is still a loose end. I was hoping the evil organization bit would be wrapped up......

6) Disagree here. I thought the main character had depth, although it was often done in either a lazy or rushed way.

7) Once again, I disagree.......however, once again......lazy and rushed.


----------



## Han Solo (Nov 17, 2008)

The thing about this movie is that, it's really not supposed to be taken as a standalone film. It's a continuation of Casino Royale, like from Star Wars 1 to 2. You have to see Casino Royale first.

Otherwise it'd seems massively inferior compared to how good it really is.

Overall I'd give it an 8/10, compared to Casino Royale's 9.

I was actually there on the 29th when it aired Leicester Square. The atmosphere was insane.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 17, 2008)

Han Solo said:


> The thing about this movie is that, it's really not supposed to be taken as a standalone film. It's a continuation of Casino Royale, like from Star Wars 1 to 2. You have to see Casino Royale first.
> 
> Otherwise it'd seems massively inferior compared to how good it really is.
> 
> ...



Thats about how I would describe it.


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 18, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> On your points,
> 
> 1) Agreed, the main plot was weak.
> 2) Agreed, most of it felt like a rehash of the first film.
> ...



On what I meant by depth on a main plot, I mean in action movie with a secret orginization around the world, a plot more diabolical or more complicated than "buy land with water" would have satisfy me.

Too many characters have been introduced with so little depth in them at QOS as well.


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 18, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> On what I meant by depth on a main plot, I mean in action movie with a secret orginization around the world, a plot more diabolical or more complicated than "buy land with water" would have satisfy me.
> 
> Too many characters have been introduced with so little depth in them at QOS as well.



Well, I prefer the "water" bit to the "oil" thing I expected it to be. In all honesty, I thought it was diabolical enough. I just wished it focused more on what the evil organization is all about......we got from the last 2 people that they are using dirty tricks to get money......but for what reason? Maybe the third one was mentioned.

Anyway, I dont agree with the characters. Even the CIA dude had depth.....my only issue is that the Bond Girls depth was targeted at her exposition scenes......which always bugs me. Do directors think she is great at delivering exposition? Because she did the same damn thing in "Hitman".

So I cant bring myself to agree with your last statement. The first is an opinion. You were disapointed because it wasn't diabolical enough for your tastes. You 2nd is still in the air.

Character Depth means that there is more to them than meets the eye. I thought every character had it.


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 18, 2008)

Urarenge2005 said:


> As far as I'm concerned anybody who didnt see Casino Royale has no right to an opinion on this. This is a sequel. Actually No, it is the second half of what is probably a 3 parter. This is "The empire strikes back" in bond terms.
> 
> but as a Standalone movie this was an action movie, not a Bond flick.
> 
> 3/5



All bond flicks were standalones besides this one.


----------



## Chocochip (Nov 18, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Well, I prefer the "water" bit to the "oil" thing I expected it to be. In all honesty, I thought it was diabolical enough. I just wished it focused more on what the evil organization is all about......we got from the last 2 people that they are using dirty tricks to get money......but for what reason? Maybe the third one was mentioned.
> 
> Anyway, I dont agree with the characters. Even the CIA dude had depth.....my only issue is that the Bond Girls depth was targeted at her exposition scenes......which always bugs me. Do directors think she is great at delivering exposition? Because she did the same damn thing in "Hitman".
> 
> ...



Most characters were introduced, given one brief characteristic, and then left in the dust. Every SINGLE character was static. James perhaps a little dynamic about Vesper but only due to the explanation and the whole freaking cast telling him she loved him.

Greene was about the most boring uncharacterized villian. I can summarize him to be smart and backstabbing...that is it. He has nothing about him that makes him believable. Nor does anybody except for Mathis. He had some depth to his character...

Characters all evil or all good usually have no depth and seeing both ends of their spectrum is what makes a character believable.


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 18, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Most characters were introduced, given one brief characteristic, and then left in the dust. Every SINGLE character was static. James perhaps a little dynamic about Vesper but only due to the explanation and the whole freaking cast telling him she loved him.
> 
> Greene was about the most boring uncharacterized villian. I can summarize him to be smart and backstabbing...that is it. He has nothing about him that makes him believable. Nor does anybody except for Mathis. He had some depth to his character...
> 
> Characters all evil or all good usually have no depth and seeing both ends of their spectrum is what makes a character believable.



Really?  Granted, everyone overdid the "Vesper loves you" bit...but was cool about how Craig played Bond was his grief was never overt, making him more interesting(and dangerous).

I disagree about Greene. On paper, yes, he sucks, and feels like a crappy rehash of the last villain. Something about that actor though made him kind of unnerving. 

Felix only had a tiny role, but they did his bit well. you instantly know he doesn't like making deals with villains, but he's in a point where it isn't obvious(until he helps out Bond near the end).

Mathis was a tough one for me, and I actually I dont think he had much depth. Once again, he just had too much exposition that felt.....corny. 
*Spoiler*: __ 



His final scene


----------



## Bushin (Nov 18, 2008)

Only 1 more day to go! Can't wait to see this movie. The glory days of Bond are coming back!


----------



## Vanity (Nov 18, 2008)

Hey what did you guys think of the opening song for this movie?

It's "Another Way to Die" by Jack White & Alicia Keys

I liked it a lot so I downloaded it on iTunes.

I also liked the one from Casino Royale a lot so when that came out I also bought the opening song.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 18, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Most characters were introduced, given one brief characteristic, and then left in the dust. Every SINGLE character was static. James perhaps a little dynamic about Vesper but only due to the explanation and the whole freaking cast telling him she loved him.
> 
> Greene was about the most boring uncharacterized villian. I can summarize him to be smart and backstabbing...that is it. He has nothing about him that makes him believable. Nor does anybody except for Mathis. He had some depth to his character...
> 
> Characters all evil or all good usually have no depth and seeing both ends of their spectrum is what makes a character believable.



Where are you getting this? I mean your last statement couldn't be more obviously wrong. Many of the characters were having moral qualms about what they were doing. M said that "If we didn't deal with the bad guys who would we deal with?" The main villains work for a damn Green Peace like orgainization. I think you decided you didn't like this and just tried to figure out ways to pick it apart. A few of your claims are justified. But didn't you say you didn't see the other movie? 

So how are you saying this is bad when the old Bonds had so much less characterization or change? The villains in the old movies were just like comic book super villains with wacky quirks. 

Sorry but most of what your said just doesn't seem to fit with what I saw at all.


----------



## Han Solo (Nov 18, 2008)

Seriously, to all those people who bitch about the plot, Casino Royale _is_ the plot your moaning about not being there.

This film literally starts about a couple of hours after Casino Royale. That's how closely interlinked they are.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 18, 2008)

Han Solo said:


> Seriously, to all those people who bitch about the plot, Casino Royale _is_ the plot your moaning about not being there.
> 
> This film literally starts about a couple of hours after Casino Royale. That's how closely interlinked they are.



Yeah and this movie is suppose to be, what, the middle one out of 3 movies?

If you have 3 movies really connected like that usually the middle one has the least amount of plot because it's neither the start or the end. That's just the way it goes.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 18, 2008)

Han Solo said:


> Seriously, to all those people who bitch about the plot, Casino Royale _is_ the plot your moaning about not being there.
> 
> This film literally starts about a couple of hours after Casino Royale. That's how closely interlinked they are.



It's not hours dude, it can't be. It has to be within an hour. Because he shot the guy in the leg at the end of the other one, we see the guy in his trunk still bleeding...I would guess its more like fifteen to twenty minutes.




Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> Yeah and this movie is suppose to be, what, the middle one out of 3 movies?
> 
> If you have 3 movies really connected like that usually the middle one has the least amount of plot because it's neither the start or the end. That's just the way it goes.



Both Star Wars Trilogies and the Lord of the Rings Movies kind of shot that one in the foot. Really, the only advantage a sequel has over the original is that the characters are established. 

They used that here, problem is, people didn't get that or they went into the theaters not having seen the old stuff.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Nov 29, 2008)

Quantum of Solace was great, the first scene car chase was pretty epic.


----------



## masamune1 (Nov 29, 2008)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> *Yeah and this movie is suppose to be, what, the middle one out of 3 movies?*
> 
> If you have 3 movies really connected like that usually the middle one has the least amount of plot because it's neither the start or the end. That's just the way it goes.



No. Craig has signed up for 4. And, of course, it's unlikely the series ends with him, esp. since this is a reboot of a series that went to 20 movies over 40 years. 

And like almost every Bond film, each has it's stand-alone plot. Things like Quantum (the organization) will last as long as the producers want it to last. The next one may continue with their story (which it would'nt neccesarily be-I mean, SPECTRE were'nt the be-all and end-all of the Connery films), or it might even be a totally unrelated affair (like _Goldfinger_, the third Bond film which had nothing to do with the previous ones at all). 

For all the talk about this being the first-ever Bond film that is a proper "sequel", it really is'nt. In _From Russia With Love_, for example, the plot was about SPECTRE trying to kill Bond specifically for foiling their plans and killing their agent in the previous film, _Dr No._


----------



## Vanity (Nov 29, 2008)

masamune1 said:


> No. Craig has signed up for 4. And, of course, it's unlikely the series ends with him, esp. since this is a reboot of a series that went to 20 movies over 40 years.
> 
> And like almost every Bond film, each has it's stand-alone plot. Things like Quantum (the organization) will last as long as the producers want it to last. The next one may continue with their story (which it would'nt neccesarily be-I mean, SPECTRE were'nt the be-all and end-all of the Connery films), or it might even be a totally unrelated affair (like _Goldfinger_, the third Bond film which had nothing to do with the previous ones at all).
> 
> For all the talk about this being the first-ever Bond film that is a proper "sequel", it really is'nt. In _From Russia With Love_, for example, the plot was about SPECTRE trying to kill Bond specifically for foiling their plans and killing their agent in the previous film, _Dr No._



Okay, well I'm actually glad to hear that it's 4 movies instead of 3 because I've really been liking these ones.


----------



## Big Boss (Nov 30, 2008)

What did you guys think of the sony products in this movie?


----------



## The Boss (Dec 1, 2008)

I thought QoS was pretty good. I saw CR way back when it first came out so I was kind of trying to put the pieces back together since QoS took place soon after part CR.  lol, I'll probably rewatch CR again soon. I'm looking forward to the next installment.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 2, 2008)

I havn't seen the film, but everyone i know who has watched it says its rubbish so im not going to see it even if its free, cause it would be a waste of my time. I think the first one was also shit. Apparently he slept with two of the female cast in the first film, him being Daniel Craig. Dirty little boy, he just got lucky. Personally, being a straight guy, i think hes REALLY ugly.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 2, 2008)

Deran Oburienu said:


> I havn't seen the film, but everyone i know who has watched it says its rubbish so im not going to see it even if its free, cause it would be a waste of my time. I think the first one was also shit. Apparently he slept with two of the female cast in the first film, him being Daniel Craig. Dirty little boy, he just got lucky. Personally, being a straight guy, i think hes REALLY ugly.



You have no idea how valuable this is...I mean someone who didn't see either of the movies and bases part of their opinion on how another guy looks.


----------



## Vonocourt (Dec 2, 2008)

Deran Oburienu said:


> I havn't seen the film, but everyone i know who has watched it says its rubbish so im not going to see it even if its free, cause it would be a waste of my time. I think the first one was also shit. Apparently he slept with two of the female cast in the first film, him being Daniel Craig. Dirty little boy, he just got lucky. Personally, being a straight guy, i think hes REALLY ugly.



Great post, will read again.


----------



## Bender (Dec 3, 2008)

Epic Bond movie is epic


----------

