I think so, because any respectable film critic should treat a franchise reboot as a franchise reboot and recognize the literature that the character originated from, which is the intention of the writers. If they're reviewing QoS and CR and making references to DAD, it's just the wrong idea.Jamesfrom818 said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: QUANTUM OF SOLACE
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Flemming was also the king of product placement. If he could drop a high-end brand name, he always would.
Prime crotch
Banned
That was because the drink he was having was the one Bond came up with in Casino Roayle, which was named after Vesper, I think.Ryck said:
ToyMachine228
Member
Prime crotch said:
That's right. He was drinking a Vesper Martini in Quantum of Solace, which he "invented" and named after Vesper in Casino Royale. And there is also a reference as to how it DOES NOT contain Vermouth which is an alcohol that people are trying to substitute for one of the actual ingredients. He bartender details it exactly. I don't have the exact ingredients memorized.
ToyMachine228 said:
"A dry martini," Bond said. "One. In a deep champagne goblet."
"Oui, monsieur."
"Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?"
"Certainly, monsieur." The barman seemed pleased with the idea.
"Gosh, that's certainly a drink," said Leiter.
Bond laughed. "When I'm...er...concentrating," he explained, "I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong and very cold and very well-made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad. This drink's my own invention. I'm going to patent it when I can think of a good name."
-Ian Fleming, Casino Royale
ToyMachine228
Member
Yeah that's it. People are trying to substitute Vermouth for Lillet. I tried to find Lillet once and couldn't. And that's why people are trying to substitute Vermouth.
ShowDog said:
Uh no. You have a choice to educate the masses to accept the new style instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. To give you an extreme example, Hollywood continues to churn out those crappy "Date Movies/Scary Movies" drivels because some dumbasses keep coming to it. But why should we get such crappy movies when we can get better, more intelligent movies out of Hollywood?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
So will the next 007 film be about the
Quantum people or what? They're still out there. =\
ToyMachine228
Member
-COOLIO- said:
They'll probably tell you they don't have Lillet. They have Vermouth. Which is something that scene actually points out. And as for the next Bond as the Bourne icon man pointed out...I'm not quite sure what direction they're going to go. But Mr. White is still out there that's for sure.
Blader5489 said:
Not yes. More like maybe. If they were for sure going to continue down that road, then they wouldnt have cut the final scene.
Personally I think they are gauging QoS' success, then deciding. If it does really well, then Im sure they will continue with Quantum in the next film. However, if it suddenly drops 70% at the BO next weekend, then they may rethink that stance.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
just saw it... i thought it was wonderful..
i dont get the mixed reviews.. especially from some of you here..
i would even put it above casino royale which i thought was great too..
only thing i hated was the bowl haircut
the next one will be great... i think its about time we meet the new moneypenny and q
i dont get the mixed reviews.. especially from some of you here..
i would even put it above casino royale which i thought was great too..
only thing i hated was the bowl haircut
the next one will be great... i think its about time we meet the new moneypenny and q
Penguin said:
Personally I wouldn't mind Q, so long as he was more of an adviser to Bond than a crazy gadget inventor. The guy in CR who instructed Bond on how to use the paddles, or the guy who was debriefing Bond and M with that sci-fi computer table--that should be what Q does.
Moneypenny, on the other hand, should just kind of be left out. She really doesn't serve any purpose to the plot, and if she did, she wouldn't really be Moneypenny, she'd be a Bond girl.
Because they are tired elements, and unnecessary bloat. Bringing Q back = gadgets, something that should never return. And Ive had enough of Moneypenny making moony eyes at James over the years.
Basically, they are two of the major factors in the old "formula", which, correct me if Im wrong, we've been breaking out of on CR and QoS.
Basically, they are two of the major factors in the old "formula", which, correct me if Im wrong, we've been breaking out of on CR and QoS.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I wouldn't mind seeing "the armorer" as appeared in the novels. He had a similarly disparaging attitude toward Bond, but was generally giving him guns, IIRC.
He called Bond's Beretta "a woman's gun" which Bond didn't care for!
That said, no gadgets, at least not as they previously appeared. Craig actually does pack gadgets in these movies, but they are super-cool cell phones, computers and cameras, and more plausible.
He called Bond's Beretta "a woman's gun" which Bond didn't care for!
That said, no gadgets, at least not as they previously appeared. Craig actually does pack gadgets in these movies, but they are super-cool cell phones, computers and cameras, and more plausible.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I pretty much loved classic Q, but by the end he was a worn-out joke. When he was closer to Bond's age, and more ruffled than disparaging, it worked.
Still, it's complete window dressing and unnecessary. I never need to see another walk-through where people are blowing up test dummies with goofy shit again.
I *could* see them bringing back Moneypenny as a replacement for that guy who was M's personal assistant in the last two, but I hope that they do not.
Still, it's complete window dressing and unnecessary. I never need to see another walk-through where people are blowing up test dummies with goofy shit again.
I *could* see them bringing back Moneypenny as a replacement for that guy who was M's personal assistant in the last two, but I hope that they do not.
Prime crotch
Banned
Gadgets are more than likely to return, I doubt we'll be seeing laser beam coming out of Omegas anytime soon though.
Actually, isn't the guy who played Brutus on Rome M's secretary?
Just you wait till they make Moneypenny a male secretary who has the hots for James.Solo said:
Actually, isn't the guy who played Brutus on Rome M's secretary?
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
I agree...defniitely low points for both characters..Solo said:
but a realistic new vision is in order here!!
were both characters in the books?? or were they created for the movies?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
swoon said:
Is it rigged with high explosives in every room?
Schattenjagger said:
There's a Q-like character in the books, Major Boothroyd, the armorer. He's disdainful of Bond, but doesn't make gadgets, just hands out guns.
Moneypenny is in the books, but has a smaller role.
ToyMachine228
Member
Prime crotch said:
Really, Bond's phone does some interesting stuff in Quantum if I remember correctly. That's the only type of gadgets that I want to see in Bond films. Real world things, with extra features that an agent of Bond's type would actually be likely to have.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Solo said:
I did not know that (or else I forgot). Cool.
He's never called Q in the books, so I didn't think they were necessarily the same character.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It was just my oversight. I see from your reference that they are supposed to be the same guy.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Saw it the other night.
Marc Forster does not know how to juxtapose effectively or when it's appropriate. That opera/chase/gun fight series of quick cuts was fucking ridiculous. That might have worked in another film, but this is a Bond film. And yes, this movie suffered a serious case of Bourne-itis which thankfully toned down in the second half of the film. Story was weaker.
Overall it was enjoyable, but still a disappointment considering how good CR was. Craig still nailed Bond.
Marc Forster does not know how to juxtapose effectively or when it's appropriate. That opera/chase/gun fight series of quick cuts was fucking ridiculous. That might have worked in another film, but this is a Bond film. And yes, this movie suffered a serious case of Bourne-itis which thankfully toned down in the second half of the film. Story was weaker.
Overall it was enjoyable, but still a disappointment considering how good CR was. Craig still nailed Bond.
Eh, after years of staying away from the franchise I was dragged into watching QoS recently. To me it felt like a rather generic spy film with huge amounts of action scenes, some of them (particularly in the first half) shot in a way that makes me think that the cameraman suffered from bouts of epilepsy while filming. Man, that was annoying as hell.
The movie doesn't attempt to clue newbs into the story background, which may be good for fans, but to this outsider it felt like watching a weekly show special episode.
I somehow expected little comic-book footnotes to pop up ("cf. 'Casino Royale' [S03E09 0:34:54]"). The villain had that intangible dastardly-villain-of-the-week syndrome too. Way too long-winded and complicated setup for world domination. In the end he was utterly inconsequential and quickly dispatched of, much like many other characters in the movie. He was too normal, his wig-wearing right hand was far better and had an utterly anticlimatic ending. For shame. I'd have preferred the other way around, evil boss dying like that and Bond fighting his ... oh yes, inspiration has struck! ... fighting his gay lover/crush looking for revenge. That would have been OH GOD DON'T SHOOT ME.
The intro was bollocks IMHO. A friend dubbed it "Rap yodeling", and while that makes no sense at all the term kind of stuck with me. I feel it was out of place and failed to set the mood. The visuals were kind of rubbing me the wrong way too. Eh, can't win 'em all, I guess.
That female M however is gold. I don't see why she had to dive into action like that though. A good M sits at his/her desk and coordinates his subordinates, and doesn't run around with her faithful(?) bodyguard team. But whatever, that's just me clinging to old Bond again. God, I miss Q and the crazy gadgets though. They would have lent themselves well for that random exploding building near the end.
All in all a pretty nice and fun movie, but for me, coming off casually watching the "old school" Bonds from time to time it was a bit bland and un-Bondy; Doubly so since I've never perceived Bond as a contemporary figure and thus had trouble adjusting to "modern Bond", complete with product placement and idiotic MovieOS computer UIs. Streamlined to a fault, so to speak. I'd have liked some more "story".
Sure, it may adhere to the books more closely (or at all), but I miss that certain campy flair. That's just me though.
The movie doesn't attempt to clue newbs into the story background, which may be good for fans, but to this outsider it felt like watching a weekly show special episode.
I somehow expected little comic-book footnotes to pop up ("cf. 'Casino Royale' [S03E09 0:34:54]"). The villain had that intangible dastardly-villain-of-the-week syndrome too. Way too long-winded and complicated setup for world domination. In the end he was utterly inconsequential and quickly dispatched of, much like many other characters in the movie. He was too normal, his wig-wearing right hand was far better and had an utterly anticlimatic ending. For shame. I'd have preferred the other way around, evil boss dying like that and Bond fighting his ... oh yes, inspiration has struck! ... fighting his gay lover/crush looking for revenge. That would have been OH GOD DON'T SHOOT ME.
The intro was bollocks IMHO. A friend dubbed it "Rap yodeling", and while that makes no sense at all the term kind of stuck with me. I feel it was out of place and failed to set the mood. The visuals were kind of rubbing me the wrong way too. Eh, can't win 'em all, I guess.
That female M however is gold. I don't see why she had to dive into action like that though. A good M sits at his/her desk and coordinates his subordinates, and doesn't run around with her faithful(?) bodyguard team. But whatever, that's just me clinging to old Bond again. God, I miss Q and the crazy gadgets though. They would have lent themselves well for that random exploding building near the end.
All in all a pretty nice and fun movie, but for me, coming off casually watching the "old school" Bonds from time to time it was a bit bland and un-Bondy; Doubly so since I've never perceived Bond as a contemporary figure and thus had trouble adjusting to "modern Bond", complete with product placement and idiotic MovieOS computer UIs. Streamlined to a fault, so to speak. I'd have liked some more "story".
Sure, it may adhere to the books more closely (or at all), but I miss that certain campy flair. That's just me though.
Life has once again schooled me in "Why Anticipation/Hype/Expectations Suck 101". Just saw the film a second time, and jesus christ WOW, I LOVED it this time. Its amazing what having a clear mind, no expectations, and no idea of what the film "should be" in your mind will do for you. I just let the film wash over me this time, and while I still believe the film has nothing on CR, nor will I go as far as Ignatz and say I think its the best Bond film, I must say that I grossly underrated it upon my initial viewing.
This is a much more subtle movie than CR was, both in plot and Marc Forster's directorial style. The film has panache and a real sense of gravitas that I didnt fully soak in or appreciate the first time. I called the movie inconsequential before, and I now regret saying that also. Its actually quite the opposite. We see the consequences of Bond's actions, and we feel how these actions burden him. I don't want to go into full on praise mode, because the movie does still have a lot of issues, but I felt the need to say that its more than worth a second glance. I initially called it mediocre, and ranked it dead center in the Bond film canon. After giving it a fresh set of eyes, I think its a marvelous movie, and probably hovers just outside of my top 5 Bond films.
This is a much more subtle movie than CR was, both in plot and Marc Forster's directorial style. The film has panache and a real sense of gravitas that I didnt fully soak in or appreciate the first time. I called the movie inconsequential before, and I now regret saying that also. Its actually quite the opposite. We see the consequences of Bond's actions, and we feel how these actions burden him. I don't want to go into full on praise mode, because the movie does still have a lot of issues, but I felt the need to say that its more than worth a second glance. I initially called it mediocre, and ranked it dead center in the Bond film canon. After giving it a fresh set of eyes, I think its a marvelous movie, and probably hovers just outside of my top 5 Bond films.
Spotless Mind
Member
Saw it last night. Aside from Daniel Craig's fantastic portrayal, some excellent interactions with minor players, and some brilliantly executed parts - the opera sequence being a stand out, i was pretty damn disappointed.
The action choreography was great (that i could see) but the editing and and even the photography at times was extremely sloppy. Coming from someone who never had problems with the Bourne films style, the action sequences in this at times annoyed the shit out of me. I could barely make out what was going on a lot of the time.
The randomly exploding fuel cell building was the kind of stupidity i hoped the series would move away from and the plane action sequence and subsequent parachute stunt had me rolling my eyes. The action sequences just weren't the slightest bit exciting because the story was weak (on top of some shoddy execution). I never felt there was anything at stake.
Olga (i cant even remember her name, which says a lot :lol ), looks aside, was a pretty sucky Bond girl. I did however appreciate the dynamic with Bond they were going for, even though i think they failed.
I was immensely looking forward to Mathieu Amalric as Dominic, but i thought he was thoroughly wasted. He was both underdeveloped and underused. He just didn't leave an impression on me in the slightest.
The real strength of the film is Bond's character arc following Vesper's death. There is real weight to his actions, that i think the character has never had. Hands down my favourite Bond performance after this film. The interactions with M in particular were great. I also think it ended on a very strong note.
I think it was a solid Bond film overall. It's just hard not to come away disappointed when i feel they regressed in areas after how superb Casino Royale was.
The action choreography was great (that i could see) but the editing and and even the photography at times was extremely sloppy. Coming from someone who never had problems with the Bourne films style, the action sequences in this at times annoyed the shit out of me. I could barely make out what was going on a lot of the time.
The randomly exploding fuel cell building was the kind of stupidity i hoped the series would move away from and the plane action sequence and subsequent parachute stunt had me rolling my eyes. The action sequences just weren't the slightest bit exciting because the story was weak (on top of some shoddy execution). I never felt there was anything at stake.
Olga (i cant even remember her name, which says a lot :lol ), looks aside, was a pretty sucky Bond girl. I did however appreciate the dynamic with Bond they were going for, even though i think they failed.
I was immensely looking forward to Mathieu Amalric as Dominic, but i thought he was thoroughly wasted. He was both underdeveloped and underused. He just didn't leave an impression on me in the slightest.
The real strength of the film is Bond's character arc following Vesper's death. There is real weight to his actions, that i think the character has never had. Hands down my favourite Bond performance after this film. The interactions with M in particular were great. I also think it ended on a very strong note.
I think it was a solid Bond film overall. It's just hard not to come away disappointed when i feel they regressed in areas after how superb Casino Royale was.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Solo, I'm going to have to give it time to really call it the best, as new films usually have a glow on them for a while-- but the moral ambiguity of so many of the players, along with a less episodic nature go a long way to me thinking that it *might* be. Time has worn well on Casino Royale, and I was hesitant to name *that* my favorite, but it really has been. We'll see if I like QoS over multiple viewings and a couple of years.
Welcome to the light side!
Welcome to the light side!
KeeSomething
Banned
I've been wanting to see QoS a second time, but now Solo has made it clear that I MUST see it again.
By the way, I have finally come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is my all time favorite Bond film. It gets more enjoyable with each watch; that's impressive considering how long it is, but time flies when you are watching an excellent movie.
By the way, I have finally come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is my all time favorite Bond film. It gets more enjoyable with each watch; that's impressive considering how long it is, but time flies when you are watching an excellent movie.
Boogie9IGN
Member
My car got totalled last Wednesday so I wasn't able to see it until today, but goddamn that movie owned. Bond looked so sexy at the end.
Anyone know what kind of sunglasses he was wearing?
EDIT: Apparently they're Tom Ford TF108s, and they're pretty damn expensive. Somoene find me some knockoffs
Anyone know what kind of sunglasses he was wearing?
EDIT: Apparently they're Tom Ford TF108s, and they're pretty damn expensive. Somoene find me some knockoffs
Ignatz Mouse said:
*high fives*
Im definitely in the love camp now, and I see this one get better with subsequent viewings.
KeeSomething said:
I really recommend seeing it again. I often enjoy these movies that have massive hype more the second time, because by that point, all my expectations and personal opinions and crap are gone, and I get a much more focused viewing.
KeeSomething said:
I always rank FRWL at the top, and CR second, but if Im being honest, I think in my mind I too have come to think of Casino Royale as my favorite of all the Bond movies.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Solo: Now hurry up and read Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Or heck, watch the movie first. Both are awesome.
ToyMachine228
Member
Going to see Quantum of a second time either this weekend or next week. Rocking Another Way to Die as my new ringtone as well.
Auron_Kale
Member
I was watching Casino Royale last night (Collector's Blu-Ray) and I must say that after seeing the movie again after so long, the links to Quantum of Solace were already there - but I didn't really think about it.
The more I thought about it (and I agree, Solo's post makes me want to go re-watch Quantum again this weekend), I like the fact that QoS illustrated not only the really obvious links of the Quantum group in CR, but there were subtle ones as well (the funding of the group in Bolivia for the coup was similar to funding the militia in Uganda).
Another thing that stood out after watching CR and comparing to QoS was how with each kill, Bond was slowly detatching himself from his emotions, but it's as if he's still fighting that detatchment (with the deaths of Solange Dimitrios & Agent Fields, you can hear the detachment in his voice, but still see traces of regret in his eyes).
Funnily enough, I had started reading The Spy Who Came in From the Cold a few months ago (after reading The Gun Seller) but stopped. I should start again, as it'll be a good way to purge after reading Twilight.
The more I thought about it (and I agree, Solo's post makes me want to go re-watch Quantum again this weekend), I like the fact that QoS illustrated not only the really obvious links of the Quantum group in CR, but there were subtle ones as well (the funding of the group in Bolivia for the coup was similar to funding the militia in Uganda).
Another thing that stood out after watching CR and comparing to QoS was how with each kill, Bond was slowly detatching himself from his emotions, but it's as if he's still fighting that detatchment (with the deaths of Solange Dimitrios & Agent Fields, you can hear the detachment in his voice, but still see traces of regret in his eyes).
Funnily enough, I had started reading The Spy Who Came in From the Cold a few months ago (after reading The Gun Seller) but stopped. I should start again, as it'll be a good way to purge after reading Twilight.
Auron_Kale said:
Funny you should mention this, since its one of the things that stood out most to me upon a second viewing. Forster doesnt dwell too long on them, but if you're paying attention, there are several fucking fantastic reaction shots from Craig (
when he finds out he killed a fellow agent; when Mathis dies; and when he sees Fields
I still cant fathom that there were (and still are) people out there who objected to Craig as Bond. Idiots.
- Status