[iphone3g]

it wasnt diasppointing iMO

but it wasnt as good as casino royale

 

[RedLeader]

I am (well, was) a huge Bond fan, own all the movies, read the crappy books, that sort of thing. Saw CR because I hoped they were going to do some kind of justice to the character, but they did not. No gadgets, no car chases, no one-liners, no sarcastic banter... I haven't seen this movie, and honestly I just don't care about the franchise anymore. Bond was never all about violence, revenge and all that nonsense. Yes there were scenes of action, but that wasn't the entire point of the movie. Bond as a character was a sarcastic, witty hero with a tad of the cheesy one-liner. That's who the character is. If you want to make a Bond movie, stay true to the source material, like the last 20 damn movies. If you want to make a Bourne-style hero, that's fine. Just don't try and piggy-back on an established franchise. Bugs the crap out of me, honestly. Not every series needs a reboot, what if in the new Iron Man series they ripped out all of Tony Starks personality. It would just be a guy in a suit blowing crap up. Cool to watch, but not an Iron Man movie.

 

[DSlayerZX]

watched it on mid night showing. For me, there is only action and action, and nothing else.
There really isn't an established plot or climax, but only small question after another question. Kind of like the filler missions you do in a RPG

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am (well, was) a huge Bond fan, own all the movies, read the crappy books, that sort of thing. Saw CR because I hoped they were going to do some kind of justice to the character, but they did not. No gadgets, no car chases, no one-liners, no sarcastic banter... I haven't seen this movie, and honestly I just don't care about the franchise anymore. Bond was never all about violence, revenge and all that nonsense. Yes there were scenes of action, but that wasn't the entire point of the movie. Bond as a character was a sarcastic, witty hero with a tad of the cheesy one-liner. That's who the character is. If you want to make a Bond movie, stay true to the source material, like the last 20 damn movies. If you want to make a Bourne-style hero, that's fine. Just don't try and piggy-back on an established franchise. Bugs the crap out of me, honestly. Not every series needs a reboot, what if in the new Iron Man series they ripped out all of Tony Starks personality. It would just be a guy in a suit blowing crap up. Cool to watch, but not an Iron Man movie.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

 

[Dutchess of York]

Did anybody else feel like it was a not-as-well-made borne supremacy? They need to find a happy medium between the new shaky camera 'grittier' (?) bond and lovable old witty bond.

 

[Audio-Omega]

Like it or not, this could well be the last Bond film.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchess of York /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did anybody else feel like it was a not-as-well-made borne supremacy? They need to find a happy medium between the new shaky camera 'grittier' (?) bond and lovable old witty bond.

Just watched it. Let's just say it was a Bourne Supremacy wannabe at some parts. Lol. Angles are good. But too many different angles is bad. And this movie proves it.


QoS is indeed interesting in its own respect. A very dark movie. I expected a vengeful movie and I got what I expected. Nothing more. Some parts needed to develop. Some parts didn't. It's the Bond no one would ever want to know about. I gave Casino Royale an A+. I'll give QoS a B+. IMHO it needed to be a 2 hours and a half to 3 hours movie. But oh well. I'm really hoping they continue this story with another episode to expand the story further.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchess of York /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did anybody else feel like it was a not-as-well-made borne supremacy? They need to find a happy medium between the new shaky camera 'grittier' (?) bond and lovable old witty bond.

Definitely.
It missed IMO everything that makes a movie a James Bond movie.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

To RedLeader. As with every protagonist there should be a proper intro to what he was, is, and should be.
In which CR and QoS portrayed the Bond of then, before he became dependent on gadgets, and of course the change in personality.
CR & QoS answered many "why's" to how Bond came to be. The intro/prequel of each protagonist need not be to what is perceived to the "current" interpretation. And that is why Casino Royale is as interesting as it is. The Bond before the Bond we know as a tech savvy, non-fit, smart and playboyish character.

 

[RedLeader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZephyrSapphire /img/forum/go_quote.gif To RedLeader. As with every protagonist there should be a proper intro to what he was, is, and should be. In which CR and QoS portrayed the Bond of then, before he became dependent on gadgets, and of course the change in personality. CR & QoS answered many "why's" to how Bond came to be. The intro/prequel of each protagonist need not be to what is perceived to the "current" interpretation. And that is why Casino Royale is as interesting as it is. The Bond before the Bond we know as a tech savvy, non-fit, smart and playboyish character.

So, they decided after 20 movies that they now need an "origin story"? Instead of rebooting a beloved franchise, why not create a new IP in which they can create this new hero? Because they want to play off the popularity of the previous media. Which bugs me.
Also, where are you getting this knowledge of his origin story? I'm just curious. Ian Flemings original novel did not start in the same way, "Jimmy Bond" was already an established agent. They are making it up, the new attitude and the lack of distinguishing plot elements. That's great, create the Bourne-style action hero/movie that you want. Create a whole new long-running series if you want, I might even go watch them, who doesn't love a good action flick. But stop bastardizing beloved franchises to make a buck.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, they decided after 20 movies that they now need an "origin story"? Instead of rebooting a beloved franchise, why not create a new IP in which they can create this new hero? Because they want to play off the popularity of the previous media. Which bugs me. Also, where are you getting this knowledge of his origin story? I'm just curious. Ian Flemings original novel did not start in the same way, "Jimmy Bond" was already an established agent. They are making it up, the new attitude and the lack of distinguishing plot elements. That's great, create the Bourne-style action hero/movie that you want. Create a whole new long-running series if you want, I might even go watch them, who doesn't love a good action flick. But stop bastardizing beloved franchises to make a buck.

I'm getting it from movie. Isn't it obvious? Does it need to be based on a book? No. If there was a need then there would be no need for Quantum of Solace to begin with. The idea of an origins of story is quite refreshing if you asked me. At least it answered a lot of thing of why Bond is this and that. New attitude? Old attitude. The Bond before the Bond we knew. Do we really need an in-depth plot to show personality and character? No. I'm no fan of a Bourne-style Bond but at least I've got some questions answered on why he has that personality we all know about in the Bond we know as the playboy, tech-savvy and unfit Bond. Your statement is like saying, "Did Star Wars needed a reboot in their franchise with I, II, III?" No, it did not. But at least in answered some questions. Every beloved franchise is made to make a buck. I don't see why you cannot understand that. Any novel-turned movie is to make a buck. The ability to accept a temporary change is what everybody needs. I doubt they're gonna stick with this macho-ish Bond after the third part of this origins trilogy. It wouldn't be right to stick to it IMHO. Everyone who watches a novel-turned movie should be able to understand it will never go according as planned in the book. Quantum of Solace is like an Anime filler. A moment in time in time somewhere in the storyline which wasn't in the actual storyline. It may or may not be good. It does not need an explanation to why it's there. As long as it's temporary and gets back to the main storyline after about 15~20 episodes. If it answered some questions, then that would be a bonus for the Anime. But usually Anime fans don't expect much from fillers.

 

[batmanwcm]

I enjoyed it. There was more action than I was expecting though.

 

[funkychowda]

It was alright, I thought casino royale was better

 

[nsx_23]

Right, finally saw Quantum of Solace last night. Had tickets to the premier.

Anyway, it was quiet disappointing. The new theme song sucked (Jack White can't sing for ****), and whoever mastered it deserves a bullet in the head.

The action scenes were quiet badly shot if you ask me. The camera moves around way too much, and it was quiet difficult to tell what was going on most of the time. For example, in the bit where Bond is fighting with the guy hanging off that crane thing, the camera was shaking around so much and so up-close to the actors that it was very difficult to tell who was Bond and who was the villain. They really should learn from the bourne movies, which I personally think are some of the best action films ever made.

Also, the action scenes were not spaced out very well, with too much of it at the start and basically nothing till the end. The last little scene inside the hydrogen-fueled facility was pathetic for a Bond film. I can't help getting the impression that most of the action scenes were there for the sake of it. It didn't really add anything to the storyline, and just made the later half of the movie more boring.

Casino Royale was way better since the story flowed. Quantum of Solace reminds me of a B-grade low budget action film. They really have to step it up in the next installment.

 

[illy2k]

I am also an avid James Bond fan my friend and I saw the 12:01am show that night/morning and I can honestly say I was disappointed as well. I found that Casino Royale told a story, something happened, and I was intrigued by the story. For me Quantum didn't move forward at all story wise it moved sideways. I know about 1% more about the bond universe than I did before seeing this movie and I feel like it could've delivered so much more. Explained more about Vesper, had a better criminal, had something "serious" at stake, it just seemed hollow to me.

That being said it is still an awesome action movie and I would give it a 6/10. I also wish that the DBS was more prevalent in the movie.