Is Quantum Of Solace the worst ever James Bond film?

[FelixLeiterRocks]

I guess that's one area where I differ, because I never looked at these new films as a reboot. CR, the novel, was about Bond at the beginning of his career, so it only makes sense to have CR the movie be Bonds "first" adventure. To me it's more of a prequel than a reboot.

Craig's Bond is different from previous actors, just as Moore's was a departure from Connery.

Not all Bond films were about the gadgets. DN, and FRWL, were not about the gadgets, and those two movies to me are the closest comparable to Craig's films.

I don't mind the abscense of Q, because I want them to be carful in selecting an actor to play Q. People complain about Craig being miscast, well he wasn't as badly miscast as Cleese was. Although to be fair, Cleese was clearly a different character unlike the replacements of Bond and Moneypenny.

I'm still confused on wheather Robert Brown's M was meant to be a the same M as Bernard Lee, or if it was the Admiral he played in TSWLM, who was promoted in the roll of M.

The one thing I will admit is a contradiction for the new films is Dench's M. There are other contradictions in the first 20 films as well, which is only natural for a character that really hasn't aged in 45 years.

[Kristatos]

I'm still confused on wheather Robert Brown's M was meant to be a the same M as Bernard Lee, or if it was the Admiral he played in TSWLM, who was promoted in the roll of M.

I think it was left ambiguous deliberately, to allow the audience to draw their own conclusions - a deftness of touch sadly lacking in this new, rebooted Bond.

[Mazer Rackham]

I guess that's one area where I differ, because I never looked at these new films as a reboot. CR, the novel, was about Bond at the beginning of his career, so it only makes sense to have CR the movie be Bonds "first" adventure. To me it's more of a prequel than a reboot.

But it will never fit in the the other Bonds stories. Can't get to Dr No with Connery through CR with Craig.
CR as Fleming wrote it is not a Bond at the beginning of his career. Bond in CR was well seasons officer and experienced hand. Even at the beginning of his intelligence career he was never as crude as portrayed by Craig.
To me the Book as with most of Fleming writing is a rich cornucopia of experiences. A decadent pleasure to read. The most recent rendition was striped bare of everything remarkable imbued in the original book.

Craig's Bond is different from previous actors, just as Moore's was a departure from Connery.

Not all Bond films were about the gadgets. DN, and FRWL, were not about the gadgets, and those two movies to me are the closest comparable to Craig's films.

Not really. For arguments sake lets say we ignore the gadget tech for Bond, the villains were fantastic along with their master plans and headquarters. (The gadgets in FRWL from the briefcase, rifle, periscope, doppelgangers, gimmicky escape hatches for the bad guys, a secret origination manipulating the Russians)

Bond character in those first two films are completely unrelated from the football hooligan Bond smashing through wall and seeking revenge for someone he forgets about by the next book. In LALD Bond fell for Solitaire (who wouldn't) and felt about her like he never felt about a woman before. The only time he sought personal revenge was after Tracy.

I don't mind the abscense of Q, because I want them to be carful in selecting an actor to play Q. People complain about Craig being miscast, well he wasn't as badly miscast as Cleese was. Although to be fair, Cleese was clearly a different character unlike the replacements of Bond and Moneypenny.

Cleese was decent enough becasue he was passed the torch by the real Q. None of the numbnutted help they are hiring for MI6 employees in the new series could be a decent Q and if the hire in mode they are currently hiring it be a miserable mix.

[Kristatos]

But it will never fit in the the other Bonds stories. Can't get to Dr No with Connery through CR with Craig.

Funnily enough, I'm working on a fanfic at the moment that attempts to do just that. I'll post it to the Fan Art section when it's done (dunno when that'll be, since time is scarce).

[Mazer Rackham]

But it will never fit in the the other Bonds stories. Can't get to Dr No with Connery through CR with Craig.

Funnily enough, I'm working on a fanfic at the moment that attempts to do just that. I'll post it to the Fan Art section when it's done (dunno when that'll be, since time is scarce).

A belt sander to the face and the MIB flashy thing set to maximum

[FelixLeiterRocks]

But it will never fit in the the other Bonds stories. Can't get to Dr No with Connery through CR with Craig.
CR as Fleming wrote it is not a Bond at the beginning of his career. Bond in CR was well seasons officer and experienced hand. Even at the beginning of his intelligence career he was never as crude as portrayed by Craig.
To me the Book as with most of Fleming writing is a rich cornucopia of experiences. A decadent pleasure to read. The most recent rendition was striped bare of everything remarkable imbued in the original book.

100% disagree, infact of all the Bond films based on the novels it's one of the closest renditions. A film like Moonraker just took the name and had nothing in common with the book, other than a few character names. In fact that film was far more a reaction to popular culture at the time, than CR or QOS ever were.

Not really. For arguments sake lets say we ignore the gadget tech for Bond, the villains were fantastic along with their master plans and headquarters. (The gadgets in FRWL from the briefcase, rifle, periscope, doppelgangers, gimmicky escape hatches for the bad guys, a secret origination manipulating the Russians)

And the recent films have gone back to the heart of the secret organizations. Yes it's more modernized in the films, but it seems like they are going to give us Spectre back.

Bond character in those first two films are completely unrelated from the football hooligan Bond smashing through wall and seeking revenge for someone he forgets about by the next book. In LALD Bond fell for Solitaire (who wouldn't) and felt about her like he never felt about a woman before. The only time he sought personal revenge was after Tracy.

You're hatred for Craig is blinding you so much to what already exists in the current film. There's little relation to Connery's Bond and Moore's Bond, or even more so for Lazenby and Connery.

Cleese was decent enough becasue he was passed the torch by the real Q. None of the numbnutted help they are hiring for MI6 employees in the new series could be a decent Q and if the hire in mode they are currently hiring it be a miserable mix.

Cleese can be a good actor as in films like "A Fish Called Wanda," or he can be a complete idiot like in "Rat Race". Unfortunately his Q was the latter. Q was never a bumbling fool, he was a man who took his job very seriously but 007 didn't, and the comedy came from that aspect. I realize the character was different, but it's the Q roll none the less. Overall it was just another edge to how much of a joke the Brosnan films became.

Bond character in those first two films are completely unrelated from the football hooligan Bond smashing through wall and seeking revenge for someone he forgets about by the next book. In LALD Bond fell for Solitaire (who wouldn't) and felt about her like he never felt about a woman before. The only time he sought personal revenge was after Tracy.

I don't mind the abscense of Q, because I want them to be carful in selecting an actor to play Q. People complain about Craig being miscast, well he wasn't as badly miscast as Cleese was. Although to be fair, Cleese was clearly a different character unlike the replacements of Bond and Moneypenny.

Cleese was decent enough becasue he was passed the torch by the real Q. None of the numbnutted help they are hiring for MI6 employees in the new series could be a decent Q and if the hire in mode they are currently hiring it be a miserable mix.[/quote]

[katied]

I noticed one of the techs that was in the poisoning scene in CR was in QOS as well.


(with all of those Microsoft computers,I would love to see MI6 staff having to tackle a Blue Screen Of Death on one of their high tech setups )

[X3C]

I don't blame Brosnan for his films after GE. I think Brosnan was a great Bond who was handed horrible scripts and horrible directors, other than GE, which was brilliant.

I agree. Goldeneye was the last Bond movie that involved Albert Broccoli. It was evident that Bond took another turn after his death.

AC - Rest in peace.

[wrenchhands]

With all due respect to Q fans, I do not think he will be returning. At best, I think we'd see a Major Boothroyd character, but I think Q is a relic of the old films and nothing more.

The new films don't lack gadgets, but having a scene or character that introduces silly, single purpose gadgets is slap in the face foreshadowing. Instead of relying on Bond's wits, strength or the story, it is a cheap out. When they do have gadgets, they are usually introduced right there, again, to eliminate the cheesy foreshadowing.

In fact, to show just how opposite the new films are, look at Casino Royale, they were using Google to look up info on Le Chiffre.

I for one look forward to real world plot-centric Bond adventures, not the gadget campiness of the past. Let's face it, when the Austin Powers series can build their own brand just by parodying Bond's, there's a problem with sticking to that formula.

I can't wait until Bond and M are on the outs because Bond's mission f***s with some serious geo-political relations.

[Gary Seven]

Look, I'm not just some dude who likes the new films. I've been a huge Bond fan ever since TBS ran the classics. I'm just saying it's time for something new. If the old Bonds were like individual episodes of CSI, than the new Bond is the Wire.

Maybe it was time for something new. Unforunately for fans of the reboot the novelty has worn off. Critics and fans are now calling for many of the traditional Bond elements to return.

[Omega]

Yes it is the worst Bond film ever made. Proof is that those who defend it have to change the ground rules for what makes a Bond film and how these films should be interpreted.

[bjmdds]

Craig's 2 films are not Bond films, period. They are aberrations of MGW and Broccoli's artistic muses, nothing more. Bond stopped in 2002. When will he return is the question and how much more of this will be put up with.

[Mr. Big]

Craig's 2 films are not Bond films, period. They are aberrations of MGW and Broccoli's artistic muses, nothing more. Bond stopped in 2002. When will he return is the question and how much more of this will be put up with.

That's what I believe. CR and QOS are the same as Never Say Never Again and the comedy Casino Royale because they are like unofficial Bond movies. I treat the Dr No - Die Another Day series as the official Bond series.

[FormerBondFan]

When will he return is the question and how much more of this will be put up with.

If Bond returns, hopefully we'll have a male M.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

No they are Bond films, you may not like them, but they are Bond films. I think DAD or AVTAK were possibly the worst Bond films, but they are still Bond films. And if Cubby were still alive he'd say the same thing. Every single Bond has come out and defended Craig and the new work, but that's not enough for some of you.

If you don't like them fine, but just know there are millions of people who love the new Bond. Sure I'd like to see some more of the old elements come back, but done in the right way.

The gadgets had become a joke. I'd like to see the gadgets come back as they were in FRWL or Thunderball. The most rediculous thing about DAD was Q gave him these odd things that were exactly what he needed. Does Q now have psychic powers?

Plus some of the elements in QOS like the computer system in MI6, reflect reality, with devices like the iPhone and the Blackberry storm. It's probably more in touch with what computers are doing, and going to do in the future than any other Bond movie.

[katied]

The new films don't lack gadgets, but having a scene or character that introduces silly, single purpose gadgets is slap in the face foreshadowing. Instead of relying on Bond's wits, strength or the story, it is a cheap out. When they do have gadgets, they are usually introduced right there, again, to eliminate the cheesy foreshadowing.

Yup.

In fact, to show just how opposite the new films are, look at Casino Royale, they were using Google to look up info on Le Chiffre.

Actually, they were using Google to look up info on the Airbus plane

I for one look forward to real world plot-centric Bond adventures, not the gadget campiness of the past. Let's face it, when the Austin Powers series can build their own brand just by parodying Bond's, there's a problem with sticking to that formula.

Absolutely. I know I kind of complain about it,but I don't get the obsession Bond fans have with bringing certain characters back.

[Omega]

Craig's 2 films are not Bond films, period. They are aberrations of MGW and Broccoli's artistic muses, nothing more. Bond stopped in 2002. When will he return is the question and how much more of this will be put up with.

No they are Bond films, you may not like them, but they are Bond films. I think DAD or AVTAK were possibly the worst Bond films, but they are still Bond films. And if Cubby were still alive he'd say the same thing. Every single Bond has come out and defended Craig and the new work, but that's not enough for some of you.

If Cubby were alive Craig would be the villain in 3 story arc not Bond and no reboot.
If the standard has dropped form Bond Movies by eon to any movie with the main hero called James Bond is therefore a Bond movie.Then I prefer the original Casino Royal with a CIA Bond.
The last two movie drop everything that made Bond from the actor to the supporting cast.Drop everything that made them Bond movies, it was not just a formula it was the attitude. QoS makes this departure painfully clear, it was not a Bond film and most agree on this.
I think it was a bad Jason Bourne movie done without the heart Bourne stories have and also without the purpose they have.

The gadgets had become a joke. I'd like to see the gadgets come back as they were in FRWL or Thunderball. The most rediculous thing about DAD was Q gave him these odd things that were exactly what he needed. Does Q now have psychic powers?

Q was always psychic as you put it. 19 movies he happened to always hand Bond exactly what he would need.

Plus some of the elements in QOS like the computer system in MI6, reflect reality, with devices like the iPhone and the Blackberry storm. It's probably more in touch with what computers are doing, and going to do in the future than any other Bond movie.

Call bulls**t on this. The magic fackenintosh headups hands on computer is complete bulls**t. The cellphones are real sort of but no dead zones, yeah right. Gadgets were never a joke, they sold tickets and kept interest because they were always cool.Something to look forward to each movie.What will they think of next. Planting a homing device in Craig and giving him a hart resuscitator. The homing beacon is old and was interesting 9 years ago when the Labrador I had when I was 10 got the same d**n thing.
The Hart resuscitator that is standard feature on all DB9 right? No psychic MumboJumbo there.

[Roger Devereau]

The gadgets had become a joke. I'd like to see the gadgets come back as they were in FRWL or Thunderball.

I for one simply can't wait to see the impish Danny Craig in a jetpack.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Call bulls**t on this. The magic fackenintosh headups hands on computer is complete bulls**t. The cellphones are real sort of but no dead zones, yeah right. Gadgets were never a joke, they sold tickets and kept interest because they were always cool.Something to look forward to each movie.What will they think of next. Planting a homing device in Craig and giving him a hart resuscitator. The homing beacon is old and was interesting 9 years ago when the Labrador I had when I was 10 got the same d**n thing.
The Hart resuscitator that is standard feature on all DB9 right? No psychic MumboJumbo there.

No it's not BS. And it's not just Apple developing this technology. Microsoft inveted a computer with a HUD much like in the movie, where you could take a digital camera and set it on a desk and through wireless would detect the object and immediately download the contents. The contents would display as a folder on the desktop which you could open with and manipulate the photos just as if they were printed on paper. This stuff is not sci-fi, it's science fact and it's becoming more and more a reality.

BTW, the "hart resuscitator" is called a defibrillater and it's extremely common for anyone who has training in CPR and First Aid to carry on with them. I'm sure for a secret agent it would be standard equipment.

http://www.tvdepot.com/heartstart/buy_now.jsp

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

With all due respect to Q fans, I do not think he will be returning. At best, I think we'd see a Major Boothroyd character, but I think Q is a relic of the old films and nothing more.

The new films don't lack gadgets, but having a scene or character that introduces silly, single purpose gadgets is slap in the face foreshadowing. Instead of relying on Bond's wits, strength or the story, it is a cheap out. When they do have gadgets, they are usually introduced right there, again, to eliminate the cheesy foreshadowing.

In fact, to show just how opposite the new films are, look at Casino Royale, they were using Google to look up info on Le Chiffre.

I for one look forward to real world plot-centric Bond adventures, not the gadget campiness of the past. Let's face it, when the Austin Powers series can build their own brand just by parodying Bond's, there's a problem with sticking to that formula.

I can't wait until Bond and M are on the outs because Bond's mission f***s with some serious geo-political relations.

You may be wasting your time trying to prop up Quantum of Solace. People are bored with that direction. Even Craig's supporters want some of the old elements back.

Ps.welcome to the forum - and to Felix.