Quantum of Solace, or Double O Grunge

[white avenger]

We just saw the latest installation of the James Bond franchise tonight, and I just have to say that it was a very spectacular movie filled with car chases, fights, and all of the typical 007 fare. More, in fact, than any of its predecessors. The only thing missing was James Bond.

Daniel Craig plays Bond in a completely different way than any other actor has done so far, and I guess that might not be such a bad thing, but it still disconcerts me to see 007 portrayed in such a comparatively crude manner as opposed to the sophisticated vodka martini sipping gentleman secret agent that I have grown to love over the last 40 plus years. That may be progress to some folks, but, to me, it's just not as good as the established character.

But, all in all, it's a good, exciting action movie, full of action, and I can enjoy it as such, and even recommend it to fans of such movies. I just wish "Bond...James Bond," had been in there somewhere.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

I've never seen a single Bond movie in my entire life, it's just not my cup of tea. But it sounds to me like this is also an example of how a movie gets more and more commercialized, with all the extra action you need these days to get people still excited.

 

[Joyce Summers]

I have to agree with you WA. In fact I was kinda disappointed by Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale and that combined with the fact that Quantum of Solace does not feature the famous (and admittedly, oh-so-sexy) line of Bond, James Bond put me off seeing the movie completely. I don't know whether this is Craig's fault at all or it is all down to the people behind the movie; they seem to be wishing the franchise to move with the times. Make Bond less 50s suave and more 21st century for lack of a better term.

But that is the whole point of Bond in my opinion! I mean even in the recent Pierce-Bond era he still had the edge and style to him that had been around since the brilliance of Sean Connery playing the role. Simply put, Craig doesn't do it for me. And neither do the beginning songs anymore. There were no dancing women in the last one! Okay so yes those scenes were sexual, chauvinistic and showed women as only there for glamour but it made the Bond movie and also reflected the philosophy of Bond in a way.

I want Bond, James Bond back.

 

[white avenger]

I have to agree with you WA. In fact I was kinda disappointed by Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale and that combined with the fact that Quantum of Solace does not feature the famous (and admittedly, oh-so-sexy) line of Bond, James Bond put me off seeing the movie completely. I don't know whether this is Craig's fault at all or it is all down to the people behind the movie; they seem to be wishing the franchise to move with the times. Make Bond less 50s suave and more 21st century for lack of a better term.

But that is the whole point of Bond in my opinion! I mean even in the recent Pierce-Bond era he still had the edge and style to him that had been around since the brilliance of Sean Connery playing the role. Simply put, Craig doesn't do it for me. And neither do the beginning songs anymore. There were no dancing women in the last one! Okay so yes those scenes were sexual, chauvinistic and showed women as only there for glamour but it made the Bond movie and also reflected the philosophy of Bond in a way.

I want Bond, James Bond back.

Plus, they did away with the gadgets, which I loved, there was no Aston Martin DB-5, which harks back to "Goldfinger," while bringing back the stupidest thing in the entire series, the Walther PPK 7.65 mm handgun. Now, when there are literally hundreds of more powerful and just as concealadle firearms available, Bond goes into action with a World War II era pocket pistol.

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

Hm, I'd still love to see it. But just because I like Daniel Craig & action movies. I already heard from others that I shouldn't (or maybe even couldn't) watch it as a James Bond film. WHich is a pity, really. Like you guys already expressed, I miss the suave 50s Bond. Couldn't we use some spell to make Sean Connery young again? 😛

 

[Old Master 3.0]

......it still disconcerts me to see 007 portrayed in such a comparatively crude manner as opposed to the sophisticated vodka martini sipping gentleman secret agent that I have grown to love over the last 40 plus years. That may be progress to some folks, but, to me, it's just not as good as the established character.

To view the current "Bond", one must consider the climate of the times. It was inevitable, I suppose.

After "Casino Royale", I won't acknowledge any "Bond" films with this actor.
Not to say I hate Daniel Craig. He's a decent actor. If they decided to change the formula back to the more classic portrayal of "Bond" with Craig in the role, then maybe I could be persuaded.

For straight up action fans, I'm sure this wouldn't dissapoint. But like previous posters here, I want the suave, gadget "Bond", not Jack Bauer from "24".

Give me the old days of Connery, Roger Moore, and even Pierce Brosnan.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I was far from impressed for the same reasons as above.

Daniel Craig did a fine job for an action film BUT I fear the people who made this were trying more for the Bourne crowd and trying to find its place.

However, Bond has its own well established identity, while I am all for it progressing and keeping updated I can't help but complain that the lack of Bond was a big issue.

I know that Bond and Star Trek have nothing in common, but since Casino, this has been seen as a Reboot and I will be honest that this has made me nervous for the reboot of Trek.

 

[white avenger]

.

I know that Bond and Star Trek have nothing in common, but since Casino, this has been seen as a Reboot and I will be honest that this has made me nervous for the reboot of Trek.

That brings up another issue (two, actually).

1) If the producers were indeed attempting to do a start over with the James Bond franchise, shouldn't a younger actor have been chosen? Craig was, I believe, supposed to have just been recruited into the Double O Section at the beginning of "Casino Royale," and he looks older than Brosnan.

2) If they were, indeed, going back to the beginning, why do they still have the same "M"?


(And, like you, I have real worries about what is going to be done with "Star Trek." The premise that the original crew have known each other since their Academy days is contrary to Trek canon, and there's no telling what else is going to be changed.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

That brings up another issue (two, actually).

1) If the producers were indeed attempting to do a start over with the James Bond franchise, shouldn't a younger actor have been chosen? Craig was, I believe, supposed to have just been recruited into the Double O Section at the beginning of "Casino Royale," and he looks older than Brosnan.

2) If they were, indeed, going back to the beginning, why do they still have the same "M"?

Absolutely.

I love Judy Dench, she is a magnificent M and her chemistry with Craig was actually OK, but they seemed to get lost in what they were doing.

Craig has been the most actiony Bond which I don't mind having more action but damn it, I want Moneypenny, I want Q(or R), I want Gadgets, I want a supervillain in a lair.

I mean the hotel at the end, why did it blow up so easily?

I did like the secret group that was in there, it was very Spectre in its far reaching BUT still.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Couldn't we use some spell to make Sean Connery young again? 😛

BLASPHEMY! :lmao:
Old Sean can kick young Sean's ass anytime. 😛

But of course I agree that Sean was Bond. Pierce Brosnan was the only one with even a right to even compete with him - though, of course, he too loses that competition. 😉

As for Daniel Craig... well, I close my eyes and pretend real hard that Those. Movies. Don't. Exist.

 

[Veyron]

I don't know if anyone actually noticed but at the start of Quantum of Solace it states that the movie is based on the character James Bond created by Ian Fleming. It was never meant to be like the old Bond movies (which I adore and I own them all in paperback and on DVD). Fleming wrote 14 Bond books in all: Casino Royale (1953), Live And Let Die (1954), Moonraker (1955), Diamonds Are Forever (1956), From Russia With Love (1957), Dr. No (1958), Goldfinger (1959), For Your Eyes Only (1960), Thunderball (1961), The Spy Who Loved Me (1962), On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1963), You Only Live Twice (1964), The Man With The Golden Gun (1965), Octopussy and The Living Daylights (1966).

So, everything after that is all from someone else's imagination and to me, those subsequent movies (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) in my opinion, just don't have the same umpff about them that the original Fleming ones did.

Quantum of Solace was a title that Fleming was going to use for a short story based around Bond, but he died prior to that story actually being completed leaving the book unfinished - the same for A View To A Kill, the other title he never actually wrote the story for was A View To A Kill, which again he was going to use, but never got the chance.

And, just in case anyone interested the order in which they were written and filmed is as follows:

What the bodged attempt at a table below means:
# - the order in which the book or short story was written
Title of the book/story
Year the book/story was released
# - the order in which the movie adaptation was released

-. These are references to what was going to be in book number 8. A View To A Kill and Quantum of Solace were supposed to be the three stories in this book but these stories were never completed by Fleming who concentrated on Thunderball due to the demand for his books to be made into movies - these two stories were stories that Fleming was going to write, but kept on delaying.

Octopussy and The Living Daylights were published as two short stories in one book.

1. Casino Royale 1953 21
2. Live And Let Die 1954 8
3. Moonraker 1955 11
4. Diamonds Are Forever 1956 7
5. From Russia With Love 1957 2
6. Dr. No 1958 1
7. Goldfinger 1959 3
8. For Your Eyes Only (short story) 1960 12
-. A View To A Kill (Title Only) 1960 14
-. Quantum of Solace (Title Only) 1960 22
9. Thunderball 1961 4
10. The Spy Who Loved Me 1962 10
11. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1963 6
12. You Only Live Twice 1964 5
13. The Man With The Golden Gun 1965 9
14. Octopussy (short story) 1966 13
15. The Living Daylights (short story) 1966 15