Bond 22 (Title TBD) is now Quantum of Solace (1 Viewer)

[MatthewLouwrens]

Although, be warned, it is a HUGE spoiler. I wish I hadn't seen it.

In fact, one wonders why they would release that information.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Yes - if you want to stay spoiler free - avoid the recent Bond links.

 

[Sam Favate]

The reason to release the photo in question is to draw parallels for the audience to one of the most famous films in the franchise.

 

[Nelson Au]

Glad I didn't see that link yet, trying to remain spoiler free here too.

But out of curiosity, which famous film of the franchise did you mean Sam? I can only think of Goldfinger as what is considered the most famous.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Nelson, (and ask yourself whether you want to know, since just that knowledge may be a bit of a spoiler)
True - but surely no-one's going think "I wasn't interested in seeing the film, but if they're going to reference that film, then I will go." I don't see how it could increase audience numbers, so why not keep it a surprise for the film itself - especially since we're talking about a possibly pivotal plot moment, rather than just Halle Berry walking out of the sea.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Matthew for taking the time posting that spoiler. I think you're right, I'll stay away from spoiling it. It's just about a month away and I think I can wait!

 

[Steve Christou]

There's an interview with Bond director Marc Forster in The Times Online, here are some excerpts -


Quantum of Solace: 007 goes art house - Times Online

 

[MattFini]

Unexpectedly, the announced 104 running time has dashed a lot of hopes for this film.

Couple that with a rancid theme song and Barbara Broccoli's promise of "more action than Casino Royale" and it seems like this new Bond flick is primed to be a clone of Jason Bourne.

I really hope I'm wrong and that I'm jumping to conclusions, but after the massive success of the last Bourne flick, it looks like the producers of 007 took instant notice.

Call me a naysayer, but a Bond flick that clocks in at about 98 minutes before the end credits doesn't give me much hope.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

They held the first screening today and reviews are starting to surface.

Anti-Spoiler;
If you're hoping to found out what organization was behind everything from Casino Royal, don't--Because they still don't reveal it in Quantum.

I know the filmmakers said that this one was to conclude Casino' but the reviews all say that it feels like just the second act.

The BBC review sounded mostly positive but I've read some personal reviews that said it was poorly edited and disjointed.

 

[UngersPride]

From TOTAL FILM comes this:

"The comparisons will still linger ("Bond is running wild!") and it's all shot, zippy, hand-held, Paul Greengrass-style. Forster never seems comfortable with just keeping the camera still or holding a shot. Maybe that's the fault of his relatively brief edit-time, but the scene where Bond fights up close with a knife-swishing assassin in a cluttered apartment: pure Bourne."

No, no, no... enough with the shaky, hand held cameras....

I may have to wait for the dvd to come out. I've had enough headaches from watching the last Bourne film...

 

[MattFini]

I know that the Bond movies have always followed popular trends (Moonraker following The Spy Who Loved Me, instead of For Your Eyes Only, which was promised), but I'm growing more and more depressed with each review I read for QoS.

Of course I'm going to be there on opening night and hope for the best, but I DO not want another Bourne movie. Not in the least.

I'm fine with the more serious approach to 007, but if they're going to take away everything that makes Bond, Bond I'm not sure why I want to watch.

 

[mattCR]

I love Bourne. I find Bourne films to be far more entertaining then any Bond recently. But they are good because they are very different; an agent without a government, an independent contractor so to speak, the hunted man.

Bond isn't that. Bond is clearly and should always be the good guy. Bond is at it's best when there are the cute asides, the patter of a small dose of comedy and the over-the-top adventure.

Bourne is great at doing what it does, and I love it for that. Bond, at it's best, should be something very different. If someone has decided to make Bond into a Bourne type film, they'll find it will be a distant second to what Bourne is, because the setup doesn't provide for it.. and they'll find also that it's a bad Bond film too - because it misses all the elements that make Bond great.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I Like CR mainly because it did take a more serious tone, but it will be a stretch that the Daniel Craig Bond ever morphs into the Bond we all know and Love Connery's Bond. I watched a bit of Man With the Golden Gun this weekend, and even this weaker Moore entry was entertaining me immensly,I don't want the new series to ever approach the Moore Movies, but they could bring a bit of the Fun back into it.

 

[Cassy_w]

The action in Casino Royale was fluid and smooth. Never suffering from the shake thing. You always knew what was happening and every cut was made for a reason.

CR stands out against the chaotic nature of the Bourne films and that's a good thing, so it's sad to hear they are trying to go for a Bourne style. There is no need! As good as the action in the Bourne films is, Casino Royale's action is better. That first chase sequence is about as amazing as anything I have ever seen and the airport sequence was almost as awesome.

Oh well. I guess I'll know in a few weeks if this franchise is in trouble again.