Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Saw it today and enjoyed it quite a bit. I like the more serial nature they seem to be taking with the series. Hopefully they actually have a plan. I have really liked Craig in the role so far. It isn't quite Casino Royale but that is because we didn't have high expectations going into it and it blew everyone away. Now it has to live up to expectations, which is difficult. I also was glad to see Felix Leiter play a decent role in it and get the sense of, hmm, maybe not friendship, but an inherent trust the two seem to have for each other. Bond doesn't trust to many people, and I don't see them going on long watches on the beach together but they definitely would watch the others back. I guess really this is about Bond's different relationships and how they affect him. It wasn't perfect but it was absolutely worth seeing. Just passing on some quick thoughts.

Ahmtan, watch Layer Cake. You'll see where Craig got his start.

Rfazzeld, I saw Layer Cake many moons ago. I knew about Daniel Craig before Casino Royale.

QoS took number 1 over the weekend.

James Bond's quantum of the weekend box office: $70.4 million.

"Quantum of Solace," with Daniel Craig returning as Bond for the first direct sequel in the spy franchise, pulled in nearly $30 million more over opening weekend than its predecessor, 2006's "Casino Royale," according to studio estimates Sunday.

The debut also topped the previous opening-weekend record for a Bond flick, $47 million for 2002's "Die Another Day."

Adjusting for inflation, Sony's "Quantum of Solace" easily drew a bigger audience than that installment, the last Bond adventure featuring Pierce Brosnan. Based on 2002 admission prices, about 8.1 million tickets were sold for "Die Another Day" in the first weekend, compared to 9.8 million for "Quantum of Solace."

Two years ago, Craig was an unknown quantity as Bond, a stage-trained actor with little action experience and a resume that tended toward small, artsier films. Many fans were unhappy with the casting choice, but the critical and commercial success of "Casino Royale" silenced the critics.

"Quantum of Solace" picks up where "Casino Royale" left off, with Bond seeking to avenge the death of his lover.

"With 'Casino Royale,' people were rediscovering the franchise in a way with Daniel Craig as James Bond," said Rory Bruer, head of distribution for Sony. "Quite frankly, they loved it. They loved the movie, and they loved him in the role, so I think by the time 'Quantum of Solace' was ready, audiences in the U.S. as well as the world audience was way ready."

"Quantum of Solace" began rolling out overseas two weekends before its U.S. debut, and its worldwide total now stands at $322 million.

source

Yep, thats a tenatively scheduled date night with the wife in a few weeks.

I think it was good.
QoS and CR are my favorite James Bond movies up to now. The really old ones are great, dont get me wrong, but anything that has to do with pierce "im too awesome for this world" brosnan, just doesnt cut it for me.

I really like the new Bond. I just wish they'd had the money to pay a decent camera-man for the action scenes instead of handing the camera to a drunk howler monkey.

Redbeard wrote:I really like the new Bond. I just wish they'd had the money to pay a decent camera-man for the action scenes instead of handing the camera to a drunk howler monkey.

Hey! No cheapness was involved. Howler monkeys can sink a hell of a lot before they get properly soused.

The movie was great, I'm a Bond fan again after a decade break. I agree on the camera work, unfortunately. This industry-wide trend of "handheld camera for action sequences" is lazy and cheap.

I thought Quantum was much more serious than most bond films, but still pretty decent

The wife and I are seeing it this week.
Its the first movie she has really wanted to see in a couple of months.

Am I the only person who doesn't like either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, despite (or even because of) being a Bond fan?

I didn't like Casino Royale at all in the theatre. Then I saw it on cable and got hooked. Very strange.

Bond has a way of developing its appeal through syndication. I know my family perpetually watches the Thanksgiving-Christmas Bond marathon TBS (or is it TNT?) has every year.

I am so so SO happy with the new James Bond. I grew up watching Bond flicks with my Mom an Dad, so it's kind of a family thing. Some of the later Pierce Brosnan films were real disappointments. It's great to have Bond back and better then ever.

I disagree, i think they have butchered the Bond formula and everything good about the previous films has been replaced with countless fights, fights some more fights. A couple more fights and a fight.

Whatever happned to never having to get your coat dirty or using top notch gadgets!

Or even *hold your breath guys* SPYING on someone, because he hasnt done that in either casino or quantam!

Exactamundo! Best gadget in Casino Royale? A mobile phone!?!

For me the problem is simple. Bond should be somebody that men want to be. I simply do not want to be somebody like the Daniel Craig Bond - a man who cannot act for plop (having the emotional range and look of a slapped arse), who cries in the shower and has about as much sophistication as a bulldog chewing a wasp.

Bond films have always been about gadgets, girls, explosions, ludicrous villains planning to take over the world in some far-fetched way and sexual innuendoes. This has served the franchise for 20 or so films. Why change it? There are more than enough fans to keep it going. The answer is simple - the threat placed upon the Bond franchise by the Bourne films. I'm sorry, but if I want realism and a potentially possible story, I don't go to my Bond films, I go to many many other places. If I want something with the above list, then I know I can get what I want from Bond. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REALISTIC - most films aren't.

These new films represent such a deviation from the existing films, they aren't even Bond films to me. Yes, some purists may argue that the Daniel Craig Bond is closer to the book version, but so what? Most people don't read Flemmings books, so why disappoint the masses? Why have a lead actor who can't act in the slightest. If anyone out there can name a film he has acted in and shown more than just gruff indifference as the emotion in the whole film, I'll be amazed.

If you enjoy the films, then great. Go wild. For me they are not Bond, but just a film that uses the name Bond.

Now...deep breath...count to ten...there that's better...

InyokaMadoda wrote:Bond films have always been about gadgets, girls, explosions, ludicrous villains planning to take over the world in some far-fetched way and sexual innuendoes. This has served the franchise for 20 or so films. Why change it? There are more than enough fans to keep it going.

The reason is simple, it wasn't serving the franchise well any more. The best received of Brosnan's Bond films was Golden Eye, which was also the most grounded of the Brosnan bond films. The latter efforts had more camp and goofy gadgets, and declining box office returns.

The answer is simple - the threat placed upon the Bond franchise by the Bourne films.

Not really, there's plenty of room for two or even more spy franchises. Especially when Bourne is much more limited in its scope, as Bourne has a limited character arc and much of its strength is built on the . Also, when threatened by a similar franchise, the answer is to be less like it, not more like it.

Nah, Bond changed things up because the old routine was pretty stale and was picking up modest returns.

I'm sorry, but if I want realism and a potentially possible story, I don't go to my Bond films, I go to many many other places. If I want something with the above list, then I know I can get what I want from Bond. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REALISTIC - most films aren't.

It isn't really realistic, though. Its about an international criminal group running a vast utilities scam being defeated by one guy who basically fights them in a series of spectacular action scenes. There's explosions and a massive body count.

The real difference is that there's less camp, and Bond is less dapper and more of a thug. But he's developing, learning about life in higher circles. It's a different take, but not really that different to a lot of the other Bond mutations.

I didn't think Quantum was a great movie, the plot was messy and it was really hard to follow what was going on in the action scenes. But the standout element of the film was Craig's Bond.

sebster wrote: the standout element of the film was Craig's Bond.

= Wrong.

End of discussion.

I win.

InyokaMadoda wrote:Bond films have always been about gadgets, girls, explosions, ludicrous villains planning to take over the world in some far-fetched way and sexual innuendos. This has served the franchise for 20 or so films.

I'm going to guess you haven't read the books and are basing this highly flawed statement entirely on the films. Dr. No had almost no gadgets, From Russia with Love had a rigged briefcase, and OHMSS had hardly any gadgets either so there is a precedent for a lack of over-the-top gadgets. As far as villains they haven't all been about taking over the world or world destruction. Dr. No was about disrupting rocket launches. From Russia With Love was about a plot to kill Bond and embarrass him. Goldfinger was just cornering a goods market for profit. Goldeneye was about robbery on a grand scale, but still robbery, not world domination. It started out small and became ridiculous camp and more cartoonish and buffoonish over time. Some of us prefer the films that are more inline with character from the novels, which Connery and Craig are closer to than the others.

I like Daniel Craig as James Bond. He's the first actor since Connery to actually try to interperate the character, rather then just copy what's been done before. I like many of the old Bond films, however I feel some of them got WAY too campy. Moonraker anyone?

meh. I guess it just goes to prove we all have different tastes. I like the over-the-top-ness of previous Bond films. As I said before, if I want realism, I go to different films.

InyokaMadoda wrote:meh. I guess it just goes to prove we all have different tastes. I like the over-the-top-ness of previous Bond films. As I said before, if I want realism, I go to different films.

See, I made a point about how Craig's Bond has nothing to do with realism. You made some comment declaring victory without actually addressing any of it, and have then gone back to repeating the same old comments.

It's really pretty rude.

I disagree. My response earlier about you being wrong was a silly comment intended to make light of the fact that we are essentially arguing about what we like. I like one thing, you like another.

As for my most recent comment, I don't see it as rude to repeat myself, if I don't see that it has been invalidated.

I am not going to convince you that it is a bad film and you are not going to convince me that it's a good film. We both clearly like different things and take different things from the films.

I think I'm done with posting on this thread. I've expressed my opinions, which some people agree with and some people don't. That's fine by me.

The End.

InyokaMadoda wrote:I disagree. My response earlier about you being wrong was a silly comment intended to make light of the fact that we are essentially arguing about what we like. I like one thing, you like another.

As for my most recent comment, I don't see it as rude to repeat myself, if I don't see that it has been invalidated.

I am not going to convince you that it is a bad film and you are not going to convince me that it's a good film. We both clearly like different things and take different things from the films.

I think I'm done with posting on this thread. I've expressed my opinions, which some people agree with and some people don't. That's fine by me.

The End.

Yeah, I probably misinterpreted you a little earlier. I take back the 'rude' comment. Apologies.

No worries. Not everyone can be as great as me...