375 replies to this topic

[iBond]

Thanks for the answer.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I wasn't surprised nor did i want it at the beginning. In my eyes James wasn't JAMES BOND 007 yet that we all know and love. He was still getting over personal issues about vesper and it wasn't resolved until the very end of the movie. I didn't like the gun barrel at the end. I think Bond 23 should of had the gun barrel to show that JAMES BOND we all know is now here.

So, you didn't get (or wanted to accept) the main pourpose that Campbell wished to express through the whole running- and particularly the last scene- of CR, wich was, as he stated in the DVD commentaries, that by the end of that movie Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love".

That's why I think there is no excuse for the barrel at the end. James became Bond at the end of Casino Royale.

[Jim]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

[Capsule in Space]

I wasn't surprised nor did i want it at the beginning. In my eyes James wasn't JAMES BOND 007 yet that we all know and love. He was still getting over personal issues about vesper and it wasn't resolved until the very end of the movie. I didn't like the gun barrel at the end. I think Bond 23 should of had the gun barrel to show that JAMES BOND we all know is now here.

So, you didn't get (or wanted to accept) the main pourpose that Campbell wished to express through the whole running- and particularly the last scene- of CR, wich was, as he stated in the DVD commentaries, that by the end of that movie Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love".

That's why I think there is no excuse for the barrel at the end. James became Bond at the end of Casino Royale.

The producers, who are dedicated to realism with their reboot, had Craig's Bond "earn" the gunbarrel in Quantum of Solace after outrunning and outmaneuvering a fighter jet in his tin can cargo plane.

[Bucky]

Were you disappointed when there was no gun barrel at the beginning of Quantum?

No, not really. I actually think the opening sequence of shots works better without the gunbarrel. It steadily builds up tension, and I think the gunbarrel would have broken it too soon.

Agreed. Having the music slowly build over the opening logos and going straight to the shot over the lake really set the mood perfectly for me and automatically had me excited.

I would not be disappointed if they decided to do away with the gunbarrel completely

[SecretAgentFan]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

Honestly, the best post on this subject.

[iBond]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

True, and I respect all opinions on the situation. But, this was something that was on my mind and I wanted to start a conversation regarding it. No offense to anyone. I just wanted to hear the opinions, and I did and still am.

[Capsule in Space]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

True, and I respect all opinions on the situation. But, this was something that was on my mind and I wanted to start a conversation regarding it. No offense to anyone. I just wanted to hear the opinions, and I did and still am.

This topic has brought about some detailed responses highlighting a variety of opinions regarding the subject. I say go pat yourself on the back iBond for creating a thought provoking thread.

[Jim]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

True, and I respect all opinions on the situation. But, this was something that was on my mind and I wanted to start a conversation regarding it. No offense to anyone. I just wanted to hear the opinions, and I did and still am.

So much respect that you gave it a -1 on the reputational thingummy? Hmm.

(NB as a moderator I can see who is doing the rating. Perversely fascinating when very bored).

[iBond]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

Cue gunbarrel and not the end, but the start.

Or something like that.

That's what I chose to take from it and I am happy to exercise that choice. Doubtless someone will exercise a choice to tell me I am wrong on some level.

As someone wisely observed, bit of stock footage. And look how we've been directed into discussing it. Perceptions of contrivance aside, that they can come up with a variation on it after multiple dozens of years at least demonstrates some imagination rather than torpid complacency.

True, and I respect all opinions on the situation. But, this was something that was on my mind and I wanted to start a conversation regarding it. No offense to anyone. I just wanted to hear the opinions, and I did and still am.

This topic has brought about some detailed responses highlighting a variety of opinions regarding the subject. I say go pat yourself on the back iBond for creating a thought provoking thread.

Hey thanks! Much appreciated!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

But then again, with that "absurdly large gun" (that you can assume it wasn't necessary at all, because a man like Mr. White surely lives without any protection in his house, right??) Bond only shoots at Mr. White's knees- not to kill him- to allow further interrogations, that already is demonstrate judgment and restraint, and it's a big progression from blowing up an embassy and killing a bombmaker; action that is just repeated with the final encounter between Bond and Vesper's former boyfriend.

[iBond]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

But then again, with that "absurdly large gun" (that you can assume it wasn't necessary at all, because a man like Mr. White surely lives without any protection in his house, right??) Bond only shoots at Mr. White's knees- not to kill him- to allow further interrogations, that already is demonstrate judgment and restraint, and it's a big progression from blowing up an embassy and killing a bombmaker; action that is just repeated with the final encounter between Bond and Vesper's former boyfriend.

Yeah, it was a little odd as to why Mr. White didn't have any protection. I guess he figured that gate he drove into was all the protection he needed.

[Miles Miservy]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

But then again, with that "absurdly large gun" (that you can assume it wasn't necessary at all, because a man like Mr. White surely lives without any protection in his house, right??) Bond only shoots at Mr. White's knees- not to kill him- to allow further interrogations, that already is demonstrate judgment and restraint, and it's a big progression from blowing up an embassy and killing a bombmaker; action that is just repeated with the final encounter between Bond and Vesper's former boyfriend.

Yeah, it was a little odd as to why Mr. White didn't have any protection. I guess he figured that gate he drove into was all the protection he needed.

I like what Bond did to Greene in the desert. It wasn't as quick & merciful as a bullet to the brain. He left the villain to die a slow and agonizing death. In that moment, Daniel Craig had proven his cruel capability.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

But then again, with that "absurdly large gun" (that you can assume it wasn't necessary at all, because a man like Mr. White surely lives without any protection in his house, right??) Bond only shoots at Mr. White's knees- not to kill him- to allow further interrogations, that already is demonstrate judgment and restraint, and it's a big progression from blowing up an embassy and killing a bombmaker; action that is just repeated with the final encounter between Bond and Vesper's former boyfriend.

Yeah, it was a little odd as to why Mr. White didn't have any protection. I guess he figured that gate he drove into was all the protection he needed.

I like what Bond did to Greene in the desert. It wasn't as quick & merciful as a bullet to the brain. He left the villain to die a slow and agonizing death. In that moment, Daniel Craig had proven his cruel capability.

It reminded me a little bit to Mad Max, which I'm not so sure if it's a good or a bad thing for a Bond movie (I'm not plainly condemn that scene, I'm just expressing my doubts).

[iBond]

Not sure I agree (not that I should really demonstrate the temerity to disagree with Mr Campbell, who seems nice).

I took from it that by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond demonstrated mercy and judgment, something the "Bond we all know and love" may tend to. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale, fine, he talks the talk but has yet to walk the walk. He is an incomplete character and, by the end of the second film, is notably different to the energetic weapon shooting things in embassies, etc. The Bond at the end of Casino Royale takes an unarmed man's knees out with an absurdly large gun; the Bond at the end of QoS, presented with a similar and arguably more immediately cathartic opportunity for vengeance, exercises professional restraint, having learnt from Mr White's escape that those actions ultimately achieved very little. That's his solace.

But then again, with that "absurdly large gun" (that you can assume it wasn't necessary at all, because a man like Mr. White surely lives without any protection in his house, right??) Bond only shoots at Mr. White's knees- not to kill him- to allow further interrogations, that already is demonstrate judgment and restraint, and it's a big progression from blowing up an embassy and killing a bombmaker; action that is just repeated with the final encounter between Bond and Vesper's former boyfriend.

Yeah, it was a little odd as to why Mr. White didn't have any protection. I guess he figured that gate he drove into was all the protection he needed.

I like what Bond did to Greene in the desert. It wasn't as quick & merciful as a bullet to the brain. He left the villain to die a slow and agonizing death. In that moment, Daniel Craig had proven his cruel capability.

Yeah, and when M told Bond how Greene died, it reminded me a little of an element from Licence to Kill in a sense that something was described that happened off screen. You don't see Dario kill Lupe's lover and take out his heart, but it certainly is implied that way. And with Quantum, you don't see Greene actually drink the oil, but it is mentioned that he was found dead with oil in his stomach.

[DaveBond21]

And with Quantum, you don't see Greene actually drink the oil, but it is mentioned that he was found dead with oil in his stomach.

I am honestly waiting for someone to comment "Greene drinks the what now?"