31 replies to this topic

[Craig is 007]

More information here

The 22. James Bond adventure, Quantum Of Solace, will open with a big car chase sequence in the streets of Siena. Then the car chase will pass into foot chase.

This is great. Im so excited!

Edited by Craig is 007, 25 January 2008 - 05:46 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Unfortanately the link doesnt lead anywhere.

With that said though, I was expecting this to be the teaser (just a gut feeling). Sounds like classic Bond action I'm sold

[zencat]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

[JimmyBond]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

Eh, I'm not too bothered by it, audiences, at least casual audiences not us hardcore fans, do have certain expectations concerning the films. If they're going to open with a big action scene, I'd rather it be a kick car chase than the huge shoot outs that plagued the Brosnan films.

[DanMan]

I hope we see maybe one or two low-key gadgets during the course of the film, but I'd prefer if the car chase remained gadget free.

[Craig is 007]

Sorry about the link. Problem solved

[Jim]

Moved into spoiler section.

[Craig is 007]

I hope we see maybe one or two low-key gadgets during the course of the film, but I'd prefer if the car chase remained gadget free.

Michael G. Wilson said the chase was very realistic.

[Wade]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

Hear, hear, ZC! The pre-title sequences had gotten way too out of control. At least the one for DAD led into the story. Most of them are just excuses to use new, unique vehicles for Bond to drive. Tired of it. Take a tip from the Bourne films. If you can't do it new, do it better. The chases in the Bourne films were extraordinary, without resorting to exotic modes of transportation. Cleverness beats volume and destruction any day (i.e.: the parachute jump in TSWLM).

[tdalton]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

I'd love to have another PTS like the one that we got in Casino Royale. I do think that what we'll see in the PTS is the interrogation of Mr. White, and perhaps the revealing of how "complex and dangerous" the organization is will happen right before they go into the title sequence, perhaps giving them information that is so shocking as to leave the PTS on some kind of a cliffhanger going into the title sequence.

[Harmsway]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

I'd love to have another PTS like the one that we got in Casino Royale. I do think that what we'll see in the PTS is the interrogation of Mr. White, and perhaps the revealing of how "complex and dangerous" the organization is will happen right before they go into the title sequence, perhaps giving them information that is so shocking as to leave the PTS on some kind of a cliffhanger going into the title sequence.

That would be great, but what I actually believe happens is that the interrogation, in the underground Siena safehouse, will be interrupted by the MI6 traitor that the plot summary mentions (he'll silence Mr. White to keep him from spilling beans). Bond will then pursue him through Siena. That makes the most sense of the information that we have in front of us.

[Vauxhall]

Agreed. It sounds like it could be quite a long pre-title sequence, especially when compared to CASINO ROYALE, as there is a lot to pack in.

[Skudor]

Sounds like the action will include some of this though.

[Vauxhall]

Sounds like the action will include some of this though.

I think that will be later in the movie as the free-fall sequence involves Camille (bearing in mind Kurylenko has been rehearsing aerial stunts) and she is not introduced until the action shifts to Haiti.

[Skudor]

Sounds like the action will include some of this though.

I think that will be later in the movie as the free-fall sequence involves Camille (bearing in mind Kurylenko has been rehearsing aerial stunts) and she is not introduced until the action shifts to Haiti.

Fair point. Looks awesome though. I just hope they do it justice and don't make it look like some sort of CGI.

[00Twelve]

I liked that "cliffhanger" idea that was posed up there. If they wanted to continue the tone that CR's PTS set, they could open with Bond taking Mr. White and interrogating him with M, but with their discovery of White's assassination by the traitor being the moment that the PTS moves into the titles, and the opening of the film proper being the chase after said assassin.

Maybe?

[Professor Dent]

The cliffhanger is a good idea. I just want to see those white dots moving across the screen with the James Bond theme playing when the movie opens.

[Harmsway]

I liked that "cliffhanger" idea that was posed up there. If they wanted to continue the tone that CR's PTS set, they could open with Bond taking Mr. White and interrogating him with M, but with their discovery of White's assassination by the traitor being the moment that the PTS moves into the titles, and the opening of the film proper being the chase after said assassin.

Maybe?

Sounds a bit too fragmented to me, where the action is interrupted precisely when there should be a direct flow. It would feel horribly awkward to pick up the action sequence right after that, because the action scene would have been separated from its context.

[tdalton]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

I'd love to have another PTS like the one that we got in Casino Royale. I do think that what we'll see in the PTS is the interrogation of Mr. White, and perhaps the revealing of how "complex and dangerous" the organization is will happen right before they go into the title sequence, perhaps giving them information that is so shocking as to leave the PTS on some kind of a cliffhanger going into the title sequence.

That would be great, but what I actually believe happens is that the interrogation, in the underground Siena safehouse, will be interrupted by the MI6 traitor that the plot summary mentions (he'll silence Mr. White to keep him from spilling beans). Bond will then pursue him through Siena. That makes the most sense of the information that we have in front of us.

That's another possibility, and it could work with the cliffhanger ending to the PTS as well. Bond and M could be talking outside of the interrogation room, where they've left Mr. White alone for a moment, and they come back to find out that someone has taken him out, and then we go into the title sequence.

I do think that you're right in that we'll get an action sequence in the PTS, but I'm just going to hold out some hope that we get a short and more dramatic PTS along the lines of CR's PTS.

Also, I'm not sure that we're going to actually see the MI6 traitor physically in the film, so I think that he might not actually be the one who takes out Mr. White. I think, and this is just purely a guess, that the traitor will be:

Spoiler

Villiers. Since QoS picks up 1 hour or so after CR, there has to be some reason that he's not going to physically appear in the film.

[Harmsway]

That's another possibility, and it could work with the cliffhanger ending to the PTS as well. Bond and M could be talking outside of the interrogation room, where they've left Mr. White alone for a moment, and they come back to find out that someone has taken him out, and then we go into the title sequence.

It wouldn't work. If the action sequence follows immediately thereafter, shooting from the titles right into the action scene would feel very awkward. All the dramatic momentum of the action sequence would be lost given that it would be divorced from its context by an abstract title sequence and presumably moody title song.

Also, I'm not sure that we're going to actually see the MI6 traitor physically in the film, so I think that he might not actually be the one who takes out Mr. White.

Well, we don't know that Mr. White gets taken out at all. I'm just putting two and two together. It doesn't seem like Mr. White should be around too long - he knows too much, and for Bond to be following this trail through a bank account #, then Mr. White has to have been taken him out.

And suddenly in the synopsis, this random MI6 traitor comes up. Well, he's gotta fit into the story somehow. And what's the natural conclusion there? Well, given that MGW says the Siena sequence opens the film, Bond's obviously fighting someone, and that someone has to be the one who killed Mr. White. And since Mr. White dies in an MI6 safehouse, it's gotta be an MI6 traitor that Bond pursues.

I think, and this is just purely a guess, that the traitor will be Villiers. Since QoS picks up 1 hour or so after CR, there has to be some reason that he's not going to physically appear in the film.

I don't agree. Maybe they just didn't care about Villiers (Bill Tanner has now been introduced instead), but that explanation for his non-appearance doesn't make any sense to me.

Not only does it feel very contrived, for the whole "Villiers was a traitor" thing to happen off-screen, well, that revelation feels entirely cheap and awkward, especially when Bond's been chasing someone else who might as well be the MI6 traitor. It's like them saying, "Oh, by the by, just wanted to let you know that Villiers was a traitor all along, even though that entire revelation happened off-screen and only as a cheap device to get the story rolling." And seeing as there has to be another MI6 traitor to take out Mr. White, well, it just feels pointless to have two of them.

[tdalton]

That's another possibility, and it could work with the cliffhanger ending to the PTS as well. Bond and M could be talking outside of the interrogation room, where they've left Mr. White alone for a moment, and they come back to find out that someone has taken him out, and then we go into the title sequence.

It wouldn't work. If the action sequence follows immediately thereafter, shooting from the titles right into the action scene would feel very awkward. All the dramatic momentum of the action sequence would be lost given that it would be divorced from its context by an abstract title sequence and presumably moody title song.

Also, I'm not sure that we're going to actually see the MI6 traitor physically in the film, so I think that he might not actually be the one who takes out Mr. White.

Well, we don't know that Mr. White gets taken out at all. I'm just putting two and two together. It doesn't seem like Mr. White should be around too long - he knows too much, and for Bond to be following this trail through a bank account #, then Mr. White has to have been taken him out.

And suddenly in the synopsis, this random MI6 traitor comes up. Well, he's gotta fit into the story somehow. And what's the natural conclusion there? Well, given that MGW says the Siena sequence opens the film, Bond's obviously fighting someone, and that someone has to be the one who killed Mr. White. And since Mr. White dies in an MI6 safehouse, it's gotta be an MI6 traitor that Bond pursues.

I think, and this is just purely a guess, that the traitor will be Villiers. Since QoS picks up 1 hour or so after CR, there has to be some reason that he's not going to physically appear in the film.

I don't agree. Maybe they just didn't care about Villiers (Bill Tanner has now been introduced instead), but that explanation for his non-appearance doesn't make any sense to me.

Not only does it feel very contrived, for the whole "Villiers was a traitor" thing to happen off-screen, well, that revelation feels entirely cheap and awkward, especially when Bond's been chasing someone else who might as well be the MI6 traitor. It's like them saying, "Oh, by the by, just wanted to let you know that Villiers was a traitor all along, even though that entire revelation happened off-screen and only as a cheap device to get the story rolling." And seeing as there has to be another MI6 traitor to take out Mr. White, well, it just feels pointless to have two of them.

I think (or maybe it's just more of my being hopeful), that we'll get another PTS similar to CR's. Another possibility is that, since we know that the relationship between M and Bond isn't that great in QoS (or at least we've been led to believe this from interviews), perhaps Bond gets a little to rough with Mr. White in the PTS. Maybe the "complex and dangerous" information that he reveals is something that sets Bond off, and he's the one that ends up taking out Mr. White. M could then subsequently get angry at Bond for not looking at the big picture or whatever, and how he hadn't learned his lesson, or that Bond's torturing Mr. White made him no better than the people he was going up against (or something along these lines).

For me, the way that the whole thing with the traitor is worded, I just don't get the feeling that he has anything to do with Mr. White's part in the story. But, I do think that you're right in so far as it's probably not Villiers. After thinking about it, you're right that it wouldn't be that great of an idea to reference another character who doesn't even appear as being a somewhat integral part of the plot.

[Harmsway]

I think (or maybe it's just more of my being hopeful), that we'll get another PTS similar to CR's.

It would be nice. But as of now, we don't have any evidence to suggest that we will, and as a result, I'm expecting a longer PTS.

Maybe the "complex and dangerous" information that he reveals is something that sets Bond off, and he's the one that ends up taking out Mr. White.

Bond can't be that much of a loose canon. Bond came dangerously close to being disbanded in CASINO ROYALE, and making that move would be worse than anything he did there. If he's dumb enough to kill their only source of major information, M should fire him on the spot and never think about it again. I have no doubt he'll get down-and-dirty with Mr. White, but I can't see him actually putting Mr. White to death. If they do take that route, it's a huge misstep.

For me, the way that the whole thing with the traitor is worded, I just don't get the feeling that he has anything to do with Mr. White's part in the story.

You don't. I'm reading in-between the lines, since the plot summary is very vague and isn't connecting all the dots. But given the information on the table, I think the scenario I present is a pretty clean, sensible way to make sense of everything we've heard so far.

After thinking about it, you're right that it wouldn't be that great of an idea to reference another character who doesn't even appear as being a somewhat integral part of the plot.

Exactly, which is why I tend to think it's the chap who does in Mr. White.

[darkpath]

I hope we see maybe one or two low-key gadgets during the course of the film, but I'd prefer if the car chase remained gadget free.

I quite concur. I prefer that Bond's car not be laden down with tonnes of gadgetry which seriously abuses my willingness to suspend disbelief when I know from my racing days that weight is the enemy of automotive performance.

I would, however, like the gadgets to retain some sense of viability (no bullet deflecting magnets, please!!!).

[sharpshooter]

I concur. I want gadgets, but gadgets that are appropriate for the Craig era. Something new also, something we haven't seen before.

[marktmurphy]

I hope we see maybe one or two low-key gadgets during the course of the film, but I'd prefer if the car chase remained gadget free.

Daniel Craig said on Radio 1's newsbeat (which you can listen to here) that his Aston is very 'snazzy'; it's the same one he had in last movie; and it's been

'a little bit pimped:- tweaked''

: which I take to mean it will have some aftermarket extras from Q branch

There's some decent stuff in there, actually: a bit of Olga; talk of a sequence involving a set being flooded; talk of a fight between Greene and Bond...

[Vauxhall]

Yes, I wonder where this scene involving flooding fits in. It all sounds very interesting to me.

[marktmurphy]

Well if we're talking pre-titles, you could do worse than this:
http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=gXYfnWRp1Q0

[DamnCoffee]

Well if we're talking pre-titles, you could do worse than this:
http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=gXYfnWRp1Q0

Pierce Brosnan in a remake of Live and Let Die, Directed by Lee Tamahori?

[Mr. Du Pont]

Not sure this means it will be the PTS. Like the Bahamas foot chase, it might just be the first big action scene following the titles. At least I hope so. I want another lean and mean PTS. A tone setter. Not a big long action sequence. That was a change for the better, IMO.

Eh, I'm not too bothered by it, audiences, at least casual audiences not us hardcore fans, do have certain expectations concerning the films. If they're going to open with a big action scene, I'd rather it be a kick car chase than the huge shoot outs that plagued the Brosnan films.

Plagued?

If there was one thing I loved about the Brosnan films it was his Pre-Tile Sequences. TOMORROW NEVER DIES' remains a classic in an otherwise disappointing Bond flick.

[tdalton]

I hope we see maybe one or two low-key gadgets during the course of the film, but I'd prefer if the car chase remained gadget free.

I quite concur. I prefer that Bond's car not be laden down with tonnes of gadgetry which seriously abuses my willingness to suspend disbelief when I know from my racing days that weight is the enemy of automotive performance.

I would, however, like the gadgets to retain some sense of viability (no bullet deflecting magnets, please!!!).

Agreed. If there are going to be more gadgets in Quantum of Solace than there were in Casino Royale, that's fine, as long as they're realistic and not overly used in the film. The gadgets, though, should stay out of the car chases, if the film happens to have one, and those sequences should rely solely on Bond's driving skills rather than on what Q branch has come up with back in the labs.