186 replies to this topic

[D. Bond]

Found Two New Pics Here!!
One With General Medrano!!

http://www.askmen.co.../picture-1.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-2.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-3.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-4.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-5.html

Judging By The Captions At The Bottom I Guess We Know Why Olga's Character(Camille) Wants Revenge!!

Edited by D. Bond, 05 April 2008 - 12:12 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Found Two New Pics Here!!
One With General Medrano!!
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-5.html

Kool, D. Bond!

The General looks particulary scummy...as does Greene. Delicious.

[Loomis]

I merely said that this is Eon's film first and foremost, then Craig's film, then Marc Forster film. In that order. Am I wrong?

I'd say it's Eon's film first and foremost, then a Marc Forster film, then Craig's film. How is it more Craig's film than Forster's? Granted, Craig was attached to the project before Forster, but by that rationale DIE ANOTHER DAY was more Brosnan's film than Tamahori's.

[D. Bond]

Found Two New Pics Here!!
One With General Medrano!!

http://www.askmen.co.../picture-1.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-2.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-3.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-4.html
http://www.askmen.co.../picture-5.html

Judging By The Captions At The Bottom I Guess We Know Why Olga's Character(Camille) Wants Revenge!!

In Addition To The Other General Medrano Pic Here's Another With "Elvis" in The Background
http://movies.ign.co...4022656675.html

And M

http://movies.ign.co...4022653801.html

I Believe I Saw This One On Here Already But Still, It's Looks Like Such A Bond Moment!!

http://movies.ign.co...4022649332.html

[kneelbeforezod]

Why do so many people seem to hate Haggis? ... So he made a comment that suggests that he doesn't like the QoS title.. so what?

No one hates Haggis. He's a fine addition to the franchise. He adds flair and critical cachet to the production. BUT this is not his baby. I merely said that this is Eon's film first and foremost, then Craig's film, then Marc Forster film. In that order. Am I wrong? I mean he was involved in the film from July '07 to November '07. Since then all we've heard from him is that it wasn't his title (duh!)and he didn't know what it meant (paraphrasing...but we can dig up the quote if everyone wants to).

Today's exciting news courtesy of USA Today is not about Paul Haggis. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Fair enough, but you do seem to have a slight problem with him

However much it is Eons "baby", if they hire the writers of Meet The Spartans to deliver that baby, it aint gonna turn out well.

And if it's his screenplay that is used, then IMO his contribution has more of an impact on the quality of the final film than MGW or BB.

[tdalton]

And M

http://movies.ign.co...4022653801.html

It's interesting to see how much they've changed M's office from the Brosnan Era and CASINO ROYALE. It looks great, and it was much needed since this is a new "franchise" of Bond films, and this really should have happened with CASINO ROYALE since M's office in that film was similar to what it was during the Brosnan Era.

[kneelbeforezod]

In Addition To The Other General Medrano Pic Here's Another With "Elvis" in The Background
http://movies.ign.co...4022656675.html

And M

http://movies.ign.co...4022653801.html

I Believe I Saw This One On Here Already But Still, It's Looks Like Such A Bond Moment!!

http://movies.ign.co...4022649332.html

She is SO gorgeous.

M I mean.

[dodge]

Why do so many people seem to hate Haggis? ... So he made a comment that suggests that he doesn't like the QoS title.. so what?

No one hates Haggis. He's a fine addition to the franchise. He adds flair and critical cachet to the production. BUT this is not his baby. I merely said that this is Eon's film first and foremost, then Craig's film, then Marc Forster film. In that order. Am I wrong? I mean he was involved in the film from July '07 to November '07. Since then all we've heard from him is that it wasn't his title (duh!)and he didn't know what it meant (paraphrasing...but we can dig up the quote if everyone wants to).

Today's exciting news courtesy of USA Today is not about Paul Haggis. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Fair enough, but you do seem to have a slight problem with him

However much it is Eons "baby", if they hire the writers of Meet The Spartans to deliver that baby, it aint gonna turn out well.And if it's his screenplay that is used, then IMO his contribution has more of an impact on the quality of the final film than MGW or BB.

Hear, hear. And we'll find out in November if the baby benefited from the director's (pal's) rewrite of Haggis. H isn't the be-all or end-all of Bond, but he's near or at the top of the list of A-list talent that's come to Bond's table.

[Qwerty]

Loving the new photos we have. Kurylenko looks fantastic and these three villains seem like a perfect bunch.

[HildebrandRarity]

I merely said that this is Eon's film first and foremost, then Craig's film, then Marc Forster film. In that order. Am I wrong?

I'd say it's Eon's film first and foremost, then a Marc Forster film, then Craig's film. How is it more Craig's film than Forster's? Granted, Craig was attached to the project before Forster, but by that rationale DIE ANOTHER DAY was more Brosnan's film than Tamahori's.

Semantics, etcetera. We can debate this all we want.

To me James Bond, from October 2005 till the day DC is no longer playing 007, is all about Wilson, Broccoli and Craig. Everyone else is just a replaceable employee catering to the vision of those three. Plain and simple. Directors, writers, etc. are tools to an end and replacable from one movie to the next. IMO. And i'm being generous when it comes to Daniel being in that very elite company.

As far as now and Brosnan. There's no comparison. In case we havent noticed, Eon are deferring a little to DC and building James Bond around the strengths of a gifted actor and shattering audience expectations. Back then, they were not deferring artistic decisions in any way to Brosnan and were building James Bond around audience perceptions of what Pierce Brosnan's Bond should be. Apples and Oranges, Different Times, etc.

[sharpshooter]

Olga's character is looking like a brilliantly beautiful Bond girl.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Camillie is interesting.


The photos look amazing.

[HildebrandRarity]

But NOT having sex could actually strengthen Camille's role in terms of believability and credibility (and Bond's role as well). Sometimes not having sex, but just teasing the audience along, is more gratifying for audiences (it worked on MOONLIGHTING for three seasons before Dave and Maddie finally consummated their relationship). I think it's a bold, brash, and daring move on MGW and BB's part, and I applaud it.

Some intereting and well put observations, my old friend.

[Gobi-1]

I live for days like this. More info then my dial-up connection can keep up with. I'm loving all the new photos.

[sark]

Could someone please explain why Bond should carry a PPK? Granted, it is a sexy looking gun, but I'm guessing Bond would go for function over form in that area. Like Bond's Bentley and Beretta, the PPK has had its day.
I've always wanted Bond to carry the ASP. Looks damn cool and is still very modern.

[.0.0.7.]

Also, I think Field's fate is one of the worst kept secrets in the entire production; it has been so poorly kept one would think Dick Cheney leaked it to the press.

I must have missed this little tidbit... now that the cat's apparently out of the bag, would you mind telling us how the lovely Fields meets her end?

[Captain Tightpants]

This article over at IGN sheds a little bit more light on the plot; something USA Today didn't really mention (they didn't gloss over it; they just mention some of the detail):

Spoiler

Greene's - and Quantum's - plans seem to be two-fold. Not only are they trying to control the world's water supply with the resources they find in Bolivia, but they've also discovered a way to restrict the current supply as well.

[.0.0.7.]

Also a few new pics here at Rotten Tomatoes.

These villains are looking like some unsavory fellows indeed.

[tdalton]

I'm liking this news about Kurylenko's character. It's about time that EON delivered on their promise of providing us a Bond girl that is different from all of the others, which Camille appears as though she will be. The dynamic of her not being romantically involved with Bond will be a very refreshing change from the usual direction that EON takes the relationship between Bond and the lead actress.

[Harmsway]

I'd say it's Eon's film first and foremost, then a Marc Forster film, then Craig's film.

Quite right. And given the role that Marc Forster had in shaping QUANTUM OF SOLACE (he states in another interview is that he literally tossed the script out and then went to work on a new one, instructing Haggis on what he wanted to do with the film). He doesn't own the franchise, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE is definitely proving to be more and more his baby.

I'm liking this news about Kurylenko's character. It's about time that EON delivered on their promise of providing us a Bond girl that is different from all of the others, which Camille appears as though she will be. The dynamic of her not being romantically involved with Bond will be a very refreshing change from the usual direction that EON takes the relationship between Bond and the lead actress.

Yes. I'm quite looking forward to seeing how her relationship with Bond develops. It seems like it's a relationship of mutual goals - she wants revenge for the death of her family, and he wants revenge for the death of Vesper.

[Vauxhall]

Interesting to note Camille's motive to get revenge on Greene and Medrano. I'm surprised that it hadn't occurred to me earlier - it seems the most obvious and logical reason.

[Jack Spang]

"I bought the USA Today edition this morning and MGW sure makes it sound like the Bond/Camille relationship will be sexless(not necessarily without charm or romance, but basically without physical consumation) which, to me, is also realistic and a somewhat refreshing change of pace."

Thank god! Phew. Probably shouldn't have read that. I'm staying the hell away from the IGN and Rotten Tomatoes report! Something tells me I shouldn't even skim read this page. If they just decide to cut out around two of the action scenes then I'd be really excited!

"I'm underwhelmed by the suggestions of lex sex and more brooding."

I'm overwhelmed. Who needs the same old predictable stuff?! I got bored with it all after LTK. I'm sure most of the general cinema goers will appreciate the wonderful new direction Eon is taking. It's about time!

Edited by Jack Spang, 05 April 2008 - 12:40 PM.

[HH007]

And M

http://movies.ign.co...4022653801.html

It's interesting to see how much they've changed M's office from the Brosnan Era and CASINO ROYALE. It looks great, and it was much needed since this is a new "franchise" of Bond films, and this really should have happened with CASINO ROYALE since M's office in that film was similar to what it was during the Brosnan Era.

Well, they did have her desk in a different place.

[kneelbeforezod]

To me James Bond, from October 2005 till the day DC is no longer playing 007, is all about Wilson, Broccoli and Craig. Everyone else is just a replaceable employee catering to the vision of those three. Plain and simple. Directors, writers, etc. are tools to an end and replacable from one movie to the next.

Wilson and Broccoli are only irreplaceable because they are lucky enough to own the damn thing. They literally can't be replaced.

There are countless producers out there capable of saying "we want it darker... we want a car chase here... we want the Bond girl to be tough and independent... we want to spend this much money" and then hiring writers and directors to deliver that vision.

Ownership is one thing. Bond undoubtedly "belongs" to them. But the quality of the final film is something different, the responsibility for that rests more with others.

[tdalton]

One thing that I'm really liking about this film is its visual look. Looking at all of the pictures and videos has me especially excited for the visual aspect of the film because it looks so different from any other Bond film. Also, and one point that I hadn't considered, is Amalric's comment on the MySpaceTV video about how the "eco-hotel" looks very similar to the structure at the end of DR. NO, which is also a good thing, IMO.

[HH007]

One thing that I'm really liking about this film is its visual look. Looking at all of the pictures and videos has me especially excited for the visual aspect of the film because it looks so different from any other Bond film. Also, and one point that I hadn't considered, is Amalric's comment on the MySpaceTV video about how the "eco-hotel" looks very similar to the structure at the end of DR. NO, which is also a good thing, IMO.

Forster has a very strong visual eye as a director.

[Jack Spang]

"I predict that many people will put CR above QoS simply for the fact that CR will have less action than this film, despite the fact that it appears the action in this film will be there to enhance the narrative rather than just there for the sake of being there."

I will. Plus, I won't like the Camille character simply because I dislike having physical fighting Bond girls no matter how wonderful their personality and acting is. No matter how high the quality of action, character and plot development is, with too much action and too little dialogue, this will greatly lessen my enjoyment of the film. I'll probably be saying they could have had 20 to 25 minutes less action and 20 to 25 minutes more dialogue and actual spying/investigative work. It'll never change though. The visual and character aspect has me excited and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. To bad it will be very minimal. It's a pity we can't go back to the amount of action we had in most of the films in the pre Brosnan era. Even though the character stuff was minimal, atleast there was more dialogue and suspense scenes instead of just action, action and more action...

"That said, Forster joked that since Quantum of Solace is the first film he's made where he won't have final cut, he could always place blame if the film fails on not having control over the editing process."


This is what really sucks. This is where all the wonderful, atmospheric and dialogue scenes get cut out in favour of action. The post LTK films have all been unjustifiably edited too tightly which also reduces my enjoyment. CR was the same in parts. What happens is that the suspense and atmosphere in certain scenes can be dramatically reduced because of pacing that is just to quick. People's attention spans must be getting shorter and shorter by the day!

Edited by Jack Spang, 05 April 2008 - 05:28 PM.

[stamper]

Actually, cutting out down time (ie time with no action) have always the opposite effect the producers want to achieve : you end up loosing people's attention, because they can't connect to the action.

It's like music, you got to have a silence before a loud noise. If there's no silence, there can be no loud. In music it's called dynamics, the difference between the lowest and loudest noise. If you push everything to loud, like most CDs today, you loose the dynamics, and destroy an industry. Cutting out the dynamics is like listening to just one continuous white noise, action, action action action, action action, it's a continuous headache no one care's about.

[HH007]

Actually, cutting out down time (ie time with no action) have always the opposite effect the producers want to achieve : you end up loosing people's attention, because they can't connect to the action.

It's like music, you got to have a silence before a loud noise. If there's no silence, there can be no loud. It just one continuous white noise, action, action action headache no one care's about.

Kind of like TND, there are explosions and gunfire all over the place, but because I didn't care about the story or the characters, I didn't really care about the action. But I honestly don't see them making that mistake here, with an actor of Craig's chops at their disposal.

[dodge]

I'd say it's Eon's film first and foremost, then a Marc Forster film, then Craig's film.

Quite right. And given the role that Marc Forster had in shaping QUANTUM OF SOLACE (he states in another interview is that he literally tossed the script out and then went to work on a new one, instructing Haggis on what he wanted to do with the film). He doesn't own the franchise, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE is definitely proving to be more and more his baby.

I'm liking this news about Kurylenko's character. It's about time that EON delivered on their promise of providing us a Bond girl that is different from all of the others, which Camille appears as though she will be. The dynamic of her not being romantically involved with Bond will be a very refreshing change from the usual direction that EON takes the relationship between Bond and the lead actress.

Yes. I'm quite looking forward to seeing how her relationship with Bond develops. It seems like it's a relationship of mutual goals - she wants revenge for the death of her family, and he wants revenge for the death of Vesper.

Thank you for summarizing that. Here is where, precisely, the battle line is drawn. If Humble Pie is called for in November, then so be it. But I don't believe it will be served on my side of the table unless this director is made to think Bond, rather than HIS movie.