621 replies to this topic

[bond 16.05.72]

Craig did say we weren't gonna see the fully formed Bond, it was still going to be a learning curve for him. They want establish what made him so capable of bedding women without a concience and killing with no qualms.

It's obvious from what we've heard here is that Craig's Bond is not killing without it affecting him, We're are not there yet and I get the idea we will not see it in Craig's era.

He wants to portray Bond with depth and not as he has been presented before, yes Dalton tried to do this but the material he was given never allowed him to go down the route he would have most would likely have gone if been allowed.

The Moore model Bond is dead and maybe he will emerge in the guise of another actor but why go to so much effort to re-invent the series to take it back to what it was.

Yes I think this will be probably the lowest point Bond will get to and then it will probably be up from here. I don't think your gonna see Craig in a GF style Bond but Bond 23 will probably start to be more fun.

They are trying to bulid an arc for this Bond and show how he became the man the World all well know's but I don't think that should mean going back to cheeese, it's possible to present Bond in the modern age without reverting to the tyoe of old and I think thas what the Craig era is attempting to do.

I don't see him abandoning this character just yet, I feel he still has more to say and he wants to have a chance to say it.

[Mister E]

So, is this turning out to be a trilogy? Hmmmmm . . . interesting.

This may not end in Bond 23 if this review is true. I think Quantum might stick with the series for a little while. Hopefully, it won't end up like SPECTRE and Blofeld and just be some invicible enemy that pops with stupid, cartoon schemes.

I thought since Craig is (supposedly) open to staying on after Bond 23, that Quantum gets a one-film hiatus, and returns in Bond 24. Thought somewhere Michael Wilson said Bond 23 would be a stand-alone film.

Quantum seems more like a co-op than a SPECTRE-type organization. I think they might be going with what Fleming originally intended with SMERSH. Originally, they were supposed to be Bond's primary enemy, with Bond's nemesis probably being either G or Colonel Nitkin, but then Fleming (like EON) felt that portraying the Soviets as villains during the height of the Cold War was a bad idea, so G and SMERSH were replaced with Blofeld and SPECTRE, respectively.

Yes Quantum does seem more like SMERSH but like SPECTRE in the books too.

The Moore model Bond is dead and maybe he will emerge in the guise of another actor but why go to so much effort to re-invent the series to take it back to what it was.

I think a new style of humour is in order. A Bond who's more fustrated and his humor comes from his emotions, not smugness and one liners.

[HildebrandRarity]

Did any thread before this thread reveal that Camille would be killed by Greene?

[Royal Dalton]

I don't think so. But some of us have suspected that she'd croak it.

[DamnCoffee]

I think if this is true Bond's rage will be uncontrolable by Bond 23, with the death of Vesper, Mathis and Camille and all.

[Qwerty]

It's the IMDb, as everyone here has stated.

But nonetheless...

Will be interesting to see if this turns out to be true.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think if this is true Bond's rage will be uncontrolable by Bond 23, with the death of Vesper, Mathis and Camille and all.

Au contraire! Bond's rage is in control, otherwise why would he leave Greene in the desert without actually finishing him off? Your theory doesn't jive.

[DamnCoffee]

Because underneath all of that rage he has a brain and he would rather let Greene have a slow painfull death rather than killing him on the spot. Unfortunately for Bond his plan goes, hidiously, hidously... HIDIOUSLY wrong.

[iexpectu2die]

I think this might be real, mainly because he says that Camille thinks Bond is Slate, and therefore attacks him.

Remember the official synopsis? "After a case of mistaken identity, Bond meets Camille".


hmm...

Edited by iexpectu2die, 02 September 2008 - 08:52 PM.

[Invincible1958]

TDK as it stands is the most successful film of the year. That tells me that audiences don't care if their blockbusters are 'depressing'.

Right. It's about "good movies" and not just "fun-to-watch"-movies.
I enjoy movies like "There Will Be Blood" and "The Diving Bell & The Butterfly" (with Mathie Amalric) very much. And those are not exactly popcorn-movies. I'm more satisfied with a movie that remains hanging on in my head for weeks, than a movie, that is forgotten right after the show.
And if Forster manages to deliver a movie that stays with us, then that's the best thing that could happen.

I don't think your gonna see Craig in a GF style Bond but Bond 23 will probably start to be more fun.

I think even serious movies are fun, when they are good. For me it's more fun to watch a series drama than some silly -comedy. You can get much more lost in the movie when they really get you emotionally.

[Loomis]

I think this might be real, mainly because he says that Camille thinks Bond is Slate, and therefore attacks him.

Who's Slate? What's his role in the story? I mean, I guess at this point I might as well know everything....

[Blonde Bond]

It sounds so true. Yet...

Sounds very interesting and different from the norm.

But if true, Killing Mathis doesn't really sound that good. Why bring a character and an ally from the Fleming books and then first making him seem traitor in the first ever Bond film to feature the character and then killing him in the second film.

Sadly, I have a hunch they're going to kill him in this one. Shame. What a shame. But other than that, this review, if true, sounds pretty excellent.

[Harmsway]

But if true, Killing Mathis doesn't really sound that good.

We've known about Mathis' death for a while.

[JackWade]

I think that it's been floated around for awhile that Mathis kicks the dust. There was a photo snapped early on in filming which shows a bloody Mathis in Bond's arms.

I admit that I buy the review. It all sounds bloody good to me. I'm not so sure about the whole Bond quitting MI6 thing again, though. The second time in two missions? I'm not totally against it - hopefully a detailed exploration into Bond's motivations will be presented. And I'm a little queasy about "the line" not appearing. If the ending of CASINO ROYALE is supposed to be the coronation of the Bond we all know and love (blah blah) with the line displaying that, why is not in QUANTUM?

Edited by JackWade, 02 September 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[coco1997]

Another reason this is dubious is that the original poster seems to have disappeared. That's always a red flag for me--when a board member posts "exclusive" information and then never appears again to discuss the topic, thereby avoiding answering any follow-up questions the repliers might have.

[Blonde Bond]

I didn't know it had been confirmed. Dont any of the fleming-peers shred a tear for him? I'm not one of these "fleming-peers", but so far it seems Mathis has already proven a missed opportunity. Maybe they kill Felix in the next one.

[Harmsway]

Another reason this is dubious is that the original poster seems to have disappeared. That's always a red flag for me--when a board member posts "exclusive" information and then never appears again to discuss the topic, thereby avoiding answering any follow-up questions the repliers might have.

Yeah, that's usually a huge tell-tale sign that a review isn't legit. Maybe it's real regardless (and I'll concede that the review does sound very plausible), but it's wise to not buy into this too much. We'll see as more stuff becomes known.

I didn't know it had been confirmed. Dont any of the fleming-peers shred a tear for him? I'm not one of these "fleming-peers", but so far it seems Mathis has already proven a missed opportunity. Maybe they kill Felix in the next one.

Well, to be honest, I liked how they handled Mathis in CASINO ROYALE. Set him up really nicely for a kind of redemptive, sacrificial arc in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Had I been in charge, I'd probably have killed him off. He's not that inherently interesting that he's worth numerous return visits to the franchise.

[DamnCoffee]

Nahh I don't think they would go so far as to kill Leiter off. Mathis I can understand, but Leiter? Nahh. He's been with the franchise for far too long. If they were to kill him off, they would have done so in Licence to Kill and they didn't. The man is invinsible, he cannot die.

Plus, Righty would flip!

[Agent 76]

Mathis doesn't have to return in every single Bond movie, but killing him of, makes no sense, IMO. It doesn't harm Bond to have his allies, even if the movies are about 007. Felix Leiter and Mathis are interesting characters if done well.

[oatesy]

Another reason this is dubious is that the original poster seems to have disappeared. That's always a red flag for me--when a board member posts "exclusive" information and then never appears again to discuss the topic, thereby avoiding answering any follow-up questions the repliers might have.

I'm skeptical too. The poster's name is 'YOLT' and has been registered at imdb for 2 years before this post, so is clearly a long term Bond fan. The test screening in Soho rings true but what are the odds of a Bond fan getting a ticket to it? They don't advertise these screenings, they just grab people from the street and the Leicester Square cinemas - and they don't tell people in advance it is a Bond movie, they use a false name or just say it is an 'action movie'

I'm a Bond fan living in London who'd pay good money to get a ticket, but you just don't hear about these things in advance...

[Invincible1958]

I admit that I buy the review. It all sounds bloody good to me. I'm not so sure about the whole Bond quitting MI6 thing again, though. The second time in two missions?

But this will be the first time, that Bond is quitting right at the end of the movie leaving the audience behind. In the other movies he's coming back to MI6 before the movie ends or like in OHMSS where we know that he will come back the moment that Tracy dies.
This time it seems like a real goodbye - and that will make the end more emotional, I think. And of course it's the best cliffhanger they could choose for Bond 23.

And I'm a little queasy about "the line" not appearing.

I don't mind.
I love "From Russia With Love" and Bond never says "the line" in that. Or Thunderball, or You Only Live Twice ...
I doesn't appear in every movie. When people watch FRWL they don't even realise that he never says "the line" - so they don't miss it. And if QOS is a good movie, no one will really notice that something is "missing".

[Mr_Wint]

I didn't know it had been confirmed. Dont any of the fleming-peers shred a tear for him? I'm not one of these "fleming-peers", but so far it seems Mathis has already proven a missed opportunity. Maybe they kill Felix in the next one.

Well, to be honest, I liked how they handled Mathis in CASINO ROYALE. Set him up really nicely for a kind of redemptive, sacrificial arc in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Had I been in charge, I'd probably have killed him off. He's not that inherently interesting that he's worth numerous return visits to the franchise.

It will be interesting to see what they will do with Mathis in QOS. I did not really understand what they were doing in CR. The character worked really well to begin with but the reason for making Mathis a villain felt somewhat shallow, as it was only one more line from Le Chiffre. It was more like "hmmm... let's add another twist here".

[DamnCoffee]

Another reason this is dubious is that the original poster seems to have disappeared. That's always a red flag for me--when a board member posts "exclusive" information and then never appears again to discuss the topic, thereby avoiding answering any follow-up questions the repliers might have.

Yes, I asked if the Gunbarrel was included, he hasn't replied yet.

[Harmsway]

And I'm a little queasy about "the line" not appearing. If the ending of CASINO ROYALE is supposed to be the coronation of the Bond we all know and love (blah blah) with the line displaying that, why is not in QUANTUM?

I'm actually really happy about the line not appearing. The whole reason it shouldn't appear in QUANTUM is that CASINO ROYALE made such a big deal out of it. Point made, iconography established. Now we don't have to lean on it so much.

I mean, just 'cause he says it to Mr. White at the end of CASINO ROYALE doesn't mean he's going to go around saying it every time he introduces himself.

[JackWade]

But this will be the first time, that Bond is quitting right at the end of the movie leaving the audience behind. In the other movies he's coming back to MI6 before the movie ends or like in OHMSS where we know that he will come back the moment that Tracy dies.
This time it seems like a real goodbye - and that will make the end more emotional, I think. And of course it's the best cliffhanger they could choose for Bond 23.

Fair enough, and I concede that if the film does end on that note, it will by far a more interesting and captivating resignation than either LICENSE TO KILL or CASINO ROYALE presented.

It just seems like there are a couple things are getting repeated, and while I'm not one of the nitpickers of the Bond community, I worry that it could be handled poorly (natural pessimism on my part, not at all saying that's how it will be). I'm all for it if it's new and fresh.

I don't mind.
I love "From Russia With Love" and Bond never says "the line" in that. Or Thunderball, or You Only Live Twice ...
I doesn't appear in every movie. When people watch FRWL they don't even realise that he never says "the line" - so they don't miss it. And if QOS is a good movie, no one will really notice that something is "missing".

Well it just seemed like now that they supposedly setup the Bond that we know from the first twenty that they'd use it again. I'm not totally against it but it's one of my favorite iconic moments of the series.

Edited by JackWade, 02 September 2008 - 09:35 PM.

[Invincible1958]

I'm not totally against it but it's one of my favorite iconic moments of the series.

Mine, too.
But only when it is used the right way. In the Brosnan movies it's often just cheesy and painful to watch.
I think the impact of hearing it again in Bond 23 will be much bigger, because it would be something really special.

But who knows? If the imdb-guy just made up something ...?
On the other side: why should he pretend that the line isn't said if he hasn't seen the movie? It would not make any sense because that 'detail' is the easiest way to find out if he tells the truth.

[Agent 76]

It's the way the line is delivered, that makes it believable or not. Of course it doesn't have to be in the movie itself, to make it work

[Blonde Bond]

I'm happy if they don't introduce the line "Bond. James Bond".

Looking back to the old Connery films they didn't really overdo it. When Moore became Bond and after that, the line has been used in every movie.

Like Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky said it; "Can't you say a hello, like a normal person?"

So, please , no to 'The Name's Bond. James Bond' in every Bond movie. Yes, we know we're watching a Bond movie. No need forcing it down our throats.


And as for Mathis. I liked him in CR. I really liked him. More than Bond's ally Ali Kerim Bey from 'From Russia With Love'. I have never really appreciated that character as much the majority seems to appreciate him.

[BoogieBond]

I am taking this with a large pinch of salt. But some of the ideas sound good, and some of the ideas and themes seem to be coherent and make sense with what is known. Only a couple of months and we will find out

[Agent 76]

Like Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky said it; "Can't you say a hello, like a normal person?"

One of the funniest lines ever said in a 007 movie.