Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

So, one year on!


166 replies to this topic

#61 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 October 2009 - 01:03 AM

I really don't see why Q = ridiculous gadgets, or even being a humorous character.

I'm thinking along the lines of Q in FRWL.


because it has been years since FRWL and since then Q became a staple of the bond series in providing incredible gadgets that pushed the limits of believability.


They're don't have to be unbelievable gadgets. Knife pens, aftershave containing pepper spray, finger print powder, bolt firing lighter, cyanide pen, submersible boat, microfilm in a packet of sweets etc... All entirely believable and exist in the real world, but are still near-unavailable to the average person and manage to be pretty cool.

#62 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 26 October 2009 - 01:14 AM

I really don't see why Q = ridiculous gadgets, or even being a humorous character.

I'm thinking along the lines of Q in FRWL.


because it has been years since FRWL and since then Q became a staple of the bond series in providing incredible gadgets that pushed the limits of believability.


I really don't think of just gadgets when I think of Q. He is just a member of staff. Moneypenny is a member of staff. She isn't just there for the traditional byplay with 007.

In any case, since we've rebooted and reinvented Bond, we can reboot the others to anything we like. Just as long as they're there.

#63 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 26 October 2009 - 02:04 AM

i would love to have major boothroyd when bond is considering the gun to use on a mission

#64 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 26 October 2009 - 03:09 AM

i would love to have major boothroyd when bond is considering the gun to use on a mission


Yes, that's the kind of exchange I'd like to see.

I'm even happy with the microchip guy from CR coming back and being named as Q. M did give him some importance when she said "Oh good, you're here".

#65 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 26 October 2009 - 04:06 AM

delete.

#66 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 28 October 2009 - 09:22 PM

Q aka boothroyd aka armourer in the vain of Dr.No and FRWL is the character we need. We need gadgets and like others have said, gadgets can take many forms, lets just not have them being absurd; Nor Boothroyd for that matter as he later became in the movies.

#67 Cabainus

Cabainus

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 372 posts

Posted 28 October 2009 - 11:08 PM

I went into it desperately wanting to like it, and then coming out feeling kinda despondent because I didnt but felt I should.

A big culprit of my animosity was the quick-fire editing that plagued the film right from the initial pre-titles. I actually felt relief when an action scene or set-piece finished, purely because watchin them was just plain baffling!

To this day I never really worked out how bond managed to flip his assailants boat, in the boating scene!

#68 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 07:23 AM

To this day I never really worked out how bond managed to flip his assailants boat, in the boating scene!

Don't feel bad, you're not alone. As shown, there is no way to explain how Bond did it.

#69 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:11 PM

My initial opinion, on first viewing, was sort of "Meh?" But subsequent viewings changed my opinion completely, I guess because I caught more and more each time I watched the film. A year later, I still feel the same way, that "Quantum" is Act II to "Casino"'s Act I, and a very satisfying conclusion to that particular story arc.

#70 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:58 AM

Since we always get Bond movies 3 weeks after Europe and the US, I remember coming back to CBn having finally seen QOS and catching up on what everyone thought of it.

I always look to see what Loomis, Harmsway, MHarkin, Qwerty, Judo, tdalton, dinovelvet, Safari Suit and JimmyBond think of the film. I also looked through all the questions about plot points.

#71 Emma

Emma

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 636 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 November 2009 - 01:34 AM

I saw it at the midnight showing the opening night in Toronto. To be frank I hated the film. I found it a jumbled mess,and I would be lying if I did not admit that I found Bond's behaviour in the film irritating. However having watched it a few times on DVD. My criticism is a bit less harsh. While it certainly is not the worst Bond movie ever. It certainly could do much much better.

Edited by Emma, 18 November 2009 - 01:35 AM.


#72 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:03 PM

And then you'd have CASINO ROYALE as the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK-ish followup with a dark and shocking ending. This order works better for me not only because I consider CASINO ROYALE a far superior film to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, much richer in characterisation and substance, but also because QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a lean, mean bullet of a film as opposed to the more epic CASINO ROYALE. It's the DR. NO to CASINO ROYALE's THUNDERBALL.

I love the "descent into the muck" feel of QoS. CR has a glossy look almost throughout (which works great, as there's a constant juxtaposition of pleasing aesthetics and the nastiness of reality), whereas QoS picks up where Le Chiffre left off in stripping away the veneer of humanity and showing us, even diving headfirst into, the ugly truth. It's the proudly un-epic "epic sequel," which is a refreshing change of pace from the usual one-upmanship we get from second installments.

Those were my feelings on opening night, and they're just as strong now, except I'm better able to express them. B)

But to impose a rule of one viewing only, and moreover to insist that opinions must be set in stone from that one viewing - ridiculous.

You couldn't be more right. One's opinion of a movie is so influenced by short-term factors (mood, life situation, maturity, etc.) that it's impossible to achieve objectivity with just one viewing, as if it wasn't difficult enough already with many. Like it or not, outside forces do play a role in how each of us interprets and appreciates art or entertainment.

#73 Robinson

Robinson

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts
  • Location:East Harlem, New Yawk

Posted 15 December 2009 - 12:41 AM

I can't believe it's been a year since we all lost our Quantum of Solace virginity. Hell, doesn't time fly!?


Damn, I got married on November 14th, the day of its US release. I've been married for that long? LOL

Seriously, I caught QOS the day after my wedding with friends from college. Ironically, the last film we all saw together was LTK, 20 years ago!

I enjoyed QOS and still do. I still feel that they could've allowed the film to "breathe" a bit and given us more to see from the locations. I thought the Tosca scene is still the high point of the film in terms of tension, music, direction and dialog.

I can't wait for the special edition to be released so I can get commentary and an in-depth look behind the scenes.

#74 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 15 December 2009 - 01:29 AM

My feelings toward QOS remain the same as when I first saw it. It's good, not great. A medium grade Bond film. Another TMWTGG or TND. Not a classic, but it has its moments. Love Craig. Editing is still shockingly insanely awful. Next.

#75 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 15 December 2009 - 01:33 AM

It might be my favorite Bond film. I love it as much as ever. I just may have to throw it on tonight after the game... B)

#76 Robert Watts

Robert Watts

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:34 AM

In the interests of saving time I'll be concise:

It stinks.

Edited by Robert Watts, 15 December 2009 - 05:39 AM.


#77 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 15 December 2009 - 06:11 AM

My feelings toward QOS remain the same as when I first saw it. It's good, not great. A medium grade Bond film. Another TMWTGG or TND. Not a classic, but it has its moments. Love Craig. Editing is still shockingly insanely awful. Next.



This from someone who said DAD was the best Bond film :tdown:

It might be my favorite Bond film. I love it as much as ever. I just may have to throw it on tonight after the game... :tdown:


Nice B) I agree with you 100% In fact I just watched it today and can't find many flaws in it.

#78 Robert Watts

Robert Watts

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 December 2009 - 07:19 AM

It might be my favorite Bond film. I love it as much as ever. I just may have to throw it on tonight after the game... :tdown:


Nice B) I agree with you 100% In fact I just watched it today and can't find many flaws in it.


Look harder! :tdown:

#79 Ambler

Ambler

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:21 AM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.

#80 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:32 AM

It might be my favorite Bond film. I love it as much as ever. I just may have to throw it on tonight after the game... :tdown:

Nice B) I agree with you 100% In fact I just watched it today and can't find many flaws in it.

Agreed; it's one of the best, and I pity the fools (you know who you are...) who can't see much in it.

#81 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:36 AM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.


This is funny. Ten years ago people were saying the same things about the Brosnan films. Times may change, but the criticisms stay the same.

#82 CJB

CJB

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 172 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's Terra Australis

Posted 15 December 2009 - 11:14 AM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.


This is funny. Ten years ago people were saying the same things about the Brosnan films. Times may change, but the criticisms stay the same.


And people still say the same things about the Brosnan films. And will continue to do so about QOS.

#83 Salomé

Salomé

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Under the Mango Tree

Posted 15 December 2009 - 11:24 AM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.


What, did you not enjoy the re-invention of the M character as a globe-trotting nanny? B)

#84 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 15 December 2009 - 11:42 AM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.

This is funny. Ten years ago people were saying the same things about the Brosnan films. Times may change, but the criticisms stay the same.

And people still say the same things about the Brosnan films. And will continue to do so about QOS.

OHMSS had a re-evalutation; so, too, will QOS. That is that. B)

#85 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 15 December 2009 - 02:31 PM

It might be my favorite Bond film. I love it as much as ever. I just may have to throw it on tonight after the game... :tdown:

Nice B) I agree with you 100% In fact I just watched it today and can't find many flaws in it.

Agreed; it's one of the best, and I pity the fools (you know who you are...) who can't see much in it.


It's not a matter of being a 'fool', it's just a matter of personal opinion, really.

#86 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 December 2009 - 02:40 PM

He's not much of a one for the ol' personal opinions it seems.

#87 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:24 PM

He's not much of a one for the ol' personal opinions it seems.

I suppose love for QOS will be like love for Moonraker, eventually; you get ridiculed for it, at first, but as you grow older and more sentimental, you find others around you beginning to mellow, coming around to the side of the film.... and, at long last, they finally see what was missed. B)

#88 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:27 PM

He's not much of a one for the ol' personal opinions it seems.

I suppose love for QOS will be like love for Moonraker, eventually; you get ridiculed for it, at first, but as you grow older and more sentimental, you find others around you beginning to mellow, coming around to the side of the film.... and, at long last, they finally see what was missed. B)


I think you're right.

#89 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:34 PM

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

QoS is a generic video game actioner. There are no discernible Bond elements.

It's a Bond film in name only.

This is funny. Ten years ago people were saying the same things about the Brosnan films. Times may change, but the criticisms stay the same.

And people still say the same things about the Brosnan films. And will continue to do so about QOS.

OHMSS had a re-evalutation; so, too, will QOS. That is that. B)


As far as I'm aware, OHMSS was never considered a generic actioner by critics or fans. It was praised remarkably well, but fans chose to ignore it because of Lazenby.

And Blofeld, calling people like me who dislike QOS "fools" is insipid. Period.

#90 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:48 PM

And Blofeld, calling people like me who dislike QOS "fools" is insipid. Period.

I stepped over the line; I'm sorry, Shark.

Now, if you'd like to attack any of my opinions, you're welcome to it; I deserve what's coming to me... B)