By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Scoobes on 29 November 2009
Edit Thread
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
I like Craig, Casino Royale was a great film, and I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty good too.

Yay, I was waiting for an excuse to do this.

Casino Royale:

  • Some two people were killed in the entire movie.
What film were you watching... did you only watch the poker scenes?
  • The plotline revolved around Poker.
See previous comment
  • No Q
Because the gadgets became cheesy and crap. Invisible car anyone?
  • Daniel Craig (yes, I know, whatever)
Who actually bothered to make it look like he could have the physique of an agent, unlike that smarmy weed Pierce Brosnan
  • Boring villain
Yet he managed to give us a wonderful torture scene
  • If Bond loses, he's funding terrorism! Oh, heavens, no! What if he broke a nail? This guy is rich enough to host a huge poker party in a five star hotel and bid $15 million, inviting some of the most powerful people in the world. He doesn't really need much more money.

But, it was written by Ian Fleming, so can't complain, I suppose.

No, you shouldn't, in fact Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond is far closer to the books than any of the other actors except perhaps Sean Connery.

Quantum of Solace:

Oh dear.

  • NOT written by Ian Fleming (but then quite a few of the films aren't)
No, but he gave us the title! :P
  • Ridiculously over-the-top action
Yes, but a lot of it was still believable up until the end scenes
  • Bond kills everything that moves, for no adequately explored reason.
Except for the fact they're all trying to kill him and his desire for vengeance.
  • The evil supervillain this time is trying to dominate Bolivia's water supply. Oh, dear god! What could happen if he did that? It would be catastrophic! The price of water in Bolivia could go up, and some people might be a little thirsty! DISASTER! Besides, there is already a company with a monopoly of Bolivia's water supply.
World water supply, he was based in Bolivia.
  • Villain was about as charismatic as a brick wall.
Is this a pre-requisite for a villain, or is this some misguided pre-conception you have
  • NO GADGETS. Except something which resembles Windows 7 Touch, oh, and a camera phone which can identify people. Futuristic stuff. Who needs lame gadgets, like a laser watch, or jam trousers?
Gadgets ruined the last 2 Pierce Brosnan films, don't you think they'd want to stay away from them? Again, I bring up the invisible car. The gadgets became cheesy and really quite stale, they needed a change of tempo.

EDIT: Interesting thing to note: from personal experience, Americans love these two, and everyone else hates them.

I'm British and like Bond :P

See bolded. The new Bond is a lot closer to the way Bond originally was in the books, and this is what they were going for with the films. He wasn't supposed to have all these cheesy one liners and look like a suave but skinny weed. In fact, he was supposed to be rather muscular and rugged. It's the progression of the film series that has led to all these expectations and pre-conceptions that I think a lot of Bond fans see as a staple. These pre-conceptions ruined the last 2 Brosnan-Bond films.




Get your Portable ID!