|
|
Post by jerthrs on Jun 30, 2008 22:36:24 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I though someone might be interested to know that the next James Bond movie (still starring Daniel Craig) will be named "Quantum of Solace". From what I have understand, it continues the adventures of Bond in Casino Royale. Here is the link to the official website for those who are interested : www.007.com/#/homeThe movie should pop on the big screen on nov 7 for the US and on oct 31 for the UK. J-F |
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Jul 1, 2008 7:37:42 GMT -5
Daniel Craig would never have been my choice to play James Bond, but then again.... they never ask my opinion before doing this kind of stuff.  I just think there were much better choices out there that fit the role better. I don't view the new chapters of the series in the same light as the others now. It's as though he's a different character, which was sort of there plan in a way. I still prefer the Mission Impossible series or even the Bourne series to the new Bond. All that said, I did enjoy Craig's first Bond movie. It was certainly action packed and the opening scenes alone were worth the price of admission. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing "Quantum of Solace" as well, even if it feels like a different series to me right now. It's a good one, regardless.  Ken |
|
|
|
Post by jerthrs on Jul 1, 2008 11:01:22 GMT -5
ken, I share the exact same opinion about Daniel Craig playing in a James Bond movie. He doesn't look like James Bond at all to me.
As for Quantum of Solace, I hope it will be better than Casino Royale. I will be in theater on nov 7 to see it because I like James Bond movies and I cannot avoid a new one. Let's hope we won't be disappointed.
J-F
|
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Jul 1, 2008 11:24:26 GMT -5
I'm sure it will be an action packed, cool movie. Unlike the Indy franchise, the Bond series was undergoing an intentional re-boot. So, I expect there to be some differences, even if I don't like them. The story was solid, which really helps.
With Indy, we were told this was a complete extension of the otehr three movies. It was supposed to have the same look and feel that we were all used to, from the story to the production. That's why I was so let down when that simply wasn't the case.... IMO.
My point? Atleast the new Bond series was supposed to be different.
Ken
|
|
|
|
Post by Havana on Jul 1, 2008 11:29:58 GMT -5
The trailer is online. It looks pretty good. The action in the new film looks to have been done in the same down to earth, gritty style as Casino Royale. So don't expect any CGI prarie dogs in 'Solace'. I like Craig's portrayal of Bond. He reminds me a lot of Sean Connery but colder. Bond wasn't born into his silver spoon lifestyle. He grew up rough and had to slowly grow into the super suave Bond that most people think of. I think Craig is intent on portraying that progression in the films. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7481398.stm |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 11, 2008 1:25:53 GMT -5
Can't wait to see the film! They said that they toned Craig down a bit physically in this new one and it shows. I'm kinda glad, cuz there were certain scenes in the first one that gave me horrible flashbacks to Van Damme!  |
|
|
|
Post by bullwhip92 on Jul 11, 2008 9:50:23 GMT -5
Craig is actually my favorite Bond after Connnery (just because he was first) and Timothy Dalton (because I've read the books, and he was the Bond closest to them). I like Craig for similar reasons to my liking Dalton. He definitely gives the cold B*stard (sorry) feel that Bond had in the early books, and what would be good in a reboot. I didn't mind Pierce Brosnan, and I like him as an actor, but it must be said that towards the end, the "old" Bond stories were getting more and more far fetched and repetitive. Die Another Day was a combo of Goldeneye and Diamonds are Forever. It was just bad, IMAO. I was very apprehensive when Craig took the wheel, but I was pleasantly shocked to see him portraying a very realistic Bond. I can't wait for the new movie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 11, 2008 11:29:18 GMT -5
Craig is actually my favorite Bond after Connnery (just because he was first) and Timothy Dalton (because I've read the books, and he was the Bond closest to them). I like Craig for similar reasons to my liking Dalton. He definitely gives the cold B*stard (sorry) feel that Bond had in the early books, and what would be good in a reboot. I didn't mind Pierce Brosnan, and I like him as an actor, but it must be said that towards the end, the "old" Bond stories were getting more and more far fetched and repetitive. Die Another Day was a combo of Goldeneye and Diamonds are Forever. It was just bad, IMAO. I was very apprehensive when Craig took the wheel, but I was pleasantly shocked to see him portraying a very realistic Bond. I can't wait for the new movie! I agree with you about Craig. I dont often run into many fans of Dalton's portayal of Bond, but i definitely like and can relate to your reasoning for your view on him as Bond. I really liked Brosnan as Bond and I loved the first half of Die Another Day (it reminded me of Jack Bauer Season 6.) ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by New Yorker Jones on Jul 31, 2008 13:11:12 GMT -5
I can't wait for the new one. Seeing Craig as Bond is very refreshing; no gizmos or gadgets, just Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Jul 31, 2008 14:37:28 GMT -5
I can't wait for the new one. Seeing Craig as Bond is very refreshing; no gizmos or gadgets, just Bond. But Bond has always used gizmos and gadgets....  Ken |
|
|
|
Post by New Yorker Jones on Jul 31, 2008 18:34:39 GMT -5
I can't wait for the new one. Seeing Craig as Bond is very refreshing; no gizmos or gadgets, just Bond. But Bond has always used gizmos and gadgets.... Ken That's why its refreshing to see Bond without gadgets or gizmos. An invisible car?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Jul 31, 2008 20:21:54 GMT -5
But Bond has always used gizmos and gadgets.... Ken That's why its refreshing to see Bond without gadgets or gizmos. An invisible car? What I meant was... the character of James Bond has had spy gadgets and weapons since the very beginning. You might like the idea of the character not having them, but it is very much out of character for him so far. I'm not saying that Bond should or shouldn't have gadgets either... just pointing out how different he is without them now. It's like a different character in many ways. Ken |
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Sept 13, 2008 14:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Sept 22, 2008 12:48:32 GMT -5
Mark Forster and Daniel Craig Answer Your 007 Questions! www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=48630At first, Daniel Craig may not have been the most obvious choice to play the iconic figure of James Bond, however Craig renewed an excitement for the character with his portrayal of the sophisticated, dark-natured secret agent in Columbia Pictures' Casino Royale in 2006, while adding his own rugged and polished mannerisms to the role which made audiences love him as the sexy new 007 spy.
This November, the blonde-hair blue-eyed British actor returns as Bond in Quantum of Solace, this time with director Marc Forster at the helm, and ComingSoon.net was sent to London on behalf of our readers to ask Craig and Forster your questions.
The trip started off with quite a welcome surprise when Virgin Atlantic sponsored our flight and sent us across the pond in style, hooking us up with Upper Class seats, which have amazing fully-flat comfortable beds and cool in-flight entertainment. The airline partnered with the Bond franchise for Casino Royale with its planes appearing in the scene shot at the Miami airport. Virgin will be back with Bond in Quantum of Solace, as he flies across the Atlantic.
Thanks to them, we were rather well-rested when we met Craig and Forster at the Soho Hotel in London the following day for our brief interview.
Craig was already in the room when we walked in and he immediately greeted us by introducing himself and shaking our hand. His arm was in a sling from a recent surgery he had due to an injury that happened while performing his own stunts. He laughed about it and said, "Please excuse my arm," as he sat down, but he gave us his direct attention and couldn't have been happier to answer your questions.
ComingSoon.net: Your fans at ComingSoon.net would like to know with regards to storytelling and characterization, how do you feel James Bond evolves as a character in this movie?
Daniel Craig: I hope kind of well. There's no sort of clear answer. He's a spy. I think he hardens. I think is slightly distressing. We touch upon it in "Casino Royale" and I don't want to get all kind of deep and silly about it. But, he has his heart broken and suddenly you kind of see this broken man and I find that very interesting. But that can't be James Bond, because he can't be broken. He can't, because if he was broken it wouldn't work. It's finding that person that we can trust but not and that's something I wanted to make sure that we put into the first film that I don't want. Someone just said to me, "well he's a bit like a bad guy" and I was like, "Yeah, well he kills people for a living." I mean where's the ambiguity? There's no ambiguity in that and it's up to the audience to decide whether or not they think it's right that he kills that person at that particular time. So the development of the character is one that we know this is what he does, this is how he gets it done. This is how he behaves in certain circumstances and hopefully he's open enough as a character for us to believe that when he hits something new he's discovering it as we're discovering it. I'm very nervous about answering questions about kind of how I discover characters or where we take characters too because I think it's so much about what the audience perceives and how they believe it or how they don't believe it. I took something we did in "Casino Royale" and I've taken him on and he's moved on but you know he's still damaged and f*cked up and all those sort of things that you know he'd hopefully was in the first one. And you know he kills people for a living. He must wake up in the night occasionally in a bit of cold sweat, but maybe we'll never see that, I dunno, who knows?
CS: Here's the second question from our audience: You've been compared to Steve McQueen because you prefer to do most of your own stunts, so how important do you think it is for actors to do their own stunts?
Craig: (holds up is arm in a sling) Very important. (Laughing)
CS: How much pressure is there on you as an actor in this type of role to do your own stunts?
Craig: For me, there's no pressure at all to do my own stunts. This is a longterm thing that needed fixing. (Referring to his arm) And this is my break, that's why I'm having it fixed. I really enjoy it. There's a tradition in movies that goes back right to the beginning when these people turned up in Hollywood and said, "Can you fall off a horse?" I can fall off a horse. (laugh) You're a star (laugh) and that there's going to Buster Keaton to Chaplin to all those physical… Certainly I would be lying if I didn't say that I used to watch those movies avidly as a child and sort of marvel at the fact that the camera never moved and the house fell down and they were at the top of a building and you were going, "My God it's them!" There was no special effects and I can never get away from that in movies, however good the CGI is, however good the sort of double is, an audience knows, they just know. You either go with it or you don't go with it and if you're going with it, it's because you're enjoying the movie and it's part of the process. If that moment you go "Oh, f*ck me, it's them," it's just a little bit of extra excitement that you can add into a movie and I just I enjoy doing them you know. It's part of why we're doing action movies so the more that I can get involved, the more that I understand the process when you do it, and as you well know when you're shooting an action sequence… God it can take… In one sequence in "Casino Royale" it took three months. Not with me there all the time but it was that's it took because of second units shooting on it. So keeping your head going well where am I now, I mean I'm hanging here I was going there. So the more I'm involved with it the more I can hopefully put a reality into that situation, and I get a kick out of it.
Marc Forster was also very interested in what you had to ask him:
ComingSoon.net: A lot of people asked about Q, Moneypenny and the gadgets whether they might return in this movie or in the next series. If you don't think so, why or why not?
Marc Forster: Q and Moneypenny are not returning because it's a continuation of "Casino Royale" so it wouldn't have made any sense not to have them in "Casino Royale" and suddenly bring them back in here as it like picks up an hour right after. I think maybe in the future eventually, but it's really up to (producers) Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli if they want to bring them back. I think it might be a good idea to bring them back, but in "Quantum of Solace" it didn't make any sense for me because I felt it should have some connection to "Casino Royale." They didn't, so I didn't bring them back in this one. And in regard to gadgets, there are a few gadgets in it. I think less than in the past because I feel like we have so many gadgets today in our daily lives. I think the phenomena of gadgets isn't as interesting as it used to be because we use them now so much in our personal life. I thought the impact of the story, dialogue and emotional content is more important to me than gadgets.
CS: Our second question from the fans is whether we will see SPECTRE or a similar organization introduced in "Quantum of Solace "and does this organization have something to do with the new title?
Forster: There is a similar organization to SPECTRE in this film and the organization's called Quantum.
In addition to talking to Craig and Forster, Columbia Pictures set up special events for us that all relate to the new movie, so stay tuned for more details on what we participated in!More questions were asked by other organizations at the promo event: www.aintitcool.com/node/38427chud.com/articles/articles/16394/1/EXCLUSIVE-THE-QUANTUM-OF-COCKSMANSHIP-DANIEL-CRAIG-AND-MARK-FORSTER-ANSWER-CHUD-READER-QUESTIONS/Page1.htmlwww.cinematical.com/2008/09/22/daniel-craig-and-marc-forster-answer-your-bond-questions/movies.ign.com/articles/911/911930p1.htmlmovieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/your_quantum_of_solace_questions_answered/Ken
|
|
|
|
Post by Havana on Sept 22, 2008 14:17:50 GMT -5
I think his opinion on the gadgets is interesting and very accurate. When you have a cell phone that takes pictures, plays MP3's and surfs the net, spy gadgets just don't seem that awesome anymore. In order to get something amazing, they have to go way out and risk the ridiculous (invisible car). I do like how Craig seems to be embracing the character instead of complaining about being in a franchise and wanting to do other things like some many others have done. He seems like a cool guy. Call me crazy but I think he'd make a good Indy villain. Belloq's son maybe?
(I forgot he already was a villain in the Young Indy series.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Sept 25, 2008 7:03:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kt. Templar on Nov 4, 2008 19:53:08 GMT -5
Well being a British film we get it slightly earlier than you guys. Anyway, you are a little preoccupied this week!! It is FANTASTIC, you'll have stunts coming out of your ears and whilst it has a very minimal storyline, there is enough to string all the very impressive set pieces and all the beautiful locations together. It has the scope and the vitality that many of us complained were missing from KoTCS. The theme tune sucks though! |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Nov 15, 2008 21:03:51 GMT -5
I really liked it. I had a little trouble following the story, but the action was amazing! I really missed the gadgets, but they're trying to keep Bond closer to the novels. Which was very well done with Casino Royale.
Quantum of Solace was quite as good as the previous film, but it did a good job of tying up loose ends.
-Josh
|
|
Damned Dan
Temple Guard
"Try to beat the Devil!"
Posts: 216
|
Post by Damned Dan on Nov 16, 2008 0:47:16 GMT -5
I just got back from seeing it and I was quite disappointed. Casino Royale really breathed life back into this dying franchise, but QOS pulled the plug. I think Marc Forster was the wrong choice for director. He's quite good at what he normally does, but action isn't his forte. While the stunts were great, the editing and coverage made them impossible to appreciate. I actually found the action more nauseating than exciting. They should have kept Martin Campbell on for this one. The story wasn't very compelling and slightly convoluted. I still love Craig as Bond and really enjoy the change in character. I'm not sure where I'd rank him in my Bond list, but he's definitely above Pierce Brosnan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Nov 17, 2008 21:09:00 GMT -5
I saw it last night with my oldest son, using a free movie credit we earned with our Regal Entertainment card. I enjoyed it, as expected. It had tons of action and was very well paced. I also liked the actual real world locations they filmed in (hint, hint to Lucas & Spielberg for Indy 5). Nothing beats actually being there whenever physically possible. I have to approach the new Bond series as just that. It's so very different than all the other Bond movies in many ways, that I have a hard time seeing Craig as Bond when I think of them all together. He's certainly got the tough guy build, looks, and attitude part down.... and is very believable doing all of that sort of stuff. I think they over compensated by getting rid of all the gadgets, though I'm not sad to see many of the cliche' Bond lines go away at all. Hopefully they'll keep pumping out great action filled stories like this one, and I'll keep watching. Ken |
|
|
|
Post by Havana on Nov 18, 2008 10:36:31 GMT -5
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit but it was definitely a notch or two below Casino Royale. I think the director made the difference. I hope they have Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Goldeneye, Zorro) back to direct soon. The real world locations were a major plus in this film. They just lent it a flavor and credibility that no bluescreen or backlot can match. You really get the feeling you're traveling the world with Bond just like in the old movies. I have to agree that the action was great and intense but poorly directed. The extreme rapid cuts and shaking of the camera only left people confused and didn't allow the audiece to appreciate the great action being performed. Why do it if you're not going to film it effectively? There was some CGI here and there but it never stood out or called attention to itself. There were no action sequences based in largely CGI environments (KOTCS jungle) or featuring CGI characters (monkeys). The action scenes seemed to just happen in accordance with the story (like in Raiders) and none of the stunt sequences seemed overly staged or preplanned like in KOTCS. There were no ridiculous concepts like sword fighting between jeeps in the middle of a jungle or swinging with monkeys but there was plenty of running, jumping, kicking, punching, vehicle action, and yes, even shooting - exactly the same kind of stuff you see in Raiders. Out of all the disappointing action movies out there, I'm just so happy that Bond can still deliver an old fashioned adventure in the 21st century. Maybe others should take a look at Bond's box office receipts and take a hint.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Yorker Jones on Nov 18, 2008 17:58:19 GMT -5
I saw QoS on Sunday with the wife and we both liked it. We did think Casino Royale was better though. This one, the plot was a little hard to see where they were going with.
|
|
