"Quantum of Solace" Trailer

*cqb101* · 06-30-2008, 11:18 AM

The first trailer for the new Bond film, Quantum of Solace has been released.

http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=522&item=0

The trailer will also be attached to Hancock, so if you want to see it on the big screen, head to theaters on Wednesday.

*Raph's Girl* · 06-30-2008, 03:42 PM

Gah...this just means I have a couple months to see Casino Royale (currently the ONLY James Bond film I haven't seen). :/ But kewl that it's attached to Hancock. Definatly will be seeing that on Wednesday.

*watches the trailer* Oh looky.. James Bond turned into Jason Bourne....how nice.....

*cqb101* · 06-30-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

*watches the trailer* Oh looky.. James Bond turned into Jason Bourne....how nice.....

No, he's been made to be more like Ian Fleming's Bond, which is definitely a good thing.

*Tinuvielsdreams* · 06-30-2008, 08:11 PM

Yeah looks good and heavy on action!
Raph's girl you definitely need to see casino Royale, not just because it's good but it would probably help to see it since Bond's attitude and actions are influenced by what happened in the last one.

愛 · 06-30-2008, 11:57 PM

So...why is this basically a direct sequel to Casino Royale? They never did this before. Each movie had its own stand-alone plot. I'm not really complaining. I thought that the ending of Casino Royale left some things unanswered. I'm just curious as to why they're starting this kind of approach now.

*Raph's Girl* · 07-01-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ai

So...why is this basically a direct sequel to Casino Royale? They never did this before. Each movie had its own stand-alone plot.

Moonraker was the direct sequel to The Spy Who Loved Me so it's been done before. One can never forget Jaws.

"What's James Bond doing?!"
"I believe he's achieving re-entry!"

*ZariusTwo* · 07-01-2008, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ai

So...why is this basically a direct sequel to Casino Royale? They never did this before. Each movie had its own stand-alone plot.

There's been continuity in the movies several times...albiet "loose" continuity.

The Bond movies are adapting a more linear approach because of the success of the Bourne films.

*Spitfire* · 07-01-2008, 02:00 AM

I usually don't watch trailers because they normally only work on me if I'm excited about the film in the first place. This was one of the films I'm very excited about Casino Royale was an amazing film on it's own. Bond or not, never was a fan of Bond myself and Royale sucked me right in. I've seen a bunch of the films but this new series their starting just grabbed me by being so in your face. It felt more plausible and I think that's why it appealed to me so much.

The trailer of course has me amped but I'll save any judgments till I see it. Some of my favorite movies of all time have some of the worst trailers I've ever seen and vice versa oddly enough.

One trailer that really worked on me though was the Dark Knight ones. But I'm so excited to see that I can't hold it in. I might see it as many or more times then I saw Spider-man 2 in theaters if it's as good as I think it's going to be.

*cqb101* · 07-01-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

Moonraker was the direct sequel to The Spy Who Loved Me so it's been done before. One can never forget Jaws.

"What's James Bond doing?!"
"I believe he's achieving re-entry!"

The James Bond films have been loosely connected, but never as closely connected as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are. Quantum of Solace literally takes off the moment Casino Royale ends, and is all about James Bond's response to the events in Casino Royale.

Do yourself a favor, see Casino Royale. Not only is it probably the best James Bond film, it's an excellent film by its own right.

*Raph's Girl* · 07-01-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cqb101

Do yourself a favor, see Casino Royale. Not only is it probably the best James Bond film, it's an excellent film by its own right.

The odd thing is that Quantum of Solace is a story in For Your Eyes Only and has really nothing to do with Casino Royale...or heck James Bond for that matter. Bond is just at some party where somebody is telling a sad tale of love and loss. The film is Quantum of Solace in name only.

*cqb101* · 07-01-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

The odd thing is that Quantum of Solace is a story in For Your Eyes Only and has really nothing to do with Casino Royale...or heck James Bond for that matter. Bond is just at some party where somebody is telling a sad tale of love and loss. The film is Quantum of Solace in name only.

Ya, not ****. I've read it more than a few times (along with most of the other Bond novels). But in relation to the ending of Casino Royale and the story of the film, it's a very appropriate title.

*ZariusTwo* · 10-30-2008, 10:35 PM

I attended the gala charity premiere for the movie

Spoiler:

If you like brainless Bourne-pandering and don't think too highly of expectation, it's a return to grass roots, with scenarios you could easily associate with the Brosnan era, but fully fitting into Craig's world, for those that were wowed by the psychology and drama of the more relaxed and grounded Casino Royale...don't bother looking for it.

There are great, very quiet scenes that struggle to remind the audience of such gravitas, like the sting operation at the opera, an enjoyable Bourne-esque version of something similar to The Godfather murders, about any scene Dench has etc...but there's nothing there. Craig's Bond doesnt give a **** about Vesper, and neither does the audience. There are no flashbacks to Vesper, no sequences of her calling out to Bond in the desert (oh don't get me started on the waste of time that was the walk through the desert back to a fully populated city and hotel...pointless, utterly pointless "cool shot" and nothing else), no visual attempt to anchor her meaning to Bond whatsoever since the movie constantly boasted he was struggling still with "loss"...pfft, he was over her when he said "the bitch is dead" in Casino Royale and displays a typical attiude to work the whole film.

All Vesper means to Bond by the movie's dull and dry conclusion is a shrug of his shoulders and him saying "Meh, she was a good shag". What Casino Royale had built up surrounding the nameless organisation and Vesper's boyfriend were completly evaporated when the incomprehensible plot that made Greene's associates look like they wanted to simply build the world's largest Tetris game, and the conclusion is just very wet.

If Vesper's dropped necklase in the snow was a homage to one of the covers for OHMSS, it represented more of a dropped ball than any love letter to a vastly superior novel and Bond movie.

There's a mention of "Quantium" (the name of the organisation), and the "solace" portion of the title is depicted as visually out of reach rather than stated when Bond's saying goodbye to the main girl of the film.

Dominic Green was quite ineffectual as a villain. His organisation's intents were inexplicable, and the insane girl-raping stereotypical general? C'mon Barbera and Michale, this isnt 1995.

"Fields" (whose real name is in the credits, it's way too silly for words), was a paper pushing secretary who gives up on her assigned task immediatly to shag Bond. Obviously these "two in a row" Bond girls produce uninspired groans from even the writers these days, as do the "Rebellious Bond is rebellious" scenes.

Get a new idea.

***1/2

*Cure* · 10-30-2008, 10:46 PM

Man, early reviews have been coming in and they're not too good. They say it's alright, just not up there with Casino Royale.

*ZariusTwo* · 10-30-2008, 11:32 PM

Yeah. It's a nice runaround, but it could have been so much better.

*Raven* · 10-31-2008, 12:00 PM

I really enjoyed Casino Royale, but I dont like what Im hearing about this movie.

*Anarky* · 11-30-2008, 05:47 AM

Meh, I wasn't too impressed, honestly. I mean... did the baddies even have a plan? There was a plan, yes, but it was even more convuluted than what I'm used to with Bond movies. Also, would it have killed anyone if they'd have put a gadget in there? Like a watch that is a helicopter at the same time or the cellphone has a laser built in.

By all means, it was a good action movie of the Michael Bay variety, but it was a bad Bond movie.

The best thing about the movie: Strawberry Fields. I swear that she's not wearing anything underneath that coat of hers.

EDIT: I just had to write a bigger review of the movie.

*Spitfire* · 11-30-2008, 11:00 PM

I enjoyed the film. I went in expecting a mindless action flick with a lot of the intelligence of Royale absent and was a bit surprised. The reviews helped me lower my expectations enough to have fun watching it. It had a lot to live up to and I think that's why it let so many people down. In a few years after some more of these have come out people will look back on this one and most likely be more accepting of it. I think fans have some issue with these movies not turning into "Austin Powers". Ebert was guilty of that in his review. He's ready to see the series fly back into the corny villains with retarded names and the wrist watch grappling hook. If the series goes there again I'll be leaving it behind.

06-30-2008, 11:18 AM	#1
cqb101 Cinephile Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Salem, MA Posts: 8,489	"Quantum of Solace" Trailer The first trailer for the new Bond film, Quantum of Solace has been released. http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=522&item=0 The trailer will also be attached to Hancock, so if you want to see it on the big screen, head to theaters on Wednesday. __________________ Facebook

06-30-2008, 03:42 PM	#2
Raph's Girl Dierna Soul, Reporter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Jakku Posts: 10,831	Gah...this just means I have a couple months to see Casino Royale (currently the ONLY James Bond film I haven't seen). :/ But kewl that it's attached to Hancock. Definatly will be seeing that on Wednesday. watches the trailer Oh looky.. James Bond turned into Jason Bourne....how nice..... __________________

07-01-2008, 02:00 AM	#8
Spitfire Writer • Director Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,035	I usually don't watch trailers because they normally only work on me if I'm excited about the film in the first place. This was one of the films I'm very excited about Casino Royale was an amazing film on it's own. Bond or not, never was a fan of Bond myself and Royale sucked me right in. I've seen a bunch of the films but this new series their starting just grabbed me by being so in your face. It felt more plausible and I think that's why it appealed to me so much. The trailer of course has me amped but I'll save any judgments till I see it. Some of my favorite movies of all time have some of the worst trailers I've ever seen and vice versa oddly enough. One trailer that really worked on me though was the Dark Knight ones. But I'm so excited to see that I can't hold it in. I might see it as many or more times then I saw Spider-man 2 in theaters if it's as good as I think it's going to be. __________________ Check out my online portfolio http://www.christopherpelletier.com/

10-30-2008, 10:35 PM	#12
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,494	I attended the gala charity premiere for the movie Spoiler: If you like brainless Bourne-pandering and don't think too highly of expectation, it's a return to grass roots, with scenarios you could easily associate with the Brosnan era, but fully fitting into Craig's world, for those that were wowed by the psychology and drama of the more relaxed and grounded Casino Royale...don't bother looking for it. There are great, very quiet scenes that struggle to remind the audience of such gravitas, like the sting operation at the opera, an enjoyable Bourne-esque version of something similar to The Godfather murders, about any scene Dench has etc...but there's nothing there. Craig's Bond doesnt give a ** about Vesper, and neither does the audience. There are no flashbacks to Vesper, no sequences of her calling out to Bond in the desert (oh don't get me started on the waste of time that was the walk through the desert back to a fully populated city and hotel...pointless, utterly pointless "cool shot" and nothing else), no visual attempt to anchor her meaning to Bond whatsoever since the movie constantly boasted he was struggling still with "loss"...pfft, he was over her when he said "the bitch is dead" in Casino Royale and displays a typical attiude to work the whole film. All Vesper means to Bond by the movie's dull and dry conclusion is a shrug of his shoulders and him saying "Meh, she was a good shag". What Casino Royale had built up surrounding the nameless organisation and Vesper's boyfriend were completly evaporated when the incomprehensible plot that made Greene's associates look like they wanted to simply build the world's largest Tetris game, and the conclusion is just very wet. If Vesper's dropped necklase in the snow was a homage to one of the covers for OHMSS, it represented more of a dropped ball than any love letter to a vastly superior novel and Bond movie. There's a mention of "Quantium" (the name of the organisation), and the "solace" portion of the title is depicted as visually out of reach rather than stated when Bond's saying goodbye to the main girl of the film. Dominic Green was quite ineffectual as a villain. His organisation's intents were inexplicable, and the insane girl-raping stereotypical general? C'mon Barbera and Michale, this isnt 1995. "Fields" (whose real name is in the credits, it's way too silly for words), was a paper pushing secretary who gives up on her assigned task immediatly to shag Bond. Obviously these "two in a row" Bond girls produce uninspired groans from even the writers these days, as do the "Rebellious Bond is rebellious" scenes. Get a new idea. 1/2 __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue* Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

10-30-2008, 10:46 PM	#13
Cure Y'all need Jesus Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 8,938	Man, early reviews have been coming in and they're not too good. They say it's alright, just not up there with Casino Royale. __________________

06-30-2008, 08:11 PM	#4
Tinuvielsdreams Nothing without passion Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,722	Yeah looks good and heavy on action! Raph's girl you definitely need to see casino Royale, not just because it's good but it would probably help to see it since Bond's attitude and actions are influenced by what happened in the last one.

06-30-2008, 11:57 PM	#5
愛 Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,449	So...why is this basically a direct sequel to Casino Royale? They never did this before. Each movie had its own stand-alone plot. I'm not really complaining. I thought that the ending of Casino Royale left some things unanswered. I'm just curious as to why they're starting this kind of approach now.

10-30-2008, 11:32 PM	#14
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,494	Yeah. It's a nice runaround, but it could have been so much better. __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

10-31-2008, 12:00 PM	#15
Raven follower of Jesus Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,212	I really enjoyed Casino Royale, but I dont like what Im hearing about this movie. __________________ TMNT Future Despair Deviant Offical Ultimate Ninja Turtles Site!

11-30-2008, 05:47 AM	#16
Anarky Outlaw Hero Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tannhauser Gate Posts: 4,867	Meh, I wasn't too impressed, honestly. I mean... did the baddies even have a plan? There was a plan, yes, but it was even more convuluted than what I'm used to with Bond movies. Also, would it have killed anyone if they'd have put a gadget in there? Like a watch that is a helicopter at the same time or the cellphone has a laser built in. By all means, it was a good action movie of the Michael Bay variety, but it was a bad Bond movie. The best thing about the movie: Strawberry Fields. I swear that she's not wearing anything underneath that coat of hers. EDIT: I just had to write a bigger review of the movie. __________________ Because it's... I dunno... brutal. Last edited by Anarky; 11-30-2008 at 07:09 AM.

11-30-2008, 11:00 PM	#17
Spitfire Writer • Director Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,035	I enjoyed the film. I went in expecting a mindless action flick with a lot of the intelligence of Royale absent and was a bit surprised. The reviews helped me lower my expectations enough to have fun watching it. It had a lot to live up to and I think that's why it let so many people down. In a few years after some more of these have come out people will look back on this one and most likely be more accepting of it. I think fans have some issue with these movies not turning into "Austin Powers". Ebert was guilty of that in his review. He's ready to see the series fly back into the corny villains with retarded names and the wrist watch grappling hook. If the series goes there again I'll be leaving it behind. __________________ Check out my online portfolio http://www.christopherpelletier.com/