Topic: Castlevania: Quantum of Solace (Read 12357 times)

Ozymandias · « **on:** 24 Jan 2008, 21:11 »

Or, uh. 007: Quantum of Solace. I guess.

JoBlo

Film's official synopsis (minor spoilers):

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (JUDI DENCH) interrogate Mr White (JESPER CHRISTENSEN) who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.

Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille (OLGA KURYLENKO), a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene (MATHIEU AMALRIC), a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organisation.

On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world’s most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano (JOAQUIN COSIO). Using his associates in the organisation, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.

In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene’s sinister plan and stop his organisation.

Cast photos from Coming Soon!

ImRonBurgundy? · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 21:26 »

Wait, a Bond film that actually connects to a previous installment? Insanity.

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 22:01 »

IT'S A TRAP!

MusicScribbles · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 22:06 »

This is good though! It's like they are using the books now!

KvP · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 22:09 »

The title is the same as an Ian Fleming short story in which Bond is one character of many attending a dinner party of some kind. Doesn't look like it has much connection to the film.

MusicScribbles · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 22:21 »

I just feel like the movies are going to have a long-running plot based on SMERSH now, which could be cool, and faithful.

Johnny C · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Jan 2008, 22:44 »

Having them connect would be awesome. The Roger Moore Bond in particular suffered from his films being tremendously stagnant.

ImRonBurgundy? · « **Reply #7 on:** 25 Jan 2008, 01:01 »

Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 24 Jan 2008, 22:09

The title is the same as an Ian Fleming short story in which Bond is one character of many attending a dinner party of some kind. Doesn't look like it has much connection to the film.

Apparently Bond goes through the same emotional state that he does in that story, though. Or something.

Narr · « **Reply #8 on:** 25 Jan 2008, 01:51 »

Quote from: KickThatBathProf on 24 Jan 2008, 22:01

IT'S A TRAP!

qft.

Inlander · « **Reply #9 on:** 25 Jan 2008, 03:08 »

. . . So it's not a James Bond/Quantum Leap crossover?

Bummer.

Spinless · « **Reply #10 on:** 25 Jan 2008, 04:04 »

I was more excited when I though it was a Castlevania movie. Clever joke though!

frunK · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 18:43 »

Hopefully in this one he won't be such an whiney emo bitch, the badguy will be doing something cooler then just gambling terrorist money(c'mon what happened to the doomsday satelites((of doom))?) and his car will do something cooler then dispense a fucking DEFIBULATOR!
Maybe I'm just having an internet bitch, but daniel craig's first shot didn't seem like a bond movie, it had a few good action scenes, but for the most part it was dryer then a martini(HA! I'M WITTY!)

Ozymandias · « **Reply #12 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 18:49 »

Casino Royale was better than a Bond movie: it was a Bond novel successfully adapted to become a movie. It was not bullshit, is what I am saying.

frunK · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 18:57 »

I understand that, but I could have just gone out and got the book. I guess I'm just used to Bond 'flicks' as opposed to Bond 'movies'. I'm used to seeing bond fighting crazy henchmen at the bottom of the sea in a Mini Cooper that shoots fucking LAZERS! I'm not used to Bond having emotion for the chicks he nails.

I guess the only way the unfortionately named new Bond movie can make it up to me is by putting Jaws into the equation. That guy was bad ass, his teeth were fucking METAL!

Ozymandias · « **Reply #14 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 19:45 »

Considering you are the only person with that opinion, I suggest you save your $9 when this comes out.

Lines · « **Reply #15 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 19:50 »

Quote from: frunK on 10 Feb 2008, 18:57

I understand that, but I could have just gone out and got the book.

My god, then don't see movies based off of books.

Casino Royale was one of the first Bond movies I really enjoyed (I liked Sean Connery Bond movies, but not more than a "hmm, okay, so this is what a Bond movie is"). Since the new one seems like it's more in that vein, I will probably see it when it comes out.

frunK · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 Feb 2008, 19:58 »

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate them making the new bond movies closer to the books, and I think it's grand that they are. I guess I'm saying though it's not a bad thing, I don't feel it's a good thing. It's a thing.
It just doesn't feel like the bond I'm used to, with the explosions and the lazers.
The rediculous factor was what set Bond apart from other spy thrillers, now it just feels like a Borne movie, only missing the crappy camera work and Matt Damon.

Spinless · « **Reply #17 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 04:52 »

Which is fine by me, the Borne trilogy was fantastic. I think it was nice to have a 007 movie with realistic characters for a change.

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #18 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 07:08 »

Casino Royale was a spy movie. It contained the required things a spy film well, requires. The last few Bond films have been action movies but more the point, Casino Royale was a prequel. It showed Bond before he was the suave and more or less emotionless killer portrayed by Brosnan, Moore, Connery, Dalton and The Other Guy.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #19 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 07:18 »

There was an Other Guy?

Johnny C · « **Reply #20 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 08:50 »

George Lazenby.

I'm looking forward to a new Bond movie in the same vein as Royale.

singeivoire · « **Reply #21 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 14:33 »

I, for one, am loving the newer, less campy version of Bond. However, since I am unfamiliar with the books, the name Quantum of Solace made me laugh when I heard it... alot.

Quote from: frunK on 10 Feb 2008, 18:57

II guess the only way the unfortionately named new Bond movie can make it up to me is by putting Jaws into the equation.

I always preferred Odd Job to Jaws.

jimbunny · « **Reply #22 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 15:54 »

I, too, somewhat mourn the death of the old Bond, stylistically speaking. Sure, they were chauvinistic, simple-minded, and filled with utterly outlandish schemes, weaponry, and names (Pussy Galore?!). But there was definitely a strong sense, at least in the 'better' films, of a pseudo-mythical hero. They were like comic books, basically.

My point (and that of Mr. frunK as well, I believe) is that, while a more realistic, emotionally complicated Bond may make for good quality films, by explicating him as a human being these new movies are, in a sense, creating a different character entirely. Watching the new movie with the expectation of the old Bond, some people (me) were disappointed. I liked the old character; perhaps better. Especially since it seemed to me when I was watching Casino Royale that they were rushing through the emotional development, i.e. trying to have their fucking cake and eat it too. I'd also agree that the whole Texas Hold'em device was really weak and stale.

Johnny C · « **Reply #23 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 17:37 »

Quote from: jimbunny on 11 Feb 2008, 15:54

by explicating him as a human being these new movies are, in a sense, creating a different character entirely.

Hence it's a reboot.

Did you read any of the written Bond, by the way? Completely different from the lunchbox cover that Roger Moore turned the character into.

jimbunny · « **Reply #24 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 21:26 »

Admittedly no, but I think the movies established something that has stood on its own apart from its source material.

Perhaps most of the Bond films I'm trying to defend are Sean Connery ones? There are without doubt a number of really worthless films in the catalog. Moore was in Moonraker, and Octopussy, though, which are two that stand out in my mind...But I guess I can't get out of this without copping to a significant amount of nostalgia.

RobbieOC · « **Reply #25 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 21:58 »

I love the change. It's exponentially better than the other Bond movies were, plus I think the Brosnan movies proved that the Bond we all know and love had only one direction to go... and Austin Powers had already been there, but on purpose.

The name of this movie, though? It reeks highly of:

Johnny C · « **Reply #26 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 22:47 »

Quote from: jimbunny on 11 Feb 2008, 21:26

Perhaps most of the Bond films I'm trying to defend are Sean Connery ones? There are without doubt a number of really worthless films in the catalog. Moore was in Moonraker, and Octopussy, though, which are two that stand out in my mind...But I guess I can't get out of this without copping to a significant amount of nostalgia.

Moonraker is basically just The Spy Who Loved Me in space. If you haven't seen the latter film in a while, watch it again. It far outstrips Moonraker.

Inlander · « **Reply #27 on:** 11 Feb 2008, 23:25 »

Quote from: RobbieOC on 11 Feb 2008, 21:58

The name of this movie, though? It reeks highly of:

Not really, because "Solace" implies at least a semblance of complex and deeply felt emotion, which as we all know is a complete anathema to all things Star Wars.

Tom · « **Reply #28 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 00:34 »

Initally i was disappointed when I found out what the title was becasue I was hoping for a modernised-by-the-book adaptation of Live And Let Die.

Now you've told me what it's about, I now know that it well be a partial adaptation of Live and Let Die without the franchise having to do a remake.

RobbieOC · « **Reply #29 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 08:18 »

Quote from: Inlander on 11 Feb 2008, 23:25

Not really, because "Solace" implies at least a semblance of complex and deeply felt emotion, which as we all know is a complete anathema to all things Star Wars.

Well, all things prequel at least. Er... anything not Empire, anyways.

My point is it's a needlessly mysterious sounding title, much like Phantom Menace was. It didn't fit in with the other Star Wars movies at the time, and Quantum of Solace feels the same way. The rest of the Star Wars movies' titles are pretty straightforward in meaning (New Hope being a possible exception), and the James Bond movies are pretty much the same. Unless the Quantum of Solace is some kind of superweapon, like the Golden Gun, it just doesn't seem like a good title. Though, if it's named after one of the Bond stories by Fleming... it's still a dumb name.

Johnny C · « **Reply #30 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 08:49 »

They are entitled to make names up. I wonder if they know that?

RobbieOC · « **Reply #31 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 09:04 »

Also, names have no impact on whether a movie is good or not. I'm super excited to see it. I just don't like the name. That's all.

Dissy · « **Reply #32 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 09:18 »

I went back and rewatched some of my favourite Bond Flicks recently. And I have come to the conclusion that the James "007" Bond is a moniker given to an agent deemed worthy after the old one died.

Then, Casino Royale isn't a reboot, but rather a new Bond.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #33 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 11:23 »

Actually, I kind of got the idea that 'M' stood for 'Moneypenny' from Casino Royale and that he really is a new Bond. I don't think it's ever going to be something confirmed or made a plot point, but I like that thought.

Tom · « **Reply #34 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 00:08 »

I don't understand how you made the mental leap that M stands for Moneypenny, M originally stood for Admiral Sir Miles Messervy and it was hinted in Casino royale that it may in fact, still stand for a name but it's not Ms Moneypenny.

I think that it's reboot of the Bond movies and that Casino Royale had the best plot to use for it because no one had scene Casino Royale as anything other than the parody movie it was before.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Castlevania: Quantum of Solace (Read 12357 times)

Narr

Spinless

frunK

frunK

frunK

Spinless

singeivoire