Is new Bond movie antitech?
Among the many other problems with the latest James Bond film Quantum of Solace, I was particularly struck with its seemingly careless stance on technology.
The latest Bond flick does get those bloody stares right. But what happened to the cutting-edge gadgets?
(Credit: Sony Pictures)While I know they're just movies, the Bond franchise films--like Ian Fleming's novels--have always been geopolitical snapshots of the time in which they were made.
According to this movie, the British are pinning their hopes on skillful driving and fisticuffs to get the job done, while those dabbling in high-tech solutions to solve world problems are off-the-mark.
As in Casino Royale, there is no Q. Apparently, in this Bond's world, MI6 does not arm its agents with insight and tools from teams of high-tech experts. The few gadgets used are pitifully unimaginative. (CNET News readers wrote in better gadget ideas.)
In Quantum of Solace, Bond has a cell phone he can use to call MI6 and give the name of a potential villain he's met. MI6 can look up the name and send a photo of the guy to Bond's cell phone to confirm it's the same guy. Guess what? I, too, can call a friend, have them look up a name, background, and photo; and have the info sent to my cell phone. So can millions of teenagers.
Bond's cell phone also has an advanced form of face recognition. He snaps a photo, and it can be analyzed within seconds to identify who the subject is. OK, that's pretty cool, but nothing groundbreaking.
News.com Poll
M has a touch-screen interface computer table. She can use it to look at multiple photos and files that she can change the size of or toss to the side of the screen. Was this even supposed to be high-tech, or was it just product placement for Microsoft's Surface computer? I'm pretty sure Judi Dench could do this in real-life with any number of touch-screen gadgets.
Moving on from gadgets, let's talk villains.
It's progress that the Bond films have stopped ethnic targeting, when it comes to bad guys. It was interesting to darkly insinuate that with the United States and China scrambling to control the world's oil supplies, the British may get in bed with unsavory characters to keep itself afloat. And the idea that water is the next hot commodity certainly reflects the predictions many have been making.
But what is the message in making the film's main villain a green-technology entrepreneur? And before you ask, let me assure you that there is no good green-tech entrepreneur acting as a foil. All of the green-tech representatives the villain associates with in a party scene, and throughout the film, are cast in a shadow of suspicion.
Worse yet, the film knocks hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells as a viable alternative-energy source. While there are many things to consider in evaluating hydrogen as a potential alternative fuel, the manner in which this film does it is just plain silly.
The villains markedly discuss how the high-tech hotel they're staying in runs on hydrogen fuel cells. One comments on having problems with them and refers to "stability" issues.
Eventually, (spoiler alert) one of the hundreds of hydrogen tanks in the hotel---curiously, the hotel was designed to put a hydrogen tank in each individual hotel room---explodes from a crossfire of bullets. This was not a plausible depressurization and explosion into pieces of a hydrogen fuel cell tank that's somehow been punctured. This was a giant fireball explosion the size of a house. It, of course, sends off a chain reaction of gigantic proportions.
As the scene played out, I could hear the groans from thousands of scientists and engineers as they watched years of effort to educate the public--and temper its association of hydrogen with the Hindenburg disaster--go up in flames in just a few minutes of Hollywood magic.
Ironically, many of those groaners probably work for one of the movie's leading sponsors.
Ford, which features its Ka car in a product placement ad throughout Quantum of Solace, is a large proponent of hydrogen fuel. Ford's CEO Alan Mullaly has long been highlighting the company's interest in hybrid electric-hydrogen fuel vehicles. Ford's been testing city buses with 6.8-liter V10 engines that have been converted to run on hydrogen fuel. And, most recently, the hydrogen fuel cell Ford Focus has been making the media rounds.
Given that, the movie's thoughtless hydrogen stance is even more bizarre than having Bond and a sidekick stop the film to do a Gordon's Gin product placement that includes giving the movie audience a drink recipe.
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 
Also the new Bond actor is not that good either, Pierce Brosnan is way better.
On the other hand, the previous Bond films, especially Roger Moore's, were getting very campy and the technology was almost too comical and unbelievable. Want a good laugh? look at the technology in "Moonraker"
I think they are trying to 'reboot' the franchise away from camp. Take a look at the very first (and one of the best still) Bond Films - "Dr No." Bond had very little technology in that. I think a fancy wristwatch that was a gieger counter (if I remember right) and the technology wasn't in the forefront. Question: who is the star of the show, Bond, James Bond, or the gadgets. I'd argue that I'd rather see Bond than comical unbelievable gadgets anyday. And 'Q' (too bad the actor that played him passed away in the original films) but the character was a buffoon! The series didn't need him anymore.
Now that they have entrenched Daniel Craig into the Bond character, they can start to reintroduce some Bond-isms like the gadgetry, the girls, and the shaken-not-stirred routine - as long as they don't go overboard like they did in the '80's and return to camp.
I haven't yet seen Quantum of Solace yet, so I can't comment on the whole Hydrogen angle, but c'mon it's a film not a documentary! It doesn't have to represent truth, vision, or any particular message - it's meant to be entertaining -- and for the masses that wouldn't understand exactly how a hyrdogen tank is supposed to explode anyway -- as long as it is entertaining, who cares?
One has never been able to over-think any of the Bond films, or most any movie for that matter, so why hold this one up to such intense scrutiny? Relax, turn your brain off and enjoy.
And yes, a Bond movie should always have over the top stuff. The T&A isn't necessary. Appealing, but not necessary. Somewhat believable story lines, however, should be included. This one missed the boat completely.
I love the Bond films. I own every single one released on DVD, including "Never Say Never". I think it is high time the movies start being more about the character and less about what fancy watch-with-a-laser-and-car-control-and-satellite-detonator Bond is going to go galavanting off with this time.
I haven't seen all your complaints about movies, but I'd like to direct you to something called "Artistic Licensing". They use it in movies all the time, these movies aren't supposed to be factually accurate, and the groaning scientists need to get over themselves. I highly doubt they complained during Batman Begins when the all-powerful microwave-emitter managed to vaporize all the water in the city's pipes but left every human uncooked.
One of the biggest problems with the old Bond, aside from the poorly-conceived plots and general overall bad writing, was the reliance on gee-whiz tech gadgets. Funny how Q always seemed to have read the script ahead of time, and always seemed to know exactly what gadget Bond would need; it became an overused cliche, like the devious death traps created by the villains (and so marvellously lampooned in Austin Powers).
The Bond franchise became a pathetic joke--a cheap parody of itself. Pointless, gimmicky gadgets--check. Over-the-top villains with barely the IQ of a sixth-grader--check. Scantily-clad women who never quite get undressed to confrom with Americans' weird double-standard about sex--check. Things blowing up for no particular reason--check.
The new Bond forgoes all the silly cliches and all the papering over poor plot points in favor of a real, actual character. And honestly, I think that's kind of cool.
I have been glad to see Bond using his head and broghn to get to the bad guy's!
About time movies started reflecting a little more reality politically.
This is a pretty good flick, btw, but if you didn't see Casino Royale (the latest one, not the David Niven flick from the 60's) you'll be in the dark about a lot of the plot. It's a fast-moving action flick, and this time the bartender infers "shaken, not stirred" when describing the seven martinis 007 has had to an associate.
It's been awhile since I read Ian Fleming, but I believe the past two movies reflect the tenor of the Bond books better than the goofy Roger Moore stuff from the 70's.
I think in re-booting the franchise with Casino Royale (which was also the first Bond novel), the producers have decided to go back to the roots and have a Bond more faithful to what is in the novels. Contemporary technology would still fit in the storyline, but nothing that fanciful or 'out-there'...
Personally, I like it. Makes the stories more about the character than whichever gizmo is in fashion for the day.
- by tobychoo November 17, 2008 7:02 PM PST
- Half the enjoyment of watching a 'new' bond movie is for these so-called gadgets. The other is obviously the top-rate acting and wildly innovative plot structure. Can you tell I'm kidding? This movie sucked. Lombardi is right on here.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (45 Comments)