Comments on: Is new Bond movie antitech?

Don't let the scientific-sounding title mislead you. Quantum of Solace will leave tech lovers groaning in their seats. It's cutting-edge tech is off the mark.

[mmntech]

I don't know about anti-tech. Casino Royale seemed like a giant Sony ad to me.

[gsmiller88]

A big Sony and Ford ad.

[mconnect]

So true, In Casino Royale, Bond use Sony Ericsson cellphone, Sony Vaio laptop, a big Marco shot for Bluray disc etc. Well, thats what happen when Sony own MGM.
Also the new Bond actor is not that good either, Pierce Brosnan is way better.

[Firestorm0013]

Correct, this Bond doesn't really rely on technology as the previous Bonds, which is a double edge sword. I think the Q scenes where becoming more of a comedic break more than anything else.

[yelocab]

I never thought we were supposed to take the Bond movies seriously...I prefer the older Bond movies with the slightly over-the-top gadgets, but then they got a little too bizarre. I think there is a way to do gadgets without insulting the audience or being too goofy.

[vini156]

I think Quantum of Solace was a big bore. No technology, no intimate scenes (Lol) the camera work is pathetic in action sequences, its really hard to understand whts going on in the scene until it ends. May be yes the new bond movie is antitech.

[double_clutch]

I have yet to see Quantum of Solace but I am willing to trade in high-tech for a better spy film. What concerns misrepresentation, films have been doing that for ages. Trucks, which run on diesel, do not explode or burn as they are depicted in films. NOS does not explode either, yet it happens in The Fast and The Furious.

[trapattack]

Thank you! Finally someone calling out the fact that these gadgets in Bond movies are no longer there for entertainment or hints at a future not yet conceived, but boring product placements that now elude to the sort of things you can already buy. Want to be like James Bond? Buy our new cellphone. Buy this car. What a gip. And that Ford bit is hysterical.

[MickBurke]

Whaa! I can't get excited unless there's a laptop in the scene!

[epross]

I think some of the items in the story and pure Hollywood. Explosions are supposed to be big. Never mind that the fuel normally doesn't burn, etc. etc. How many cars actually explode when they drive off the road yet is happens daily on TV. Never mind screeching tires on gravel roads - it doesn't happen either, yet we hear it. If the audience expects a big fireball so they get a big fireball - it's movie-making 101, deal with it!
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.

[mattmatt32]

Actually the geiger counter watch was in "Thunderball". In "Dr. No" the geiger counter was not concealed in any way.

[Grumpypaul]

I saw the movie on Friday. It was fitting that the majority of the crowd was males between the ages of 12 and 16. It was made to appeal to them, high tech or not. Being at the edge of 60, my wife and I left the theater shaking our heads. The tech was lacking for sure, but at least it wasn't just injected for the sake of being able to. The entire movie was a series of 1-3 second snippets threaded together in an attempt to make it seem like a scene.

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.

[LandMineHare]

Who cares if the gadgets aren't in there? They announced while making Casino Royale that there was going to be a dearth of gadgets in the new films. Personally, I think it was silly that they always included gadgets. Most of them were useless, or just there as some sort of plot device to pad some time.

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.

[tacit]

The new Bond is remarkably tech-free...and that's a good thing.

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.

[halremawa]

lol

[ginner25]

I saw Quantum of Solace the day it was released. It was fantastic. I'd rather have a Bond with rippling muscles who can beat his counterparts senseless than a Bond who sends his enemies into oblivion with a single kung fu chop to the back. Seems a tad too farfetched. People who say that the Bond saga is letting go of its imaginative technology, hey people look againnn. Q of S is saturated with high tech technology. Technology of today, reality. Rather have Bond hunting down Mr White than trying to ruin SPECTRE'S hairbrained world upheval plans. Daniel Craig has taken on the legacy of Bond and put it on platform very difficult to go past. He has been amazing in his first two movies. Given Bond a new dimension. As it has a proper storyline and its no more a parody of itself. The Bond girls remain as beautiful as ever. The even get to act nowadays than just sleep with the man and make pathetic crooning calls. Over all Bond is getting better with time and cant wait for the next movie now. I also would like to add that the previous Bond movies were good entertainment for the times they were made in and as time has passed Bond is slowly coming in terms with reality and becoming a character to reckon with.

[dbackfan638]

Bond always gave 'Q' Branch a hard time. But used each of the item with delft expertise.
I have been glad to see Bond using his head and broghn to get to the bad guy's!

Everything blows up in James Bond movies... rocks, trees, cement, steel, nitrogen, air. Alternative energy gets it in several (a solar power plant filled with inert liquid nitrogen blows up in one and a solar power satellite turns in to a death beam in another). Get over it... nobody takes a bond movie seriously... its an escapism movie (thank goodness they still make 'em, the world is too serious).

[Shawn7676]

Finally, a couple of Bond films with plausible plots, believable stunts and a lead character that is far easier to relate to. Most old timers will miss the gadgets, the women, the stupid remarks, the comic book villains and the plots that you can poke so many holes into (think women flying planes over Fort Knox drop sleeping gas over a US army divsion of soldiers!). Quantum of Solace is not as good a Casino Royal but certainly the producers have identified the past problems that were killing the franchise and they have steered it in the right direction. Don't compare quantum of Solace to the past, compare it to what out there today. Bourne Identity come to mind.

[abel87]

casino royale is supposed to be the 1st of james bond episodes.. so, that's why the tech are not so high as expected.. you can see by the way he is in casino royale, he faithfully loves a girl and does not have any relationships with any other girls, but after the girl in casino royale cheats him, he becomes a player in quantum of solace, and so one.. (the older bond movies are actually newer in story).. so you have to get it people.. about the technology and about his relationships..

[sstevens69]

I'm thinking the producers are closet conservatives (have to be in the Hollyweird climate) reflecting on the true motivation behind so-called 'green' entrepreneuers. Why do you think Al Gore is pushing his 'climate change' agenda so hard without scientific facts? He's in it for the profit!!

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.

[kksing]

Most 'Bond purists' will tell you that James Bond as envisaged by Ian Fleming do rely on his brawn to get the job done, rather than some high tech exploding pen/watch/phone/belt, etc...

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.

[hightlite]

you are right in what you are saing. bond needs to think out side of the box, a mcgiver of MI6 if you will. I want more movies like this one.

[tobychoo]

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.