"Quantum of Solace" (James Bond) trailer online

From TheMovieBox.Net

Sounds like a modern, not campy version of Diamonds are Forever. Or License to Kill sans Wayne Newton.

Damn, that looks fantastic! CAN'T WAIT.

I like that the sequel starts immediately where the old movie ended.

Sweet trailer. Absolutely love Daniel Craig as Bond. Best since Connery for sure, in my book; I may even like him equally or more. That probably has to do with the overall polish, grittiness, and amazing action of the new movies, though. His Bond just looks like a badass who could actually do the things the plotlines demand, unlike Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. If I were asked right now to rank them I would say:

Sean Connery = Daniel Craig > Timothy Dalton (under-appreciated, I think) > Pierce Brosnan > Roger Moore

Never saw the George Lazenby one.

Awesome trailer. Doofy name.

Lazenby was by far the worst Bond. I would rate Brosnan above Dalton, personally, but I agree that Dalton was very underrated. The movies themselves sucked but Dalton was a very good Bond.

I think Craig could be better than Connery but I'm reserving final judgment for a few more movies.

As of right now, Craig is my favorite Bond. And I'm definitely glad at the direction these movies seem to be going in. After the last few Bond movies (prior to Casino Royal) I had started to lose interest in the Bond films. Now it seems I can't wait for them to come out.

James Bond is James Bond. That's what sells it for me.

As for best Bond: Connery -> Brosnan -> Craig -> Dalton -> Moore -> Lazenby

Brosnan should have been a great Bond and Goldeneye was good, but his other Bond films got stuck with turd scripts. Bad enough to lead to a complete reboot of the franchise.

Yes! OMG YES! I was hoping they would stay true to the books, they made a few changes on Casino Royal but they held onto the theme of the book.

Bond is really a gritty killer not a techno weenie that he has evolved into after Connery.

I rate it: Connery -> Craig -> Brosnan -> Dalton -> Moore -> Lazenby

I was enormously surprised by Casino, it might have been the best action movie I am to see in the years to come. So my hopes are set high for Quantum, but trailer looks really promising. I already love it.
EDIT: Looks like they're making a game as well

I loved the new harder edged Bond, but I grew up so to speak with Brosnan, so I still love that version of Bond.

MaverickDago wrote:
I loved the new harder edged Bond, but I grew up so to speak with Brosnan, so I still love that version of Bond.

It's funny how most people like the version of Bond they "grew up with". I grew up with the Roger Moore Bond and I remember watching For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, View To A Kill, etc. over and over thinking they were the best movies ever (I was like 10 or so). I wouldn't even consider watching the Sean Connery movies because they were "too old" and once Moore was replaced Bond was never the same and I lost all interest.

As an adult I see the error of my ways. All of the movies are mainly a reflection of the era they were made but each actor did bring a different personality to the role. Moore's Bond was more about the one liners and goofy slapstick comedy (Tarzan yell while swinging on a vine?). As a kid I loved that style Bond, but my older self likes the more serious Bond.

When they released the Ultimate Bond Collection on DVD I went ahead and bought all 4 and proceeded to watch every Bond movie over the course of a couple weeks. The early Bond movies were by far the best. Yes, the villains were over the top, they all had their secret lairs in volcanos or underneath fake lakes, their henchmen all wore orange jumpsuits, the women all had silly euphemism laden names, but they were still more serious and grittier Bond films. The comparisons of Casino Royale to the early Connery movies was dead on. So watching them all in such a short time instead of over the 40-year period it was easy to see how each one tried to outdo the other and before you know it by about the mid-80's things were just completely out of control. They needed to do this "reboot" of the series to save it.

Anyway, with all that said, I agree with most people's assessment of the Bond's. At this point I still put Connery above Craig but only because I've only seen Craig in the one movie. I think it will take at least one more after Solace to seal him if they keep up the quality, but it's very possible for Craig to be put above Connery. As for the rest, I don't really get all the Lazenby hate as I thought he did fairly well and the movie was pretty good. On the other hand, I didn't feel Dalton fit at all. So, for now I'd go with: Connery | Craig -> Brosnan -> Lazenby-> Dalton -> Moore.

Khoram wrote:
Sean Connery = Daniel Craig > Timothy Dalton (under-appreciated, I think) > Pierce Brosnan > Roger Moore

Moore LAST? You, sir, are on the crack. RUBBISH, I SAY!

Daniel Craig is pure awesome as this rendition of Bond. I couldn't be more pleased.
I also very much enjoy the direction of these movies. How they are making them stories that tie together instead of individual stories for each movie.
This gives it the feeling of multiple books in a series. I wouldn't be surprised if they make a trilogy out of this story arc and then start another trilogy or two parter even. Or perhaps this might be the 2nd half of the story and end with it's conclusion giving us another one in the next one with Craig in it.
I look forward to it very much.

Agemmon wrote:
James Bond is James Bond. That's what sells it for me.

As for best Bond: Connery -> Brosnan -> Craig -> Dalton -> Moore -> Lazenby

Pretty boy Brosnan above Craig? Madness, I tells ya.

I loved the last one, it wasn't just a good Bond film, it was a good action film (as UCRC said). I haven't been able to say that about Bond films in a very, very long time. I also think Dalton was way underrated. He has a certain predatorial look about him that imo fits Bond to a T. My order would be
Connery/Craig -> Dalton -> Brosnan -> Lazonby -> Moore

Sir Roger Moore may have sucked as a Bond but I give him mad props for his Charity Work which is extensive and outstanding.

Reaper81 wrote:
Lazenby was by far the worst Bond. I would rate Brosnan above Dalton, personally, but I agree that Dalton was very underrated. The movies themselves sucked but Dalton was a very good Bond.

He wasn't bad. The guy was in a single movie and got slammed for replacing Connery. The last scene with him holding his dead wife was pretty good. He seemed rugged enough for the part. I wouldn't place him any lower than any of the other guys.

Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were hurt at times by low quality scripts. Craig benefited from a good script that called for serious acting and less over-the-top "Dr. Evil" silliness. If they put in him in a Bond movie where the super villain is a North Korean who undergoes plastic surgery to turn himself into a weathly Englishman or tries to cause an earthquake to cause a flood that will take out Silicon Valley or they make Denise Richards into his girlfriend, he's not going to look as good as he did in Casino Royale.

I still think that Craig lacks a certain air of refinement which any James Bond should possess. His character is a through and though thug. He just does not come across as a jet-setting world-class bonvivan assassin. Casino Royale was a great action movie, in my view. It just was as a James Bond flick, it was thoroughly ho-hum.

I understand that the 21st century Bond needs to evolve and may have to depart from the stylisms of Cold War. Nevertheless, the universe (and the character) could have been "rebooted" with more grace and attention to the roots, if you will. Consider Batman Begins, for example. It's nothing like previous installments. But Christian Bale as the casting choice was ideal in terms of bridging the old and the new. He's dark, brooding, foreboding, and yet he combines roughness and poise and refinement in a way totally superb.

Craig, however, just doesn't have that range. Craig's environment is Layer Cake, not James Bond movies.

The only thing I didn't like was the lack of "gadgets". I don't need super over the top, but gimmie something, and a f*cking snake bite kit in the glove box is not a gadget, thats something steve irwin would travel with.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
I still think that Craig lacks a certain air of refinement which any James Bond should possess. His character is a through and though thug. He just does not come across as a jet-setting world-class bonvivan assassin. Casino Royale was a great action movie, in my view. It just was as a James Bond flick, it was thoroughly ho-hum.

I understand that the 21st century Bond needs to evolve and may have to depart from the stylisms of Cold War. Nevertheless, the universe (and the character) could have been "rebooted" with more grace and attention to the roots, if you will. Consider Batman Begins, for example. It's nothing like previous installments. But Christian Bale as the casting choice was ideal in terms of bridging the old and the new. He's dark, brooding, foreboding, and yet he combines roughness and poise and refinement in a way totally superb.

Craig, however, just doesn't have that range. Craig's environment is Layer Cake, not James Bond movies.

You have to relize that Casino Royal was where bond was still a new 00 agent. It's quite possible that he may have more finesse in Quantum. I liked casino royal, the only gripe I had with it was the lovey dovey parts where he had the line "I have no armor, you've stripped it from me", etc...

Over all a good movie though.

CrashedHardrive wrote:
You have to relize that Casino Royal was where bond was still a new 00 agent. It's quite possible that he may have more finesse in Quantum.

Chronologically, I believe Quantum takes place immediately after Casino Royale. I don't think enough time will have passed for him to have changed in that way. Plus, he's very pissed off now.

Quantums are more about minute changes, anyway.

wordsmythe wrote:
Quantums are more about minute changes, anyway.

Quanta?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
CrashedHardrive wrote:
You have to relize that Casino Royal was where bond was still a new 00 agent. It's quite possible that he may have more finesse in Quantum.

Chronologically, I believe Quantum takes place immediately after Casino Royale. I don't think enough time will have passed for him to have changed in that way. Plus, he's very pissed off now.

True but maybe his traumatic love experience will have radically altered his personality. Also maybe he's really pissed in that calm, cold, ruthless killer sort of way.

Well if we must.

Connery gets it first in my book because he defines the film persona. I've read a little of the Bond books and the direction is different (Dalton is closest to the books) but Connery changes the character of Bond into less of a cold blooded killer and more of a Devil May Care kind of gentleman. He played it up so well that his definition of the character is the solid gold standard for cinema and I don't see how anyone can surpass it.

Brosnan would be my next choice. Despite some horrible scripts he probably channels Connery's take on Bond better than anyone ever has. He's suave and has that same sort of apathy to his own survival that Connery perfected. Furthermore, Brosnan added pathos to the character. Not only did he do a great job Goldeneye but his betrayal in the World is Not Enough combined with his defiance in the face of his own (painful) death just helped make the character for me.

Craig is more thuggish and he reminds me of Dalton. The saving grace is that, like Dalton, he does seem to channel the Bond of literature instead of film. Also, unlike everyone else that follows, he does like Brosnan and adds real emotion to a character that largely spends much of his time emotionally detached. It's a strange paradox that Brosnan introduces effectively (though really, attempted first by Lazenby and continued by Moore) and Craig continues. I do appreciate that he tries to make the character his own, much like Connery did, but the redefining as the more thuggish cold-blooded Bond of the books seems out of place compared to how the character has been defined in all previous films.

Moore is the one I grew up with and used to be my favorite. After watching all of the films he does come across as silly. If we'd had more films like For Your Eyes Only I think he could have done more with the character. Regardless, he seemed perfectly at home with the ever increasing over-the-top plotlines and villians. I can't give the source material all the blame as no one seemed to play along near as much as Moore did.

Lazenby doesn't get enough credit and On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of my favorites of the series. His biggest sin was adding too much swagger to the character, I didn't care for that. Yet he also dared to show real emotion with the death of Bond's wife. Maybe he could have done better, but he tanked his own chances and didn't follow up his performance.

Dalton is my last choice, which is too bad because I love him as an actor. Yet Dalton as Bond is one of the worst performances he's ever given. He's too straight. Maybe it's because he followed Moore, who was too silly, but it was such a sudden shift in direction that it's absolutely jarring. I like what he attempted to do with the character, but after scowling his way through two films I was ready for him to quit. Dalton does get a double whammy in having the misfortune of being in two of the absolute worst films in the series. License to Kill was simply awful and I feel bad for him that he was in it. Still, you can only blame so much of his own performance on the script.

I already miss Eva Green.

http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/32931/PC/... Game trailer, powered by COD4 engine

Since we're comparing the various Bonds, I figured I'd bring this theory up that once I heard I can't let go of and helps me rationalize all the films. There's probably some sites dedicated to this or a wiki or something but I'm too lazy to look.

Basically, everyone knows there's some serious issues with the timeline of the films (this only covers the films, not the books). The movies started in the early 60's and Bond was likely in his late 20's/early 30's, so by now he'd be his 70's or 80's. Then we have the various James Bonds and even multiple Q's and M's, Felixs (his CIA friend), and Moneypennys.

So, the theory goes.. what if all these "James Bonds" were actually different agents and the name is just a code name? As the movie's progressed and we got different James Bond's it's because the previous agent was either KIA or retired and some other agent was promoted to be 007 and take the "James Bond" name. "James Bond" was just a personality they took on (some better than others) to keep up the appearance of this unstoppable agent. And not just him, but all of the 00's. All of the main reoccuring characters could just be codenames for their "position". "M" even switched from a man to a woman and retained the name "M". In the later films they showed Miss Moneypenny training her replacement and in the very next film this replacement was the new secretary and they called her Miss Moneypenny. When John Cleese took over I'm pretty sure they still referred to him as "Q".

So, this could explain some inconsistencies with the films. Connery coming back for one film could just be that his "Bond" retired and then Lazenby took over. Sometime after his movie he was killed (perhaps by Blofeld) and they asked Connery's "Bond" to come out of retirement to get him. It could also explain why after Blofeld had spoken to Bond in one film (Connery), that he didn't recognize him in the next (Lazenby) when they were in the same room together. (I realize in reality it's because they shot the movies out of order from the books and Bond and Blofeld hadn't met yet so they kept it closer to the books, but it made the movies confusing)

In my mind it also explains the latest Bond films since in Casino Royale at the very beginning we see Craig performing his final assassination before being promoted to 00 status and presumably given the name "James Bond". It could also explain why Craig is more of a thug as he hasn't properly taken on the "Bond" persona yet. Once they get through this revenge plot they're doing then maybe he'll become more suave.

I'm sure there's lot of holes in the theory and there's no official support for it, but it's the way I like to think about the films to explain all the different actors that have played the parts over the years. I wasn't sure how known this theory was so thought I'd share.

vega wrote:
stuff...

You're thinking too much, the books are cannon the movies are a hack and slash of the books. For instance moonraker is not about making a space station populated with really hot chicks (but that would be cool) but of a crazed nazi getting revenge on the UK via nuke.

James Bond is an assasin! He goes in, figures out what the heck is wrong and kills people. So the cold blooded killer and gritty nature of the new movies is a great fit! But what is missing and hopefully toward the end of Quantum we will see is a more refined bond. But again because of excellent writing this thuggish Bond is great because that is how he started out. The refined Bond ios what Connery did a fantastic job of potraying. Bond knows he is going to die young, he doesn't have a 401k or any retirement thing going on. He is living life to the fullest knowing death can come at any moment. The reason why Bond survives longer than other double o's is because he is anal about awareness. In the books he will place loose hairs into the door jam when he leaves his room, and when he comes back even if it is there he will pull his gun out and then enter slowly. This has allowed him to live longer.

His no fear of death is also reinforced by him liking to cuckold his enemies, it is more of thrill. If you guys have not read the books go to your local library and read them, most of them are pretty short and they are wonderfully well written and engaging.