Comments on: Your views: James Bond and that 'Trek' trailer

By: Grand Nagus

Grand Nagus — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:38:27 +0000

This Star Trek movie must be taking place in a mirror universe. This trailer only being 2 min long was loaded with inconsistincies. 1. Kirk cannot drive (shown in the episode "A Piece of the Action") where Kirk tries to drive a car. 2. The Enterprise was built in space and the parts were constructed in San Francisco NOT IN IOWA!!!. Here are other inconsistincies. 3. Spock and Kirk COULD NOT HAVE been attending the Academy together! 4. Spock was serving aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike 14 years before Kirk assumed command. 5. Dr. Boyce was chief medical officer under Pike NOT McCoy!
The one hope here is that this is a skewed timeline which the elder Spock (Nimoy) has gone back in time to correct.........

By: t

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:15:57 +0000

Quantum of Solace was a completely new idea, in that it was a newly fabricated sequel to Casino Royale. This might explain the lack of a "classic" Bond feel. Now however, I have to say that these two movies have been much closer to the original story idea that Fleming had. Apart from specific details, the basic plot and feel of Casino Royale (the movie) was in agreement with the book of the same name. In particular, Bond fell in love with the girl and she died and this led to the beginning of his cold womanizing persona as seen in the previous movies. Keep in mind that the first Sean Connery movie was not the first Bond story, Casino Royale was.

Now, in my far less than humble opinion, Pierce Brosnan was the best Bond since Sean - too bad the scripts were awful. The World is Not Enough was perhaps the worst Bond movie of all time... XXX was a far better movie that season.

I say to all the Bond fans who were disappointed by the most recent movies... give those two movies some time to age and watch them again. Meanwhile wait for the next one or two to come out. I have faith that this series is going somewhere good as long as they don't go overboard with the ridiculous stunts.

By: Rafael Webster

Rafael Webster — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:45:08 +0000

Casino Royal was epic, it was amazing.
Quantun of Solace was stupid.

The villains were lame, the plot was laughably stupid and unimaginative, and except for the first 15 minutes, the action was utterly unimpressive.

Stop trying to group Solace with Casino and say they are refreshing and original and blah blah blah... the fact is, Quantum of Solace is nowhere near in the same category as Casino Royal; they are completely different movies with completely different styles.

I don't hate Quantum of Solace because it is different from the older Bond movies, I hate it because it was mediocre and boring all by itself, without any need for comparison.

At the very least, the very least, they could have brought back Spektre, to gie the villains credibility. That's what I thought they were going to do, judging from the trailer...then at least it would've been Bond vs. Credible Supervillains instead of Bond vs. Wimpy-Environtentalist-Turned-Evil who steals water from poor South American country.

Really, not that I don't have a heart, but, I couldn't care less...

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:45:33 +0000

For those that don't think the latest Bond movie was a "real" Bond movie or lacked the gadgets and frills of the past Bond movies, then I suggest you might actually read the Bond books, all of them. The three movies that actually captured who and what Bond was would be Dr. No and the last two done by Danial Graig. Ian Flemings Bond was not Mr. Gadget, he was a cold blooded killer with a very high IQ. The books are hard to put down.

By: PC

PC — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:52:17 +0000

I don't know about Quantium of Solace, but I don't think the new Star Trek film will be such a hit. As a loyal fan of the original series, there several things about the film that directly contradict event in the original series. For example, in Balance of Terror, it is established that humans never really knew what Romulans looked like until Kirk saw them on the bridge's viewscreen. And where's Gary Mitchell? It was him, not Spock and the others, who went to the academy with Kirk .
Another complaint is with the set design, why does the bridge in the movie look more advanced that that of the original series. Despite the big budget, I suspect the new film is goint to be dissapointing peice of hck work that's going to be a slap in the face of the fans that supported the franchise all these years.

By: James

James — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:33:37 +0000

I'm surprised how few people have commented on the fact the QOS is a direct sequel of CR, the first time this has happened in Bond's history. To experience the arc in Solace, it is imperative to watch Casino Royale immediately before, or at least have a damn good memory of its story. If it played as one long movie it follows a very strong story arc....boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy kills everyone, and boy rids himself of the past.....which leads to the next installments, where I'm sure we will see the cool, sophisticated Bond we have been seeing for the last 45 years. He's a new 00 agent, he's tough, and he's immature. Craig rocks and I can't wait to see the character develop.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:09:56 +0000

Daniel Craig's a great actor, and an intriguing choice for Bond. Unfortunately his films are falling victim to that BOURNE-style quick cutting gibberish that can make any stiff an action star (unlike Damon, at least Craig looks the part).

I have greatly enjoyed just about all the Bonds, with the exception of some of the limper Brosnans (particularly the horrendous DIE ANOTHER DAY), but I sure get tired of people knocking Timothy Dalton. They seem to be sheepishly following the conventional wisdom rather than looking at the actual films, or his performances. After the fun but lighter Moore era, Dalton took the Bond movies in a new, harder edged direction, more towards the Bond of the Fleming novels, tougher, but humanized, the echoes of which I see in Craig's interpretation. Contrary to myth, both Dalton and his films garnered a lot of good reviews, and still do (check out Maltin's movie guide and the Netflix pages), and they still hold up as some of the more dynamic and dramatic entries into the Bond canon. LIVING DAYLIGHTS was actually a hit, but LICENCE TO KILL was a victim of a botched publicity campaign. And hey, they were written/produced by the same people who did the Connery/Lazenby/Moores! One big Dalton fan? Producer Cubby Broccoli, whose steadfast support was weakened only by the illness that led to his death.

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:46:05 +0000

LOVE the Trek Trailer. New Life is just waht this tired old franchise needs. It looks FAB! Can't wait.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:14:12 +0000

I think that Daniel Craig is wonderful as the character James Bond. I think this was what Flemming was imagining when he wrote about the character.

However, the scripts given to Mr. Craig stink. I think this would be a wonderful chance for the producers to "re-do" the James Bond books and this time stay a little closer to the plot as written. Mr. Craig would be great in that role.

The James Bond books are so much better than the movies. Now would be a good time to fix that. Make more James Bond movies, with Mr. Craig, but stick closer to the books.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:17:20 +0000

I still like Daniel Craig's characterization of Bond very much; and as a previous poster noted, it is much more in keeping with the books (which I enjoyed as well). My issue is with the movie itself. All mind-numbing action with very little of the wit (not knee slapper one-liners; just wit) and character that was so expertly woven into the action of Casino Royale. The villain here was as terrifying as a organic health foods shop owner. He was a wimp; no sense of menace at ALL. After a while, the constant action felt more Jason Bourne than James Bond. And frankly Bourne was a tighter story. Hopefully, the next will be better. Craig is too good as Bond to waste. As for the new Star Trek trailer, I think it looks intriguing. I love classic Trek, but the franchise REALLY needs an infusion of fresh blood. I view as an alternate take on an old classic; not an 'erasure' of my childhood! As for the "canon" nit-pickers who find it sacrilegious? Relax. No one will steal your DVDs of the old show while you sleep.