I felt the method used was gratuitous, unnecessary and designed to provoke very different reactions from the male and female audiences.
"Bond 23" Announced!
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I felt the method used was gratuitous, unnecessary and designed to provoke very different reactions from the male and female audiences.
QoS was really disappointing, especially coming off of the strong Casino Royale. The villains sucked, and the plot was all over the place. It also seemed too short for a Bond movie.
Ow and what?
To be honest, I'm not sure anyone would really be having a "*drool* isn't this sexy" moment over a torture scene, and if they did, they might want to get their head checked out...
Same. That was a damn fine chest.
^ Yeah but what use are the muscles and fine chest if his dangly bits are battered to smithereens?! 
In truth, if looked at as a solo movie it wasn't great but I had no problems with veiwing it as the second half to CR. I watched CR right before going in and it really helped me get in the that mindset and I enjoyed it a lot more than most people.
Its kinda like saying everytime a woman gets her top ripped off in a rape scene all the blokes in the audience are going whey-hey! Seriously what is wrong with women haveing eye candy? I wasn't offended by Daniel Craig's bod, didn't do anything for me either but so what I have severl female friends who love it!
The Lektor was a one shot sell and really a means to an end to lure out Bond in order to humiliate then kill him. Seizing Bolivia's water is a bigger deal than it is widelt assumed to be and Quantum could've made billions, and remember Quantum is raketeering on a global scale. Casino Royale was not really just about a cardgame, remember Le Chiffre was raising money for a ruthless African warlord and the said warlord could've been sitting on a diamond mine that Quantum wanted to exploit.
I'm sorry, but stealing water is a lame plot for a shadowy organization. I'm hoping that the writers' strike was primarily responsible for the plot issues, but I guess we'll see with the next film.
Also, Matthew Almaric (sp)'s villain character is likely the lamest Bond villain EVER. He was not threatening at all, or even particularly smart. Bad, bad writing.
Also, Matthew Almaric (sp)'s villain character is likely the lamest Bond villain EVER. He was not threatening at all, or even particularly smart. Bad, bad writing.
Don't come crying to me when you're dying of thirst and armed thugs guard the water taps.
I thought the extortion scheme was atypical but effective and the villains in China Town had pretty much the same scheme.
Don't come crying to me when you're dying of thirst and armed thugs guard the water taps.
Hey, they weren't taking the water away from the people. Just charging a little more for it.
That should be "Don't come crying to me when your bill goes up and you have to cut down on DVDs to pay for your water".
It may not be quite as thrilling as a villain who wants to destroy the world, but as part of a series that is trying to have more realism in it, it seemed to be a perfect fit to me, especially since it's not far off from the water wars in Bolivia (and, as another said, is reminiscent of Chinatown).
That would be the case in a relatively soft Westernized country, but even then it is a unhealthy detriment to privatize utilities and it has ruined utilities in Britain. However this was taking place in shit poor Bolivia and Quantum was daming up massive underground lakes and rivers across a whole region, cutting off entire villages and towns possibly for good if Quantum had it its own way. El Salvador was pushed into anarchy in real life because a water company demanded too much.
It was something that would dramatically affect a country (more than you'd realize), but isn't obvious (like oil would have been).
I'm sorry, but Bond doesn't need villains with giant lasers on the moon.
I'm one of those rare freaks who prefers Tomorrow Never Dies to GoldenEye and one of the main reasons is because of the villain's plan - many people write it off as far fetched nonsense, but on some level Carver's scheme makes more sense than Trevelyan's. It was never WWIII for ratings, but an elaborate scheme to win exclusive corporate media rights in China; that is over a BILLION people. Carver was backing a PLA junta that would reward him those rights.
It makes more sense than EMP'ing London and causing a economic mess worse than the one we've got now, rendering the stolen billions worthless.
It makes more sense than EMP'ing London and causing a economic mess worse than the one we've got now, rendering the stolen billions worthless.
TND's plot seemed too implausible for me. It took me out of the movie. It was a creative idea and maybe if they had presented it differently, I would have believed it (it's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but it might have been the way the villain behaved that made it difficult for me, I'm not sure).
Yeah, I know that access to water is a big deal in third world countries, but it's such a boring plan. Effective maybe, but it should be beneath Bond villains.
"I'm going to kill millions and take over the world with a giant death laser."
"I'm going to kill millions and take over the world by raising the cost of living."
Seriously, which one sounds cooler?