ENOUGH !

[oscartheman]

CR was when it got outlandish.d**n cellphones with the other electronic tackle do too damned much.Hi res picture that look like garbage but can clean up for an id and mythical fakeintosh software tied in to Minority Report hardware.Somehow it is all less believable now then it was 40 years ago and counting.

[wrenchhands]

I think most gadgetry sucks, I coulda done without even the camera on the phone. But these films have nothing on the past films in terms of "unbelieveable!" except for maybe Dr No and FRWL. Briefcase knockout gas is a bit silly even.

Anyways, if you ask me, when Craig is done with the quadrilogy, they should do a re-reboot, and set the films in the 50's/60's, and only use technology we know they had. Showcasing technology in a movie is only gonna age the film. Even Goldeneye looks corny.

[oscartheman]

deux ex machina like the car with the cardiac option package the medial hot line ready to deal with poisoning and Vesper just happening by at the precise critical moment.

I think most gadgetry sucks, I coulda done without even the camera on the phone. But these films have nothing on the past films in terms of "unbelieveable!" except for maybe Dr No and FRWL. Briefcase knockout gas is a bit silly even.

Anyways, if you ask me, when Craig is done with the quadrilogy, they should do a re-reboot, and set the films in the 50's/60's, and only use technology we know they had. Showcasing technology in a movie is only gonna age the film. Even Goldeneye looks corny.

Do even you know the history of spying.Set in the 50's & 60's Bond would have a sh**load of gadgets all true to life and times.

[wrenchhands]

deux ex machina like the car with the cardiac option package the medial hot line ready to deal with poisoning and Vesper just happening by at the precise critical moment.

I think most gadgetry sucks, I coulda done without even the camera on the phone. But these films have nothing on the past films in terms of "unbelieveable!" except for maybe Dr No and FRWL. Briefcase knockout gas is a bit silly even.

Anyways, if you ask me, when Craig is done with the quadrilogy, they should do a re-reboot, and set the films in the 50's/60's, and only use technology we know they had. Showcasing technology in a movie is only gonna age the film. Even Goldeneye looks corny.

Do even you know the history of spying.Set in the 50's & 60's Bond would have a sh**load of gadgets all true to life and times.

Cool, do it then, make it realistic and with a good story, I'm all for it. Just don't make it "How's he gonna get out of this, OH YEAH THAT THING Q GAVE HIM"

[oscartheman]

Cool, do it then, make it realistic and with a good story, I'm all for it. Just don't make it "How's he gonna get out of this, OH YEAH THAT THING Q GAVE HIM"

What you are upset with isn't gadgets it's the writers and producers.Bond didn't need most of the gadgets to save him he just used them becasue they were tools.Some of them he never used and some he was never issued.Q didn't issue him a cello case or Walther P99.

[wrenchhands]

Cello case isn't a gadget. That's bond improvising.

Stuff like the exploding pen being used by Boris? Annoying gadgetry. The suitcase in FRWL being used exactly at the right time? Annoying gadgetry. There's so much of it in the past Bond films.

[stockslivevan]

In case you're not aware oscar, that "mythical" tech used in QOS does exist. Afterall if we could carry such technology in our pockets (iPhones), would it be impossible to have an entire console using such tech? Heck the earliest of that kind was used in Die Hard and that was 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP5y7yp06n0

I don't think any tech so far in Craig's films are considered "outlandish", but state of the art. The only outlandish gadgets in Bond films were in most of the Moore/Brosnan films with cars that transform into submarines or become invisible.

Anyway, if gadgets are to ever be brought back I would prefer to have them used sparingly and believable. In fact, gadgets should be used for spying on occasion like that fingerprint scanner in TND or the digital camera at the opera in QOS, instead of being a duex ex machina in the form of a magic button. The worst example is in Moonraker where it looks like Bond is about to be incinerated by a shuttle's rocket, but oh look, his Seiko watch carries hidden C4 explosives to let him blow away a barrier for escape!

You know what would be neat? Bond tries using a gadget to save his life, but look, it's malfunctioning! How will Bond escape the situation?

[wrenchhands]

And no more scenes at Q branch. People call Dalton's Bond deathly serious, but all I can think about is the bad ghetto blaster joke or the unneeded camera rifle. How do I take Dalton as an agent serious when he has a camera rifle? I don't!

Also, props to CR, where Bond and his gadget don't save him until the lady steps up. Heck, even the call back to London doesn't help.

There might still be a place for Q, I just don't know what without making it a stink fest.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Wrenchhands and Stocks: are you really fans of the Cubby Broccoli Bond series? Or just fans of Craig's new spy movies?

If the videowall appeared in a Brosnan outing, you would both still be moaning. "Ooohh, I suppose you want Brosnan back with his Star Trek MI6 office". It could be done; but then the invisible car uses feasible technology and could be done with enough money. If MI6 have developed one of these video walls, then I suggest UK taxpayers write to their members of Parliament.

The touchscreen computer, although realistic, has an unrealistic futuristic look. In other words, it follows the Bond movie tradition of making unrealistic gadgets that could be realistic.

I can understand posters who express annoynace at a double taking pigeon. But to express disgust for almost every gadget! Of course Daniel Craig's "Bond's" are the height of realism with CGI jumps without a parachute, a CGI Craig jumping though a glass ceiling. One cannot suggest that this is OK because Bond is a fantasy, then attack every gadget for being unrealistic.

The Great Daniel Craig can do no wrong.

[The Sweeney]

The gadgets don't really bother me - in fact I'd welcome their return, as long as they are not too OTT like invisible cars, and crap like that.

Also, I don't care too much for the stupid, silly comedy routine during the Q scene either. That I could live without. By all means bring back Q, but more in the context of how Q was in GF. They got the blend of seriousness and humour just right with that Aston Martin scene. After that, those scene got slowly more farcical and silly ('it's called a Ghetto Blaster' `That's my lunch' `Grow up 007', etc.)

[Kristatos]

And no more scenes at Q branch. People call Dalton's Bond deathly serious, but all I can think about is the bad ghetto blaster joke

Got a huge laugh when I saw it in the cinema.

[wrenchhands]

Wrenchhands and Stocks: are you really fans of the Cubby Broccoli Bond series? Or just fans of Craig's new spy movies?

If the videowall appeared in a Brosnan outing, you would both still be moaning. "Ooohh, I suppose you want Brosnan back with his Star Trek MI6 office". It could be done; but then the invisible car uses feasible technology and could be done with enough money. If MI6 have developed one of these video walls, then I suggest UK taxpayers write to their members of Parliament.

The touchscreen computer, although realistic, has an unrealistic futuristic look. In other words, it follows the Bond movie tradition of making unrealistic gadgets that could be realistic.

I can understand posters who express annoynace at a double taking pigeon. But to express disgust for almost every gadget! Of course Daniel Craig's "Bond's" are the height of realism with CGI jumps without a parachute, a CGI Craig jumping though a glass ceiling. One cannot suggest that this is OK because Bond is a fantasy, then attack every gadget for being unrealistic.

The Great Daniel Craig can do no wrong.

I like both the old Bond's and the new ones. Again, I feel the apt comparison is 1960's Batman, 1990's Batman and Batman of now. I like them all, but I approach the more serious films with a different attitude than I would the campy ones. Roger Moore hamming it up is a different level of enjoyment than Craig's scowl.

If the videowall appeared in a Brosnan outing, I wouldn't give a rats behind because I saw the technology months ago.

I think the CGI glass ceiling fall sucks, it annoyed me. The parachute jump was made more real by the wind tunnel filming thankfully. I also found past Bond's annoying, namely the "fake ski shot in front of a blue screen".

Craig hasn't done much wrong, I just didnt like the new Bond as much.

[wrenchhands]

The gadgets don't really bother me - in fact I'd welcome their return, as long as they are not too OTT like invisible cars, and crap like that.

Also, I don't care too much for the stupid, silly comedy routine during the Q scene either. That I could live without. By all means bring back Q, but more in the context of how Q was in GF. They got the blend of seriousness and humour just right with that Aston Martin scene. After that, those scene got slowly more farcical and silly ('it's called a Ghetto Blaster' `That's my lunch' `Grow up 007', etc.)

Yeah I agree the gadgets aren't bad. Even the inivisible car wasn't a total farce until bond used it to sneak up feet behind the bad guys. That was over the edge.

[katied]

People know my dislike for the glass celiling fall, and he parachute jump isn't much better.However,they are marginally(marginally, I said ) better than the obvious fake skiing in earlier movies.

[wrenchhands]

People know my dislike for the glass celiling fall, and he parachute jump isn't much better.However,they are marginally(marginally, I said ) better than the obvious fake skiing in earlier movies.

The fake skiing and the fake parachute jumping are the worst. Well, that an in Thunderball when the pilot gasses the other pilot through the worst use of filming in front of a screen this side of cinema.

[Veronica]

Yes,there's the "Bond..James Bond" line,vodka martini shaken not stirred,the gadgets,crazy villians...yes,there are.But what makes Bond movie acutally?What's the ground?Bond himself.FRWL didn't have some crazy gadgets,there was no Bond introduction(I wonder why ),and there was no "shaken,not stirred" thing either but it still feels like Bond movie.It's exciting and interesting.And that's because Bond is the one we all know.Charismatic,sophisticated secret agent(to quote Zukovsky from GoldenEye)...Bond himself is the key...We know about the gadgets and his drink and his introduction,and some crazy villians and their plans...but Bond is the most important thing...

[ml94]

BAB S#CKS!