Finally the Bond screen writing has been too restrictive, I think the producers should allow a broader collaboration of younger and more inventive screen writers, there are many of them in hollywood, hungry and affordable… those guys who made 24 could be very helpful…!

I’m not saying that you don’t know your Bond, however; I am asserting that the Bond we are seeing in the Daniel Craig era of films is perfectly in line with the Bond that is portrayed in Casino Royale (the novel), and since Quantum of Solace (the film) is a direct continuation of that specific Bond it stands to reason that he would not have evolved into the spy that he would become yet.

“Here Bond is not the charming, witty sophisticate that other novels and films would make him. Casino Royale is noticeably lacking in humor, and Bond is equally noticeably cold and ruthless, yet at the same time a romantic susceptible to love’s pangs. In fact, the novel is as much a love story – with a sad ending – as an espionage thriller.” – The Denver Post –

It wasn’t until Moonraker and most notably From Russia With Love that the Bond that we all know and love was fleshed out as the elite spy who enjoyed the finer things. I believe the film series will evolve into the From Russia With Love Bond, and possibly start in this new film. He’s gotten through his rough and tumble beginnings, and now with his past behind him, can become the sauve and charming spy that he was destined to become.

“The entire plot is nonsensicle”

In fact, the plot is completely realistic. Have you seen the condition the world is in? Fresh water, as surprising as it may sound will become the number one natural-resource all international matters will be fought over.

“The World Bank reports that 80 countries now have water shortages that threaten health and economies while 40 percent of the world — more than 2 billion people — have no access to clean water or sanitation. In this context, we cannot expect water conflicts to always be amenably resolved.”

http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm

…Yeah, COMPLETELY nonsensical.

“The entire plot is nonsensicle”

In fact, the plot is completely realistic. Have you seen the condition the world is in? Fresh water, as surprising as it may sound will become the number one natural-resource all international matters will be fought over.

“The World Bank reports that 80 countries now have water shortages that threaten health and economies while 40 percent of the world — more than 2 billion people — have no access to clean water or sanitation. In this context, we cannot expect water conflicts to always be amenably resolved.”

http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm

…Yeah, COMPLETELY nonsensical.

i too have read all the original books, and all the ones written by John Gardener and Raymond Benson. I know my Bond.

My point is this, The new films may be showing Bond being moulded into the man we know, but in the books, did Bond ever kill the way he does in QOS? When he kills the only lead they have?

The answer is no. In Flemming’s novels, Bond was more like a governement assassin, he was never a mindless brute who killed without thinking.
The Bond of the books always enjoyed the finer things in life, he was in many ways a complete snob, in QOS Bond is so far removed from the Flemming character, I find it impossible to even think they are alike. It just isnt the case.

I happen to love the original Ian Fleming novels for James Bond. Quite a bit more than the movies, actually. The critics are correct in stating that Daniel Craig’s Bond is more in line with Fleming’s original vision.

Fleming once said in a Reader’s Digest interview, “I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, ‘James Bond’ was much better than something more interesting, like ‘Peregrine Carruthers.’ Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure — an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department.”

I believe these new set of Bond films are supposed to show us how Bond went from being the blunt instrument to the suave and sophisticated spy we all know and love from the Sean Connery era.

I plan to give them the benefit of the doubt when it come to Bond 23. Do I think QOS amazing? No. Do I think it was horrible? No. I feel it was a bookend piece that tied off all of his unprofessionalism and moved his character forward rather neatly, perhaps a bit uninspired, but neatly. The Bond we will see in Bond 23 will be the Bond at the end of QOS, the one that is done getting too close to the situation, the one that is done with vendettas, the one that is ready to protect the world in style.

Opening sequence, always supposed to be a highlight of any Bond movie; Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, are all prime example of how it should be done.

In QOS, it was a two minute dull ride. So badly edited you could barely tell what was going on, it starts to get exciting, then it’s over.

It set the tone of the movie. Almost everything that followed was a disaster, the villain was a nobody with no real plans to do anything, he was stealing water to destabilise a country’s infrastructure to allow a despotic general to take over. Just stupid, a diamond covered satelite that turns into a laser is more likely!

The entire plot is nonsensicle, bring back Mathis, a great character, and then kill him off in such a wasteful fashion. And never really explain his suspected involvements in Casino Royale.
As for it being a revenge story, Bond has already done that and much better in License To Kill, when it gets to the end with him tracking down Vesper’s ‘Boyfriend’ who even remembered that had anything to do with the plot? Most people in the audience were scratching their heads in joint confusion.

The whole idea of this new realistic Bond was thrown well and truly out of the window during the absurd parachute sequence, something actually done years before in Moonraker, the CGI in that section was terrible.

As pretty as Olga Kurylenko is, she is a terrible actress, and following Eva Green’s fantastic Vesper made it even worse.
Gemma Arteton did a thousand times better, her character of Agent Fields should have been the central female lead.

Every action sequence that had been shown on the trailers had obviously been sped up, because in the film itself, they are outrun by snails in mobility scooters!

Only Bond destroying the solar powered hotel at the climax, bore any resembalance to a decent action sequence. And his way of dealing with Dominic Greene was inspired.

The worst thing as well, were all the critics and others saying, how close this was to Flemming’s original version of the character. It couldnt be further from the truth. Flemming’s Bond was a lot of things, but he was never a mindless thug who killed for no good reason.

All the good faith Casino Royale had built up with its reinvention of a classic character was destroyed with QOS, and now Bond 23 has to do all that hard work again. Shame, it made me like Craig less as Bond!

As long as he doesn’t drive off with Sally Field in the car, she’s been taking Boniva for some time now, you know that’s got some messed up side effects like sweaty fingers or explosive diarrhea…

precisely, he trades in the Aston Martin for a classic ’76 Pontiac Trans-Am, tosses on a cowboy hat and rides off into the credits.

And then the tune “East Bound and Down” cranks up in typical Bandit style,,,

No need to make this personal. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am, regardless of which films we like and dislike. Play nicely.

I’m sorry, you think OHMSS is the worst Bond film? It’s easily one of the best, it has an emotional core that no Bond has ever managed to reach.

You must be a QOS fan

Thanks for pointing that out. A correction has been made.