Sign in or 
Location: Quantum of Solace
Page Threads
Posting...
Note: You can enter up to [REMCHARS] additional characters.
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vid | What The Title Means (page: 1 2) | 23 | Sep 16 2009, 9:34 PM EDT by S3N70R | ||||
|
Thread started: Jun 25 2008, 2:36 AM EDT
Watch
Quatom Means-Large Group Of Something
Of Solace--From Wikipedia In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the same units as the Planck constant and is related to both energy and momentum of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons. The word comes from the Latin "quantus," for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number. A photon is often referred to as a "light quantum." The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general. But these terms can be a little misleading, because what is quantized is this Planck's constant quantity whose units can be viewed as either energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance. Usually referred to as quantum "mechanics," it is regarded by virtually every professional physicist as the most fundamental framework we have for understanding and describing nature at the infinitesimal level, for the very practical reason that it works. It is "in the nature of things", not a more or less arbitrary human preference.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | 007 (page: 1 2) | 20 | Aug 7 2009, 4:19 AM EDT by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Apr 22 2009, 5:12 PM EDT
Watch
I thought the movie was terrible
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Green-Arrow | OK, how was it? (page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... last page) | 307 | Jul 28 2009, 12:39 AM EDT by S3N70R | ||||
|
Thread started: Nov 14 2008, 1:27 AM EST
Watch
I know *some* of you are midnight-on-opening-day types. Myself, I'm more of a Sunday-matinee type. But I know those of you returning fresh from the theaters are ready to crow (or grouse), so let's hear it... what's the verdict?
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| e007bond1016 | Next Bond Movies. (page: 1 2 3 4) | 65 | May 22 2009, 1:33 AM EDT by S3N70R | ||||
|
Thread started: Aug 16 2008, 1:25 AM EDT
Watch
Does anyone have any information on Moneypenny and Q? I mean I understand why Q wasnt in Casino Royale or Quantum because he wasnt able to use Q branch. Especially since he wasnt really on a mission and by the looks of quantum he isnt really on mission either. He hasn't "become Bond yet" but hopefully they have plans to put moneypenny and Q in soon!!!
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | I Thought... | 0 | May 2 2009, 5:43 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: May 2 2009, 5:43 PM EDT
Watch
"Quantum of Solace" as a Friday Night Thriller movie. Over the past 2 years, I've been a Bond fan so I know the best (Goldfinger, Casino Royale), the borderline (A View to A Kill, The Living Daylights), and the worst (The Man With The Golden Gun, Licence to Kill.) QoS is, in my opinion... amongst the best. Could it have been longer? Yes! More love scenes between Bond, Gemma Arterton and Olga Kurylenko
and more confrontations between Bond and Dominic Greene. I felt it was too rushed but as Casino Royale was just about to get boring to watch, "Quantum" was a breath of fresh air. The major con was that it needed to be longer. Much. |
||||||
| Mjr_Boothroyd | Least Close to the Book | 1 | Mar 15 2009, 3:31 AM EDT by spywholuvsu | ||||
|
Thread started: Mar 14 2009, 7:09 PM EDT
Watch
I just finished the Short Story of this.
Now I thought it was a crap because they had little detail to work from from the book. However, I've now realised that they just used the title of the short story. The story is just Bond and the Governer in a room and The Governer telling a story of someone who fell in love and was betrayed, nothing like the film. So why did they choose to use that short story's name when they could have made up a film name, and stick in a brand new film title? A strange one I think.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | 007 fight scene | 2 | Mar 8 2009, 3:29 AM EDT by spywholuvsu | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Feb 23 2009, 7:27 PM EST
Watch
"I kind of liked how bond handled Green,but I got to give it ot Green though, he was trying in that fight".
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | Terrible! | 0 | Feb 7 2009, 6:33 PM EST by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Feb 7 2009, 6:33 PM EST
Watch
Just disjointed action sequences not even transitioned to each other to make sense.
No plot. Poor acting. Lousy graphics. Does not qualify as a Bond movie in my book. |
||||||
| Anonymous | CRAP! (page: 1 2 3) | 59 | Feb 3 2009, 8:33 AM EST by LORDJIM | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jan 2 2009, 10:38 AM EST
Watch
THIS IS THE WORST BOND FILM!
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | You were right about her. | 3 | Feb 2 2009, 5:38 AM EST by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Feb 1 2009, 3:15 AM EST
Watch
In the end of solace he tells M this about Vesper. Call me snoozy but I can`t remember what she said about Vesper. Can anyone help me out?
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | the next james bond film | 1 | Jan 29 2009, 3:21 PM EST by QuartermasterQ | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jan 29 2009, 3:13 PM EST
Watch
in 2010 there is a new james bond film but thears a problam i dont know whats its called
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| bond,jamesbondcraigr | stuff | 0 | Jan 24 2009, 8:43 PM EST by bond,jamesbondcraigr | ||||
|
Thread started: Jan 24 2009, 8:43 PM EST
Watch
great music best bond ever
|
||||||
| blakeyboy1 | QOS i thought was really poor - one of the worst Bond films - very dis (page: 1 2) | 25 | Jan 18 2009, 7:25 PM EST by Download_complete | ||||
|
Thread started: Nov 22 2008, 3:55 AM EST
Watch
QOS i thought was really poor - one of the worst Bond films - very disappointed 2 and a half out of 10
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | Quantum of solace | 8 | Jan 5 2009, 7:51 PM EST by QuartermasterQ | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 14 2008, 9:37 AM EST
Watch
I personally think that the directors should consider a new james bond as well as adding more gadgets then usual. They should bring back Pierce Brosnan
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Green-Arrow | Too much action? | 6 | Dec 13 2008, 2:43 PM EST by Cedric(006) | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 21 2008, 12:52 PM EST
Watch
Just saw QOS for the second time, and liked it even better than the first. But I was still put off a little by the relentless action sequences. (My wife's pithy review: "It was fun, but it seemed like just one long action scene.") Personally, I don't think the issue is *too much* action per se, so much as not enough material in between. After all, this was the shortest Bond film to date -- they had room to add more scenes of intrigue, and maybe some good old fashioned espionage?
Take For Your Eyes Only -- which is chock full of action sequences (I count 12 of them, compared to QOS's 8 or 9). And yet, in FYEO Bond still finds time to converse pleasantly with Kristatos over gluhwein, have drinks with Columbo, flirt with Moneypenny, spend time in Q's lab, play some baccarat, go shopping with Melina in the street markets of Corfu. It's a well-paced and "complete" Bond film, and only slightly over 2 hours long. By comparison, QOS at times felt unnecessarily rushed (the exception being Bond's extended scenes with Mathis, which were quite good, I thought). There were also a couple unnecessary action scenes -- the fight with Slate in his hotel room? Bond should have had the upper hand going into that scene, and yet *he's* the one who gets jumped? None of which is to say I didn't enjoy the film. Just wish it had allowed itself some room to breathe.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| tommyt40 | Editing this page | 0 | Dec 9 2008, 12:40 PM EST by tommyt40 | ||||
|
Thread started: Dec 9 2008, 12:40 PM EST
Watch
Hmph, I was trying to add some more info to the synopsis & it seems every time I try to type anything in beyond the tables, it gets erased! Anyone know what's going on here??
|
|||||||
| oogaz | Villain (page: 1 2) | 24 | Dec 8 2008, 9:12 PM EST by Topol | ||||
|
Thread started: Aug 10 2007, 8:40 AM EDT
Watch
I think their bringing back a SPECTRE type organisation and gonna have new blofield type fella, well they should do anyway.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | Q and Moneypenny | 2 | Dec 8 2008, 8:42 PM EST by QuartermasterQ | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Dec 8 2008, 3:27 PM EST
Watch
Bond movies are not the same without Q yelling at Bond for not taking care of his equipment better or Ms. Moneypenny using her wit and humor to try and seduce Bond.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Anonymous | bond boy | 1 | Nov 30 2008, 3:38 PM EST by koolkikij | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Oct 25 2008, 4:42 AM EDT
Watch
Your boy Bond needs to keep his political opinions to himself. He just turned me off of seeing his film by opening his big British mouth. Somebody please tell him that his witty quips about American politics is neither welcomed nor appreciated. You bloody sod!!
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| Green-Arrow | Casino Royale vs. Quantum of Solace | 1 | Nov 21 2008, 2:47 PM EST by Cedric(006) | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 21 2008, 1:50 PM EST
Watch
Which one did you like better?
Most people I've talked to seem to prefer CR over QOS -- I think it's a tough call, but I'm leaning toward QOS over CR, mainly because I think QOS had more respect for the audience. It bothers me when movies go overboard trying to explain *everything* to me -- I much prefer a film that gives the audience some credit for being intelligent. CR, for example, is loaded with dumbed-down explanations of the game of poker: the dealers keep explaining why such-&-such is the better hand; Mathis keeps muttering to Vesper about Le Chiffre's tell, how much money is in the pot, etc. Does it matter? When we see Le Chiffre push all his chips in, we get the idea. The reactions of the players tell you all you need to know about what the cards mean, even if you've never played poker in your life. You don't need the play-by-play. QOS, on the other hand, didn't feel obliged to talk us through everything that was going on. During the plane sequence, when Bond pulls his plane into a steep and desperate climb, it only takes a second for you to realize that he's trying to gain enough altitude to jump safely. He doesn't yell "We're too low to jump!" (as he surely would have in a lesser film). We get it. Other points of comparison: CR was probably a little too long; QOS a little too short. Too much talk in CR; not enough talk in QOS. Interestingly, if you take the two films together they sort of balance each other out... especially when you consider the parallel qualities of the very first scene (Dryden's office in Prague) and the very last scene (the apartment in Russia). QOS actually makes CR a better film.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
