Bond 22 : Quantum of Solace


Recommended Posts

I actually think the best Bond movie was, "You Only Live Twice" with the space station, man that was a classic :p

I thought that was Moonraker with the station. Only Live Twice was the one with the fake volcano in Japan, where they were stealing american and russian spaceships, don't remember if they ever had a space station in that one..space ship yes.

I think I also read a romour that the story could be similar to, or based on the same story as For Your Eyes Only.

Edit: Correction: It might be based on a short story included in For Your Eyes Only.

For Your Eyes Only was the last good Bond movie Roger Moore did. He should of left and that high note, instead of the rubbish Octopussy and A View To A Kill. :x

For Your Eyes Only was the last good Bond movie Roger Moore did. He should of left and that high note, instead of the rubbish Octopussy and A View To A Kill. :x

A View To A Kill had awesome music (Duran Duran), and Timoty Dalton needed a little bit of time so he could play The Living Daylights.

And I think I'm the only one that enjoyed On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I loved the music in it.

A View To A Kill had awesome music (Duran Duran), and Timoty Dalton needed a little bit of time so he could play The Living Daylights.

And I think I'm the only one that enjoyed On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I loved the music in it.

View to Kill was a good film and as you said the music is amazing.

I Agree, i thought casino royale was boring not a patch on the Bourne Ultimatum.

i disagree... i think Casino Royale (9/10) was FAR BETTER than Bourne Ultimatum (7/10).... and still even better than the best Bourne film, which is Bourne Identity.

i assume your basing it on action? ... cause action wise sure Bourne has MORE (but that jerky camera really sucks in it :( ) but the character itself, i think daniel craig's bond is far more interesting than matt damon's Bourne 'character' in general.

and like i said before (in my opinion) i think the only stand out Bourne film of the three is the first one (Bourne Identity) which i gave a 8/10.

i like the cold feel of craig's bond character quite a bit... thats what ultimately made the movie so great for me besides the general plot and the way it was shot etc which helped it quite a bit to... with the darker feel to it vs previous bonds (which i still like :) ).

i guess the people who dont like it... must not see that or they just dont care for that sorta bond.... o well nothing i say will change your mind since you just dont see this like the majority must see.

i like ALL the bond films myself... when i was younger i never liked Timothy Dalton's 007 character but when i got a little older i like him now.... you might as well say out of all the bonds (Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan/Craig) that Craigs bond is the closest to Dalton's bond character... where there more into the brute force/cold blooded stuff, than the smooth stuff like Brosnan/Moore etc was.... i think connery had a good balance between the cold side and the smooth side ;)

p.s. @ sundayx .... nice logo you made ;)

i disagree... i think Casino Royale (9/10) was FAR BETTER than Bourne Ultimatum (7/10).... and still even better than the best Bourne film, which is Bourne Identity.

i assume your basing it on action? ... cause action wise sure Bourne has MORE (but that jerky camera really sucks in it :( ) but the character itself, i think daniel craig's bond is far more interesting than matt damon's Bourne 'character' in general.

and like i said before (in my opinion) i think the only stand out Bourne film of the three is the first one (Bourne Identity) which i gave a 8/10.

i like the cold feel of craig's bond character quite a bit... thats what ultimately made the movie so great for me besides the general plot and the way it was shot etc which helped it quite a bit to... with the darker feel to it vs previous bonds (which i still like :) ).

i guess the people who dont like it... must not see that or they just dont care for that sorta bond.... o well nothing i say will change your mind since you just dont see this like the majority must see.

i like ALL the bond films myself... when i was younger i never liked Timothy Dalton's 007 character but when i got a little older i like him now.... you might as well say out of all the bonds (Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan/Craig) that Craigs bond is the closest to Dalton's bond character... where there more into the brute force/cold blooded stuff, than the smooth stuff like Brosnan/Moore etc was.... i think connery had a good balance between the cold side and the smooth side ;)

p.s. @ sundayx .... nice logo you made ;)

Personally i see Matt Damon as jason bourne whereas Craig Daniel just isn't bond in my eyes.

As long as the movie has some kind of laser in it (laser pointer, laser gun, lightsaber, laser mouse, laser surgery, whatever), I'll be happy.

Also a suitably scarred one eyed madman and some nice ###### :p

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the name. It just doesn't have that Bond ring to it! Also, the new direction in which the Casino Royale took was definitely a move in the right direction - the one think I loved about Casino Royale was that it was serious.

Anyway, regarding the girls; excellent choices. Especially Ms. Arterton!

Looking forward to it. Casino Royale wasn't my favorite but it was fairly good. Once you get over the fact it wasn't a typical bond it was quite enjoyable. To be honest the last James Bond before Casono Royale I really liked, and coincidently my favorite, was GoldenEye. I thought Pierce was great in that film but after that his movies really went down hill (not really his fault but I can't say I overly enjoyed them). And to that end I think Golden Eye was probably the closest Pierce Bronsan ever got to the character Daniel Craig played. Sure it wasn't as serious, but I think the movie in general was more serious than his later outing's and also was alot less invested in over the top gadgets which to me made it more plausable in a sense and fun to watch.

I think the more serious approach works. The problem with trying to be overly fun is that quite a few bond films get it wrong and go too far. The one before Casino was a perfect example what with the stupid igloo temple and a giant mirror the size or 20 football fields that they put secretly into space. I think the more serious bond lends itself to a more interesting character and potentially one you care more about than some of the more goofy bonds of past.

I'm glad that Casino wasn't all cars and gadgets but. We've had 21 films of that and I personally find 95% of car chases really dull. I just dont think a big pile of metal moving about is anywhere near as exciting as a chase outside of a car where alot more is possible mobility wise. I'd rate the chase at the start of Casino Royale above any car sequence I ever saw in any other bond movie. I duno, it's likely just me but the car chases never did it for me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!