If you haven't seen Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace then you might not want to read this thread. It doesn't contain spoilers as much as annoyances but depending on your idea of a spoiler you could have some basic plot elements ruined for you.

----------------------

I think Q and Gadgets need to return to Bond. Maybe part of the reboot is to also reintroduce the gadget process. That should happened by movie #2. I think by the third Daniel Craig movie Q and gadgets really need to make a return.

Doesn't have to be over the top but anybody who grew up with ANY of the previous Bond movies knows that a big part of the Bond formula is having cool spy gadgets. Having a cool car is a necessity too, something the more recent movies have really dropped the ball on. Invisible cars aren't necessary but the cars have usually been a big element of the Bond formula as well.

Seriously, they wanted to take Bond back to the basics but they also stripped out the core elements of Bond in the process. The two newer movies were good but #3 better have gadgets and a sweet car with a few "custom upgrades".

Otherwise they might as well title the next movie "James Bourne 007".

Oh, and maybe it's just me, maybe I'm just picky but seriously. Quantum of Solace had (if I may be so bold) the WORST Bond title track of any of the Bond movies ever. Quite a let down considering the fact that Casino Royale had (in my opinion) the best so far. David Arnold has composed the Bond soundtracks since Tomorrow Never Dies. His best work was easily his music for "The World is Not Enough". The action sequences in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were seriously lacking in the music department. Throw the Bond theme in there. It's a JAMES BOND MOVIE for crying out loud.

And seriously, what was wrong with the Walther P99 Bond has had since Tomorrow Never Dies? Why did they switch back to the wussier PPK?

And yeah, last but not least. Bond Bad guys are supposed to be in a class of their own. I want to see bad guys who have half their face scarred from an explosion, or bad guys who can't feel pain anymore, etc. And maybe just maybe they could show the main bad guy getting killed on camera. The Bond bad guy death scenes are supposed to be the final bang for each movie. This was true of both Casino Royale and Quantum. I mean seriously, Vesper's death scene was 10 times more dramatic than any of the other death scenes in either movie. Le Chiffre at least went out during a hardcore scene. He was sinister and fit the "Bond Bad Guy" mold much better than Mr. "I represent corporate greed" Greene. General Medrano was a much more intense bad guy than Greene. His role should have been greater.

The next 007 movie better have more 007 elements than simply a character named "James Bond".

As I said in my Quantum of Solace review, it came across as a little to stirred when it should have been well shaken.

I have not seen the new one yet,but people that i have spoken to about it are all of the same opinion as you,its not a Bond movie if they take away the gadgets and super modified cars.

It was one of my favourite parts of the films to see Bond getting kitted out by Q,i hope they do make a return to this aspect of the Bond franchise.

I'll agree that Quantum had a ****, boring bad guy.

However, I do like how they've sacrificed always dragging Q in favor of continuity. It doesn't make sense for a Daniel Craig 007 to wait around for gadgetry. While I do like the familiar sense that old Bond films give me, I do realize that making them episodic works against a sense of storytelling and exhilaration.

Well the problem with sticking with one plot is if that one plot is boring or stretched a bit thin then you have to finish it. With the style of one story per movie each individual movie stood on it's own. I'm personally a little worried about the next Daniel Craig Bond movie if it doesn't break away from the plot from the last two. While interesting, I just can't see it lasting 3 movies. Quantum was short enough as it is compared to Casino.

But with old Bond it's horrendously predictable. Only so much can happen in two hours- there's very little wiggle room.

Most movies are right around 2 hours long, including quite a few very that are very unpredictable. To say that a movie plot can't be good AND be wrapped up within 2 hours is kind of a blanket statement don't you think?

See I don't think the problem is that they need to revert back to the old Bond formula. They were doing quite well with the new, fresh formula they established with "Casino Royale". If anything they need to stay away from the old formula because it was... well, too formulaic.

I'm not saying the Q gadgets and gizmos didn't have their charm and place, but let's not forget that these past few Bond flicks have supposed to have been a reboot for the series.

The younger Daniel Craig Bond doesn't need to rely on fancy technology and equipment... at least not yet. Clearly he's a man of instinct and ability, as M continuously questions her trust in him.

I think the refined Bond character speaks for himself.

Gadgets aren't what made Bond Bond. They were just part of his old style.

Again, I don't consider the gadgets a core element to Bond's character or the movie. Granted many do consider them one of the trademark of the Bond films, but like Daniel Craig is a new bond, so is the style. I consider the gadgets and toys to be what I call Secret Agent Candy: Any semi-non relevant device carried by the secret agent that the audience derives pleasure from anytime he/she uses it.

Wasn't really a huge fan of the opening music track either, but I didn't hate it neither. I prefer it over "The World Is Not Enough". Actually one of my more least favorite Bond films. To be honest the only Pierrce Brosnan Bond film I liked was "Goldeneye", music and all.

Yet another case of where the equipment doens't make the man.

The PPK is the classic Bond weapon to begin with. Bond doesn't need a bigger gun. If anything the PPK has same charm that the gadgets gave him. If there's any old Bond trademark I think is more of a staple I think the PPK is it.

The bad guys are obviously a big part of the movie, but Casino Royale was more personal in more ways than one. Martin Campbell did something similar in Goldeneye. He actually characterized the Bond girl, Vespa and did an even better job characterizing the new Bond. He did something that very few Bond movies accomplish or even strive to, he allowed the audience to empathize with James Bond as a person and not just an MI-6 operative.

My point being that in all/most of the other Bond stories it's always Bond VS. Villain as the big climax. In Casino Royale the relationship between Vespa and Bond is so developed that it deserves to be bigger than the cheap villain-death payoff. Wouldn't you want to have a conclusion like the one Casino Royale gave you instead of capping it with just the villain dying?

So here's where lines cross. I wasn't a fan of "Quantum of Solace" either, mostly because the plot was very indecisive on what direction it wanted to go in rather than what direction it should have gone in. It was very ambiguous in exploiting the multiple conspiracies that lay before it. It kept jumping from place to place and each time the story would take an oddly dramatic turn.

The bad guys are incomplete along with their conspiracies. I felt like "Quantum of Solace" was two incomplete Bond stories combined into one film. It's sloppy and cluttered.

More to come on that in a future review.