New gadgets in QoS?

Blitzinger

I was wondering if anyone knows about any new gadgets that will be in QoS. I specifically would like to know the cell phone he'll be using.

Strangeways

LOL!
I am still using the CR Sony phone, and have refused upgraded on the basis that I am waiting to see if there is a QOS tie-in being planned.

I am sure there will be loads of product placement and gadgets, but I do hope that they are integral to the story and not over the top.

Smoke_13

I wish I could remember where I heard this but I'm of the understanding that there isn't going to be much in the means of gadgets.

To me, that's a decision that I welcome with open arms. The Brosnan era was plagued was far too many gadgets, and don't get me started about the whole disappearing camouflage car.

Someone get my soapbox. I always hated the whole, "Come down to Q branch 007 and I'll introduce you and the audience to the gadgets that you'll be using in this film." All movie long you knew Bond would be pulling out the magnetic wrist watch or some other gadget before the film stopped rolling.

But I digress, as I said earlier I don't think there will be any "gadgets" in QOS. Can anyone confirm this?

asio

The minimal use of gadgets in QOS is what we've been hearing since production began, and I too agree it's very welcomed.
I found it strange that Bond was always fitted with a gadget that was perfectly suited for the mission he was about to take (ie: the wrist dart in Moonraker, the inflatable ski-jacket in TWINE, the sonic agitator in DAD, etc). It's as if Q was always wise to the villain's plan.
Why couldn't Bond use a gadget given to him in a previous film? Imagine having Little Nellie pitted against Scaramanga's flying car?
But I digress, if QAS is anything to go by, I feel as though the lack of gadgets may just become a trait of Craig's tenure as 007.
Fine by me.

Strangeways

Lack of gadgets yes, I agree that would be a good thing, and I too always thought it was odd that the gadgets always were just too perfect for the mission.

However, even us mortals have gadgets these days. Who doesn't have SATNAV, a mobile with internet and so on. I think that there must be a nod to 21st century technology; but yes - no invisible cars please!

Blitzinger

Strangeways wrote:

Lack of gadgets yes, I agree that would be a good thing, and I too always thought it was odd that the gadgets always were just too perfect for the mission.

However, even us mortals have gadgets these days. Who doesn't have SATNAV, a mobile with internet and so on. I think that there must be a nod to 21st century technology; but yes - no invisible cars please!

Funny you should say that because my old POS nextel phone lacks SATNAV and web browsing. I can't even text message! I can receive text messages but can't see who it's from nor can I respond. My contract ends 6/16/08 so it's kind of why I wanted to know if anyone knew about a new phone to be used in this.

I also agree with you guys on the lack of gadgets being better. I mean bond was controlling that car with his cell phone in tomorrow never dies and that was a bit lame. I hope they use another Aston Martin DBS again in this. That's by far my favorite car. I'd take it over a ferrari or lambo any day.

JADE66

I sincerely hope that this film will be gadget-less. Bugging devices, GPS trackers and UKDs are one thing, they exist in the real world and are used by real world intelligence agencies. Laser beam wristwatches, invisible cars, exploding bolos etc. are nauseating at best.
Gadgetless is the way to go. Make Bond get out of scrapes with his wits, fists and guns.
CR started off on the right track. Let's make certain 007 stays on course.-{

The_Gunman

Well i see that i might be a little bit different from the rest of the crowd. I personally like the gadgets. I think that is part of James bond. The Gritty real life out look makes a fantastic film, but with the lack of true Villains, especially in Casino Royal, No Gadgets, No Moneypenny and lack of world domination plots...it almost seems like they aren't bond films anymore. I truly hope that gadgets start to come back, at the Very least bring back Q.

ycpchief

DN didn't have any gadgets, FRWL had no world domination plot, and neither had Q. They are two of the best Bond films ever. DAD had "R", gadgets, OTT villians who had world domination in mind, and it's one of the worst films in the series. I am not opposed to any of the above, but it goes to show that a great Bond film doesn't need all that to be good.

Higgins

Well, I would say, DAD was bad mostly because of the bad CGI scenes. OK, the Vanish-Vanquish was a kind of gadget.

So, I could agree to say, that a good 007 movie does not have bad CGI effects, but gadgets ??

I personally like TSWLM very much, which shows, that there can be a quality 007 movie HAS gadgets and INCLUDES Q and a villain, who IS looking for world domination

And wasn't the attache from FRWL the first gadget in the 007 history?

Cynjin Smyth

ycpchief wrote:

DN didn't have any gadgets, FRWL had no world domination plot, and neither had Q. They are two of the best Bond films ever. DAD had "R", gadgets, OTT villians who had world domination in mind, and it's one of the worst films in the series. I am not opposed to any of the above, but it goes to show that a great Bond film doesn't need all that to be good.

I finally bought the DVD Bond set and I was watching my fav Bond movie FYEO and even the director's comment was that they wanted to bring Bond back to reality and that's why there are no gadets in FYEO. I do like some, maybe the watch, but I do like that Bond uses his wits and cunning in the new movies.-{

Corbism

I agree with The_Gunman.

Gadgetry and the characters Q and Moneypenny are definitely a part of the James Bond phenomenon just like the cars, girls, locations, villains, etc. They all work together as a team. Without these aspects, you have a run of the mill action film no different than the Bourne film series.

The lack of gadgets, Q and Moneypenny and the opening gun barrel in Casino Royale was a big disappointment for many people. Yes, the film was a success and good but, that doesn't mean there were some disappointed viewers that expect to see these aspects.

You don't have to have gadgets in every scene like in Moonraker but, they need to be present like in From Russia With Love and Goldeneye where it wasn't overkill.

Oh, and to poster ycpchief above. Q was in From Russia With Love.

ycpchief

Yes, Corbism, I know, Q is in FRWL. I'll have to eat that one and take a bit more time when I post. My point is gadgets, world domination, Q Moneypenny, are not needed to make a good Bond film.

Fleming's novels had few gadgets and the ones that were used were realistic. Moneypenny only showed up a few times and very briefly when she did. Q branch was there, but there really wasn't a "Q". Some novels had villians seeking "world domination" in mind, some did not.

IMO most of the best movies are the ones that stayed closest to the source material, and therefore featured little of the above. The worst movies are the ones that forgot they were about Commander James Bond, and became more about special effects, gadgets, OTT plots and villians, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed any of this, I'm just saying the gadgets and the like are not REQUIRED for a good Bond film as there have been plenty of examples of this. Just give me a great actor playing Bond, being given a nearly impossible mission, and using his toughness, smarts, determination and his trusty walther to see him through...unless of course you prefer to see Bond dressed like a dandy, acting unconcerned and cracking jokes during the most intense action scenes and using the latest Q gadget to save himself. I guess it is all a matter of opinion