Quantum of Solace

[Nex (EcH)]

Meh, I enjoyed it.  However, I'm not sure I would have so much if it weren't for Casino Royale.

WTF i told you to call me.

Apologies, but my seeing it last night was unexpected and very late.

[iago]

No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.

Like the makers of SAW!

I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.

[Quik]

No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.

Like the makers of SAW!

I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.

Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?

[iago]

Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?

To begin, I didn't use the word "fresh", and I wouldn't because it's too ambiguous. I also didn't say "murdered the franchise", again that's ambiguous and a loaded term. What I did say is that Saw hasn't lost any quality in the first 4 movies. I'll stand by that, although I probably wouldn't have the first time I saw them. I also said that they're trying to squeeze James Bond for all it's worth; since they're still making James Bond movies after nearly 50 years, and the only real relation between them is the names of the characters, I stand by that as well.

You obviously aren't a big fan of Saw, which is fine. But if you watch Saw II carefully, you'll see characters that ended up in Saw IV and Saw V present, and they aren't there by coincidence. Also, there are plot elements that you might overlook in earlier Saw movies that are explained in later ones. I could name a bunch of them, and a bunch of still unexplained stuff, but I won't. The point is, the Saw movies were designed to be a series, in a continuous world, and will end at a certain predefined time. Once everything is wrapped up, if they go back and add more sequels, I'll probably say the same thing.

I feel the same way about the Hannibal Lector movies -- if they want to keep making them, as long as they still fit into the overarching story, I'll be happy; but if they start adding sequels for the sake of adding sequels, I'll be upset.

I guess the main difference, to me, is that I don't mind having stories that span over multiple movies, if that's how it was written/designed. But I do dislike having sequels for the sake of having sequels.

[Quik]

Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?

To begin, I didn't use the word "fresh", and I wouldn't because it's too ambiguous. I also didn't say "murdered the franchise", again that's ambiguous and a loaded term. What I did say is that Saw hasn't lost any quality in the first 4 movies. I'll stand by that, although I probably wouldn't have the first time I saw them. I also said that they're trying to squeeze James Bond for all it's worth; since they're still making James Bond movies after nearly 50 years, and the only real relation between them is the names of the characters, I stand by that as well.

You obviously aren't a big fan of Saw, which is fine. But if you watch Saw II carefully, you'll see characters that ended up in Saw IV and Saw V present, and they aren't there by coincidence. Also, there are plot elements that you might overlook in earlier Saw movies that are explained in later ones. I could name a bunch of them, and a bunch of still unexplained stuff, but I won't. The point is, the Saw movies were designed to be a series, in a continuous world, and will end at a certain predefined time. Once everything is wrapped up, if they go back and add more sequels, I'll probably say the same thing.

I feel the same way about the Hannibal Lector movies -- if they want to keep making them, as long as they still fit into the overarching story, I'll be happy; but if they start adding sequels for the sake of adding sequels, I'll be upset.

I guess the main difference, to me, is that I don't mind having stories that span over multiple movies, if that's how it was written/designed. But I do dislike having sequels for the sake of having sequels.

I think we differ there. I feel like, if the story is spanning over multiple movies, it's just a marathon that I don't want to keep watching. It's like watching the Titanic.. it just keeps going and going and you keep checking your watch, but you're only halfway in and it's already been 2 hours. FUCK!

However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting. Whereas, if you keep adding on to the same plot, it's like the movie that just won't die. DIE ALREADY. DIE!!!!

I liked Saw I. I did. However, not enough to watch all of Saw II, or any of the rest. It just seems like, okay, the idea was interesting the first time, but I didn't expect to be watching this for entire days of my life.

[Sidoh]

No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.

Like the makers of SAW!

I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.

Haha, I completely disagree.  The saw series is garbage, in my opinion.

[iago]

However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.

So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?

Because it makes money.

[Quik]

However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.

So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?

Because it makes money.

I've never seen a James Bond movie where the main character, Mr. Bond, was a drug dealer or a psycho mass murder of innocent civilians, or an internet pedophile. He's a spy, that's what is in common.

[Sidoh]

Because it makes money.

Yeah, that's definitely not the main focus of the saw series. :P

[iago]

There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.

[Quik]

There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.

But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.

[rabbit]

There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.

But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.

Like car chases....and EXPLOSIONS!!!

[Quik]

There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.

But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.

Like car chases....and EXPLOSIONS!!!

AND SHOOTOUTS!

[Rule]

However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.

So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?

Because it makes money.

I'd say there's a lot more in common between Bond films than that.  He works for the British secret service, "MI6", he is always involving himself with the same people, he has a similar personality, there is an emphasis on the latest spy-gadgets he is using, etc, and the plots usually have a characteristic "Bond" quality (several love interests, many of who end up helping him in some way that is unconventional for a woman, the evil boss, the foreign intrigue, etc).

[Blaze]

What gadgets did Bond have in QoS?