Talk:Quantum of Solace/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Explanation of text

Just wondering if someone can explain the line below that comes from the second paragraph of this article:

"yet Forster rejected a grotesque appearance for Greene to comment on the hidden nature of the film's corporate villains."

As it stands currently it makes no sense to me. Maybe it's worth revising? Atouraya (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was difficult to summarise how Forster aimed to make the film classic and modern, and Greene's lack of a visible deformity like most Bond villains has been discussed a lot as to how many hidden villains there are in our society. Alientraveller (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical poster

Just a thought when browsing the article. Clearly the Bond franchise has strong national ties to Britain, and the fact that the article's written in British English rightly reflects that. However, has the UK theatrical poster not been made known yet? ENGVAR arguably extends to images with regional variations between box art, posters and book covers, so it seems odd to have the US poster instead of the UK one. -- Sabre (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, wasn't the original of craig in the desert with the machine gun (like this one) the UK one? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is the final poster. If you see a version of that one with the British date, you know what to do. Alientraveller (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The one I linked to has got the British date, but do I add it or not? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an old poster. For example, I uploaded a Transformers poster (with the main cast on it) with the British date for quite a while, until I found a generic version without any. Alientraveller 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The international poster has been released; it's basically the same as the red-sky one, but it has a blue sky instead. 129.180.1.224 (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The poster I posted is a UK Quad and used in the Quantum of Solace world premiereMJisnotmylover (talk) 11:05, 7 Febuary 2009

A couple of months on, and after looking both online and physically in real-life, it would seem that this is indeed the official UK poster, even if it doesn't have the complete date on it. Its not an old one, its the one still up in cinemas even after release. I've not seen a UK equivalent of the US one one anywhere in the UK. Consequently, I've reverted to the UK one. -- Sabre (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Daily Mail supplement

A goldmine of information and photos from the Bond on Set series author Greg Williams, but I'm not using it just yet: one click and the newspaper whacks a major spoiler at you and me. So it'll be here to access for others to use (hopefully it'll be still up after 31 October for my own reading pleasure), but enter at your own peril. Alientraveller (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

The article does not cover extensive release dates, and it does not have option to add the same. The movie is going to release in India before US, i.e. on November 7, 2008.[1] (tushartarun (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

WP:MOSFILM recommends we stick to general English-language release dates. If you live in India, you should really be reading another language version of Wikipedia. Alientraveller (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller, i've just come across this and it is possibly one of the daftest statements (as well as being quite insulting) i've yet seen on wikipedia. since when did country of origin preclude speaking english? and perhaps you'd care to look under official languages of India. enjoy! 129.11.76.229 (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel it's insulting. However, ask yourself, is India an English-speaking country? No, it has many official languages. Sorry if our guideline is also "daft", but perhaps we're trying to not to be indiscriminate too. Alientraveller (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was a very offensive statement regardless of guidelines the second sentence was inappropriate --71.131.30.178 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, New Zealand has English as its first language and its release is on the 27th of November. I do not think Alientraveller was offensive in anyway, because otherwise the Release Schedule will have like 30 different dates on it, which is unnecessary. Ffgamera (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gunbarrel

It comes at the end of the film and not at the start folks. It's already annoyed a lot of Bond fans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzochris (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that reports this in the mainstream media? A lot of fan reactions tend to be very localized, and it's easy to assume that that kind of reaction can be widespread. A group of people can say anything about any topic on any forum, so that's why we need to have independent reporting of that kind of reaction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the fact I've seen it with my own eyes at a media screening, I haven't seen it reported anywhere else. Wait and see on October 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.173.117 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think saying it has annoyed a lot of Bond fans is a gross overstatement. I post at both the MI6 forums and CommanderBond.net, and while it has caused some irritation, most of the people saying it are yet to see the film for themselves. The few who have say that it's actually a very effective way of rounding out the Vesper Lynd storyline. Renegade Raconteur (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly agree the gun barrel is at the end. I just watched it a few hours ago at the cinema, and I wondered where it was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.193.139 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agent Fields

Please note that Agent Fields' first name is intended as a joke in the Flemingian tradition; the writers deliberately left her first name out until the end credits. I've adjusted it as such, because it's a spoiler. Renegade Raconteur (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is not censored; nor is it spoiler-free. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Then stick a spoiler warning in! Renegade Raconteur (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No spoiler warnings either. See WP:NDA - X201 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So since I know most of what happens within the plot, I'll just go ahead and post all of that, shall I? Never mind that most of the world hasn't seen it yet, Wikipedia doesn't have a spoiler warning. Would you like to know how Dominic Greene dies? Because I won't hesitate to tell you, and I'll be protected by all the policies you just listed. Of course, you might have a problem with that ... Renegade Raconteur (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add the plot to the article page, and, for the benefit of the article, I would urge you to do so. You'll be protected by the policies mentioned when adding information to the article page, adding plot details to this page in some sort of petty act obviously wouldn't reflect well upon you. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the intro probably needs tidying up a bit. It recounts the plot, but there's a huge gap in the middle: it skips from Austria (or thereabouts) to the epilogue; I'd say someone actually intended to spoil the film. Renegade Raconteur (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are worried about spoilers, do what I do, don't go to the article once the film comes out until after you see the movie. From Oct 31 to Nov 14, I didn't go to this article because I didn't want the movie spoiled. Emperor001 (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception

"Fans and Critics were shocked ... worst Bond film ever." This passage seems POV and needs a citation at the very least, given that the reception part of the article gives it generally positive reviews. 93.97.113.147 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already removed. :) I agree with the concerns you had. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by some of the responses in fan communities like MI6 Forums and Commander Bond.net, it's actually being received quite well. There's a few minor issues and one or two members who are very vocal about the film's negative aspects - they seem intent on the film failing - but for everyone one negative review, there seems to be at least three positive ones. Renegade Raconteur (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mona Charen castigates the film's politics in Quantum of Nonsense: "the film's writers and producers could not resist making the CIA a heavy. The CIA, we are told, has no objections to propping up corrupt and murderous thugs in Latin America so long as a few individuals get a cut of the action. Explaining his plan to his CIA contact, (I quote from memory) the villain notes that the U.S. surely does not want another Marxist "giving away wealth" to the people of Latin America. … Here we go again. … the idea -- and it is a hoary one -- that the CIA is in the business of creating evil, right-wing dictatorships in Latin America is just laughable. Besides, the CIA in the film is clearly meant to stand for the U.S." Asteriks (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this really a necessary addition? Mrs. Charen's analysis is, at the least, debatable, and seems more knee-jerk reactionism of the sort that can be found on any right-wing blog; so I have to wonder why it has more value than if "I didn't like the film -Random Guy" had been posted instead. Tmcmistress (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Page guarding

Please don't tell me this page is under "locks" like Casino Royale was. It took me weeks last time to get in to improve Casino Royale. Every edit you try to make is instantly reverted. Its infuriating. Why must you watch it so closely? Count Blofeld de Bruges 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly are you addressing? And no, the article is not semi-protected. If you're referring to this by the way Blofeld, the brakets are used because the quotes have been altered for readability so do not remove them. Alientraveller (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Characters of Quantum of Solace

Please note that Bond Girl Strawberry Fields DOES NOT have a page that tells about her, her involvement in the movie's plot, no nothing! Camille Montes, the primary Bond Girl does have a page but it also needs an adjustment to her page such as the addition of a picture of her and a thicker paragraph. So does Dominic Greene, the antagonist of the movie... thank you so much!

(Tylerno56 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I had to doa major touch-up of both the allies and henchmen page. Someone put Gregg Beam as an ally, even though he looks to do Quantum's bidding and kill Bond, and Corinne Veneau as a villain, even though she does nothing to Bond. Renegade Raconteur (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this page but Strawberry Fields does also need her own seperate page to tell info about her like the mini-profile does. After all, Bond does bed her in the movie.(Ty14444 (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)).

No she doesn't, she's a minor character and belongs in the allies page. There are many Bond girls and only the main ones get articles. Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexual violence / Upskirt shot

There has been some discussion about that certain scene in the hotel. Sure, the new Bonds are grimmer and whatnot but I think it's appalling to show an upskirt shot (naked or not) of a women that the General - as is pretty clearly implied - just attempted to rape, or at the very least has been molested. I'm sorry, the playful teasing nudity and flirting is perfectly fine, that's in some ways a major part of the (old) Bond movies' atmosphere. I'm not in any way against nudity in art either, bring it on, but ... That shot was absolutely tasteless. The rape is bad enough, but what where they thinking!? It's obviously a very touchy subject that has to be taken seriously... I only saw the movie once, in the cinema (obviously), and it's a quick shot and nobody (see IMDB etc12) seems to be sure what exactly is going on, but to me it looked almost like it was glorifying the molestation... The most positive reaction to the shot I've heard is that it's "awkward", but to me it's a lot worse than that. The camera angle is of course intentional, which - again - makes me wonder why anyone was thinking that an upskirt of a victim of sexual violence would be a good idea. That's just horrible. 78.34.125.111 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting topic to discuss, but unfortunately, per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, we cannot discuss such topics if it will not help improve the article. If there are reliable sources criticizing this shot, we could talk about including it in the article. We just can't talk about it for the sake of talking about it. It's best to do that on IMDb's boards and similar places. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial car chase

The plot section starts with the sentence "The film continues from Casino Royale with Bond driving from Lake Como to Siena, Italy". I've only seen Casino Royale twice, so I'm not sure if the ending scene is somewhere near Lake Como, but I'm pretty sure that the initial car chase takes part at the western shore of Lake Garda. Is it supposed to be Lake Como in the movie, is he just passing Garda on his way to Siena or is it a mistake in the article? /Simon 213.112.8.218 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Should have made a new topic. Sorry for being a complete idiot. /Simon 213.112.8.218 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's okay; I created a section heading for your discussion. I can't seen the film yet, so I can't comment. Hopefully someone else can. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure what it means is, the plot continues from Casino Royale, not the shot. All the stuff with Vesper, Quantum, and what have you, which is a plot arc that started in Casino Royale. As opposed to most of the Bond movies, which aren't cannon in any way. -Nozdog122.105.99.213 (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I'm very curious who can't spell organization. It is spelled wrong in both this article, and also the article on Casino Royale. Will someone fix it please? /Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.105.161 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lauren, the article uses British spelling. Organization is the American spelling, and Organisation is the British spelling. Since the topic is about a British agent, the preference is to use British spelling in the article. People outside of America use the English Wikipedia, ya know. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well James Bond films are British films.. so the article is about a British subject, so we use British spelling. Just because the main character is British, we don't make article British. --staka (T) 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

True, I just didn't expend that much effort to clarify in my previous comment. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a trunk, not a boot. Wikiteur (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a trunk in the United States and a boot in the United Kingdom. Just an international difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware, but that's not the point. Think about this..."boot" is done as a link to "trunk." So, basically, whoever thinks the article should use "boot" clearly appreciates that the word "boot" is confusing to the general reader. Why not just have it be plain text? Wikiteur (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of words in the article that are linked, and it's not because they are thought to be confusing. If you don't like the link from the word "boot" then just remove the link; no need to change the term itself. ... discospinster _talk 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I DID that. But even THAT got reverted. Wikiteur (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that particular edit in the history. Could you provide a link to it? ... discospinster _talk 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, your argument is pretty weak. I wasn't talking about other words. I was talking about boot. Why else would boot be linked? There's no other logical reason to link boot to trunk except that people are likely to be like "WTF is a boot?" Wikiteur (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know WTF a boot is, even when it's not linked. So there. ... discospinster _talk 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to antagonize either viewpoint on "boot" and "trunk", but do British dictionaries describe "boot" as a trunk? And what do you call a "boot", the footwear? 63.64.127.64 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. Why would they describe the rear cargo compartment of a car(boot) as a large travelling chest(trunk)? We call a boot(footwear)...a boot. Americans don't confuse large travelling chests(trunk), elephants noses(trunk) and the rear cargo compartments of cars(trunk), so why do you think non-Americans would confuse the rear cargo compartment of a car(boot) with footwear(boot)?--85.211.222.160 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

American English is possibly the only English that uses a unique terms and spelling such as that. New Zealand, Australia, and UK all use British English to a certain extent. Also, this movie is British, so it is appropriate. Ffgamera (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This argument is somewhat superfluous, but just for the record there are far more speakers of British English globally that American English. India alone has 500 million speakers of very competent British English, not to mention a further 300 million Chinese who study British English. Then there are all the other countries with British English as a first language, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Singapore to site some examples, so while I respect American English in the appropriate place I think an article on a Bond movie is one place where British English should without argument be the standard. --Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite obvious that this article should be written in British English. We need one of those green signs at the top of the Discussion page saying that the article is written in British English. Living in NZ, we use British English for the record. 121.73.88.110 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have one of those signs.. It's in orange. Ffgamera (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Austria kill

"Greene recognises that the bodyguard is not a Quantum member and has him killed. (new paragraph) Believing Bond killed yet another potentially vital source of information..."

I was under the impression that MI6 thought it was Haines' bodyguard and therefore a British agent, and that's why they pulled him. Regardless if he was in on the scheme or not, MI6 was unaware of Haines' activities, and wouldn't assume any different about the bodyguard. If my interpretation is right, this will need altered. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The direct sequel of Casino Royale

Is it called the direct sequel because some characters are returning from Casino Royale, and starts with the car chase with a character from it? Anything else related to that film? --staka (T) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing was a followup to Casino Royale, from beginning to end. There were repeated references to Vesper; Mr. White was in it; Mathis was in it; Vesper's prior "boyfriend" was in it, and more. 68.5.12.10 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)ChristianZ

• There are also quite a few media sources to confirm that this is a sequel. Technically it actually isn't the first Bond sequel, as Diamonds Are Forever also picks up after OHMSS with Bond seeking revenge for the death of Tracy, and From Russia with Love has the villains partially motivated by the death of Dr. No. The problem is, in DAF, there is no dialogue reference made anywhere to the events of OHMSS, or to Tracy's death, and the FRWL reference is just a single throwaway line of dialogue, unlike this film which contains many dialogue references to the previous film. 23skidoo (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • DAF was a sequel to OHMSS? I thought it was a freaking retcon considering Bond treats like Blofeld like a chum in spite of murdering his wife after the mixed reaction to a "human Bond" film, and then it took Roger Moore to bring OHMSS back into continuity. :P Yes, that sounded forumesque but I assure you it was for the record. Alientraveller (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard the introduction to Quantum of Solace occurs 20 minutes, 1 hour or 2 hours after the end sequence of Casino Royale. Ffgamera (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Trunk and Boot

Seriously, will someone stop changing "trunk" back to "boot" and having it be a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiteur (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a British subject, so it uses British terminology. ... discospinster _talk 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

MGM is an American studio. So, this movie is an American subject, technically. Wikiteur (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an EON Productions film. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

and its set in Europe.

Which came first, "boot" or "trunk"? What have the British always called a "boot", the footwear? 63.64.127.64 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A boot. What do Americans call the main part of a tree? Seriously, the Wikipedia guidelines are perfectly clear; why is this argument even taking place? Robertcornell68 (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Allusions to prior Bond movies

Should this entry have a section that lists all the allusions to prior Bond movies? I caught allusions to Spy Who Loved Me, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, Goldfinger, and Moonraker, and maybe even From Russia With Love on my first viewing and there may even be more. Oddly enough, after catching a few I wondered to myself if maybe the movie would allude to itself . . . and it did, when that Olga K. girl did the "Get in the car" thing twice.

68.5.12.10 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)ChristianZ

I think that kind of section sounds a little trivial. It might be original research, too... can we be 100% sure that the film references older films? What if some allusions are just those that are typical in spy films? If we can find real-world context for some allusions, we could include it in "Writing" or something. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for most of the them, but the allusion to Goldfinger was pretty unambiguous (the girl covered in oil in exactly the same bed position and circumstance, and perhaps even cause, as the gold-suffocation of Jill Masterson in Goldfinger. Not sure about the others. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bond also karate chopped his tie to force a henchman off the building, just like in another Bond film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.76.69 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the tie karate chop part was from The Spy Who Loved Me. In TSWLM that scene occurs in Cairo. In QOS right after that scene he tells somebody he's going to Cairo. Another allusion is when one of the girls (Agent Fields) introduces herself and Bond responds in the same way in which he responds to Jenny Flex in A View to a Kill, i.e. "Of course you are." And when they are about to fall out of the plane it looks a lot like the scene at the end of The Living Daylights and when they actually do fall out and he's trying to catch up to Camille it's very reminiscent of Moonraker. 68.5.12.10 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)ChristianZ

Girl avenges murdered parents and dosen't sleep with Bond: For Your Eyes Only. Girl hates boyfriend and runs off with Bond: License to Kill. 63.64.127.64 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said Judy/Melina Havelock didn't sleep with Bond? Emperor001 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Allusions to previous EON Bond films are a staple of the franchise. I think here you mean to point out homages to "original" (pre-reboot) films, but the repetition of skydiving/plane crash scenes throughout 22 films is no more noteworthy than all the other elements which get repeated: vehicles, weapons, vengeful female accomplices, evil lair detonations, death by gravity, etc. The murders of Jill Masterson and Strawberry Fields are another matter, but there's a source for that similarity, without such, the others would be original synthesis. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked the touch with the Universal Exports card. I don't think they need to hit you over the head with a new Q just to keep the franchise going. I think the main thing that has changed since the 1980's is the prevalence of first person shooter arcade style games, Golden-eye, etc. and Bond as a franchise in the 70's was already retro. They are always looking back but also always changing. There's always been a Walter Mittyesque quality to Bond loyalists, Q and all the gadgets you could buy at Brookstone helped to reinforce this idea and market the picture. But with FPS, the need is diminished. Bond should be marketed to 13-25 demo, and they're more familiar with Jason Borne than Sean Connery. I do like the elements where they try to keep consistency, like Felix. There've been several Felix Leiters and I believe he died, in the Living Daylights (can't remember off the top of my head, eaten by sharks?) Roger Moore played Bond tongue-in-cheek, and Q starts to take on more and more of a buffoonish role, but in the 60's with Connery he (Llewelyn) was a bit more believable. Even with the move to Cleese they retain a certain regality in an absurdest sense, but you can't have a member of the troop of Monty Python in a Daniel Craig Bond picture. You've got a great Bond song, an intro with fractals and boob shots, the movie not only takes place in some scenes that are maritime, it is about water (or lack there of). Two sexy Bond girls, betrayal, revenge, boy shorts swimming trunks, and an evil mastermind with a criminal organization, what more do you need? Sure, sure, I'd love to see Daniel Craig saunter into a non-descript waiting room, wearing a fedora, make a few witty coy remarks to Moneypenny, toss his hat on the coat rack and enter into M's office, decorated like a 19th century library with wood paneling, and behind his/her big Mahogany desk M gives 007 the details while Q and Bond have witty repartee with puns and allusions before Q shows him his new car. But I appreciate the Universal Exports card, the fact that Bond knows how to drive a speedboat, and though the film is perhaps a bit too violent for my taste, I don't need to hear Bond say that he studied at Oxford and got a first in Oriental languages or that he's fluent in Russian to also know he's intelligent, because I've heard it for twenty films. I also think there should be a trivia tab on the film's main page. I'd also like to see Vin Diesel as the next Bond villain. Perhaps somehow in homage to Telly Savalas. Ricola.

The dock and speedboats reminded me of The World is Not Enough, Thunderball, and You Only Live Twice67.80.167.7 (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)xXxIRA007xXx

Eva Green's photograph

I added a note that Eva still appears in the film via a photo. Is there a source to confirm whether the photograph was specially shot for Quantum of Solace? I don't recall seeing the picture in Casino Royale and presumably they didn't have her boyfriend cast at that point. So it's possible they might have hired her to do the photoshoot, unless this was a Photoshop job, of course. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vesper's photo seemed like something specially done for QOS's prod., involving bringing Eva Green and the actor who played her boyfriend coming in for a photo. This is just my educated guess though. 63.64.127.64 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What Finger Wound?

"Rumours of a "curse" spread among tabloid media, something which deeply offended Craig, who argued that Comninos' accident made something like his finger wound insignificant. Comninos recovered safely from his injury"

Now, I know what the sentence is referring to but other people do not and since there is (as far as I saw) no mention to this incident in the article it's confusing. It's something that should probably be mentioned in the article anyways. I would add it in but I don't know the details, I just know Craig cut off the tip of his finger during the shooting somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.170.101 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Craig's sliced finger is mentioned in the cast section. Thank you for the advice, it's worth sprinkling repetition there. Alientraveller (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"One hour later"

Although I'm aware that behind-the-scenes personnel, actors, and media have stated that the film starts one hour after Casino Royale (I've also heard 2 hours after) the fact remains there is nothing in the film to indicate this, other than the opening scene clearly takes place soon after the end of Casino Royale. Since WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR forbids us from actually making such assumptions, I've changed the wording to say "immediately" since this more evident on screen than an actual time-frame. 23skidoo (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard 20 minutes after, 1 hour after 2 hours after. Ffgamera (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Year

Should it be mentioned here that this is the first Bond film to not take place in the year that it was released? All other films (except for the pretitle sequences of GoldenEye and Die Another Day) take place during the year that they were filmed. This film takes place immediately after Casino Royale (2006) so the whole film takes place in 2006 rather than 2008. Emperor001 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How do we know Casino Royale didn't take place in the future? 98.17.139.232 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the date on the cell phone said July 2006. Emperor001 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they can't change it specifically... What if they just forgot to change the date, and just use the date it was filmed? Ffgamera (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, they can't change it specifically? Any image on a screen in this film is almost certainly post-production computer graphics... they could easily have CG'd a different date. Some guy (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the film makers made a continuity error. Casino Royale takes place in 2006 based on the cell phone and security camera dates. I just read that a 2009 car was driven in QoS which means that it had to have been set in 2008. Apparently they just made a dumb mistake. It is also possible, however unlikely, that there's a 2 year gap somewhere in Casino Royale (Bond w/ Vesper, Bond receiving the message and actually going to Mr. White, etc.) The Austin Powers films did a similar thing by giving Powers a 2 year long honeymoon (first film ended and second film began with their honeymoon, but film 1 was 97 and film 2 was 99). Emperor001 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a 2009 car would be an anachronism, not a sign of the date of the movie. Besides, they've got cell phone cameras that can identify people from hundreds of yards away by seeing the back of their head... not as bad as the Brosnan films, but if they've got that crap they might as well have cars two years early. This is all original research and speculation anyway and worthless for the article. Some guy (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The policemen "die"

The summary says Bond kills the policemen. I might remember details wrong, but I'm pretty sure that later on Bond is accused of subduing or incapacitating the policemen and killing Mathis... and they specifically say something like "of course there were no witnesses". If they just found three bodies with no witnesses, they would have no idea who did it (and forensics would show the police killed Mathis). I don't recall them saying the policemen died, and clearly someone filed a detailed report. Some guy (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)