Originally Posted by overwatch
Yeah but then you'd have a million complaints that the movie was treating the audiences as dumbasses because they knew who Vesper was and they don't need the complexities explained again. If you'd already seen Casino Royale I don't see why you'd care. I think if people hadn't seen Casino Royale they probably wouldn't have had that difficult a time working it out anyway. I think it would actually be really well done because the history between Bond and Vesper would unravel over the course of the movie and then you'd have that all important scene between him and Camille in the cave where he displays his affection for his lost love and what it's done to him. And then it would culminate into the final scene between him and Vesper's boyfriend. Damn I wish I hadn't seen Casino Royale first now.
I knew that I'd get misinterpreted. I'm saying that there's a middle ground
, man. Y'know? I'm not saying the "complexities" of the first film needed to be reexplained. I'm saying that if Quantum of Solace
was going to rely so completely on the story that was told in Casino Royale
, there should have been a few visual references to it (I think we can probably agree that movies are overwhelmingly a visual medium for storytelling) and not just references to "Vesper, Vesper, Vesper..." There's a lot of space in between hitting the lowest common denominator over the head with plot points, and ignoring said points to the degree that they no longer emotionally reinforce Bond's motivation to do what he's doing. The history between Bond and Vesper didn't "unravel" in Quantum of Solace
(that happened in Casino Royale
). It was merely referred to.