Bond 23 (Skyfall) Page 3

  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

  • jonsaan 30 Mar 2010 16:25:42 25,335 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    Jonsaan bums Roger Moore in his dreams.

    I do. It's like one of those dreams where you can't connect with a punch. I am bumming him harder and harder but still I can only get him to raise one eyebrow.

    FCUTA!

  • StarchildHypocrethes 30 Mar 2010 16:27:12 25,508 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Glol :D
  • effinjamie 30 Mar 2010 16:27:41 882 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    the finale at the hydrogen bomb hotel.

    This is what turned the film from ok to a film I dislike. I mean WTF! have these people never heard of H&S? An unbelievably weak and contrived piece of plot just so we can make things go Boom!

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • effinjamie 30 Mar 2010 16:27:43 882 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Post deleted

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:29:11
    jonsaan wrote:
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    Jonsaan bums Roger Moore in his dreams.

    I do. It's like one of those dreams where you can't connect with a punch. I am bumming him harder and harder but still I can only get him to raise one eyebrow.
    Whilst burning copies of "From Russia with Love" no doubt.
  • Load_2.0 30 Mar 2010 16:29:20 19,099 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Sure of course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot. QOS is free from that responsibility and as such needs to move at a faster pace.

    Bond could not continue as a series if all the movies moved at the speed of CR.

    You needed both movies to continue the series.
  • kalel 30 Mar 2010 16:30:15 86,743 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    StarchildHypocrethes wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    There's plenty of shit action films if that's what you want to watch, I don't know why you feel Bond has to be one as well.
    There's also plenty of srs biznz 'Bourne-style' action flicks around these days. Why does Bond have to be one of those?

    Because that is actually the heritage of Bond. Bond is the original character that all the others rip off.

    Look, they did silly Bond already. It was fun for years, but then it got shit, then it got worse, and then we Die Another Day.

    CR was a reboot, a departure from all that baggage, and a return to the character Fleming created, and it was awesome because of that. I think it's a real shame they're already going back to silly.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:31:22
    They are? Is that confirmed?
  • kalel 30 Mar 2010 16:31:57 86,743 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Load "$" wrote:
    Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.

    They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.

    They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't.
  • kalel 30 Mar 2010 16:32:41 86,743 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    They are? Is that confirmed?

    Yes it was confirmed by making QoS.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:33:08
    jonsaan wrote:
    Bond is supposed to be massively silly escapism!

    Oh dear.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:35:24
    Ah, get'ya. Thought they were bringing back Bob Holness for a minute there.
  • jonsaan 30 Mar 2010 16:36:10 25,335 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Oh dear. I don't live up to Po Jawed heros lofty standards :(

    FCUTA!

  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:36:49
    Have you seen the first 3 films, jonsaan?
  • Load_2.0 30 Mar 2010 16:38:20 19,099 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Load "$" wrote:
    Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.

    They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.

    They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't.

    You're lucky I don't have my 007 suggestion gas gun. Make you side with me real fast.

    I don't disagree that they are different, that's obvious in the pace and the setting, I think that Casino Royale 2 would have killed the franchise. I don't think QOS deserves the title silly. Worst scene was the dogfight plane escape the rest was rock solid.


  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:38:55
    btw I didn't think QOS was actually that bad. It was a good action film. It just wasn't a classic movie, unlike the one that came before it. But then following one up in CR was always going to tricky.

    Comparing CR to Bourne is also strange. I find the two films incredibly different tonally and in content - no matter what you might think of Craig, CR is just such a suave movie. No doubt Bourne inspired them with the more realistic approach CR but it felt a very different beast, very dependent on the strength of its characters and also not without the Bond moments - the chase at the beginning, the rope (ew ew ew) and end shootout. Fact is that action moments seem so much more when you're invested in the characters.

    Whilst QOS was entertaining to a degree, it's so much more forgettable. Agent Fields had exactly zero character development, so why am I not suprised it took a mention in this thread for me to remember her? I can't even really remember what she did aside from trip someone up and being covered in paint or something?

    If anything QOS was more a Bourne/Bond film than CR. A straight chase movie, only not as good as Bourne either.
  • beastmaster 30 Mar 2010 16:39:15 11,292 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought second half of QOS was flat & lifeless. Ran out of ideas and ended up doing the standard 'bad guy in liar which gets blown up'. It's worked plenty in the past but the main villian just didn't cut it for me.

    I still think License To Kill is one of the best Bond movies. Very much in the minority I know but that had it all for me. Bond going rouge, a dark tone, great villian in Robert Davi, some spectacular stunts and Carey Lowell. Lots of Q too.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • TheSaint 30 Mar 2010 16:40:14 14,260 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    People are too quick to dismiss the Brosnan films based on the last couple but I prefer Goldeneye to either of the Danial Craig ones.
  • kalel 30 Mar 2010 16:41:02 86,743 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Load "$" wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Load "$" wrote:
    Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.

    They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.

    They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't.

    You're lucky I don't have my 007 suggestion gas gun. Make you side with me real fast.

    I don't disagree that they are different, that's obvious in the pace and the setting, I think that Casino Royale 2 would have killed the franchise. I don't think it deserves the title silly.


    Fair enough. I do think when you isolate certain plot points and scenes in the film though they are quite silly. The afore mentioned nuclear hotel being one, and the scene with the Minority Report-esque computer at the beginning is another.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:41:20
    jonsaan wrote:
    Oh dear. I don't live up to Po Jawed heros lofty standards :(

    Nah, you just don't share my enthusiasm in recognising good films and enjoying shit ones.

    I can do both, but I'd rather have good, solid, interesting and entertaining Bond films in the style of Fleming rather than shit movies in the style of Die Another Day. ;)
  • Load_2.0 30 Mar 2010 16:41:29 19,099 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    License To Kill is excellent.
  • StarchildHypocrethes 30 Mar 2010 16:42:01 25,508 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    Have you seen the first 3 films, jonsaan?
    I'm not jonsaan, but yes I have. I've also seen the 17 next films and they are all massively silly escapism.

    That's a fairly hefty percentage.
  • kalel 30 Mar 2010 16:42:38 86,743 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Load "$" wrote:
    License To Kill is excellent.

    Not sure I'd say excellent but it's decent yeah, although interestingly it flopped (and ended Dalton's role in the series) due to being too gritty and serious.

    Watching it today, it's a clear forerunner for the new Bond films.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:43:37
    There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.

    The rest are Sunday dinner fodder.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:43:50
    TheSaint wrote:
    People are too quick to dismiss the Brosnon films based on the last couple but I prefer Goldeneye to either of the Danial Craig ones.

    I'm just worried that Craig will go the way of Brosnan. I can barely remember Brosnan's movies outside of Goldeneye, which was a terrific start. Great bad guys, great action scenes. Bombast without losing track of character.

    It's a different beast to Casino Royale, but there's room for both in the series. Craig is in need of a good villain now, though. Hopefully that's now being set up!
  • HoriZon 30 Mar 2010 16:44:30 13,522 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Still not seen QoS everyone says its awful but i have yet to find out.

    Should i bother?

    I used to be a gamer like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.

  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:45:23
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.

    The rest are Sunday dinner fodder.

    Good shout!

    I was going to big up Goldfinger too. I have a soft spot for Moonraker as well, but it's a truly, truly awful film. Great optical effects work though.

    @Horizon - it's not a bad action film. Took me a year to work myself up to seeing it as my mates didn't rate it at all. Turns out it's actually not bad. Just not as good as it should've been.
  • StarchildHypocrethes 30 Mar 2010 16:45:33 25,508 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.
    You forgot The Spy Who Loved Me, silly.
  • Deleted user 30 March 2010 16:45:38
    Yeah it's good, just a le down after CR and is a little forgettable.

    /something about water.
  • X201 30 Mar 2010 16:45:42 15,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Load "$" wrote:
    License To Kill is excellent.

    Not sure I'd say excellent but it's decent yeah, although interestingly it flopped (and ended Dalton's role in the series) due to being too gritty and serious.

    Dalton leaving was nothing to do with the film's box office. EON and Sony went into a legal argument over the McClory Thunderball stuff again, it put all filming on hold for six years and Dalton felt it had been too long and that he was too old and so he resigned.
  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

Log in or register to reply