CrispyXUK wrote: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.
Jonsaan bums Roger Moore in his dreams.
FCUTA!
Bond 23 (Skyfall) • Page 3
-
Page
of 28 First / Last -
jonsaan 24,193 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 7 years ago -
StarchildHypocrethes 22,451 posts
Seen 11 minutes ago
Registered 9 years ago -
effinjamie 795 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 9 years agothe 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!Nothing to see here!
-
effinjamie 795 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago -
jonsaan wrote:
Whilst burning copies of "From Russia with Love" no doubt.CrispyXUK wrote:
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.
Jonsaan bums Roger Moore in his dreams. -
Load_2.0 14,545 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agoSure 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 76,426 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoStarchildHypocrethes wrote:
Because that is actually the heritage of Bond. Bond is the original character that all the others rip off.kalel wrote:
There's also plenty of srs biznz 'Bourne-style' action flicks around these days. Why does Bond have to be one of those?
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.
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. -
They are? Is that confirmed?
-
kalel 76,426 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoLoad "$" wrote:
They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.
Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.
They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't. -
kalel 76,426 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoCrispyXUK wrote:
Yes it was confirmed by making QoS.
They are? Is that confirmed? -
jonsaan wrote:
Oh dear.
Bond is supposed to be massively silly escapism! -
Ah, get'ya. Thought they were bringing back Bob Holness for a minute there.
-
jonsaan 24,193 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 7 years ago -
Have you seen the first 3 films, jonsaan?
-
Load_2.0 14,545 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agokalel wrote:
You're lucky I don't have my 007 suggestion gas gun. Make you side with me real fast.Load "$" wrote:
They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.
Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.
They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't.
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.
-
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 7,956 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 9 years agoI 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. -
TheSaint 11,581 posts
Seen 37 minutes ago
Registered 7 years agoPeople 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 76,426 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoLoad "$" wrote:
Fair enough. I do think when you isolate certain plot points and scenes in the film though they are quite silly. The afore mentioned nuclear hotel being one, and the scene with the Minority Report-esque computer at the beginning is another.kalel wrote:
You're lucky I don't have my 007 suggestion gas gun. Make you side with me real fast.Load "$" wrote:
They were done with all that about 10 mins into CR really.
Sure o course they are different, Casino Royal sets up the character, the introductions, the motivation and is a reboot.
They're much more different than you're suggesting. There wouldn't be such a debate in this thread if they weren't.
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.
-
jonsaan wrote:
Nah, you just don't share my enthusiasm in recognising good films and enjoying shit ones.
Oh dear. I don't live up to Po Jawed heros lofty standards
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 14,545 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agoLicense To Kill is excellent. -
StarchildHypocrethes 22,451 posts
Seen 11 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoCrispyXUK wrote:
I'm not jonsaan, but yes I have. I've also seen the 17 next films and they are all massively silly escapism.
Have you seen the first 3 films, jonsaan?
That's a fairly hefty percentage. -
kalel 76,426 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoLoad "$" wrote:
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.
License To Kill is excellent.
Watching it today, it's a clear forerunner for the new Bond films. -
There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.
The rest are Sunday dinner fodder. -
TheSaint wrote:
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.
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.
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 13,195 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoStill not seen QoS everyone says its awful but i have yet to find out.
Should i bother?Everybody has secrets, life would be boring without secrets, don't you think...?
-
CrispyXUK wrote:
Good shout!
There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.
The rest are Sunday dinner fodder.
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 22,451 posts
Seen 11 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoCrispyXUK wrote:
You forgot The Spy Who Loved Me, silly.
There's only 6 I like I think; Dr No, FRwL, Goldfinger, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale. -
Yeah it's good, just a le down after CR and is a little forgettable.
/something about water. -
kalel wrote:
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.Load "$" wrote:
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.
License To Kill is excellent. -
Page
of 28 First / Last
