Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.
Spandau Belly wrote:I would like Sally Hawkins as the next Moneypenny.
so sorry wrote:Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.
More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.
Peven wrote:so sorry wrote:Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.
More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.
aawww, do you miss Roger Moore? maybe they could recast Bond with the guy that plays Sheldon Cooper and that would please you? did you ever actually read a Bond novel? not very jokey
Peven wrote:so sorry wrote:Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.
More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.
aawww, do you miss Roger Moore? maybe they could recast Bond with the guy that plays Sheldon Cooper and that would please you? did you ever actually read a Bond novel? not very jokey
Peven wrote:Connery Bond was dark, he slapped women around, he killed people without remorse, not even close to the jokey Charles Nelson Reilly version of lightweight Bond that Moore played. the current Bond is definitely much more like Connery Bond than Moore Bond, so when you say that you want more "fun" in Bond movies than the last couple you are implying that you prefer Moore Bond. at least, that is the common sense conclusion to your earlier statement.
Peven wrote:Connery Bond was dark
Peven wrote:I don't think you guys have either read any Bond or seen any of the Connery Bond movies in toooo long.
so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.
Peven wrote:shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.
Peven wrote:point is, there is NO way you can say that there isn't a drastic change of tone between the Connery Bond movies and the Moore Bond movies, both in content and look.
Peven wrote:am I a nit-picker about terminology/language? yep, I confess, i am the son of an English/SS teacher. so to me "dark" is dark, dark being the opposite of light and light being associated with kindness and compassion, with life, and so "darK" refers to coldness, cruelty, violence, death.
Peven wrote:
so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Peven wrote:
so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.
I completely agree with Peven.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Peven wrote:
so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.
I completely agree with Peven.
so sorry wrote:Chistopher Waltz was literally born to play evil dudes, so he fits perfectly as Blofeld.
Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one". Like I've said before, I don't really care for any of this.
Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one".
Ribbons wrote:Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one".
You know things are dire when they're taking a page from The Amazing Spider-Man's playbook.
Graeme McMillan wrote:In an honest interview in which the actor admits that he "begged" director Sam Mendes to return after 2012's Skyfall, Craig says that playing the British secret agent was "a drag." ("The best acting is when you're not concerned about the surface," he explains, "and Bond is the opposite of that. You have to be bothered about how you're looking.") Craig added that he hadn't given a potential return to the role any real consideration so far.
"For at least a year or two, I just don’t want to think about it," he says. "I don’t know what the next step is. I’ve no idea. Not because I’m trying to be cagey. Who the f— knows? At the moment, we’ve done it. I’m not in discussion with anybody about anything. If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money."
Not that Craig is entirely divorced from the responsibility of being Bond, however. "All I care about is that if I stop doing these things, we’ve left it in a good place and people pick it up and make it better," he says before later, adding that his advice to any future Bond would be to "just make sure you’re great. You’ve got to push yourself as far as you can. It’s worth it, it’s James Bond."
Moriarty wrote:It seems appropriate that Matthew Vaughn and Guy Ritchie began their film careers working together, and that they each seem to have helped define the British film industry now for sixteen years, because this year, both have decided to take on the most British of all British subjects… James Bond.
DEVIN FARACI wrote: One part Star Trek Into Darkness rehash, one part Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation rehash, one part artless cash-in on Edward Snowden, Spectre sluggishly (and often illogically) trudges from location to location, occasionally stopping to have a poorly edited action sequence and/or have Bond fuck somebody.
PHIL NOBILE JR. wrote:Tradition, trend or curse, each 007 actor’s fourth entry has been a bloated, sometimes wrongheaded collection of “greatest hits” Bond moments, and it is with great regret we must report the phenomenon is alive and unwell in SPECTRE.
DEVIN FARACI wrote:The problem is that Craig signed a new contract in 2012 that tied him up for both Spectre and whatever comes next. He's got five films on his contract, which means he has one more remaining. His contract also leaves open the possibility of re-upping, but I bet he just goes to five and is done with it.
Stephen Galloway wrote:"I think we've got Daniel Craig," Wilson tells The Hollywood Reporter in an interview, waving aside the actor's recent protestations that he was through with the role. Wilson makes a comparison to director Sam Mendes, who said he was done with Bond after 2012's Skyfall, only to return for Spectre. "[Mendes] said they were never going to make the picture again, and he told the press that."
Asked if Craig was legally bound to do another Bond film, however, Wilson acknowledges: "We don't have a contract."
Mike Fleming Jr wrote:DEADLINE: Daniel Craig owes one more movie, but was blunt in describing how unappealing another 007 would be for him in an interview just after the movie ended. Was this like asking as woman just out of the delivery room if she wants to have another baby?
MENDES: Yeah. Or my analogy is, you’re running your first marathon, and 200 yards from the finish line, some guy shouts, “Are you going to run another one straight away?” I get why Daniel responded the way he did. Again, a two-word answer is what springs to mind.
DEADLINE: It has made the “will they come back” question the recurring narrative in Spectre launch coverage. You’ve dodged it pretty well, but let me ask you this. After Skyfall, you both said much the same thing, that you’d had enough. And then you both came back for Spectre. What’s different now?
MENDES: Did Daniel say he’s had enough after Skyfall? I’m not sure.
DEADLINE: Well, I think he says it after every movie.
MENDES: You’re probably right. He might say it, after every scene. It’s a daily occurrence. This is why his comments get misjudged. I’d put it this way. Daniel leaves everything on the field. Every piece of him is out there and he’s so spent when he’s finished that it’s obviously the wrong time to ask, the day after he’s finished, which is what happened. The pronouncements after the last movie were taken seriously and I then had to undo them when I agreed to make this movie. Without giving too much away, the difference here for me is, this movie draws together all four of Daniel’s movies into one final story, and he completes a journey. That wasn’t the case last time. There is a sense of completeness that wasn’t there at the end of Skyfall, and that’s what makes this feel different. It feels like there’s a rightness to it, that I have finished a journey. I’m not talking about Daniel here because Daniel may absolutely turn around six months’ time and feel his energy renewed. Or he might say just the opposite. If he is as sensible as I think he is, he needs to go away and have some time to think and do another job that’s completely different, which he’s already doing with Othello.
EMMA DIBDIN wrote:5. Who is 009?
We know that he was assigned the Aston Martin DB10 which Bond commandeered, and that his taste in music makes Bond grimace. It's pretty rare that we hear anything at all about another 00 agent - the last time being Sean Bean's double-crossing 006 in Goldeneye, so to have 009 fleshed out even this much is significant. Is 009 the campy yin to Bond's gritty yang – a winking, wisecracking agent in the Roger Moore mould?
Aficionados will remember that Bond replaced 009 following the latter's death in Octopussy, but we're going to go out on a limb and say the Sam Mendes incarnation of 009 probably wouldn't have been dressed as a clown, had we got to meet him. Maybe in the next movie, we'll find ou
Harry wrote:Today I saw SPECTRE, like I have done most every James Bond film I’ve ever seen, in the company of my Father. The first long movie line that Father Geek ever stood in was for GOLDFINGER and he’s been attending these action adventure spy films from DR. NO forward. He raised me to believe Sean Connery was the one true Bond, but I grew up loving Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby… and I really wanted to love Pierce Brosnan’s BOND, but never felt the writing was on par with his casting.
My big desire for the Daniel Craig BOND series was the introduction of SPECTRE. I adore SPECTRE. As an organization of EVIL, it’s the cat’s pajamas! And boy did I let out a little squeal when I saw that Pussy!
Welcome to Spoilerville.
So when the title SPECTRE was released - and the casting of Christophe Waltz announced - and we were told, He’s not Blofeld, well that was totally a JJ. Of course he’s Blofeld - and that’s really not a big deal, because it is a huge deal because we’re getting THE ORIGIN OF BLOFELD in our SPECTRE movie - and that’s exactly what I wanted from this. We get to see him get his scar and possibly his injury that places him in his wheelchair. They get a bit Tim Burton/Joker origin tied to Bruce Wayne for my tastes, but fine… In a galaxy far far away they’d be blood relatives. But a Bond film called SPECTRE, without the origin of Blofeld would be profoundly disappointing to me.
Moreso, we learn that behind everything that Craig’s Bond has been involved - has had it’s strings pulled by SPECTRE. Now, I know - you’re used to stand alone BOND films - but that’s kinda bullshit, cuz usually - SPECTRE is behind everyone and everything. That’s what super secret evil organizations do. Profit from tragedy. I’ve seen some writers bitch that Waltz’s Blofeld toys with Bond instead of killing him.
Moriarty wrote:"SPECTRE" is entirely mediocre. It's no "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill," so for that reason alone, some Bond fans will shrug off all criticism. That's fine, except with "Casino Royale," the producers made a huge mistake. They made it too well. They have tried, with this Daniel Craig run of films, to elevate the Bond movies so they are more than just acceptably silly spy movies, and one of the reasons "SPECTRE" is so frustrating is because it feels like the collapse of that ambition, and it is in one moment that you can see the entire thing burn to the ground.
So let's talk about that moment. Yes, this is a spoiler. Yes, this is "the" spoiler.But in this context, we're talking about a different kind of spoiling. When Bond and This Season's Fleshlight arrive at SPECTRE's surprisingly easy to find sort-of-homage-to-the-volcano-lair in the middle of nowhere, Oberhauser picks them up at the train station and then just drives them right into the base. Everyone is so set in their part that Bond practically hops up onto the torture table himself. First, though, there's some monologuing and a big "reveal" that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. Yes, Oberhauser is indeed Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but just like in "Star Trek Into Darkness," all of the name games seem pointless. Blofeld has no value as a name to any character in the film. It's just a pseudonym that Oberhauser started using after he faked his own death when he murdered his father. And why did he murder his father?
Here's where I have to grit my teeth to even type something so stupid: the reason that Oberhauser became a criminal mastermind in charge of an international organization that is involved in human trafficking, drugs, terrorism, and myriad other destructive crimes is because when James Bond's parents died, Bond was sent to live with the Oberhausers, and Papa Oberhauser decided he liked James Bond better than he liked his real son, Franz.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests