Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Mach5, Jul 11, 2017.
Blame the phenomenal TV series "Mad Men for my thinking. Another program I was probably too young to watch but... it was a nuclear explosion in my head. I remember I was just stunned males lived, spoke, and treated women that way??? Holy smokes that she was brain damage for me, I remember I couldn't stop asking my dad questions about this world and was it really like this??? I couldn't believe it, but besides the offensive nature of the show I thought it was brilliant storytelling and had some of the most memorable characters I'd ever saw. The show never disappointed me, another show which was a head exploder too was "The Sopranos".
Obviously you hate me because every response you've had has been unfriendly so you will be ignored.
Excuse me for not wanting the promotion of a product that causes fucking cancer.
^^Could you imgine the state of Bond's health by the release of the 5th Bond book Goldfinger in 1959 if all the smoking and drinking and poor diet he has in the first 4 books were to affected him as in real life, he would have been so out of breath running down the stairs and across the the vault to the bomb that Oddjob would have taken him out with a nasty look, hell he would have set the bomb off due to the alcoholic shakes that he would have had by that point. lol
Its getting harder to find escapism away from all the political/etc. stuff going on today, Sports? nope, Movies? Can still find a good one. TV? Getting harder. Not everything has to have a "message"
007 is an escape for Men in general ( though women do watch too) Someone jetting around the world, saving it, getting the girl, etc.
The girl doesn't have to be a damsel in distress, can be a strong woman, and the Craig bonds have been that way for the most part.
To be fair, that’s what we have the first 15 films for. I think EON got away from the classic formula because they knew they couldn’t just keep repeating the same beats over and over after ticket sales declined in the 80s.
That’s what’s fascinating about post-Craig era. Barbara Broccoli did say that they’ll have to redefine Bond for the next era, but how is the question.
The fifth book was From Russia with Love. Goldfinger was the seventh book, so his health was even worse!
Things are being pieced together. It's looking like it's going to be a bio weapon plan that Safin is unleashing
Bond's line about "And the people become the weapon" and some imagery makes me think it's bio warfare
Bond looking at his hands. He might be infected or a carrier due to his contact with Madeline
Might be stretching this but perhaps that's why the title of the movie is "No Time to die" It would make it very personal if he's infected and he's on the clock.
"The world needs saving and there's NO TIME TO DIE"
We've never had a James Bond regenerate due to infection
Just so long as he doesn't have an episode of regeneration-induced psychosis and try to strangle his friend.
It was Blofeld's evil plan in On Her Majesty's Secret Service with those women at the Ski resort.
No, there's never been a EON James Bond movie that under performed, they all done very well but some movies made more than others. Craig's era was heavily influenced by the Matt Damon Bourne Movies and as what the Broccoli's been doing since "Live and Let Die" they're aping trends.
Yeah, I mean, I don't have movie by movie numbers, but Bond films generally do pretty well. I honestly can't remember the last time a 007 film failed to do well--even Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, which are generally less well regarded did well.
When a 007 film comes out, it's a big deal.
Ha-ha, that's because Bond is practically other worldly. Nothing can kill him.
But that's part of the escapism. If any real spy even did a 1/4 of what Bond did in just one movie, they would have been dead on their first mission.
Yeah, sometimes it's nice to step away from all that. Bond films are a perfect place to just have a movie, without trying to preach. Bond goes after bad guy and gets the girl. Basically that's the perfect Bond film. Do we have to make it all complicated ?
Glad someone understands, and that's what I want in a OO7 movie, pure escapism and not feel embarrassed if our hero smokes, drinks and have his certain way with women who are dangerous and flawed within the Bond universe. I am very glad to see the end of the Daniel Craig emo Bond, I like seeing James Bond enjoy his job and being JAMES BOND OO7!
That's it in a nutshell. The Craig films seemed to show us a Bond who experienced the high life while despising it at the same time. He was also quick to fall in love. Part of that I suppose is he's a new agent to start.
And that was fine for a change of pace. They wanted to do an origin story basically, tell us how Bond started out.
But I'm done with that. I'd like to get back to a Bond who is good at his job and enjoys the life he leads. A little of that brashness and danger of Connery, with the humor of Moore and the suaveness of Brosnan. A Bond who owns every scene he is in.
I still love the scene in Die Another Day at the beginning when Bond walks into the high end hotel, looking like something the cat dragged in...and he didn't care. He walked in and acted like he belonged, appearances be damned. I have to admit Brosnan handled that scene perfectly, the way James Bond should be.
The two that are probably regarded as having performed the worst are OHMSS and Licence to Kill; the former didn't gross as much as You Only Live Twice ($82 million vs. $111.6 million), but it was still one of the top films of the year. And the perceived failure of Licence mostly has to do with its disappointing US gross ($34.6 million vs. $51.2 million for The Living Daylights), one of many films that got lost in the summer of Batman.
Die Another Day was a tour de force for Brosnan as OO7, he's so all in even with the absurdities it didn't faze his performance. I loved Daniel Craig in Casino Royale but after his series resume, a part of me wished the Broccoli's rolled the dice and had Brosnan cast in one final outing to have a proper adaptation of the book (Casino Royale the first novel) where it was presented as his final mission.
Perceived to the world of the Broccoli's but the movie didn't underperform, adjusted for inflation there are career filmmakers wished their bad movies had numbers like Licence to Kill and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Bond films would do that sometimes. Get crazy outlandish, then dial it back for the next film.
You Only Live Twice started getting a bit out there, then On Her Majesty's Secret Service dialed it back.
Then Moonraker literally was 'out there.' They all realized they took Bond as far as they could possibly go. So they were almost forced to tone things down in For Your Eyes Only. They even symbolically depicted that by having Bond's fancy car self destruct and then he has to drive a beat up old car.
Die Another Day was the culmination once again of getting a bit too fancy with the gadgets. The cloaking car is a good example of that. So Casino Royale was yet another attempt to dial things back.
The gadgets are fun. They're part of the lore of 007, what amazing tools will he use next. But it's probably good every couple of movies to reset a bit so they can start building up the gadgets again.
But I'm ready now to start seeing a more fantastical Bond film. Spectre started to get a little back to some of that (and maybe Skyfall just a bit).
I had hoped Brosnan would have done one more film. I loved Casino Royale, but it would have been nice to have one more Brosnan outing between Die Another Day and Casino Royale.
Casino Royale the novel had a James Bond near the end of his prime, you don't think Brosnan could've delivered the ultimate OO7 adaptation?
New featurette focused on Lashana Lynch's Nomi and Ana de Armas' Paloma and the training they went through to prepare for their respective roles:
This is one of the things I'm most excited about No Time to Die and I hope if some of the cast is retained for the next Bond that at least Nomi will get to return, too.
Yeah, had they adapted the book more closely that would have been fine.
I think the general thinking was since Casino Royale was the first book, then if they were doing a movie about where it all started then that should be the story.
But I was just going with the assumption that Casino Royale was the first Craig movie and they just had one before that for Brosnan.
Ironically, in a way, that it was the spoof Casino Royale from 1967 that really did have a retired, older James Bond played by David Niven. I recall, originally, the guy that owned the filming rights to that book had originally approached Broccoli and Saltzman about making that a legit EON Bond movie, but I suppose after all the hassles they went through with Kevin McClory when they wanted to do Thunderball and use SPECTRE and Blofeld in later films they decided not to do Casino Royale back then with yet another producer.
That version of Casino Royale seems to not be well-liked. But I always thought if someone like the Austin Powers movies then they'd probably find a lot to like in Casino Royale. It was a spoof in every sense of the word. And Woody Allen has the most deadpanned delivery of humor. I loved some of his lines like when he is about to face a firing squad and he tried to object saying "I have a very low threshold of death. My doctor says I can't have any lead enter my body." I think when it came to that film adaptation the only part that was close to the book was the baccarat game between Tremble (impersonating Bond) and Le Chiffre.
Anyway, I'm off topic again. I thought that was a funny movie that pokes a little fun at all the Bond excesses, even back then when only 4 movies has yet been released (with a 5th on the way).
Separate names with a comma.