Hopefully you've got somewhere you can go at Christmas, that you're not left on your own.
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
Hopefully you've got somewhere you can go at Christmas, that you're not left on your own.
The thing that pisses me off about Diamonds Are Forever, more than anything else, is the film going along with the idea that the Moon Landing was faked. Every time I hear that Conspiracy Theory, it pushes my buttons. All of them. Takes me right out of the movie.
Also it pretends the previous film didn't exist (or severely downplays it and doesn't directly mention the events of that film) just because some fans got butthurt over it. Sound familiar?
I think For Your Eyes Only did more with the aftermath of Tracy Bond's death than Diamonds Are Forever ever did. Bond is at her grave after some time has passed, Blofeld appears, they get into it, then James Bond finally drops him to his pre-reboot death. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Cue intro credits, then they get into what For Your Eyes Only is really about.
Somehow, it unintentionally fits. The '70s were ridiculous for Bond Movies. So it was fitting that the first serious Bond Movie in a while (For Your Eyes Only in 1981) picked up where the last serious one (On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969) left off.
The most awkward part of DAF might be when Bond assumes the identity of Peter Franks and is about to drive onto the hovercraft to cross the English Channel. He asks Moneypenny what she wants him to bring back from Holland. She replies: "A diamond? In a ring?" Connery's Bond just gives her this look that says: "My wife is barely cold in her grave. TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH, MONEYPENNY." 
It's clear that after the pre-credits sequence of the film the producers just didn't give one damn about loose ends from the previous movie.
It's clear that after the pre-credits sequence of the film the producers just didn't give one damn about loose ends from the previous movie.
Yep. In a diabolical plot hatched by Gold-Pressed Latinumfinger.
Was that supposed to be faking a moon mission? I always assumed it was rehearsal/testing or something.
Bond is zipping by so fast from place to place in that part of the film, it's hard to tell what the intention was, but that's the way it looked to me. But it's been 20 years since the last time I've seen it.
I thought maybe they were testing that buggy.
The astronaut still moving like he was in zero or reduced gravity was absurd, though. Bond runs right by him and he walks and stretches out his arm to block Bond like he's in zero G.
Well, he is wearing a space suit.
They weren't that bulky.
Maybe he had moon shoes in his boots or something.
That would be particularly strange in the Trek context, given the era that some are clinging to featured plummeting ratings and box office receipts, and a licensee taking legal action against Paramount for running the franchise into the ground.
Hell, by that logic people may as well be angry with the majority of average episodes (let alone bad ones) in each series for detracting from the smaller number of excellent ones.
Thus far it does not appear to be logical nor do the individuals I discuss it with around the webz seem inclined to move past that idea. Trek (or Star Wars depending on what I am discussing) gets trapped in to a box and anything outside the box is not only unacceptable but actively harmful to the brand.
Sadly, without any clarification as to what harm is actually being done, either real or imagined, it is hard for me to fully understand the point of view. Because, honestly, I don't see damage to the brand. If the newer series are less than successful of the past incarnations wouldn't the older incarnations be appreciated more? That was my experience with things like the Star Wars prequels. I walked out of Revenge of the Sith with more affection for A New Hope than ever before.
Now, I've referenced SW a lot more in this post because honestly this view in Star Trek is so much harder to swallow in a franchise that espouses wanting to explore diversity. It's baffling.
Heck, how the ECS and UESPA (Starfleet) didn't know about the Ferengi after the same decades, I don't know also.
Also, why didn't the Vulcans show up before WW III, so that nobody would start firing nukes? That would've helped humans not resent Vulcans a lot.
Last edited:
You did hit the nail on the head here!
And as I wrote before, I've been waiting for a return to the 24th century and then it become like this.
It's like not being able to have a smoothie in years and when you finally can buy one, it's made of sour milk and cactus pieces.
I wanted the 24th century, not the 2020's.
You did really hit the nail on the head here!
They have their own Prime Directive.
(Not a joke, BTW. They really did. And not only that, but it seems that the Federation got it from them...)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
