Spoilers New Picard TV Series and Litverse Continuity (may contain TV show spoilers)

[Mysterion]

And "Parallels" reminds us that everything you've written and that we've read "really" happened. Somewhere in Trek's multiverse...

Which is exactly why I've never had an issue with the differing views of the "Mirror" universe from the DSN episodes, the Enterprise episodes, the DC comics sequels, Diane Duane's novel Dark Mirror, and David Mack's MU books. They all happened, just in slightly differing versions of the MU.

 

[Damian]

This is very true, but sometimes it is a double-edged sword because it brings flaws to my attention that I never noticed before.

Yeah, that can happen from time to time. Sometimes things I didn't realize was an inconsistency comes up too, like Christopher's issues with Data. I honestly never picked up on that. I just assumed any changes we saw were simply due to his becoming more experienced and more used to being around organic beings.

When he said he lacked emotion in the "Ensigns of Command" I simply took it to mean the obvious expressions, happy, sad, that sort of thing. I honestly never thought of it as an inconsistency (interesting though, because this time I was the one arguing any differences weren't a big deal ).

Me too! He was also a lot more physically threatening than any of the other Blofeld actors.

I was thrilled when Spectre made a return in the last film, along with Blofeld. The only thing I didn't care for was the idea that SPECTRE existed to destroy Bond. I liked SPECTRE better in the earlier films as a group of international criminals who's focus wasn't really on Bond until he became a thorn in their side. The new SPECTRE seems less threatening.

I'd also like to see the next Bond film as an old fashioned standalone Bond film where he has to stop some end of the world plan that has nothing personally to do with him. I'm glad Craig is returning for another film, I'd love to see him do a 'normal' mission for once.

 

[marlboro]

I really want to like James Bond movies, but I just can't*. They have a lot going for them: likeable leading men, cool villains, beautiful women and amazing stunt work, but the constant corny humor ruins them for me.

There is one scene that pretty much encapsulates my problem with the franchise. A fantastic stunt, but they stick a silly penny whistle sound effect in the middle of it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Still, I'll continue to watch them. I've watched them all so far, so why stop now?


*I did like Casino Royale.


Edited to add:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[David cgc]

I was thrilled when Spectre made a return in the last film, along with Blofeld. The only thing I didn't care for was the idea that SPECTRE existed to destroy Bond. I liked SPECTRE better in the earlier films as a group of international criminals who's focus wasn't really on Bond until he became a thorn in their side. The new SPECTRE seems less threatening.

Spectre makes me viscerally angry at its half-assed plotting. A child could've thought of a more compelling way to build up a villain than "Computer screen with publicity photos from the past three movies, plus SECRET DRAMATIC BACKSTORY." It was all right there for the taking. The bad guys in the prior films all had color-based names/aliases (Mr. White, Dominic Greene, Raoul Silva), several of them were shown to be in cahoots, and, what luck, this is the fourth movie in the series, and SPECTRE stands for four things! (SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Have Bond foil a plot in the first act, do some actual legwork and finding connections to the past movies (rather than just walking into SPECTRE's secret meeting without trying, then visiting Mr. White's exposition cave), and slowly drip it out with his opposite number foiling him at every step, nearly (White was terrorism, Greene was extortion, Silva was revenge, leaving, I don't know, Mr. or Ms. Black to be counterintelligence). Also, exploding base in the middle of the desert had been done, and done better, in Quantum of Solace.

It's like they said, "If you thought the bad guy letting himself be put in a glass prison in the last movie was cliche, wait'll you see this!" On the other hand, I suppose it makes life easier that you can rank the Craig Bond films from best to worst just by putting them in chronological order. Cary Fukunaga seems to be saying the right things in interviews so far, so I'm hoping Bond 25 will break the trend.

 

[Damian]

Spectre makes me viscerally angry at its half-assed plotting. A child could've thought of a more compelling way to build up a villain than "Computer screen with publicity photos from the past three movies, plus SECRET DRAMATIC BACKSTORY." It was all right there for the taking.

There were things I liked about Spectre, but I didn't like how they used SPECTRE in the film, and Blofeld. Previoualy It wasn't personal toward Bond until he kept foiling their plans. And even then they just tried to outsmart Bond.

The things I did like were getting to know a bit more backstory about Bond. I supposed people might think part of the appeal is his blank past, but I figured after 5 decades of films it was probably time to learn a bit more about him. And I loved the Bond Girl in this film. In a lot of ways she was Bond's equal in toughness, and not just a beautiful girl to be a romantic interest. And I even like the guy that played Blofeld. I could maybe buy Quantum was a subsidiary for SPECTRE (though I'm not sure why a criminal organization needs subsidiaries, I mean, is not freakin Citi Group). But trying to rope Silva into it was a bit forced. Skyfall was more about M, not so much about Bond.

But that's one of the biggest reasons I'd like to see the next Bond film be a plain, simple mission about Bond trying to stop some meglomaniac trying to blow up the world or something, and it to have no personal connections to Bond himself. M calls him in, gives him an assignment, Moneypenny gives him his tickets and Q gives him his tools and he's off.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Great review of OHMSS. I agree completely. I fell in love with Diana Rigg as Tracy, and I’m 100% totally gay. But I’d go straight for Rigg!

Thanks!

I was thrilled when Spectre made a return in the last film, along with Blofeld. The only thing I didn't care for was the idea that SPECTRE existed to destroy Bond. I liked SPECTRE better in the earlier films as a group of international criminals who's focus wasn't really on Bond until he became a thorn in their side. The new SPECTRE seems less threatening.

Yeah, I love the idea of Christoph Waltz as Blofeld, but I could've done without the personal connection to Bond.

I'd also like to see the next Bond film as an old fashioned standalone Bond film where he has to stop some end of the world plan that has nothing personally to do with him. I'm glad Craig is returning for another film, I'd love to see him do a 'normal' mission for once.

Me too, but I doubt that's what we're going to get. I just hope that Craig gets to go out on a great film. The final films of most the previous Bonds were pretty underwhelming.

There is one scene that pretty much encapsulates my problem with the franchise. A fantastic stunt, but they stick a silly penny whistle sound effect in the middle of it.

Yeah, that's the worst. Most of the Moore films use humor to undercut the tension and suspense too much.

The bad guys in the prior films all had color-based names/aliases (Mr. White, Dominic Greene, Raoul Silva), several of them were shown to be in cahoots, and, what luck, this is the fourth movie in the series, and SPECTRE stands for four things! (SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Have Bond foil a plot in the first act, do some actual legwork and finding connections to the past movies (rather than just walking into SPECTRE's secret meeting without trying, then visiting Mr. White's exposition cave), and slowly drip it out with his opposite number foiling him at every step, nearly (White was terrorism, Greene was extortion, Silva was revenge, leaving, I don't know, Mr. or Ms. Black to be counterintelligence).

Wow, the color thing is a really cool connection! And I really like the idea of each of the previous villains having a specialty from SPECTRE's M.O.

I could maybe buy Quantum was a subsidiary for SPECTRE (though I'm not sure why a criminal organization needs subsidiaries, I mean, is not freakin Citi Group).

But trying to rope Silva into it was a bit forced. Skyfall was more about M, not so much about Bond.

Yeah, true.

But that's one of the biggest reasons I'd like to see the next Bond film be a plain, simple mission about Bond trying to stop some meglomaniac trying to blow up the world or something, and it to have no personal connections to Bond himself. M calls him in, gives him an assignment, Moneypenny gives him his tickets and Q gives him his tools and he's off.

The really funny thing about all the Craig Bond movies is that they each go out of their way to set up the guy we met in the first five minutes of Dr. No. At the end of Casino Royale, it's "Okay, now he's the Bond we know!" And then at the end of Quantum of Solace, it's "Okay, NOW he's the Bond we know!" At the end of Skyfall, he's got the male M, Q, and Moneypenny, and it's "Okay, NOW he's the Bond we know!" At the end of SPECTRE, it's "Okay, now we've got Blofeld, and it's really the Bond we know!" Stop giving him origin stories and just let James Bond James Bond already!

 

[Christopher]

The bad guys in the prior films all had color-based names/aliases (Mr. White, Dominic Greene, Raoul Silva)

"Silva" isn't a color-based name, it's a place-based one. It's a Portuguese name derived from the Latin word for "forest" -- alternately spelled "sylva," as in Pennsylvania (Penn's Woods) or a sylvan glen.

And how did a thread about the Picard series turn into a James Bond discussion?

 

[ryan123450]

Yeah this is the most meandering, off topic, reduntant thread I’ve seen in quite a while.

 

[Damian]

And how did a thread about the Picard series turn into a James Bond discussion?

Well, Patrick Stewart is British, as is 007, so, um, well never mind.

Sorry, though, that might be my fault. It started with an earlier comment you made about continuity in Bond movies compared to Star Trek (and other franchises) and as that's something else I'm a big fan of (not as much as Star Trek, but still) I kind of started running with it, then, well, you know, we're a distractible bunch.

How bout Hitchcock movies......just kidding

 

[Damian]

Anyway, um, what were we talking about again

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

The name is Picard. Jean-Luc Picard.

 

[Damian]

Riker could be M, Akaar can be the foreign minister and Geordi could be Q (or Q could be Q but I figured that would be too obvious, and he's not always the most helpful sort). I guess Beverly would have to be his Moneypenny.

 

[Greg Cox]

How bout Hitchcock movies......just kidding

Okay, I'll bite: which version of the MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is canon?

 

[Christopher]

Okay, I'll bite: which version of the MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is canon?

The first one took place on Earth-Two and the remake on Earth-One.

 

[Damian]

Okay, I'll bite: which version of the MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is canon?

As Garak would say, they both are

Personally I prefer the later one. James Stewart, music score by Bernard Herrmann (including a Herrmann cameo), larger in scope. My favorite Hitchcock film though was "The Trouble with Harry".....ok I better stop. If I get too deep I won't be able to stop.

 

[Stevil2001]

And how did a thread about the Picard series turn into a James Bond discussion?

I don't know, but it's certainly more interesting than Yet Another Discovery Canon And Visual Continuity Argument (which was also not on topic).

I've been reading the James Bond novels for the first time, and I watch the corresponding films for each one after I do so. Since the order is completely different, it's made for an interesting experience. (Especially for my wife, who is only watching the films with me. At the reveal of Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever: "Who is this guy?" During the opening of For Your Eyes Only: "Bond has a dead wife!?") It's weird to go Daniel Craig -> Roger Moore -> Sean Connery -> Roger Moore -> Sean Connery. Or even alternate within the Conneries; our first film of his was Diamonds Are Forever, where I felt like he wasn't trying very hard, and then it was on to From Russia with Love and Dr No, which I think are his two best performances in the role.

My reviews so far are here, while we're sharing James Bond review links.

 

[Damian]

I don't know, but it's certainly more interesting than Yet Another Discovery Canon And Visual Continuity Argument (which was also not on topic).

Ha-ha, yeah. Just for the fun of it I looked at the first post to see what the initial intent was. Apparently we are supposed to be discussing what things from the litverse we'd like to see preserved in the nu-TNG show and what things we might like to see jettisoned. It started off that way but then we got off track with Discovery, then we were lost at sea by the time James Bond came around.

 

[Christopher]

I've been reading the James Bond novels for the first time, and I watch the corresponding films for each one after I do so. Since the order is completely different, it's made for an interesting experience.

Didn't the majority of the later films (at least from Moore to Brosnan) basically just use the titles of the books and slap them on mostly or entirely original scripts? So it wouldn't just be the order that was completely different, a lot of the time.

 

[David Weller]

The last Bond movie (before Casino Royale) to use a Fleming title was the Dalton movie The Living Daylights

 

[Stevil2001]

Didn't the majority of the later films (at least from Moore to Brosnan) basically just use the titles of the books and slap them on mostly or entirely original scripts? So it wouldn't just be the order that was completely different, a lot of the time.

None of the Brosnan films are based on books at all, in fact. And yeah, the amount of the actual book present in the films varies wildly, which is part of the fun. Some Bond films I've seen, but many are new to me, so I never know exactly what I'm in for once I've finished the book.

Of what we've watched so far, Live and Let Die, From Russia with Love, Dr No, Goldfinger, and Thunderball (both times) range from decently to very faithful. Almost all of Casino Royale the book is in Casino Royale the film, but it makes up the middle of the film, surrounded by a lot of new content. Moonraker is just a couple proper names and a set piece from the novel. Diamonds are Forever starts like the book but then swerves off into insanity in the third act. For Your Eyes Only is an original plot, but with aspects of two short stories (as well as a scene from Live and Let Die) used in surprisingly faithful ways. A View to a Kill takes only a title from the original story; it's more an adaptation of Goldfinger than anything else.