I'm getting to that one soon–the thing I REALLY am NOT looking forward to is watching the Moore Bonds. Seriously, was there any...any GOOD Bond flicks during Moore's time?For Your Eyes Only is considered a great bond movie by bond-whores like me and solo.
Octopussy worse than Moonraker? No way.
I've now got it Willco. Are ye satisfied? Still think the choice of cover art was awful. They should have used the teaser poster art. Oh well, too late now.I really wish the boxart matched the ultimate editions
I've now got it Willco. Are ye satisfied? Still think the choice of cover art was awful. They should have used the teaser poster art. Oh well, too late now.I really wish the boxart matched the ultimate editions
I know but consistency and all that.I've now got it Willco. Are ye satisfied? Still think the choice of cover art was awful. They should have used the teaser poster art. Oh well, too late now.I really wish the boxart matched the ultimate editions
That too. But then, the UE cover art is EVEN WORSE. They look like someone with about 2 days of Photoshop experience created them.
Thats one thing the SE's have easily over the UE's: better box and DVD menu design.Yeah, but I am so glad I upgraded. All of them outside of Goldeneye which is rather messed up looking look FANTASTIC compared to the SE's. I tried to go back the SE of OHMSS the other day just to compare personally and it was painful. The first 10 or so movies cleaned up damn nicely.
What is the sequel going to be based on?well if anything they'll get things figured out with Mr White and possibly go back to Spectra Organization.
Solo says no S.P.E.C.T.R.E. due to licensing, but how I want it.
She was a slut.
And I'll bet dimes to donuts they wont get him. This was definately a one-shot deal for Haggis. Probably a boyhood fantasy to write a Bond flick. I can't fathom him returning. Neither will Campbell. So at the very least we're gonna have the crappy old writers and a new director.And no Fleming novel to keep the plot from growing out of control. The only thing that keeps me optimistic is that the two writers said no Q and no gadgets for Bond 22 again.
is it me or does craig look like a monkey?Bond is basically a hitman for the government. He looks like a rough brute, which is what someone in his job WOULD look like.
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/casino_royale/daniel_craig/royale10.jpg) <~~~monkey
I mean, I loved the movie, but COME ON! say I'm right.
The writer and director will not be back.
I haven't read the novels, but in terms of the film comparing to the novel, how close was CR? And was the next novel (I think it was Live and Let Die) a continuation of CR or was it a brand spanking new story? I wouldn't mind them going in order of the books, but that won't EVER happen.
wait they lost the writers from CR for the next bond? Is the director going to be back? Cause he gets bond just look at CR and GE. Damnit wtf sony shell out the money you poor fucks. You give millions to make horrible sam rami spiderman crap. Give some big money to 007 for a change.
The writer and director will not be back.
GOD DAMNIT havent they learned with 21 films and other franchises doing well with one director and single writing group? FUCK FUCK FUCK god damnit. They need to get back the writer and director cause thats the only thing that will save bond 22
I'd love to see them get Matthew Vaughn do to a Bond movie. He's British, so he fits the bill, he has a relationship with Craig, and I loved Layer Cake.That would be nice. I wonder if they will ever break their must-be-english rule for directors since they turned down both Spielberg and Tarintino cause of this rule.
Also, when will Martin Campbell get his due as the best Bond director of all-time (GoldenEye, Casino Royale).Terence Young, son.
I'd say Guy Hamilton was pretty good, too–but he did do two pretty meh ones. Goldfinger was good though!Goldfinger was great but he is the one who invented silly over-the-top bond.
After re-watching Royale and having the newness gone from it what what is your top 5 Bond movies now?check yer damn pm's!
Mine are:
1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2. Casino Royale
3. From Russia With Love
4. The Living Daylights
5. Goldfinger
I don't think its a "must be British" so much as "must be non-American or be European" :lol I mean, Lee Tamahori. That name sounds awfully Asian to me. And Martin Campbell is an Australian I believe.
When is the sequel coming? God, it feels weird asking that since there's actual continuity in Bond films now!
Like, everywhere. The sequel picks up right after Casino Royale, with Bond hopefully uncovering another S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-like organization.We know he uncovers a organization and their leader(not Mr. White), so don't worry about that. It is just not SPECTRE. More of a Spectre-lite.
I think it would've fared well better because Brosnan was the preferred choice of soccer moms, but GoldenEye was a huge success for more reasons than that. You forget the key movie demographic, teenagers and those in their early 20s, had probably never even seen a Bond film in theatres. That franchise was as hokey and defunct as no other at that point. The movie was a rebirth; it introduced Bond to a whole new generation and instilled some Hollywood credibility with a series that was in decline, commercially, up until that point. I think with Brosnan in the driver seat, you could've had bet that it would've done better than Dalton's films, but nobody saw how big of a success it would be.
November 2008. 2 years all told. Not too bad.
TWINE's score was especially bad. What the hell was that techno garbage during the Thames chase? CR actually had a strong theme, which I enjoyed hearing whenever it was reprised.
Arnold, from what little I know of him, is a very soldier-like composer. He doesn't really come up with new material as much as stuff is mandated to him from the producers and whomever helms the production. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told, "Put some techno garbage in this scene!"
Also, I don't get how they royally fucked up The World is Not Enough. Y'know, with some good casting and better direction and tightening of the script, that movie could've been a great Bond film. The concept is great, even for the villain, and in terms of world destruction plots, it's one of the more plausible ones.
I think the casting really undoes most of the film.
Can someone explain this supposed continuity in the films now?
Can someone explain this supposed continuity in the films now?Personally, I don't see why anyone would try to get into Bond...there are a few really cool Bond movies, but most of them are really terrible and have aged really badly.
Can someone explain this supposed continuity in the films now?Personally, I don't see why anyone would try to get into Bond...there are a few really cool Bond movies, but most of them are really terrible and have aged really badly.
I didn't try, personally. I just happened to grow up watching the movies and reading the books, and now its just part of my personality. I will fully admit that at least half of the movies are stinkers, yet I still have nothing but love for the series. I guess its just one of those things. Everyone has theirs.
What the fuck? Star Trek VI is considered the best one alongside II(and for many IV). The fact you own V and not the one that is arguably nearly as good as II is absurd.
I mean, I like the original Trek movies and all, but the only ones I own on DVD are II, III, IV and V - the others are awful, and I have no desire to be a completist...same with Bond. I'll get the ones I really like, but no desire to complete the series.
What the fuck? Star Trek VI is considered the best one alongside II(and for many IV). The fact you own V and not the one that is arguably nearly as good as II is absurd.
I mean, I like the original Trek movies and all, but the only ones I own on DVD are II, III, IV and V - the others are awful, and I have no desire to be a completist...same with Bond. I'll get the ones I really like, but no desire to complete the series.
I have never watched a full episode of any of the Star Trek shows, nor a single frame of any of the movies.
Oogami, the UEs ARE being sold as singles. Have been for a while now.
I gave this movie a chance.
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/casino_royale/_group_photos/judi_dench1.jpg)
It's shit.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with no.you do that taco.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with no.you do that taco.
It's wonderful to be gay at the moment!Seriously, I don't get the praise Casino Royale gets.
It's wonderful to be gay at the moment!Seriously, I don't get the praise Casino Royale gets.
All bond movies are either above-average or they suck. As a bond movie, it sucked. Apparantly making the "bond look" a zoolander look is good.
I personally didn't like the novels and I liked:
Goldeneye and that's all I can remember.
Well then I'm forgetting you ever posted in this thread!Honestly, I don't remember the fucking titles!
I gave this movie a chance.
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/casino_royale/_group_photos/judi_dench1.jpg)
It's shit.
I personally didn't like the novels and I liked:
Goldeneye and that's all I can remember.
You suck my dick.well he is right there is no goldeneye book in the bond series. It was a movie made from scratch.
I still don't get why the fuck you would make a rickety warehouse building float.
I still don't get why the fuck you would make a rickety warehouse building float.
It was a serious movie up til then and then a fucking building is sinking.
Obvliously nintenho just doesnt understand the building sinking. They removed the support pylons from the bed so they can replace the timbers with composite ones that dont fall apart. The house is temporarly supported by the air bladders. Then after the pylons are put back and the house is rested and connected to them. They then redo the home and it looks fantastic and new. The whole city has to replace thousands upon thousands of the pylons. Costing millions upon millions of dollars. Its crazy, but that house was not really sunk. Its all CGI and a huge set that moves on actuaters and has a tank for water.
I thought that scene was handled very well.
Okay, but how does a building sinking fit in with the movie? It's supposed to be serious. Not random.
You realize venice is a metropolis with only the historical buildings and restaraunts on water?
And pretty much any building is built a couple dozen feet away from edge of the street because the waves do a lot of damage over the centuries (that's the only part of venice I know of being rebuilt).
I said it didn't really feel like a bond movie or feel like a serious movie and you all said "No no I want to suck zoolander cock", to which I replied "why?".
what does zoolander have to do with anything? Is he trying to say that Craig acted like a pretty boy and did that model face for the camera? Isn't Daniel Craig the OPPOSITE of that?
Daniel Craig, Bond, anything is the opposite of zoolander so you have that look and you'll automatically annoy me and pretty much anbody else.I didn't understand a word of that sentence.
I highly doubt anybody here has watched it the whole way through in one sitting.Except all those people who saw it in theaters. That made it you know, the biggest Bond film at the box office of all time and was one of the top 5 highest grossing movies of year.
Based on what? Cookie cutter explosion filled Bond movies are rarely as well liked as the darker, serious stuff.
And I expected people in this thread to dislike this in comparison to other Bond movies.
Yeah but this one didn't have impressive story or action so I can't see why anybody would like it unless you have a hard-on for Bond in general.
That it tries to be serious and it ties together the ending of it's failed effort with a building sinking.
That's not a good story.
Ronin was in the same genre and it was infinitely better.
Ronin had a more interesting story with better plot twists.
Casino Royale had one line:
"bitch is dead"
and you 'gasmed all over it.
I said he was a taco actor, not a taco.
*shakes head*
I don't see a difference in gayness. The only thing is that he bulked up quite a bit. I can't see your reasoning, as usual.
How did he not act like Bond? He is the closet to Ian Fleming's character out of ALL the actors so far. Craig is easily the most Bond like person to play Bond so far. Followed by Dalton and Connery.
*shakes head*
I don't see a difference in gayness. The only thing is that he bulked up quite a bit. I can't see your reasoning, as usual.spoiler (click to show/hide)(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/casino_royale/_group_photos/judi_dench1.jpg)[close]
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.How did he not act like Bond? He is the closet to Ian Fleming's character out of ALL the actors so far. Craig is easily the most Bond like person to play Bond so far. Followed by Dalton and Connery.
He didn't act like the Bond in the movies.
Am I missing a part of the story or the relevance to people who read the book?
taco actor? Daniel Craig is not gay, if he was the media would have made a HUGE deal about it. I know he is not married but that means nothing
I know she commited suicide but obviously the creators of the script felt it was very important to add a lot of action to it.
I know she commited suicide but obviously the creators of the script felt it was very important to add a lot of action to it.
So how is that a problem?Well they seemed to have an apparantly decent-ass ending and fucked it up completely.
So how is that a problem?Well they seemed to have an apparantly decent-ass ending and fucked it up completely.
Please stop trolling this thread, Mr. O'Reilly.Oh so I trolled you into thinking you're a taco. Well, you little uppity bitch, I'll leave you with some wank material.
Well apparantly they thought the story needed to be dumbed down. Very dumbed down. That makes me assume the book is better.
I personally didn't like the novels and I liked:
Goldeneye and that's all I can remember.