Bond has been Rick Roll'd... That's Too Funny...
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
I've been using that as my wallpaper at work for the past 2 months or so... it still makes me giggleCubase wrote:That's a classic Jen!
"You know the rules - and so does he"
Hahaha!
-Cub. =o)
"Wer ein holdes Weib errungen..."
"My religion is the one in which Haydn is pope" - by me.
"Set a course, take it slow, make it happen."
"My religion is the one in which Haydn is pope" - by me.
"Set a course, take it slow, make it happen."
As someone who found the movie, "Quantum of Solace," to be AWESOME, it might be a good idea to defend the film from the large amount of naysayers so far.
1. No Moneypenny: So what? She contributed less than Fields. She usually just showed up once throughout the movie, and never again.
2. No Q: I think Bond was getting hampered by unnecessary spiffy gadgets. The action was less about how Bond solved the problem, and more about how Bond solved the problem with his new invisible car that shot rockets. That's one of the reasons why Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger were cool. No fancy gadgets, just Bond at his best.
3. Shaky Camera, AKA the Bourne mobile: After I watched Bourne Supremacy, I walked away with the feeling that Bourne was what Bond should have been. Honest. Before Casino, before Quantum. Part of the reason was the fact that it was a genuinely good action film, and the last Bond movies have been sub-par. Tomorrow Never Dies was well played, but generic, The World is Not Enough was nice and over the top, but don't let Denise Richards explain nuclear theory again. And Die Another Day was something awful.
4. The Gun Barrel: For the longest time I thought they weren't going to use that Bond staple. I didn't miss it, and it felt slightly tacked on at the end.
5. Bond Films, sequels?: If a movie references a previous film, it is not a direct sequel in storyline. Bond films make an odd series of movies; the generally admit the previous movies existed, then go there own way. SPECTRE was the longest main villain Bond had, led by Blofeld, one of the few villains to show up in multiple movies. Sometimes there are reoccuring characters. Ultimately, Quantum IS the first genuine sequel to a Bond film, connecting itself with its previous film in points the stretch from plot to returning characters.
The Final Word:
Ultimately, Quantum of Solace felt like a bridge movie to me, a connecting train that transports Bond from Casino to Bond 23. This movie felt like it was setting up a new version of SPECTRE, a modern form of the evil organization for a more modern audience.
This is also the second Bond movie in a row that Bond isn't really going after the head guy. La Chiffre was the bottom of the ladder and Mister White was a rung, just below Mister Greene (will there be a Mister Pink?).
And as for the Bond girls, all of them did a better job than Halle Berry, who blew chunks.
That's all folks.
1. No Moneypenny: So what? She contributed less than Fields. She usually just showed up once throughout the movie, and never again.
2. No Q: I think Bond was getting hampered by unnecessary spiffy gadgets. The action was less about how Bond solved the problem, and more about how Bond solved the problem with his new invisible car that shot rockets. That's one of the reasons why Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger were cool. No fancy gadgets, just Bond at his best.
3. Shaky Camera, AKA the Bourne mobile: After I watched Bourne Supremacy, I walked away with the feeling that Bourne was what Bond should have been. Honest. Before Casino, before Quantum. Part of the reason was the fact that it was a genuinely good action film, and the last Bond movies have been sub-par. Tomorrow Never Dies was well played, but generic, The World is Not Enough was nice and over the top, but don't let Denise Richards explain nuclear theory again. And Die Another Day was something awful.
4. The Gun Barrel: For the longest time I thought they weren't going to use that Bond staple. I didn't miss it, and it felt slightly tacked on at the end.
5. Bond Films, sequels?: If a movie references a previous film, it is not a direct sequel in storyline. Bond films make an odd series of movies; the generally admit the previous movies existed, then go there own way. SPECTRE was the longest main villain Bond had, led by Blofeld, one of the few villains to show up in multiple movies. Sometimes there are reoccuring characters. Ultimately, Quantum IS the first genuine sequel to a Bond film, connecting itself with its previous film in points the stretch from plot to returning characters.
The Final Word:
Ultimately, Quantum of Solace felt like a bridge movie to me, a connecting train that transports Bond from Casino to Bond 23. This movie felt like it was setting up a new version of SPECTRE, a modern form of the evil organization for a more modern audience.
This is also the second Bond movie in a row that Bond isn't really going after the head guy. La Chiffre was the bottom of the ladder and Mister White was a rung, just below Mister Greene (will there be a Mister Pink?).
And as for the Bond girls, all of them did a better job than Halle Berry, who blew chunks.
That's all folks.
My blog:
http://nvracar.wordpress.com/
http://nvracar.wordpress.com/
Oh yeah, because Denise Richards was such a great addition 
I honestly don't see what people see in the Bourne films. I find them trite, boring, without any form of pace, curve or climax. They're just motion, not action.
In fact I've rated the ones I've seen at the near-bottom of my worst films ever. Only film I ever saw that bored me more was Miami Vice, which was total and utter crap.
Bond shouldn't try to be anything but Bond. Imitating crap like the Bourne films will just put the franchise out of business.
And yes, while the Q-gadgets could get out of hand from time to time, there were a few things that was fun stuff. Little Nelly, for instance
In my opinion they started out well with Casino Royale, as franchise reboots go. They had a good starting point, and it was well executed. It felt like the beginnings of Bond.
And then someone said "It's not 21st century enough! More adrenaline! Less with the talking and sexing, more action!"
Which is sad. There is no pace in movies anymore, just a series of GO!! GO!! GO!! action scenes.
This reminds me of a research thing I saw a while back. It turns out that if the average american is watching a show, and there's not a commercial break AT LEAST every fifteen minutes (at most) then they begin to build stress. If your average american were to view a, say, television episode of some series or other, and there were NO commercials at all, and they had to view it from start to finish, they would begin to sweat, stress out, become agitated. It was weird to see how the average tv-viewer has become molded and shaped into a creature of habit like that.
And it's a shame that movies have to suffer for the ritalin-monkeys who pay for the whole shindig in the end.
I'm going to go watch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly now. I need a change of pace. And some damn good entertainment!
-Fred
I honestly don't see what people see in the Bourne films. I find them trite, boring, without any form of pace, curve or climax. They're just motion, not action.
In fact I've rated the ones I've seen at the near-bottom of my worst films ever. Only film I ever saw that bored me more was Miami Vice, which was total and utter crap.
Bond shouldn't try to be anything but Bond. Imitating crap like the Bourne films will just put the franchise out of business.
And yes, while the Q-gadgets could get out of hand from time to time, there were a few things that was fun stuff. Little Nelly, for instance
In my opinion they started out well with Casino Royale, as franchise reboots go. They had a good starting point, and it was well executed. It felt like the beginnings of Bond.
And then someone said "It's not 21st century enough! More adrenaline! Less with the talking and sexing, more action!"
Which is sad. There is no pace in movies anymore, just a series of GO!! GO!! GO!! action scenes.
This reminds me of a research thing I saw a while back. It turns out that if the average american is watching a show, and there's not a commercial break AT LEAST every fifteen minutes (at most) then they begin to build stress. If your average american were to view a, say, television episode of some series or other, and there were NO commercials at all, and they had to view it from start to finish, they would begin to sweat, stress out, become agitated. It was weird to see how the average tv-viewer has become molded and shaped into a creature of habit like that.
And it's a shame that movies have to suffer for the ritalin-monkeys who pay for the whole shindig in the end.
I'm going to go watch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly now. I need a change of pace. And some damn good entertainment!
-Fred
Pirates, vampires, zombies, ninjas, ghouls, aliens, goblins, monsters, robots, sorcerers, undead, werewolves, demons, mutated dinosaur-cyborgs and those pesky phone salesmen! The shotgun is a one-size-fits-all solution!
Woah! The only thing slower than the Good, the Bad and the Ugly is Dr. Zhivago, and at least that film doesn't make you watch Clint Eastwood walk from the right side of the screen to the left side of the screen for fifteen minutes.
I kid! It's classic stuff! Don't beat me up!
Now that we've got that cleared up, I talked to a friend of mine and asked him what made a Bond movie a Bond movie. He gave me this checklist:
Does Bond shoot bad guys with a little gun?
Does Bond have sex with a chick?
Does Bond where a tuxedo?
Answer yes to all questions, and you've got a Bond flick.
Personally, I'd say that a movie is a Bond movie if it is an action movie produced by MGM and features the character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. Doesn't need anything else. Just that.
And as for a movie marketed to those with a short attention span, I'd have to say, without a doubt that-
Woah! Pretty explosion! He shot a guy!
Now what were we talking about?
I kid! It's classic stuff! Don't beat me up!
Now that we've got that cleared up, I talked to a friend of mine and asked him what made a Bond movie a Bond movie. He gave me this checklist:
Does Bond shoot bad guys with a little gun?
Does Bond have sex with a chick?
Does Bond where a tuxedo?
Answer yes to all questions, and you've got a Bond flick.
Personally, I'd say that a movie is a Bond movie if it is an action movie produced by MGM and features the character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. Doesn't need anything else. Just that.
And as for a movie marketed to those with a short attention span, I'd have to say, without a doubt that-
Woah! Pretty explosion! He shot a guy!
Now what were we talking about?
My blog:
http://nvracar.wordpress.com/
http://nvracar.wordpress.com/
That's pretty much what I thought/said, which is why I feel Quantum was a very good TV series episode, but a very average movie. Ultimately I just wonder of any of it was necessary, but I guess we'll only know with Bond 23.Ultimately, Quantum of Solace felt like a bridge movie to me, a connecting train that transports Bond from Casino to Bond 23. This movie felt like it was setting up a new version of SPECTRE, a modern form of the evil organization for a more modern audience.
As for action, it's not so much the Bourne copycat thing (and I do remember people saying Bond should be more like Bourne when Identity came out), it's just the over-the-top extra fast-forward speed that annoyed me. Casino was fun because the main chase involved a chase on foot, something we rarely get to enjoy anymore. Of course it was over the top, but that's James Bond, we got to have it. Going from the free running gig to every possible imaginable vehicle was a leap I really didn't see coming, and didn't quite appreciate. I thought we all cried like babies the Brosnan films were getting overboard, and yet as soon as the franchise is rebooted we make the same crappy mistake. Didn't they learn anything from the debacle between the outstanding Goldeneye and the sub-par Tomorrow Never Dies?
There were some good scenes in Quantum, especially those with a much slower pace, where you could actually see what was happening, and I appreciated it. I still very much enjoyed the seating-in-the-dark habit he's picked up from Batman, something I personally like to do when waiting for someone.
I won't shoot down the franchise or anything. I was very impressed by Casino and I can't wait for the next one, which I trust will be very good. Something is building up, and I'm sure it's going to be fun!
Part-Time Nomad
Sean Connery... That's what makes a Bond movie a Bond Movie...Vracar wrote:Now that we've got that cleared up, I talked to a friend of mine and asked him what made a Bond movie a Bond movie.
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...