- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Brosnan is no longer Bond, Daniel Craig is now Bond. — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Maybe they should make a solid snake like bond.
I once thought of a Bond movie concept: he would infiltrate an enemy building or base and the whole movie would be just him getting into the building to get something or kill someone. A Bond movie in which he stays in one country, in one place, for the whole movie.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
NO!!!!
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
no, thats not Bond. Althought it could make for a move movie, just not a Bond movie.
So what you're saying is that Bond movies should stick to the formula? Like:
• Pre-opening credits sequence with a 8 minute elaborated stunt impossible in real life.
• Small briefing of the villain and the problem he is bringing to the world.
• Bond sees his new gadgets and make humorous commments on those.
• Bond goes to a country in Europe, meets the villain in a bizarre way that envolves either a game or a dare.
• Bond finds Bondgirl. Feels the urge to have sex with her.
• Bond kills some henchmen and finds out about something, some light plot twist about the villain.
• Bond goes to another country in the world, where the villain's lair is. He takes the Bondgirl for some reason.
• Bond goes on a sequence of stunt after stunt, using his previously presented gadgets, destroying the whole thing.
• Bond gets away and makes love to the Bondgirl. The End.
Don't you think it's starting to get old? Or even better, it's getting difficult to find good plotlines to fill up this formula?
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleiteQuote
Originally posted by: Warbler
no, thats not Bond. Althought it could make for a move movie, just not a Bond movie.
So what you're saying is that Bond movies should stick to the formula? Like:
• Pre-opening credits sequence with a 8 minute elaborated stunt impossible in real life.
• Small briefing of the villain and the problem he is bringing to the world.
• Bond sees his new gadgets and make humorous commments on those.
• Bond goes to a country in Europe, meets the villain in a bizarre way that envolves either a game or a dare.
• Bond finds Bondgirl. Feels the urge to have sex with her.
• Bond kills some henchmen and finds out about something, some light plot twist about the villain.
• Bond goes to another country in the world, where the villain's lair is. He takes the Bondgirl for some reason.
• Bond goes on a sequence of stunt after stunt, using his previously presented gadgets, destroying the whole thing.
• Bond gets away and makes love to the Bondgirl. The End.
Don't you think it's starting to get old? Or even better, it's getting difficult to find good plotlines to fill up this formula?
Except in "On her Majesty's Secret Service", when the Bondgirl marries Bond then dies.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
So what you're saying is that Bond movies should stick to the formula? Like:
• Pre-opening credits sequence with a 8 minute elaborated stunt impossible in real life.
• Small briefing of the villain and the problem he is bringing to the world.
• Bond sees his new gadgets and make humorous commments on those.
• Bond goes to a country in Europe, meets the villain in a bizarre way that envolves either a game or a dare.
• Bond finds Bondgirl. Feels the urge to have sex with her.
• Bond kills some henchmen and finds out about something, some light plot twist about the villain.
• Bond goes to another country in the world, where the villain's lair is. He takes the Bondgirl for some reason.
• Bond goes on a sequence of stunt after stunt, using his previously presented gadgets, destroying the whole thing.
• Bond gets away and makes love to the Bondgirl. The End.
exactly. That's the way every Bond movie should be.
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Yes I'm aware of that bizarre exception.
also In the Living Daylights, I don't think he ever made love to the Bondgirl. And the latest Bond movies havn't exactly lived up to the formula either(which why they have not been successful imho).
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
exactly. That's the way every Bond movie should be.
OK so let me repeat my question: don't you think this is getting old, or isn't it getting difficult to come up with a good plot that fits these requirements?
- Time
- Post link
.........But I still like it. 
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
I hate License to Kill. Bond movies are supposed to be spy movies. To me that movie belongs more with the Dirty Harry movies than with the Bond movies. Was it really necessary to Felix Lighter's legs chewd up by a shark? Too dark for a Bond movie.
For the record, much of Licence (that's the spelling of the movie according to the spine on my shelf), including Felix's limbs getting gnawed off by the bad guy was derived from the novel for Live and Let Die. Since the movies, starting with You Only Live Twice, started largely ignoring the books more and more, it left a lot more material to derive for future movies after the books were all exhausted. Dalton was actually very responsible for getting the filmed Bond back to Ian Fleming's character, and people called it too dark. He got Bond to actually tangle with SMERSH, whom politically-correct MGM made the Broccoli's drop in favor of the less-political SPECTRE in all the movies of the 60s (when SMERSH was still active in the USSR).
Personally, I'd love to see not only Casino Royale made into a real Bond movie as is finally planned, but Moonraker too. That was a stellar novel and the only resemblance it has to it's horrible film of the same name is the name of the bad guy. Literally, that's it.
Now, if we'd only see in the movies what we saw of Felix in the book after the shark attack: a scarred, mangled CIA op with a hook, a cane and an eyepatch ... that would be priceless.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK so let me repeat my question: don't you think this is getting old, or isn't it getting difficult to come up with a good plot that fits these requirements?
Yeah, you can only do that so many times. I really think that's why the series has failed lately. It has become stale. They need something new. Maybe a dark Bond would do that. This is a day and age when dark action is not a bad thing and many recognize that the series is bottoming out. Back when the Dalton Bonds came out, people were still accustomed to the softer Bond that Warbler likes. It was before the series hit the skids. Now that it's firmly entrenched on the skids, I think they can get away with making a change of this magnitude.
Change is good.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: BosskQuote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK so let me repeat my question: don't you think this is getting old, or isn't it getting difficult to come up with a good plot that fits these requirements?
Yeah, you can only do that so many times. I really think that's why the series has failed lately. It has become stale. They need something new. Maybe a dark Bond would do that. This is a day and age when dark action is not a bad thing and many recognize that the series is bottoming out. Back when the Dalton Bonds came out, people were still accustomed to the softer Bond that Warbler likes. It was before the series hit the skids. Now that it's firmly entrenched on the skids, I think they can get away with making a change of this magnitude.
Change is good.
Exactly. While some things should be kept (Bond theme music, gunbarrel opening, musical credits), the basic plotline must change. Therefore my suggestion for a Bond movie in which Bond stays in a single place for a single straightfoward mission for the whole movie...
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Yeah, you can only do that so many times. I really think that's why the series has failed lately. It has become stale. They need something new. Maybe a dark Bond would do that. This is a day and age when dark action is not a bad thing and many recognize that the series is bottoming out. Back when the Dalton Bonds came out, people were still accustomed to the softer Bond that Warbler likes. It was before the series hit the skids. Now that it's firmly entrenched on the skids, I think they can get away with making a change of this magnitude.
Change is good.
But I say the series has hit the skids because they are not sticking to the formula. Change is not always good. Oh, and ADigitalMan, according to my spellchecker, license is spelled l-i-c-e-n-s-e.
- Time
- Post link
"Licence" is a British spelling. It is not incorrect at all. Different countries will use their nation-specific spellings of common words, even if it is part of a title.
However, in the case of this Bond flick, it is Licence with a "C-E" as the official title even in the U.S. Just check IMDb for proof. The Bond producers may have opted for this spelling for any of many reasons... 1) Bond is British, it works; 2) "License to Kill" was already a movie title at that time that came out in 1984 starring Denzel Washington; 3) well, there are likely others that I just cannot think of right now.
Don't worry, you're not the only one who has been misspelling it. I've been using the "S-E" spelling each time I've typed it so far. Guess I'd better change.
This would definitely explain why I couldn't find it on Netflix. I kept looking for "License" and they have it under the "C-E" spelling."
Best. Bond. Ever.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: sean wookie
like snake?
* sigh * Yes like snake....
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Don't worry, you're not the only one who has been misspelling it. I've been using the "S-E" spelling each time I've typed it so far. Guess I'd better change.
except I havn't been mispelling it. Atleast not according to my spell checker. But if the offical tittle uses a misspelled work, so be it.
Oh, let correct somthing for you:
Worst. Bond. Ever.
(imho)If you ask me the best bond ever was Goldfinger, followed in a close 2nd by Dr. No. (imho)
Mark me, to change bond into an ordinary dark action flick and remove all the classic bond stuff would be a big mistake. If they do it, it will be the final death blow to the Bond movies.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
I like the Roger Moore era for it's absurd goofiness and silliness, specially "Spy who Loved "Me" (favorite Bond incidental soundtrack), and Moonraker (because of it's absolutely steriotyped and hilarious Brazil, and Jaws comeback - also it has my favorite opening stunt sequence).
I like the Timothy Dalton films for it's seriousness and basic plot - it's not THAT different from other Bond flicks if you look at it. I just don't like Dalton's Bond, dosen't feel right.
I like Pierce Brosnan Bond films because it's a good mix of every one, except for Die Another Day, which is crap.
Notice how I didn't mention George Lazemby or whatever its spelled.