DominicCobb

Probably true. Anyway, base the new design off of that.

I would definitely like to see all of the original cast come back. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer should just be a cameo. They're story is over. Mark Hamill shouldn't be the main character, but I think his role needs to be bigger than a cameo. Luke needs to be a big deal in this universe. Billy Dee Williams showing up would be cool also. Would love to see him get a supporting role. Chewie needs to be back, of course, but they got to give Peter Mayhew his old costume, not the one from ROTS, or anything that looks like that. I don't know if I would mind a Hayden cameo. R2-D2 and C-3PO need more than a cameo. 

For the most part, though, I think it should be new characters.

Note: I wrote this yesterday before Sandy took out my internet. Sorry if I say anything that has already been covered.

Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. 

My first reaction to this was, of course, negative. Why add on to the six film cycle? Oddly enough, I was just thinking the other day about how the big franchises (Bond, Batman, Spiderman) will be making movies forever, simply because they will keep making money. But Star Wars won’t. SW will stay at six, because Lucas wants to keep the integrity of the series (PT quality aside). Which is crazy, because SW is arguably the most popular movie series of all time. I thought that another movie was bound to be made, but I thought it wouldn’t be for a few decades, not a few years. And Disney. The first thing I thought when I heard that was “more Jar Jar, more Ewoks.”

But then I thought some more. Nobody was happy when Disney acquired Marvel, but their first movie together, The Avengers, was amazing. They’re just the distributor. I’ll wait until we learn who’s behind the new films to pass judgment.

As for now, I’m optimistic. Lucas says he wants to hand SW over to the next generation. What does the next generation love? The OT. I think the chances of us seeing the unaltered trilogy on BD have dramatically increased. Remember how Lucas used to say “SW is mine, and I don’t want to make anymore movies, so no more SW movies”? Out the window. So if Lucas is giving SW away, why wouldn’t “SW is mine, and it will be released the way I want” go out the window too? And doesn’t Disney like money? Won’t the OOT make a ton of money on BD?

I can only hope. As I do for the ST (can we start to call it that now?). If the people working on it have names that do not rhyme with Leorge Gucas, then I think we can assume that they are people who love the original trilogy. So why wouldn’t they make the ST like the OT, especially considering the fact that it will be based after it. I mean, seriously, what SW fan would want to make SW movies that resemble the PT? 

So I guess the question is, what will we actually see? Well, I’m guessing (more like hoping) the original cast will be back, and their age will be acknowledged. I’m not really too sure if I want them to have a large role or not. I feel like the new trilogy should focus on different characters, thought they should be there, to some extent. I just don’t know if I would want to watch the adventures of an old, slightly overweight Luke Skywalker (no offense to Mark Hamill, guy’s awesome). Of course, there are ways to make them appear younger. Make up, I think, should be out of the question. I’m sure people will bring it up, but I think the de-aging process used in movies like Tron: Legacy just won’t work either if they’re used for such main roles. Of course they could make the whole movies animated, but I wouldn’t really like that, and I don’t think I’m alone here. 

More content wise, this could be bad news for fans of the EU. I just have a hard time believing they would adapt EU stories for a new SW trilogy. I just think a new trilogy is too big of a deal to just adapt some SW tie-in book (no offense to stuff like the Thrawn trilogy, books’ awesome). People going to new SW movie want new stories. I guess the question here is whether or not they can make new stories without shitting on the established verse.

I think this means some other thing too. I think we can expect to see all of the 3D OT in 2014, or, at least, it would make sense if we did. And when EpVII lands in 2015, it better be memorial day weekend. And one other thing, that greatly saddens me: so I’m finally coming to terms with the fact that I will be traveling to a galaxy far, far, away in three years time, but it won’t be quite the same. It just won’t be a true Star Wars opening without that 20th Century Fox fanfare (thankfully, I can bet that all of the inevitable ST fanedits will remedy this).

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) 9/10 - Well, after I watched FYEO, I read somewhere that people consider it Moore's best Bond film. And yet, my memory told me that I thought TSWLM was Moore's best. I watched it, and I remember correctly. I love this movie. I believe like this, more than any other film, feels most like the Connery's. Lot of classic stuff here. Very exciting plot and action. Funny too. Only a few downsides. The score's a little too 70s at parts, and Barbara Bach doesn't really do a good job. Also, at times in the second half, it is a little too slow. Other than that, great film.

The Living Daylights (1987) 9/10 - I saw Moore's best, so I decided to jump ahead ten years and see Dalton's. I love this movie, too. In fact, each time I watch it, I like it more. Bond's a real guy again, thanks, in great part, to Dalton, who does a fine job as Bond. Pity he only did two. As with any good Bond film; the plot's interesting, the action's intense, and the score is first-rate (as it always is with John Barry). Yet, it suffers in much the same most Bond films do: by being too long. In this case I think the finger can be pointed at the portion in Afghanistan. Hate to sound like a broken record, but, other than that, great film.

darth_ender said:

25-35-15 (impossible for you blokes, it's my high school locker combination)

Sweet, dude. I'm totally stealing your, um... books and stuff, I guess.

No, it's okay.

For Your Eyes Only (1981) 7/10 - Well since watching them in order isn't really possible for me anymore, I decided to jump around. So why not watch this? It jives pretty well with OHMSS, so it seemed like a reasonable choice. I'd only seen it once before, quite awhile ago, and didn't really care much for it. But, recently, I've seen a few places rank it as one of the top Bond films. So I gave my disc a spin. And it's pretty good. Better than I remember. Bond feels like a real person again, albeit one with an absurd amount of talents. But he's doing some good old spying, and that's good. There're some great action scenes too, and a fairly suspenseful cliff climb. Julian Glover plays a good villain, and Topol plays a good ally. The plot's a little run-of-the-mill, though it does get interesting as it goes along. The score is, well... I don't think Bill Conti was a good choice. The Bibi character is really annoying (I get that she's supposed to be, but either way she's a complete waste of time), and the actress playing Havelock gives a truly awful performance. Which is quite a shame, because her character is pretty interesting. Unfortunately, she ends up being annoying as well, and her relationship with Bond is totally undeveloped. Just a missed opportunity. Anyway, I liked it.

Warbler said:

bkev said:

^Warb's a Bond purist. He's still mad that M is played by Judi Dench.

yep.  Especially since this is supposedly a reboot.   If this is supposed to Bond at the beginning of his career,  why not have the original M?   I am also pissed they did away with the traditional Bond opening scene, and that the in Casino Royal when Bond was asked whether he wanted his martini shaken or stirred he said "do I look like I give a crap?"  I mean were they intentionally trying to piss off the original Bond fans?  

I mean, making it more like the books wasn't really the point of the reboot. They wanted to create a Bond for the modern age. It's a new take on Bond. When Bond is stressed, and the bartender asks if he wants his martini shaken or stirred, he really doesn't care. I understand if you don't like this angle, but it's most certainly not supposed to annoy original Bond fans. It's a different twist on the character.

Warbler said:

I realized you weren't arguing to make black man Bond, just to be politically correct.   I was thinking that maybe I was being politically incorrect. 

I get it now. And I understand that you're one of those guys who thinks movies should adhere to source material. Agree to disagree.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

a black Bond?  sorry to be politically incorrect, but no.  

I don't think you read my post.

I read your entire post.  

Weird. I explained why it wasn't a matter of political correctness.

Warbler said:

a black Bond?  sorry to be politically incorrect, but no.  

I don't think you read my post.

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

"Yeah, but you wouldn't make Shaft white." No, because that would be rather insensitive. You have to realize that there are very few famous black characters in the media. If you made them white you would helping this problem grow. Also, stuff like this has been done before. Orson Welles played Othello once.

Double standards?

What I was trying to say is that the history of black people in the media is very different than the history of white people in the media. Black people have barely any action icons as is, so making one of them white would just be helping the unbalance. 

SilverWook said:

A lot of people have been considered to play Bond over the decades, even an American bloke or two. Even if Mr. Elba does a screen test, nothing may ever come of it. Just ask James Brolin and Sam Neill. ;)

I don't know for sure if he will actually be the new Bond, I just hope he is. I would like to point out, too, that there is a reasonable con to my argument, and that is that if Elba is Bond, Michael Fassbender will probably never have a chance.

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/could-idris-elba-be-the-next-james-bond

Could Idris Elba be the next Bond? I certainly hope he is. Here's why:

"A black Bond! How could that possibly be the same person?" you ask. For awhile now I have looked at the Bond films from a new angle. There's this theory going around that each actor that plays Bond is playing a different person entirely, who has just assumed the alias 'James Bond' as part of his being a secret agent. I think the films work better this way. The continuity otherwise is strenuous. Bond is killing bad guys and banging chicks in 1962 AND 2002? Yeah, no. After Casino Royale, the Bond movies have kind of decided to keep continuity, for once. The second they recast Bond, that continuity is, again, strained. But, if they cast Bond as a black man, they will have no choice but to explain that it is, in fact, a different agent. And that would be awesome.

"Blond Bond was bad enough, but now black? Why does everyone have to be so politically correct these days?" you may ask. Well, this isn't about political correctness. Idris Elba is a great actor, and I believe he could create a Bond like we've never seen before (I'm talking characterization here). If there were to be a black Bond, he would be my first choice.

"But why should we even make Bond black?" Well, why shouldn't we? There have, so far, been six white Bonds. I mean, seriously think about it. Six different white actors have given their spin on the character of James Bond. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a different take on it?

"But Ian Fleming created Bond, and he created Bond as a white man. If Bond was black, that would be going against how Ian Fleming described the character." Well, you know what? Ian Fleming never described the character as driving an invisible car. Films shouldn't have to adhere 100% to their source material, especially if there have already been 23 films derived from that source material, many of which have completely original stories. I mean, seriously. We've already had 23 (25 if Craig fulfills his contract) movies starring a white Bond. Why not some with a black one?

"Making Bond black would be like making George Washington black." James Bond is a fictional character.

"Yeah, but you wouldn't make Shaft white." No, because that would be rather insensitive. You have to realize that there are very few famous black characters in the media. If you made them white you would helping this problem grow. Also, stuff like this has been done before. Orson Welles played Othello once.

"Yeah, but... um." You're done? Okay, thanks.

PS: Sorry, this is mostly a response to some of the comments I've seen online and from my friends, I just wanted to present the information and get my entire argument out of the way just in case someone were to disagree with my opinion. 

If it wasn't a bad commercial I probably wouldn't mind.

There needs to be a way to "like" posts here.

As much as I love Connery, I would have rather seen Lazenby get his revenge film in Diamonds Are Forever, especially if that would mean he would be in more Bond films afterwards.

bkev said:

You have to be ready to invest in it, though - unlike the average Moore film, where I can just pick it up spur of the moment and turn off my brain.

Oh yeah. Not the best for when you randomly tune into a marathon.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) 10/10 - So, yeah, I had to skip YOLT because my brother has it, but that's okay, I guess, because I got to watch one of the best Bonds sooner rather than later. This was one of the last Bonds I saw, and when I did, I immediately loved it. Every time I re-watch it, though, I love it even more. It's been awhile since the last time (actually the last time I watched any Bond movie before this marathon was four years ago, I wonder why), and I can definitely say now that I would consider OHMSS my third favorite Bond film. It's the only Bond film that really lives up to FRWL (I like GF better for other reasons). It just feels so real. OHMSS is not just a great Bond film, it's a great spy film and a great film, period. The plot is simple, yet engaging and a welcome departure from the usual Bond formula. The action is outstanding - some of the best in the series. The score is amazing, as usual. And the performances are pretty damn good as well. I'm including George Lazenby when I say this. I thought he did a very good job. Bond felt human here. He had emotions. He was hotheaded in his scenes with M, a side we've not seen. He also held himself quite well in his scenes with Tracy, not an easy feat considering this is a relationship that is supposed to lead to Bond getting married, and then, of course, losing his wife. The final scene is stunning and kind of thing that gets you choked up. Lazenby does a very good job in arguably the toughest scene ever given to a Bond. I only wish that he had stuck around. I would have honestly preferred him to Roger Moore.

Argo (2012) 9.5/10 - Superb film. Very well done. Incredible story too. As someone who would say their two biggest interests are cinema and history, I found this film outrageously interesting. This is probably my favorite Ben Affleck film. Also worth noting is the fact that Affleck's first three films as director have all been great, which means I think I can officially call him one of the greatest directors working today. I can't wait for his next picture. I think he should back to MA this time, but, you know, that might just be me. Anyway, the film was amazing. Great suspense. Highly recommended. My third favorite so far this year.

- This is a good thread

- princethomas's avatar is freaky

I was kind of hoping this would be a thread where we all talk about things we all can agree on. Instead, I found it was more about, um... 

I don't know really.

Thunderball (1965) 8/10 - I haven't seen this one in awhile. It's never been a favorite of mine, though, at least of the Connery Bonds. It's rather unbalanced, narratively. It's slow to start, and quick to end. Bond does absolutely nothing in the first twenty minutes - all of his scenes therein are dumb, partly because it takes forever for the plot to present itself. And, as for the end, the credits roll, what feels like, twenty seconds after the climax. The film also is lacking in the henchman department, unfortunately (unless you count Vargas, whose death brings upon one of my favorite Bond one-liners). But the movie's still cool. As with any Connery Bond the film's got some serious style. The score's great, the girls are great, and the action is great. I like that we get to see Bond do more spying than usual here. Also worth noting is the freaking awesome underwater battle, and Largo's plot, which is quite possibly the most classic of any Bond film. 

Unfortunately, for me, my brother borrowed my copy of You Only Live Twice, so I don't know if I'll be able to watch that, which is a shame because that's definitely one of my top Bonds.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

DominicCobb said:

Unfortunately (or fortunately), it set the comic-book-y trend for the rest of the series...And while I love every Bond movie, and their cheesy tones, I can't help but wonder if the world would be a better place if the rest of the Bond films were more like FRWL.

We would have less of this:

and more of this:

 

A damn shame if you ask me.

Goldfinger (1964) 10/10 - Classic Bond. My second favorite. In fact, the only other Bond I've even contemplated as possibly my favorite. But it's not. But it is classic. There's so much I could say, but I feel like everything's been said already. Great villain, great score, great Bond girl, great car, great action. It's just so classic! There's not much else to say. The movie's awesome. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it set the comic-book-y trend for the rest of the series. I mean, there's a lot in this movie that's ridiculous. But that's okay. What's not okay is some of the ridiculous stuff in the later movies. And while I love every Bond movie, and their cheesy tones, I can't help but wonder if the world would be a better place if the rest of the Bond films were more like FRWL. After this, Bond wasn't a spy anymore. Seriously, why would a British agent be in charge of stopping a guy steal gold from Fort Knox (this is a rhetorical question, I know they explain why in the film). After this, Bond was a superhero. But, whatever. This movie's still amazing.

captainsolo said:

 

Licence to Kill

... the last time Bond was truly a mortal man of flesh and blood.

I'm assuming you're leaving out Casino Royale when you make that statement.

Luke got scared?