sketchley Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Actually, that's from the pre-credit sequence of For Your Eyes Only, the fifth Roger Moore film. Not the first (which was Live and Let Die). Kinda a chump ending for the former head of SPECTRE, but that was the Moore way. Nah. That was due to the legal issues regarding the rights to SPECTRE stemming from the development of "Thunderball" - which ultimately resulted in "Never Say Never Again". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Actually, that's from the pre-credit sequence of For Your Eyes Only, the fifth Roger Moore film. Not the first (which was Live and Let Die). Kinda a chump ending for the former head of SPECTRE, but that was the Moore way. Thanks for correcting me I thought it was the first one since he was visiting his wifes grave but I was born in 79 so Dalton was the first Bond I remember seeing at a drive through when I was a Kid I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Nah. That was due to the legal issues regarding the rights to SPECTRE stemming from the development of "Thunderball" - which ultimately resulted in "Never Say Never Again". The issues between McClory and Eon over SPECTRE didn't force the filmmakers to create that little vignette. Blofeld hadn't been seen since his apparent death in Diamonds Are Forever, and they could have left it at that. Perhaps it was Eon's way of saying "screw you" to McClory to give an unnamed Blofeld-alike a goofy sendoff, but it was thoroughly in keeping with the tenor of the Moore films to have such a comic moment. So, I still blame the writers of the Moore films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The issues forced them to leave the character unnamed, and if memory serves, not showing his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The issues forced them to leave the character unnamed, and if memory serves, not showing his face. Totally. I'm with ya there. It's the way they offed him that's just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 > Totally. I'm with ya there. It's the way they offed him that's just silly. I loved it. Personally I was far more surprised that they still included Bond's wife as part of the continuity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehPW Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 For Your Ass Only i keep looking for these titles on Disney On Demand when my GF's youngest wants to watch Oso Secret Agent Bear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Some Bond news: Q is returning in the next movie: http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-15889689 Makes me wonder if he'll be portrayed in the Desmond Llewelyn style, or the Alec McCowen version. Some other interesting quotes about "Skyfall": "While plot details are thin, Skyfall will be cutting ties with the story arc that connected Craig's earlier outings in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace."It doesn't connect with the last two movies," confirmed Mendes. CommanderBond.net's Dunphy thought it was a good decision. "They had something really good with Casino Royale. Arguably, for the first time in the series you became emotionally invested in the characters, and I think they wasted it with Quantum of Solace. So I think it's wise to cut losses." Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-15579556 Edited November 27, 2011 by sketchley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I think Q should be played by a older actor not some one younger than Bond I always thought of him as a mentor of Bond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I think Q should be played by a older actor not some one younger than Bond I always thought of him as a mentor of Bond. True. But some of the appealing things about a younger Q are that it's more easy to suspend disbelieve if he has great programming skills and google-fu. Not to mention a young techy character brings something to the franchise that the younger demographic can find something they can relate to in. Though, nowadays, I perceive M performing a maternal, mentoring role to Bond. Which has kind of taken over the mentoring aspect of Q's character... ... so maybe we won't get a lovable uncle Q, but a fun cousin Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 It also plays into the idea that James Bond is an alias, one that's handed down from agent to agent as are the other titles and positions like M and Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegadeleader1 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Personally I don't think it would be a good idea to drop all links to Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace now. At least keep the Quantum criminal organization around, but don't make any direct links to the previous two movies. Also given this title I wonder if its a remake of Doctor No, or maybe using the plot of the novel Moonraker. I just hope they don't do something stupid like involving arab terrorists hijacking planes. It also plays into the idea that James Bond is an alias, one that's handed down from agent to agent as are the other titles and positions like M and Q. Going by that theory the first 3 Bonds(Connery, Lazenby, and Moore) are the same person due to the references to Blofeld and Bonds wife which weren't seen again when Dalton took over. But that all gets a monkeywrench thrown in with Brosnan's Die another Day which uses props and references to all the previous bond movies, and Goldeneye in which Jack Wade references the plane Bond uses as being borrowed from a friend in the DEA, its "supposed" to be the same plane seen in liscense to kill. It would be easier to say Felix Leiter is a code name considering the actors portraying him go something like this... Young brown haired guy, old grey haired guy, black haired guy in his forties, preppy young blond haired guy guy, guy black hair going grey loses his leg to shark,(insert Jake Wade here), and finally the black guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Personally I don't think it would be a good idea to drop all links to Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace now. At least keep the Quantum criminal organization around, but don't make any direct links to the previous two movies. Agreed. Just because Quantum didn't deliver doesn't mean that they have to start completely over, unless of course they have an entirely new set of villainry that will eclipse the Quantum group. But having yet another uber-influential group to fight is silly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I liked Quantum... Even for those that did not like it, there is no reason to restart things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Saying "it does not connect" to the previous two doesn't necessarily mean reboot or restart. Same characters, previous movies still happened, but the plot is not a continuation of the previous. From that perspective, it's not a big deal. Really, Casino/Quantum were the first two Bond films I can remember that directly followed one another from a plot perspective since Diamonds Are Forever (which starts with Bond's intense and violent search for Blofeld in reaction to Tracy's murder). For all the rest, there were small references to previous films (e.g. From Russia With Love references Bond's killing of SPECTRE operative Dr. No), but the plots weren't really connected in any meaningful way, and most didn't even have significant back references, especially once the Connery era was over and SPECTRE/Blofeld were replaced by individual ubervillains. Interesting notion about "Bond" being an alias, but not one I'd care for. Certainly, everything so far implies one character with a single past (though before Casino, that past had totally veered into comic book "sliding history" territory). In all the books and movies, "Q" was actually the only real code name, standing for "Quartermaster". A lot of people thought "M" stood for "Master", but that was never put forth in the novels or movies. The character's real name was Miles Messervy in the novels. Fleming may have had him called "M" because the real head of MI-6 is colloquially called "C", which has come to mean "Chief" but was inherited from the first director Sir Mansfield Smith-Cumming's habit of signing documents with just a "C". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 Get ready to break the bank once again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanzilla Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Skyfall trailer: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/21/first-skyfall-teaser-trailer-released/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Looks interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Pity it doesn't look like Quantum/SPECTRE will be making a reappearance. I really enjoyed how that tied Casino Royale and Solace together. While SPECTRE as it was wouldn't really work well, cold war gone and all that, a captialistic Quantum made a perfect baddie for Bond this go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Quantum (the agency) was good, but Quantum (the movie) was terrible. Even before preproduction started, the producers had indicated that the new film would be separate from that story arc and Quantum (the agency) wouldn't appear. I have mixed feelings about the trailer. Yes, it looks like an interesting movie - but so, too, did the trailer for Quantum - which didn't turn out to be a very good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) More Hi-Res Skyfall Photos! Edited February 26, 2015 by areaseven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Quantum (the agency) was good, but Quantum (the movie) was terrible. Even before preproduction started, the producers had indicated that the new film would be separate from that story arc and Quantum (the agency) wouldn't appear. I have mixed feelings about the trailer. Yes, it looks like an interesting movie - but so, too, did the trailer for Quantum - which didn't turn out to be a very good one. Everyone keeps telling me Quantum wasn't good but nobody can articulate to me why it wasn't. I had no problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Everyone keeps telling me Quantum wasn't good but nobody can articulate to me why it wasn't. I had no problem with it. I thought it was leaps and bounds better then Casino Royale myself. Nearly fell asleep in CR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Everyone keeps telling me Quantum wasn't good but nobody can articulate to me why it wasn't. I had no problem with it. Here's a review I posted on another site awhile back. Hopefully it'll articulate why it wasn't good... as a James Bond Film. Quantum of SolaceNot James Bond. Yes, Daniel Craig is a great actor, and he gives another exhilarating performance in this movie - to the point that we feel that he really has been beat up, chewed up and spit out by the bad guys at the end of the movie. BUT... where is the set up? The foreplay? James Bond is a fantasy. It's why there has been 23 Bond films and a 24th in the works. This movie is completely devoid of the fantasy elements. Ordinarily that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, this movie strips out everything else - including character development - until we're left with a convoluted hyper-kinetic action movie from the Jason Borne mould. How's that? Well, the characters in a Jason Borne movie have no past, an impossible to grasp future and a confused now. They're all about the confused now. Just the now. And they are populated with confusing action sequences. This Bond has that. And it's not good. Paul Greengrass's much lamented action scene shooting technique serves a purpose. It underlines Borne's confusion and the chaos surrounding Borne. It's a great cinematic tool to highlight that character's mental situation. But it's not Bond. Bond is the opposite. He's cool. In control. Knows where he's been, what he's doing, and where he's going. The movie plays lip service to that, but then goes off the tracks. The lack of fantasy is also painfully apparent in the bad guys. Yes, they are truly vile real world realistic villains. So vile, in fact, that they take us right out of Bond's fantasy world and remind us of the real world that we're trying to escape in the fantasy land that Bond resides in! Sorry, I'd rather watch the news to get depressed about the state of the world and the future of mankind. Now, the movie isn't entirely bad. Daniel Craig gives another excellent performance as Bond. It's a shame the script let him down. Judi Dench IS the highlight of the movie, especially her grumblings to Bond. Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter is also great - most likely because his character is the only one that's developed! I'd like to recommend this movie just for the conclusion to the character arc established in Casino Royale, but as the movie doesn't involve itself in the character aftereffects and only stays focused on the action results, I can't recommend it for even that (hey, even the 3rd Borne movie put the 2nd movie's ending scene in context. Why couldn't this movie have done the same?) Biggest complaint: too much effort was spent on M's computerized desk, and not enough time was spent on the script! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 And here's the new Bond Girl Bérénice Marlohe as Sévérine. Jesus, look at the hourglass on that girl... I thought it was leaps and bounds better then Casino Royale myself. Nearly fell asleep in CR. Leaps and bounds? Fell asleep in 'Royale? Sarcasm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Here's a review I posted on another site awhile back. Hopefully it'll articulate why it wasn't good... as a James Bond Film. Well, it highlights why it wasn't a Sean Connery Bond Film. If you wanted that, you didn't like this one. I expected it to be like a Daniel Craig Bond film and I got that in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Well, it highlights why it wasn't a Sean Connery Bond Film. If you wanted that, you didn't like this one. I expected it to be like a Daniel Craig Bond film and I got that in spades. Who says anything about a Sean Connery Bond film? I consider Casino Royale one of the better, if not THE best Bond Film. So, Daniel Craig playing Bond has nothing to do with why Quantum of Solace is epic fail in my book. But don't take this post for it, here's my review of CR: http://nomansland.site.nfoservers.com/MRG-Active-Archive/forums/index.php?topic=2598.msg42154#msg42154 (and almost all the other Bond films) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Who says anything about a Sean Connery Bond film? I consider Casino Royale one of the better, if not THE best Bond Film. So, Daniel Craig playing Bond has nothing to do with why Quantum of Solace is epic fail in my book. But don't take this post for it, here's my review of CR: http://nomansland.si...g42154#msg42154 (and almost all the other Bond films) You say right in your review that Bond Films are fantasy. I took that to mean like the original Connery Films oward. How does Casino Royale, which was conceived to be more like the books then the old campy films, fit into that paradigm while Quantum doesn't? Also: "But it's not Bond. Bond is the opposite. He's cool. In control. Knows where he's been, what he's doing, and where he's going." Daniel Craig was not cool, in control or had a clue where he was going in Casino Royale, it was his very first mission, and this movie picks up right after that so why would any of that have changed in the twenty minute gap between the credit roll of Casino and the opening of Quantum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Did you miss the parts where I said the villains in QoS are too realistic? How many girls does he get with? But nevermind... you liked it, I was greatly disappointed by it, because it did a piss-poor job continuing CR's story. JB not cool, in control or had a clue in CR? Did we watch the same movie? Yes, there are times that those descriptors don't apply, but it sounds suspiciously like you're stating that he wasn't cool, was out of control and clueless for the entire movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Did you miss the parts where I said the villains in QoS are too realistic? How many girls does he get with? But nevermind... you liked it, I was greatly disappointed by it, because it did a piss-poor job continuing CR's story. JB not cool, in control or had a clue in CR? Did we watch the same movie? Yes, there are times that those descriptors don't apply, but it sounds suspiciously like you're stating that he wasn't cool, was out of control and clueless for the entire movie... Wait, what? The whole story arc of CR was to take a raw, emotional agent and turn him into JB. He even quits to go live happily ever after with his GF and then has his friend tortured because he doesn't have a clear enemy to hit at the end of the movie. I'm sorry, but if you think JB was cool and in control in CR then you obviously didn't watch the same movie as everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derex3592 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) "I consider Casino Royale one of the better, if not THE best Bond Film. So, Daniel Craig playing Bond has nothing to do with why Quantum of Solace is epic fail in my book." This. and for SURE THIS! "The whole story arc of CR was to take a raw, emotional agent and turn him into JB. He even quits to go live happily ever after with his GF and then has his friend tortured because he doesn't have a clear enemy to hit at the end of the movie. I'm sorry, but if you think JB was cool and in control in CR then you obviously didn't watch the same movie as everyone else." BIG +1 Edited May 23, 2012 by derex3592 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Quantum of Solace was a great film. A refreshing break from the chiche bond format. Totally badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Wait, what? The whole story arc of CR was to take a raw, emotional agent and turn him into JB. He even quits to go live happily ever after with his GF and then has his friend tortured because he doesn't have a clear enemy to hit at the end of the movie. I'm sorry, but if you think JB was cool and in control in CR then you obviously didn't watch the same movie as everyone else. again: Yes, there are times that those descriptors don't apply, but it sounds suspiciously like you're stating that he wasn't cool, was out of control and clueless for the entire movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegablue Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 again: Yes, there are times that those descriptors don't apply, but it sounds suspiciously like you're stating that he wasn't cool, was out of control and clueless for the entire movie... For the most part he was brutish, clumsy, over confident and could barely keep his head above water. In both movies he had small moments, because he has some of what Bond becomes which is why M took a chance on him, but he's absolutely green and doesn't have his footing in either films yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.