No Time To Die: Production Diary

19629639659679682507

Comments

  • edited August 2017 Posts: 386
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Bondjames, say it ain't so :)

    I totally understand those who like Mendes, they can point to very good box office, a widely popular entry in SF, two features that look immaculate.

    What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality.

    There is nothing enduring about the Mendes aesthetic. I've seen several fans comment that they find re-watching the Mendes double a "slog". I agree.

    The problem for us fans is that Mendes clearly set these vehicles up as ultra-sensory cinematic spectacles with wide appeal. Yes, I agree - that shouldn't be a criticism.

    What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them. They offer "big" dramatic beats that lose heat as soon as they are witnessed the first time. They look sumptuous but are curiously devoid of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that typically define a classic Bond film.

    Mendes submerges Bond in an alluring ocean of visual style at the expense of the man himself. The wrinkles in his character are strangled until there is nothing much left but a morbid stillness.

    My wife, a casual and dispassionate Bond fan if ever there was one, thoroughly enjoyed SF in the cinema and has zero interest in a repeat viewing. My wife is the one Mendes wanted to appeal to. He knew he already had me.

    I also took my wife to CR five years before that. She didn't understand why a card game took up so much time. I tried to explain why it was the human detail within that extended sequence that typified by deep love of the film itself, but she couldn't quite understand.

    I revisited TLD last night. John Glen rises in my estimation every time I watch an 80s entry. His direction is so concise, so brilliantly efficient, that he fits more human detail, more quirk, more fun into half an hour than Mendes does in his two features.

    I understand that my assessment of Mendes may be grossly unfair, but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages.

    The only director to achieve that feat since John Glen is Martin Campbell.

    It's all a matter of opinion. But the way you writing it makes it sound like it's all fact. Like you are the next Roger Ebert sans style and respect. And that, to me, is pretentious and slightly arrogant. One could use wordings like "I personally feel", or "personally, it is of my opinion that...". Then again, you are new here. Welcome anyway.

    Sorry you feel that way GG and I respect your opinion. As I do everyone in here, we're all Bond fans.

    Just so you know, I'm not planning on prefacing everything I say with "IMO". It is implicit in my observations and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Like at the end of DN and FRWL.

    Gee, I really wish Barry composed a different track for FRWL's climax. I read somewhere that Norman's track was used for budgetary reasons, can anybody confirm?

    They put it in without Barry's knowledge and he was angry about it. Same situation when the Dr. No Bond theme was used during the YOLT Helicopter fight and OHMSS Piz Gloria raid. Barry offered to compose new tracks but they opted to using that Bond them instead.

    If only they'd inserted the original Bond theme into some of SP's sequences.

    Christ I'd almost prefer that terrible DN/FRWL climax music to Newman's reheated leftovers.

    Agreed. At least I can remember what that music sounds like. I can't even remember half of Newman's tracks. =))

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 11,119
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Bondjames, say it ain't so :)

    I totally understand those who like Mendes, they can point to very good box office, a widely popular entry in SF, two features that look immaculate.

    What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality.

    There is nothing enduring about the Mendes aesthetic. I've seen several fans comment that they find re-watching the Mendes double a "slog". I agree.

    The problem for us fans is that Mendes clearly set these vehicles up as ultra-sensory cinematic spectacles with wide appeal. Yes, I agree - that shouldn't be a criticism.

    What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them. They offer "big" dramatic beats that lose heat as soon as they are witnessed the first time. They look sumptuous but are curiously devoid of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that typically define a classic Bond film.

    Mendes submerges Bond in an alluring ocean of visual style at the expense of the man himself. The wrinkles in his character are strangled until there is nothing much left but a morbid stillness.

    My wife, a casual and dispassionate Bond fan if ever there was one, thoroughly enjoyed SF in the cinema and has zero interest in a repeat viewing. My wife is the one Mendes wanted to appeal to. He knew he already had me.

    I also took my wife to CR five years before that. She didn't understand why a card game took up so much time. I tried to explain why it was the human detail within that extended sequence that typified by deep love of the film itself, but she couldn't quite understand.

    I revisited TLD last night. John Glen rises in my estimation every time I watch an 80s entry. His direction is so concise, so brilliantly efficient, that he fits more human detail, more quirk, more fun into half an hour than Mendes does in his two features.

    I understand that my assessment of Mendes may be grossly unfair, but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages.

    The only director to achieve that feat since John Glen is Martin Campbell.

    It's all a matter of opinion. But the way you writing it makes it sound like it's all fact. Like you are the next Roger Ebert sans style and respect. And that, to me, is pretentious and slightly arrogant. One could use wordings like "I personally feel", or "personally, it is of my opinion that...". Then again, you are new here. Welcome anyway.

    He actually wrote that comment extremely well and offered a perfectly reasonable view of Mendes. I am not sure what the problem is.

    "What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them" kind of says the same thing that you're saying he did not say.

    Not trying to cause an argument - just think you're being extremely harsh.

    "What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality."

    or

    "but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages."

    You know, I think that in itself to me sounds rather harsh. And we are all entitled to harshness on a forum. But I do think Sam Mendes is still a human being. And I always try to envision how he would react if someone was saying that straight in his face.

    Perhaps I am a bit sensitive, but I think any normal human being would find that rather harsh. I know Mendes is a pro and he obviously can deal with such criticism. But if I were talking with Mendes...or with Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton or Sam Mendes, I always try to envision that I have a respectful and insightful discussion in which we can agree or disagree on opinions.....without using too many of the words I quoted in bold.

    Currently, I am writing a 'letter' to Neal Purvis & Robert Wade. I will post it later on this forum. In that letter you can actually read how respectful one can be without using too many of such harsh words.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    TripAces wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    giphy.gif
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    00Agent wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I just thought it was refreshing for the film to not be resolved in traditional Bond victory. YOLT, OHMSS, CR have a little bit of that too. SF is a unique and terrific Bond film all around for me, and its resolution is definitely a big reason why.

    I've never gone crazy over seeing a Door as much as at the end of Skyfall. I was literllay jumping up and down in my seat...

    I don't get that part. With Skyfall blowing up and Q's non-gadgets, the film seems to be saying the past should be shed, but at the end we get Moneypenny and the office.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    mattjoes wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I just thought it was refreshing for the film to not be resolved in traditional Bond victory. YOLT, OHMSS, CR have a little bit of that too. SF is a unique and terrific Bond film all around for me, and its resolution is definitely a big reason why.

    I've never gone crazy over seeing a Door as much as at the end of Skyfall. I was literllay jumping up and down in my seat...

    I don't get that part. With Skyfall blowing up and Q's non-gadgets, the film seems to be saying the past should be shed, but at the end we get Moneypenny and the office.

    Exactly, tonal imbalance. They signaled a return to classic form, only to royally screw up an attempt at the classic formula in SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I would like to say that although I may not agree with everything in @GetCarter 's earlier post, I too thought it was very well written. I didn't take any offense from what he stated because he wasn't addressing any member here in that post. I understood that he was merely expressing his opinion on this franchise which we all love. He is entitled to that imho, and I look forward to reading more of his posts & thoughts.

    I'm sure Sam has better things to do with his time than come here and read our musings and ramblings, and I'm quite certain that if any of us ever wanted to write something directly to him, we would word it in a fashion that wouldn't cause offense.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Everyone thats been here as long as I have ( if not longer) knows how much I hate skyfall. But I have to say I love the way that it ends. No bond film has gotten me more excited at the end then skyfall, every time I watched it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Everyone thats been here as long as I have ( if not longer) knows how much I hate skyfall. But I have to say I love the way that it ends. No bond film has gotten me more excited at the end then skyfall, every time I watched it.
    +1. That makes two of us.
  • Posts: 386
    bondjames wrote: »
    I would like to say that although I may not agree with everything in @GetCarter 's earlier post, I too thought it was very well written. I didn't take any offense from what he stated because he wasn't addressing any member here in that post. I understood that he was merely expressing his opinion on this franchise which we all love. He is entitled to that imho, and I look forward to reading more of his posts & thoughts.

    I'm sure Sam has better things to do with his time than come here and read our musings and ramblings, and I'm quite certain that if any of us ever wanted to write something directly to him, we would word it in a fashion that wouldn't cause offense.

    Indeed, Bondjames.

    If I ever met Mendes (unlikely) I'd compliment his taste in women and profess my love of American Beauty, but politely steer the conversation away from Bond :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Anyone who wants Soderbergh to direct B25, better see LL--

    Let's just say the acting, and it was great from the entire cast, couldn't save what felt like a first draft script with a great soundtrack.

    (and DC (with Adam Driver) was brilliant)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,589
    peter wrote: »
    Anyone who wants Soderbergh to direct B25, better see LL--

    Let's just say the acting, and it was great from the entire cast, couldn't save what felt like a first draft script with a great soundtrack.

    (and DC (with Adam Driver) was brilliant)

    Based on your criticism, this is only a problem if Bond 25 is a bad script. But I disagree: LL isn't a poorly-written film.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 3,278
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    I hope for Bond 25 that bright colours return. SF was pretty dark in colour as is SP. SP also has this yellow glow on a lot of scenes. Just imagine how much colour the Mexico scenes could have brought to the screen.

    Thank God for the Lumetri panel in Adobe Premiere ;-)

    Let's see it!

    Just uploaded. They went overboard with the colorgrading. Example from my own version and personal preference (comments appreciated):


    GetCarter wrote: »
    My wife, a casual and dispassionate Bond fan if ever there was one, thoroughly enjoyed SF in the cinema and has zero interest in a repeat viewing. My wife is the one Mendes wanted to appeal to. He knew he already had me.

    Precisely! SF is probably the only Bond film I don't feel like ever watching again though (except the PCS). So sad!
    GetCarter wrote: »
    I revisited TLD last night. John Glen rises in my estimation every time I watch an 80s entry. His direction is so concise, so brilliantly efficient, that he fits more human detail, more quirk, more fun into half an hour than Mendes does in his two features.

    Same thing can be said about Lewis Gilbert. Silly, but visually stunning and one hell of a ride. All three of them. And don't get me started on Barry's cues in two of them ;-)
  • Posts: 5,767
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Just uploaded. They went overboard with the colorgrading. Example from my own version and personal preference (comments appreciated):
    That´s very interesting to see. When it switches to the original, I instantly get a hot, depressing feeling. I wonder if that was intentional. Perhaps I will watch the film again and try to take note more of such impressions throughout.
    In any case it seems as if no matter what color grading the lighting is a bit off.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Everyone thats been here as long as I have ( if not longer) knows how much I hate skyfall. But I have to say I love the way that it ends. No bond film has gotten me more excited at the end then skyfall, every time I watched it.

    Yes. Wouldn't say I hate SF. Just found it massively overhyped and not a film I ever choose to rewatch. But the ending was great. I'd wanted the old office back for years.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Mendes isn't coming back and if he knows what's good for him he won't entertain the idea of returning. EoN have Had so much time to reflect and rewatch their catalogue of Bond films, there's no way they can do that and want Mendes back. Time for EoN to get deadly serious for Bond 25.


  • Posts: 1,162
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Bondjames, say it ain't so :)

    I totally understand those who like Mendes, they can point to very good box office, a widely popular entry in SF, two features that look immaculate.

    What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality.

    There is nothing enduring about the Mendes aesthetic. I've seen several fans comment that they find re-watching the Mendes double a "slog". I agree.

    The problem for us fans is that Mendes clearly set these vehicles up as ultra-sensory cinematic spectacles with wide appeal. Yes, I agree - that shouldn't be a criticism.

    What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them. They offer "big" dramatic beats that lose heat as soon as they are witnessed the first time. They look sumptuous but are curiously devoid of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that typically define a classic Bond film.

    Mendes submerges Bond in an alluring ocean of visual style at the expense of the man himself. The wrinkles in his character are strangled until there is nothing much left but a morbid stillness.

    My wife, a casual and dispassionate Bond fan if ever there was one, thoroughly enjoyed SF in the cinema and has zero interest in a repeat viewing. My wife is the one Mendes wanted to appeal to. He knew he already had me.

    I also took my wife to CR five years before that. She didn't understand why a card game took up so much time. I tried to explain why it was the human detail within that extended sequence that typified by deep love of the film itself, but she couldn't quite understand.

    I revisited TLD last night. John Glen rises in my estimation every time I watch an 80s entry. His direction is so concise, so brilliantly efficient, that he fits more human detail, more quirk, more fun into half an hour than Mendes does in his two features.

    I understand that my assessment of Mendes may be grossly unfair, but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages.

    The only director to achieve that feat since John Glen is Martin Campbell.

    It's all a matter of opinion. But the way you writing it makes it sound like it's all fact. Like you are the next Roger Ebert sans style and respect. And that, to me, is pretentious and slightly arrogant. One could use wordings like "I personally feel", or "personally, it is of my opinion that...". Then again, you are new here. Welcome anyway.

    He actually wrote that comment extremely well and offered a perfectly reasonable view of Mendes. I am not sure what the problem is.

    "What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them" kind of says the same thing that you're saying he did not say.

    Not trying to cause an argument - just think you're being extremely harsh.

    "What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality."

    or

    "but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages."

    You know, I think that in itself to me sounds rather harsh. And we are all entitled to harshness on a forum. But I do think Sam Mendes is still a human being. And I always try to envision how he would react if someone was saying that straight in his face.

    Perhaps I am a bit sensitive, but I think any normal human being would find that rather harsh. I know Mendes is a pro and he obviously can deal with such criticism. But if I were talking with Mendes...or with Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton or Sam Mendes, I always try to envision that I have a respectful and insightful discussion in which we can agree or disagree on opinions.....without using too many of the words I quoted in bold.

    Currently, I am writing a 'letter' to Neal Purvis & Robert Wade. I will post it later on this forum. In that letter you can actually read how respectful one can be without using too many of such harsh words.

    You know, actually you're about the last person on this forum to criticize anyone about speaking in absolutes, but most of all " I see" and "I maintain " are obviously ways to say "in my opinion".
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    What if instead of speculation, we devoted our time to the analysis and appreciation of the Bond series? This seems to be getting us nowhere currently, and speculation will never match true indepth analysis or review. That's what makes Bond fans who they are. Its worth giving serious thought and attention, as the situation at present cannot be helped. I definitely need to think about this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Mendes isn't coming back and if he knows what's good for him he won't entertain the idea of returning. EoN have Had so much time to reflect and rewatch their catalogue of Bond films, there's no way they can do that and want Mendes back. Time for EoN to get deadly serious for Bond 25.
    It would be helpful to get some confirmation on what he is going to be up to for the next year before I can confidently say the same.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,043
    I'm almost 99% convinced that Sam Mendes is not coming back, I'm afraid I do believe those reports of him and Dan falling out, it all just rings too true with how that film turned out.

    I think it's pretty safe to assume we'll see a completely new face in the directors chair when it's announced, I think they know they are done with the Sam Mendes show.

    Look Campbell got 2 why should Mendes get anymore? This not the Cubby days where you can have a John Glenn directing more than 3 and LG was only asked back for a 3rd because SWLM completely reinvigorated the series and Rog obviously had great chemistry with Lewis Gilbert.

    I think all that great working relationship that Dan and Sam clearly had on Skyfall got burnt on the set of SPECTRE.

    In years to come it will be quite fascinating when it's actually revealed what went down on that production as these things do after a time come out in a future Bond publication.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,334
    Zekidk wrote: »

    Just uploaded. They went overboard with the colorgrading. Example from my own version and personal preference (comments appreciated):


    Thanks for that! I think it does make a huge difference, allthough it's difficult to say on a small screen. But it comes more alive somehow. Especially the elevator. I think it would really work wonders with the helicopter scene, as many here seem to think it's cgi whilst it was all done in reality. Maybe it'd look more 'real' and exiting.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 3,278
    Thanks for that! I think it does make a huge difference, allthough it's difficult to say on a small screen. But it comes more alive somehow. Especially the elevator. I think it would really work wonders with the helicopter scene, as many here seem to think it's cgi whilst it was all done in reality. Maybe it'd look more 'real' and exiting.

    "Real" for certain. Meaning that the sky for example is blue, and not lightbrown/yellow due to colorgrading.

    SF and SP have been heavily colorgraded. Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I always prefer a more natural color palette. I do understand the creative choices however, Mexico being brown-yellow, Rome orange, Austria grey-white and so forth. CR and QoS were also colorgraded. But, unlike SF and SP, they generally only boosted certain colors that were already there, they didn't change the whole color palette.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    the trades published the short list of directors. Mendes wasn't one of them. P&W confirmed it was time for change previously. Discuss the short list director's work not speculation on Mendes return from conspiracy theories.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Agreed time to concentrate on that rather than Mendes it's time to move on. If I didn't know better I'd think some want this to fail.

    I'm a Bond fan yes but I don't subscribe liking all the eras, with the exception GE (and my change was only recent on that) I really don't like Pierces films and DC's film bought me back into the fold big time.

    One of the reason I'm so vocal over my dislike of SPECTRE is because I'm a big advocate of Daniel Craig and that film just didn't deliver like I expected.

    That being said I'm all behind them picking up where they left off, dealing with it and giving DC a great swansong and not keep harping on about Mendes returning.

    We've had a shortlist and I think Yann is the likely candidate unless DC does have the clout to suggest Soderbergh after working with him on Logan Lucky and BB & MGW be on the same page. I know some think that DC gets his own way but I think those 2 do still get the last say and DC wanted RH for the theme on SPECTRE and BB and MGW overruled that.

    I think the director will always come down to those 2 and DC can suggest who he likes but Barbara and Michael will always get the final say.

    I can't see Denis wanting to do a film that is closing an era and more likely to doing a one with the next guy like Nolan.

    While I'm trying to temper my expectation, look we've got more than 2 years before the finished product is in front of us, we've got some big announcements to expect between now and then and even if they all seems to fit into place the proof will be on the screen late 2019.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Can't we agree on the fact that all of Craig's Bond outings are good to a certain extend? I mean really guys, did Sean Connery only make fantastic films? Did Roger Moore make 7 juwels of Bond films? I think we can all agree that every Bond film has or should have a special place in our hearts:

    6cuZo0f.jpg

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    oh dear Dog, not Soderbergh... LL was so tonally all over the place, the pacing was ridiculous for a breezy heist-comedy, the editing was "off"... it felt sloppy, all except for the look of the film, the soundtrack/songs used and the performances (although, in retrospect, Hillary Swank did seem out of place, going for the "laugh", and didn't match her peers in this film, funnily enough).

    If they go for Soderbergh, they're stepping right back into Sam Mendes territory again.

    I have a feeling though, they want a director they can collaborate with, and stamp more of their suggestions into him, when they hit a cross-roads. I don't think they're looking at directors who want to put their "unique" spin for DC's last one. I think the producers have a vision and a goal in mind, and that is to give DC what no Bond has done before: end on a high note, both critically and financially.

    I think this is what is driving them this time out.

    In the end, all empty speculation, I suppose-- but the powers that be at EoN are far sharper than any of us give them credit for. They always respond "big" when they hit a "low". SP was a low for the Craig era. My empty prediction is: we are going to see a great Bond film in "25"; not a re-hash or an attempt to do CR, but, instead, the effort, the all-hands-on-deck approach, to swing for the fences, that we saw in CR, will be evident in this upcoming film.
  • Posts: 1,985
    Can't we agree on the fact that all of Craig's Bond outings are good to a certain extend? I mean really guys, did Sean Connery only make fantastic films? Did Roger Moore make 7 juwels of Bond films? I think we can all agree that every Bond film has or should have a special place in our hearts:

    6cuZo0f.jpg

    Nope not QoS. Im sorry but that is the worst Bond film of all time. Every time I re watch it I end up hating it even more. When you watch CR, SF, & SP they feel like Bond films, QOS does not feel like one at all. I can never get behind it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Can't we agree on the fact that all of Craig's Bond outings are good to a certain extend? I mean really guys, did Sean Connery only make fantastic films? Did Roger Moore make 7 juwels of Bond films? I think we can all agree that every Bond film has or should have a special place in our hearts:

    6cuZo0f.jpg

    That's not a "fact" though. I'll give SF the benefit of the doubt and say while I don't personally like it, it is a very well made film, but SP is just bad. 'Factually good' is the last term I'd use to describe it. It has its moments, but nothing that comes close to saving the movie.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Can't we agree on the fact that all of Craig's Bond outings are good to a certain extend? I mean really guys, did Sean Connery only make fantastic films? Did Roger Moore make 7 juwels of Bond films? I think we can all agree that every Bond film has or should have a special place in our hearts:

    6cuZo0f.jpg

    That's not a "fact" though. I'll give SF the benefit of the doubt and say while I don't personally like it, it is a very well made film, but SP is just bad. 'Factually good' is the last term I'd use to describe it. It has its moments, but nothing that comes close to saving the movie.

    Yet, even SP is a Bond film. Not a random action flick. We are all Bond films. And in the end we all learn to appeciate at least parts of th mediocre Bond films. True no? TMWTGG, AVTAK.......we tend to rewatch them because they have some oldtimer/classic status. Not because they are good, but because they are Bond films. And eventually this will also count for QOS and SP. Perhaps not now, since they are a bit too...new. But to me they are as worthy as TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAF and even DAD.
  • Posts: 7,616
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Can't we agree on the fact that all of Craig's Bond outings are good to a certain extend? I mean really guys, did Sean Connery only make fantastic films? Did Roger Moore make 7 juwels of Bond films? I think we can all agree that every Bond film has or should have a special place in our hearts:

    6cuZo0f.jpg

    That's not a "fact" though. I'll give SF the benefit of the doubt and say while I don't personally like it, it is a very well made film, but SP is just bad. 'Factually good' is the last term I'd use to describe it. It has its moments, but nothing that comes close to saving the movie.

    Thats still 3 out of 4 Creasy!! Like myself, love all bar SF so, a success imho
Sign In or Register to comment.