The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1123124126128129190

Comments

  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 210</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>James Bond is not an "action hero".</b></font>

    Errrrrr DISAGREE!!!! Without question he is the original action hero for me! Super hero? no! Action hero? Yes!!!! Thats an easy thesis! ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 211</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>If they ever go back to Quantum, they should do so within the Craig era.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    When we next see them, yes but there's no reason this threat can't be ongoing for many films.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    AGREE! We need to wrap this story up, at least in some part and not leave it unfinished.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Thesis 210: agree. Yes peeps, I do. Bond is far more than 'just' an action hero. Does action in a movie automatically make the hero an 'action hero'? I think not. Action hero's play in action movies: movies of which the script is designed to put as much fighting and as many explosions together in one film. How much fighting does Bond do in TLD, or LTK? If he'd been an action hero he'd have gone into the coke.. eh, I mean fish storage with guns blazing. Bond balances on a fine line between action, spy thriller, and even drama. If he'd just been an action hero he'd never ever lasted this long.

    Thesis 211: absolutely. They don't need to finish it off, but it needs more of a fundamental base before someone else could take over with Quantom as foe.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 211</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>If they ever go back to Quantum, they should do so within the Craig era.</b></font>

    Agree Agree Agree!!!! Without a doubt this should happen. I am hoping that Logan is incorporating them into Bonds 24 & 25? Therefore giving DC to put them to bed once and for all! Starting with Mr White! B-)
  • Posts: 7,653
    agree
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Agree - and I personally hope they do. Bring Quantum back in a smart way, definitely during Craig's tenure.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Yes, I hope they bring them back in the next Bond film - I imagine that they will.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I'm not sure Quantum really caught on and if anyone would really care if they came back in another film, i can't see it being revisited.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I'm not sure Quantum really caught on and if anyone would really care if they came back in another film, i can't see it being revisited.
    Well, as you can see from the posts above, some people care ;) . I also agree with the thesis and hope they come back sooner than later.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I'm all a bit indifferent to a return of Quantum. We saw them involved in the first two Craig releases, and then omitted for Skyfall ? They'll be back however, you would expect it, and it has to be Craig's Bond that deals with them again. Would just feel strange having another Bond actor getting involved

    Therefore, going with thesis on this one
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'm all a bit indifferent to a return of Quantum. We saw them involved in the first two Craig releases, and then omitted for Skyfall ? They'll be back however, you would expect it, and it has to be Craig's Bond that deals with them again. Would just feel strange having another Bond actor getting involved

    Therefore, going with thesis on this one

    We had no SPECTRE in GF either, so it isn't that unusual.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 1,310
    Agree.

    Put the story to bed with one last film and never go back to it. Although I have to say, if Quantum is never mentioned again the only people who are going to remember them are the ones on this forum.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,569
    Agree. If Craig only does two more films, then I'd like to see Quantum return for his final one- with him taking down the whole organization. If Craig does three (or more) after SF, then maybe give him a part 1 & 2 film where he discovers a Quantum agent and makes his way up the ladder to the head of the organization. I tend to think Quantum should be dealt with in Craig's era alone.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 212</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The stylish opening of the SF opening title sequence compensates for the lack of information about Bond's way of surviving.</b></font>
  • No, on several levels. First, I think the title sequence is irrelevant to the explanation of Bond's escape. I do not see how they are related. Second, I don't think the title sequence was as great as some do. They're not bad, but nothing amazing. Third, I was distinctly disappointed in the lack of explanation of Bond's escape, which could have been one of the film's finest moments.

    Instead we are left with an image of Bond falling some hundred feet into a river after being shot, then sinking beneath the waves. When we return, he has magically recovered and is even mid-coitus. It is nonsensical and stretches the suspension of disbelief. It is Skyfall's greatest missed opportunity.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,081
    No, on several levels. First, I think the title sequence is irrelevant to the explanation of Bond's escape. I do not see how they are related. Second, I don't think the title sequence was as great as some do. They're not bad, but nothing amazing. Third, I was distinctly disappointed in the lack of explanation of Bond's escape, which could have been one of the film's finest moments.

    Instead we are left with an image of Bond falling some hundred feet into a river after being shot, then sinking beneath the waves. When we return, he has magically recovered and is even mid-coitus. It is nonsensical and stretches the suspension of disbelief. It is Skyfall's greatest missed opportunity.

    Actually we see somebody grab his wrist and clothes, starting to pull him out of the water. (The normal sized hands, before the huge non-real one pulling him downwards appears.) I didn't feel further explanation was needed; he was helped out of the water, so obviously he was helped after that as well, not just left unconscious on the shore. Going over all that and his recovery over those 3 months was not necessary, IMO.

    Let's see... I felt the beginning of the title sequence is, indeed, stylish, and I think it provides enough information about Bond's survival. So does that count as me agreeing with the thesis? :P Sorry, foreign language... Oh heck... You native speakers try and figure out what I'm trying to say, I'm confused by the word "compensates"... it's been a long day...

  • Tuulia wrote:
    No, on several levels. First, I think the title sequence is irrelevant to the explanation of Bond's escape. I do not see how they are related. Second, I don't think the title sequence was as great as some do. They're not bad, but nothing amazing. Third, I was distinctly disappointed in the lack of explanation of Bond's escape, which could have been one of the film's finest moments.

    Instead we are left with an image of Bond falling some hundred feet into a river after being shot, then sinking beneath the waves. When we return, he has magically recovered and is even mid-coitus. It is nonsensical and stretches the suspension of disbelief. It is Skyfall's greatest missed opportunity.

    Actually we see somebody grab his wrist and clothes, starting to pull him out of the water. (The normal sized hands, before the huge non-real one pulling him downwards appears.) I didn't feel further explanation was needed; he was helped out of the water, so obviously he was helped after that as well, not just left unconscious on the shore. Going over all that and his recovery over those 3 months was not necessary, IMO.

    Is there really? Guess I'll have to rewatch the title sequence then. It still would be better shown outside the title sequence, or even having some cool, "Only James Bond" story behind it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    No, on several levels. First, I think the title sequence is irrelevant to the explanation of Bond's escape. I do not see how they are related. Second, I don't think the title sequence was as great as some do. They're not bad, but nothing amazing. Third, I was distinctly disappointed in the lack of explanation of Bond's escape, which could have been one of the film's finest moments.

    Instead we are left with an image of Bond falling some hundred feet into a river after being shot, then sinking beneath the waves. When we return, he has magically recovered and is even mid-coitus. It is nonsensical and stretches the suspension of disbelief. It is Skyfall's greatest missed opportunity.

    I agree. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

    I dont really care that Bonds survival is not explained - he was washed up on the river bank, a Turkish peasant fished him out - we dont really need to know. What I find more annoying is the height of the fall is too much. If the bridge had been even just 33% lower I wouldnt have a problem but this just seems too high even though within the laws of phsyics it might just be survivable.

    And even the fall is not the main thing. Hes already been shot by Patrice and then Eve puts a pretty high calibre round through him so by the time hes in the water he must be pretty shocking nick. Once hes survived all that, how he is fished out of the river is rather a moot point.

  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Tuulia wrote:
    No, on several levels. First, I think the title sequence is irrelevant to the explanation of Bond's escape. I do not see how they are related. Second, I don't think the title sequence was as great as some do. They're not bad, but nothing amazing. Third, I was distinctly disappointed in the lack of explanation of Bond's escape, which could have been one of the film's finest moments.

    Instead we are left with an image of Bond falling some hundred feet into a river after being shot, then sinking beneath the waves. When we return, he has magically recovered and is even mid-coitus. It is nonsensical and stretches the suspension of disbelief. It is Skyfall's greatest missed opportunity.

    Actually we see somebody grab his wrist and clothes, starting to pull him out of the water. (The normal sized hands, before the huge non-real one pulling him downwards appears.) I didn't feel further explanation was needed; he was helped out of the water, so obviously he was helped after that as well, not just left unconscious on the shore. Going over all that and his recovery over those 3 months was not necessary, IMO.

    Is there really? Guess I'll have to rewatch the title sequence then. It still would be better shown outside the title sequence, or even having some cool, "Only James Bond" story behind it.

    It's right before Adele sings the first words "This is the end..." The story of what's actually happening to Bond (physically) merges pretty much seamlessly into "the rabbit hole to the underworld" of the title sequence, and personally I liked that. Obviously it's a matter of taste and not everyone likes it.
    The words "This is the end" mark the beginning of the actual title sequence with all the dream/nightmare/memories/death imagery... "I've drowned and dreamt this moment..." :)

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited May 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Disagree. It doesn't need to compensate for anything.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Disagree. It doesn't need to compensate for anything.

    Personally, I agree with this. It's a Bond movie and there is a certain fantasy element that you just have to roll with. That being said, there are more than a few people who have criticized this scene. A close friend of mine, who is just a casual Bond fan, said it about ruined the movie for him. So perhaps they went too far with this one just like the motorcycle jump in the PTS of GoldenEye.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    pachazo wrote:
    Disagree. It doesn't need to compensate for anything.

    Personally, I agree with this. It's a Bond movie and there is a certain fantasy element that you just have to roll with. That being said, there are more than a few people who have criticized this scene. A close friend of mine, who is just a casual Bond fan, said it about ruined the movie for him. So perhaps they went too far with this one just like the motorcycle jump in the PTS of GoldenEye.

    Exactly. I feel some people have forgotten that they are watching a Bond film, and therefore forgot that they are expected to suspend some disbelief. Bond survived the fall. So what? We have seen a villain inflate and blow up into little pieces, a double-taking pigeon, countless world domination plots, glacier surfing, Bond riding a gondola through crowds, turning Japanese (not), diffusing bombs with literally no seconds to spare, diving off a cliff to get into a plane while in mid-air, and make it perfectly clear to those around him that he is a British agent and more, yet everyone gets up in arms about his fall over the bridge? REALLY?! I mean, come on folks. You can make the argument that because Dan's Bond is gritty and more realistic these outlandish events aren't allowed, but that doesn't change the fact that these are Bond films and include things that can only happen in Bond films, regardless of how realistic they are trying to be.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Disagree: I think it was just a way of it cleverly going into the title sequence and that's it.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Disagree. It doesn't need to compensate for anything.

    That's sort of what I was thinking... I first wrote I disagree, then thought about the thesis some more and wondered if I was reading the wording of it wrong and I agreed with it after all? :P


    RogueAgent wrote:
    Disagree: I think it was just a way of it cleverly going into the title sequence and that's it.

    That makes perfect sense to me as well. :)


    About the fall from the train: I agree with those who feel it's no big deal that Bond survives that. Yes, it's a bit extreme, but on the Bond scale it isn't, not really; it is just about within possibility unlike many other things in Bond movies. Also, there are actual incredible survival stories that seem unlikely, but are true. I mean Bond surviving that fall is not less realistic than some true stories.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Disagree, there is never given any explanation how Bond survived. It is a given........ sadly some Bondfans think it is no big deal being shot twice falling from a high bridge and survive that without any questions asked and off the radar of any intelligence service. I would call that totally impossible...............
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited May 2013 Posts: 16,351
    According to this video, he just washes up on Shore. Skip to 10:00 and watch the rest from there.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 2013 Posts: 8,216
    Murdock wrote:
    According to this video, he just washes up on Shore. Skip to 10:00 and watch the rest from there.

    Sorry to go off topic but what godawful gameplay that is.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote:
    According to this video, he just washes up on Shore. Skip to 10:00 and watch the rest from there.
    They also get the location of Bond's bullet wounds wrong and countless other factors of the PTS. Activision and Eurocom obviously aren't to be relied upon for correctness in anything, considering what they changed in the Bond films featured in the "game" including Skyfall.
Sign In or Register to comment.