It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
IMO the first 4 movies Connery era have strong influence from North by Northwest
the fashion, latin neighborhood , drug wars, the sea scenes, those are my reasons that LTK is Miami Vice produced by EON...maybe its just me my friend, if you LTK is not influenced by Miami Vice its okay...but to me its very much highly get influence from Miami VIce. I sometimes imagined if the Bond theme in LTK replaced by Miami Vice themes is very much support the stories.
with the addition scenes where James bond riding a motorcycle chasing by helicopter, and try to kill bond with its helicopter rotor,that scenes its very much influenced by John woo movies,
yes there is no religious themes, focus on brotherhood, freeze frame close ups, or an overuse of slow motion but to me TND is moderately influenced by John woo films
And I think LTK is very influenced by Miami Vice, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. They even used Michael Kames and several actors from atleast DH and LW.
Fair enough my friend, I personally don't see it but if you do, then that's cool.
Yeah, that I will agree with. Kamen gave the film a similar sound to both of those franchises.
I didn't mention CR. I said QOS, which I think is influenced by Bourne and it shows. Like somebody has already said, it's one of the films where the influence is more obvious.
Can we therefore refer to QOS as being Gladiator-esque?
All these influences..they confuse me.
But as regards Moonraker, all the things you say actually reflect the heavy influence, and its proven when you say it was "smart business". Star Wars is synonymous with Space Stations and laser battles, so if they're carried over to Moonraker then it's acceptable to say it was influenced by Star Wars.
I did acknowledge your statement on SW when young Bondwalker took care with a force full exit of Darth Drax. :D
Bummer, sorry, it's just not my day today as regards concentration!
That's why I don't care for the Liam Neeson film 'Unknown' - the fight scenes are completely choppy and incoherent.
"His name's Jaws. He kills people."
Let's face it, since the '70s, the Bond films have been trend followers, not trendsetters.
Bourne clearly influenced QoS, especially in the editing and fight sequence in Haiti.
But both CR and QoS were influenced by 9/11 (and SF, presumably, by the London bombings). CR makes explicit reference to 9/11. The world had gotten more serious during DAD's preproduction, and another film in that vein at that point in time would have been...well, tacky.
while QOS was heavily influenced by Bourne - i dont believe it was written to be... but when a director hires on people who worked on the Bourne films, to give him the style he wants - what can you do... it's still a Bond film first to me, regardless of what it's "ripping off".... i think had the action scenes been handled better, then there would be less of this Bourne comparison going on.... in terms of the fighting - well.. thats how i would expect a real secret agent in today's world to fight - i can't remember the name of that specific fighting style, but a lot of other films use it too - not just Bourne, or Bond... let's face it, if Bond in QOS or CR were still using cheap Judo throws to outmatch his opponents - he'd look silly first off, and secondly - he'd be dead..... it works for the older movies, but times have changed, and that sort of thing just isnt believable anymore..
Ah, another person who assumes I want DAD 2 because I don't like QOS. I didn't say they should've made a film like DAD. They should've tried to make it more like CR.
Anyway, I know the Bond films follow trends as well as setting them, but this is one of the films where it's more obvious, like MR.
When I first saw the QoS I was pumped for it, couldn't wait. Then the movie came out and was good but not as good as it's trailer.
Uncalled for, I think. There's virtually no element in CR that's even remotely connected to or inspired by the Bourne films. As far as QoS is concerned, yes, I can see where Bourne comes into play but CR: no! Neither in terms of cinematography nor story telling does a comparison between CR and Bourne make more sense than one between From Russia With Love and Star Trek.
The irony is that the Bourne novels read like--and were obviously inspired by--the more over-the-top Bond films.
QoS I will grant the Bourne-sayers. The editing and the Haiti fight both scream Bourne. But then Forster is a bit of a hack.
each of these films had 5 times the amount of (memorable) one liners than in CR, all of them had Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, the Bond theme during action scenes, dancing women in the credit sequence, the gun barrel at the start......
little things that differenciates Bond films from other action flicks that were missing in CR
And there was a story-specific reason why the Bond theme was dialed back in CR.
most dumb argument I've ever heard. Hitler had his reasons to exterminate the jews, does that make his act acceptable ? there was a reason to film the parasurfing scene in DAD, does that make the scene acceptable ?
simply because there was a reason for something, it doesn't make it acceptable. everything that ever happened on this planet had a reason. So you agree with the mass killing of jews because there was a reason for it ?
there are reasons to turn Bond into a female character, do they make that change acceptable ?
saying 'there was a reason for that' is simply laughable and simple-minded. I have my reasons to kill people I don't like, so by your argument it is acceptable for me to kill them because I have reasons to kill them ?
does it ever occur to you that 'reasons' can be bad and wrong ?
your 'argument' is a non-argument, since everything has a reason, but that doesn't automaticly make everything acceptable.
there are reasons for EON to cancel the release of Skyfall, so do these reasons make this decision acceptable ?
Why are you leaving out the possibilities were good and right? Just because you disagree with their reasoning doesn't mean they are wrong. It might be wrong to you, but it could very easily be right to someone else.
Just leave it, please. Why we must redefine 'opinions' on every thread is unknown to me. Don't openly attack a user for their ideas.
Back to kindergarten: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
he didn't say the reasons were good and right, he simply said 'there was a reason'. What kind of absurd statement is that ? I can have reasons to torture my cat, it doesn't make it acceptable because of that.
there was a reason for the invisible car in DAD, so by his argument that gadget is acceptable because it had a reason for it.
so for @echo, everything that ever happened on earth is acceptable because they all had their reasons, be it the rwandan genocide, or simply filming the cgi parasurfing scene in DAD.
his argument negates any from of criticism on anything, since because there is a reason for everything, it is automaticly a good thing.
If I'm not mistaken, he never stated it was a good thing, whatever reason it was. He just said there was a reason. Your assuming he thinks it was a good thing.
Stop fishing for arguments, you make yourself look silly.
look at the posts again. I complained about the lack of Bond theme in CR, and he answered with 'there was a reason for that'... what kind of argument is that ? I can't complain about the lack of Bond theme because 'there was a reason' for the Bond theme to be used less ? so going by his argument, no-one can complain about DAD's invisible car or DAD's parasurfing scene because 'there were reasons' for their inclusion in the film.
I am simply saying his post was ridiculous. he answered my critic with 'there a reason for that to happen'. It's just absurd.
yeah right, only DaltonCraig007 is genius around here only him can post "dumb & absurb" about other member posting, but alwayst protest if his comment being attack...
what on earth are you on about ? are you insane ? calm down and don't post utter nonsense like you just did...... I was simply saying @echo's argument was a non-argument.
his argument *is* ridiculous, whichever way you look at it. I can make the same argument with DAD's invisible car. someone complains about that gadget ? I answer with 'there was a reason for the movie to have an invisible car'. see how absurd such argument is ?
I see you are backing @echo because he basicly said any criticism on CR is wrong because 'everything that happened in the film had a reason'.... obviously that pleases the Craig fanboys.
well i m tired people like you bashing/judging other people comment with as dumb and non-arqumen, your comment nonsense either pal, if anyonse disagree with you doesn't meant his opinion dumb like you said brother...