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
Well, I do think Mendes is smart enough ... and he does not seem to want to repeat himself with his films ... so I am not worried about Bond 24. Yet. I still enjoy Skyfall tremendously and I think it is beautifully put together, a very well made Bond film wiht good balance (and I don't mean to start a big discussion about plot holes here; just saying my opinion overall of this film).
So I don't see Mendes' ego being detrimental - I don't think he has a reputation as a huge ego, and look at the variety of his films. When I think of ego in a negative way, I think of someone who puts his personal style ahead of the story or film or is rather intrusive as a director, like Guy Ritchie or Tarantino. I don't hate Ritchie's films (I especially enjoy the new Sherlock ones with RDJr), but he always lets you know that it is a Guy Ritchie film (the slow motion shots, the style). I suppose the same could be said of Hitchcock - but Hitchcock was a true genius and gave us many fresh things in the history of cinema. He had a huge ego, he belittled actors, but we got masterpieces on film from him. I also like Tarantino as a director for the most part, but now there is an ego that would definitely get in the way of a Bond film. Just my opinion. I do not get any vibes or have read anything to make me think that Mendes would run amok (that would be, in Bond history, Tamahori), make a clumsily shot film, or not know how to direct actors. I was quite pleased when he was hired again to director Bond 24.
Do I have any doubts about Mendes? Not really. I think he is aware that the next film will be difficult simply due to Skyfall's success, its finishing of the angst arc with M's death, and it will be hard to top Silva as a villain. I think he does not want to just copy from previous films he has done.
I believe one key point is that trying to "top" the last Bond film is often a big mistake (more over the top, in any area; look at Moonraker coming after The Spy Who Loved Me). The current Bond director needs to look at the current story, build its strengths, remember any problems or mistakes from the last film but don't try to copy so much or feel the need to "one up" different areas of the film. Easier said than done! But Mendes seems to be able to handle huge films, logistics, actors, and story. I want Bond 24 to be lighter in general as far as Bond's personal character, his story arc, goes. But I do want superb action, a dark and vicious and/or slimy villain, humor with a rather dry or subtle touch for the most part, and a sound enough story driving it. Logan has had plenty of time and has worked with Mendes before.
So I am not really concerned at this point. The only area I am a bit concerned about, frankly, is the humor. But I would have that concern with any director of Bond 24. Because it is time to move on and make a rather lighter film - and the final ending of Bond showed him moving on, not being torn up with bitterness, sadness, regret any more; it ended on a satisfying and lighter note. Ah, but getting the balance right for humor is not easy. If there appears to be any sort of Bondola showing up in a set photo or completely vintage Moore quips being leaked ... then I will get worried.
I am trusting Mendes to be the smart, savvy, and creative director he has shown us in the past. So much of this comes down to the script, doesn't it? I can only hope that the time Mendes and Logan have worked on Bond 24 has been a fruitful time.
Bond 24 will need the right balance. That would be tricky for any director of Bond 24. But I am happy with the director that has been chosen. I'm dying for more real news (as we all are). I hope they don't give clapperboard shots this time, but I do want the blogs and videos. So far, I am staying positive about Mendes. We all know, that in the world of making films, anything is possible (good or bad). But onwards we go ... I am excited, intrigued, and downright hungry for more news about Bond 24.
There's my take for this morning. Cheers, everyone! :)>-
First of all, I think it’s going to be hard for anything Brosnan-related to get a fair and even assessment for another several years. While Broz was the reigning Bond it became fashionable to dis Dalton’s portrayal of the character; and now that Craig is wearing the tux it’s Brozzer’s turn to take the heat. I expect that once a new fellow is issued the license to kill it’ll be Daniel’s turn to really face the music -- not that he hasn’t gotten plenty of sour notes from some quarters already! I guess it’s just human nature -- for too many of us, loyalty to the party in power requires total rejection of the previous administration, regardless of the actual merits of either.
Additionally, as has been noted elsewhere on this forum, Brosnan is the only Bond to have never had the good fortune to work with Fleming’s original material. This puts him at a severe disadvantage to all the others who have essayed the role! With these points in mind, let us now look at the films in question…
Goldeneye is certainly a Top Ten Bond film in many fans’ assessments…and that strong grading begins with a very solid script. Pierce’s initial scene with Judi Dench as M is a classic Bond moment, and sets up Dench’s tenure as his boss brilliantly. The script gives us plenty of time to learn to love Izabella Scorupco as the main Bond girl this time around, and it also gives us one of the most memorable femme fatales in the history of the Bond series in Xenia Onatopp. Many Bond films have tried to present their main villain as “the dark side of Bond,” but none have done so more convincingly than here, with Sean Bean as Alec Trevellayan. Valetin Zukovsky is also a memorable supporting character. If there is one weakness I see in this script, it’s that the villain’s main base is a little too reminiscent of the classic volcano hideout in YOLT -- but hey! The Bond series has been known to recycle itself shamelessly from one film to the next (TSWLM has essentially the same scheme for world domination as presented in the very next film, MR) -- so I think we can forgive this point. Overall, GE is a very good Bond film with a very strong script as its base.
I think Tomorrow Never Dies doesn’t get enough credit from some fans. Some folks decry the script for this film as mere “box checking,” and feel that Elliot Carver’s plan is a little too prosaic for truly Bond-sized villainy. I do not agree with this assessment. I suspect that many of those who would accuse this film of overly formulaic plotting are now all too eager to accuse Craig’s Bond of straying too far from the established Bond formula. I find the characters of this film all richly envisioned, particularly Henry Gupta (the villain’s chief scientist is usually a “who the heck is THAT?” role) and Dr. Kaufman…and Carver himself to be a delicious send-up of real-world corporate culture villainy. Many of this franchise’s films have attempted to present their leading lady as “Bond’s equal” -- but none is done so convincingly as here, with Wei Lin shown as being several steps ahead of Bond time and again. If there is any area that this film comes up short, it is in the casting of Teri Hatcher as Paris Carver -- but we’re discussing the script here, not the casting, and for my money the script for TND is a very good one.
The World is Not Enough…is a film with its main flaw encapsulated in its own title. It is a worthy effort, but in the end, it does not live up to its own objective. A great Bond film needs a clear and charismatic villain; this one has fans debating who the true villain was to this very day. I believe this film would have been more satisfying with Renard has the clear prime mover and Electra King as his catspaw. Instead, we are left with something of a muddle…the insensible Renard (who we are told feels no pain) reacts visibly to Bond’s blows in their climactic battle, and finds himself in the henchman’s position. Electra is left as the main villain, and --guess what folks? Fleming himself would never have done it this way! As important as dastardly femme fatales have become in the genre to which Bond belongs, Ian Fleming actually never depicted an attractive woman on the side of villainy! An evil woman was also an ugly woman in Fleming’s world -- she was Rosa Klebb or Irma Bunt. Pussy Galore was the only attractive woman of Fleming’s creation to work on the side of evil, and she famously changed sides before the end of the story. Finally, this film is the first to be scripted by the infamous team of Purvis & Wade…who have given us some of the most cringe-worthy lines of dialogue in the entire Bond canon. My own nomination for their least effective bon mot is probably the one regarding the frequency of Christmas Jones’ orgasms -- I’m sorry, was there another interpretation to that line? Get them to a punnery…
And finally, we have Die Another Day, another offering from Purvis & Wade. Sorry, folks, I’m not even going to try to defend this one. Yes, it’s just as bad as everybody says. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is actually correct.
So what we have in the Brosnan era, in my evaluation, are two really good scripts, one muddled offering, and an outright stinker. I'm willing to offer a theory at this point: I think Eon was in defensive mode throughout the Brosnan era. With the Fleming material essentially used up, MGW & BB weren't really sure WHAT to do with the franchise. All they knew was to offer more of what had been popular for the last several decades ... but they didn't want to go too far off the beaten path. So a fair amount of the Brosnan era can be seen as treading water creatively, at least from our current vantage point. They were willing to give their directors a fair amount of leeway -- disastrously so, in the case of Lee Tamahori -- but scripting choices were a little more...tentative. What I’d like to see at this juncture is an in-depth examination of the efforts of Purvis & Wade. If Richard Maibaum is the unsung hero of the early Bond scripts, then Purvis & Wade are his flip side in the latter-day adventures of 007. Anybody up for the challenge?
There's just one more aspect which makes Brosnan's Bonds outdated: it was in a time when the West had 'won', or so it was claimed by the likes of Fukuyama. Political correctness was at it's hight and the economies of the world had finally found a way to grow without falter. There was little room for cynisism or negative thought, which made a more 'realistic' or gritty Bond out of the question. it was only after 2001 that negativety and angst returned, in droves. That's what also made DAD such a misplaced film: for one, as Alec Travelyan had said, 'thank you, well done old boy, but as you were away the world changed'.
Thank you, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs for your excellent answer to my question there!
I'm in agreement will all that you say although I think that the female Soviet assassin from 'The Living Daylights' ("Trigger") might've been Fleming's only femme fatale although I agree that that is very much an exception. I think there are some problems with the script of GoldenEye too, especially concerning Alec Trevelyan's Lienz Cossack background, but I am writing a paper about that currently. You also posed some interesting questions about the roles of Renard and Elektra King in The World is Not Enough script and there is certainly much food for thought there too. Thanks again!
No need to apologise good sir. Your post is excellent and I got your meaning. I suppose that Annabel Cheung the photographer (from Dr. No) was another young female villainess.
Thanks for the great details and thoughts regarding Bond scripts, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs. As usual, we can always continue with a previous topic. Not all of us can participate every week on a regular basis.
I like the first two Brosnan films a lot. I do think Goldeneye, as filmed, was a great script. Yes, there was a "Cossack" error, Dragonpol, apparently; though I have not researched it. But overall, the entire script sparkled, had good dialog, was so well done. Bond's intro to Judi's M is perfect, in my opinion. I'm sure Pierce and Judi really enjoyed work together throughout those years.
TWINE is just such a mixed bag, with a strong start and a not too bad premise. A good script? Honestly, no. Some of the dialog is very poor to the point of being distracting or annoying, the director didn't help the actors in this one - and I also think Rennard would have been stronger as the main villain, leaving Elektra still as turned bad and manipulative ... but being even more manipulated by Rennard. Honestly, the very biggest disappointment for me about TWINE is Robert Carlyle's portrayal . #-o I so like him as an actor, it pains me to say that so bluntly. I sincerely wish the director had encouraged him to do it differently. He is about as threatening or evil as a tepid cup of milky tea. And the no pain/reacts to pain was just poorly done. The script is not consistent or very good, in my opinion. I agree, Beatles, that the ending dialog about Christmas Jones stinks; such a stupid groaner by P&W - ugh. None of my friends liked it, nor did I.
DAD is a mess with a bad script, with only the first part (Bond's capture, torture, and reunion with M) has quality; then it just blows up and has hideous dialog throughout the rest of the film, with a preposterous and silly story to round it out. Bad script.
I especially like these comments of yours, Beatles:
I'm willing to offer a theory at this point: I think Eon was in defensive mode throughout the Brosnan era. With the Fleming material essentially used up, MGW & BB weren't really sure WHAT to do with the franchise. All they knew was to offer more of what had been popular for the last several decades ... but they didn't want to go too far off the beaten path. So a fair amount of the Brosnan era can be seen as treading water creatively, at least from our current vantage point. They were willing to give their directors a fair amount of leeway -- disastrously so, in the case of Lee Tamahori -- but scripting choices were a little more...tentative.
I think that rather neatly sums up EON during the Brosnan era. I do think the producers were tentative and unsure in general. They had an actor who really looked like Bond, had his own style and charisma and who wanted to do some more serious scenes, yet they just kept everybody reigned in enough to "not rock the boat" which means it just muddled along and then sank. Without their own strong vision, Brosnan's era was not on a firm foundation. The last two scripts were not good.
@CommanderRoss, I appreciate your thoughts on the 90's; I think you are right, too.
You said: Political correctness was at it's height and the economies of the world had finally found a way to grow without falter. There was little room for cynicism or negative thought, which made a more 'realistic' or gritty Bond out of the question.
The 90's seemed like everyone was going along for a ride, things were building and yes political correctness was rampant, and for Bond - let's just have fun like we did in the past and not rock the boat by trying any "new" take on Bond. I actually give Pierce credit for investing his portrayal during this time with his own style and energy. Oh yes, he did.
Many people like to say Brosnan's whole era was just "tick the boxes" time and there is some truth in that, looking strictly at the elements we find in his films; things that were present during the previous decades of Bond films. That is, overall, not such a bad thing. But if it is only "tick the boxes" and don't care about the story and script or direction ... then you end up with TWINE and DAD. So just saying "ticks the boxes" about Brosnan's entire era is too easy to use that as a sweeping condemnation, and I feel that is inaccurate. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies are fine scripts. More care was taken with Goldeneye because it was coming off such a long hiatus. But the story and actual script of TND is good, too, in my opinion. TWINE is where the scripts start to flounder and DAD was horrible. :-q
Purvis and Wade - such a mixed bag from them! Good heavens, how much input did they have in Casino Royale? Is it mostly theirs? Casino Royale came about because of several mitigating, strong factors and it came at the right time for Bond. EON was finally willing to do something different, put an original stamp on the series, and take risks. Kudos to Barbara and Michael for finally taking that plunge. The script is excellent. If we are to dissect Purvis and Wade, Beatles, I would need to know how much is really their work. Because if they are mostly responsible for the fine Casino Royale we got, it is hard to fathom these are the same two people wrote TWINE and DAD.
If anyone has info on Purvis and Wade, please do share it. I'd like to know more facts about their input.
Thanks for joining us. Any discussion of Bond scripts and Bond reboots is very welcome this week.
Cheers! :-bd
P.S. Lots of glitches trying to post this ...
I agree and I second that.
BTW, what with all the news about Purvis & Wade being brought back on board to "punch up" the script for the next film, I think the time is right for a more thorough consideration of their contributions to the scripts on Bonds # 19-23. Any takers?
I'd be more than happy to look at Purvis and Wade but I truly cannot find any way to discern which are their words and which are Haggis's words for Casino Royale. The other films they did, I need to go back and look at all the writers credited. Reading the early drafts of the screenplays would be so helpful, but near impossible to find online apparently. It would be the perfect time to look at Purvis and Wade's collective work - but I cannot find a lot of meat on that now. Please be my guest, Beatles! :-B Doing my best to dig up some info now ...
So ...just looking online briefly for scripts in any stage; I am not finding Die Another Day online other than an abridged version. It does list P&W as the only writers, on IMDb.
TWINE seems to be listed as story by P&W, screenplay by P&W and Bruce Feirstein.
TND was Bruce Feirstein only from what I can tell.
By the way, from a website I'd never heard of (evi.com) I found this:
Bruce Feirstein, the American screenwriter and humorist, best known for his contributions to the James Bond series and his best-selling humor books, including Real Men Don't Eat Quiche and Nice Guys Sleep Alone.
Ah ha! Maybe it was not only P&W's humor in TWINE.
Looking further for Casino Royale info and Wikipedia quotes from a 2007 Guardian article the following:
In March 2004, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade began writing a screenplay for Pierce Brosnan as Bond, aiming to bring back the flavour of Ian Fleming's original Bond novels.[9] Paul Haggis' main contribution was to rewrite the climax of the film. He explained, "the draft that was there was very faithful to the book and there was a confession, so in the original draft the character confessed and killed herself. She then sent Bond to chase after the villains; Bond chased the villains into the house. I don't know why but I thought that Vesper had to be in the sinking house and Bond has to want to kill her and then try and save her."
Hmmm.
Quantum of Solace (again Wikipedia): Neal Purvis and Robert Wade completed their draft of the script by April 2007, and Paul Haggis, who polished the Casino Royale script, began his rewrite the next month.
...
Haggis, Forster and Wilson rewrote the story from scratch. Haggis said he completed his script two hours before the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike officially began. Forster noted a running theme in his films were emotionally repressed protagonists, and the theme of the picture would be Bond learning to trust after feeling betrayed by Vesper. Forster said he created the Camille character as a strong female counterpart to Bond rather than a casual love interest: she openly shows emotions similar to those which Bond experiences but is unable to express. Haggis located his draft's climax in the Swiss Alps, but Forster wanted the action sequences to be based around the four classical elements of earth, water, air and fire. The decision to homage Goldfinger in Fields's death came about as Forster wanted to show oil had replaced gold as the most precious material. The producers rejected Haggis's idea that Vesper Lynd had a child, because "Bond was an orphan ... Once he finds the kid, Bond can't just leave the kid."
So, for QOS we all knew the writers strike was a huge blow. This film also had a director heavily involved with the story. Due to the strike Forster had to be that involved, but he had plenty of ideas even without the strike it seems. It seems doubtful as to how much of P&W's story remained. I'd need to do more research, but that's all for now, folks.
Please chime in with what you know about Purvis and Wade. :)>-
I did read that Haggis had written mainly the final ending of Casino Royale ... but while looking at our thread called Bond Scripts, I found this from Pierce2Daniel, which states Haggis wrote some of the sublime dialog for Bond and Vesper on the train.
*******
(Quoting Pierce2Daniel now ...)
Here's an interesting article on the development of some Bond scripts:
http://www.hmss.com/films/bondscripts/index.html
Also check out Haggis giving an analysis on the scene he wrote (unclear how much) for Bond and Vesper on the train; go to 5 minutes in; just before then is some clip from the train scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KN6BTGzB8bs
*******
So after I read that Haggis was brought in on CR and that P&W had written 90% of the script solid and all Haggis really worked on was the ending, I was more reassured about P&W ... then to learn that Haggis wrote -apparently - some of that dialog is a bit of a surprise. I was rather hoping that bit was all P&W, since it is so well written. Yet ... perhaps they really wrote the far majority of it (and the writers are credited as such). CR is such a good script, that is why I am keen on looking at it regarding them.
I found this to be interesting, an interview with P&W in 2002. http://www.hmss.com/films/casinoroyale/interview/
Here is a part of that interview re the train scene:
P&W: I don't think there was any on-the-fly writing on CR. Maybe the odd line but I understand the script was locked prior to shooting. It isn't really a situation you want (or enjoy). 'Keep the fruit' was ad-libbed by Jeffrey Wright, and gets the biggest laugh as far as I can tell.
Help us to settle a bet, please: Was the "I'm the money/Every penny of it" line an intentional nod to the Miss Moneypenny character?
P&W: We wrote 'I'm the money', Paul wrote the retort. We don't know whether it was a nod or not.
Did you envision and write the pre-title sequence as a black-and-white, noir-ish, piece? It's distinctly unusual for a James Bond movie, although it works spectacularly.
P&W: Yes, we came up with the black-and white. Just thought it was an interesting way of starting afresh - we hoped it would have a strange cold war, yet modern, resonance.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Meanwhile, let's spend just 2 more days on Bond scripts/reboots or resets - looking at P&W in particular since they have returned to polish Bond 24.
Cheers! :>
Obviously this is based on hints, not actual evidence, but who cares ;-)
A few weeks ago, @chrisisall had this suggestion that I like: You think FRWL will be tops, chrisisall, and I love that film. However, I think LTK has to be pretty close or at the top. We shall see!
My thoughts were to not turn it into just another list of titles of Bond films (which chrisisall agrees with and I hope you do, too) but let's look at the categories/points to consider and discuss what you feel which were the most realistic Bond films using those categories - and then we can have a vote as to the #1 most realistic Bond film. If we get enough participants we can have a mod add the poll; but that may not be necessary.
So first let's decide on the categories to be considered. I'm going to list some, based on chrisisall's ideas and my own:
Most Realistic Bond Film
~ Bond's physical capabilities
~ Villain's main aims
~ Weapons and gadgets (I think they may overlap often)
~ Villain's capabilities (physical, mental, influence on others, etc.)
~ Portrayal of the world or situation that Bond finds himself in
~ Escapes and chases
~ Finale and resolution of the story
Keep in mind we are not ranking all the films! Just choose which you think are the most realistic and then discuss those using the set categories. :)
Can anyone think of some other category that should be included when considering what makes a realistic Bond film? Should "fights" perhaps be a separate category? Do you think any of these I just listed should be dropped or changed? Do let me know soon. I'd like to set this up to get started later today. :-bd
No voting yet! Just give me suggestions for any other categories to consider as we discuss realistic Bond films.
Thanks! :)>-
However, I think that P&W can also look back on the series, and not being blind or deaf to the public discussions of those films, surely they can "punch up" the script, add some sharpness, some lighter humor without going overboard. I've got to trust it won't go too far in the other direction with Mendes. Skyfall and Casino Royale's humor were both well balanced and I want more of that. Witty, charming - not groaning, campy, or smarmy. But I do want Bond 24 lighter in tone, in general; and that does not mean simply adding more "quips." (Oh, especially not the kind from the Moore era or some of Brosnan's film's tackier lines!) Situational humor that is not turned too extreme, dry humor, wit, a lighter touch showing Bond enjoying life more: a big yes to all of that.
I do think it is good to get other writers on board and get this finalized. Logan alone does not give me complete confidence. So I'm willing to stay positive about P&W's return, until I have evidence proving otherwise. And that may be a long time coming. :-B
Instead of 'escapes' how about 'General Physics'? Like things that can't be done in real life? Such as the PTS in GE where Bond catches the plane in mid air... it's been proven 'possible' in plane-to-plane transfers, but I'd still count that as fairly unrealistic, so I'd rate the physics of GE questionable based on that, whereas the bungee jump was perfectly fine (for example).
I was thinking in general terms, how realistic is that escape? I sort of feel the factor of physics can be discussed within the category of "escapes" ... let me think that over. Good point, though.
@Thunderfinger- no jumping the gun! ;)
Yeah - I like "Escape and chases" very much!
We can discuss physics, plausibilities within that. Thanks!
I'd really love to have more Originals participating on this thread. I know people get busy, need time to do other things, life gets in the way of participation, interests and excitement come and go ... I realize that. But I just want to again say to the older Bond fans that this is your place first and foremost. SirHenry wanted this to be a thread where older fans could hang out, share their experiences and opinions, have with meaty discussions and lighter discussions, too, with other Originals and younger members of this forum. I know there are some Originals who have left the forum or just spend a little time here but on other threads. I simply wanted to give a shout out to them today because they are special and this thread is still here for them. Our topics will change every week or so. But please pop in and stay part of this Originals family. You are the heart of this thread.
And having said that, I also want to say that SirHenry welcomed younger members, too. So - just because you are not old enough to be an Original (someone who saw Connery in a Bond film in a theater during its initial run), you can still participate here. Your thoughts and contributions are welcome. The main point is that this thread stays of quality, with thoughtful and fun comments; not just spammy stuff or bickering back and forth. We do kid around here from time to time, and I know some of us make some long posts - which are great and I do want that to continue, too. This thread has some truly excellent, detailed, interesting, and fun posts! But also, please do not feel that you have to write at length to join in. Please just stay relevant, courteous, and respectful of others' opinions ... and do join us here. You are welcome to participate with us Originals.
From your American cousin, a sister from Langley ~
4EverBonded ;;)
@4EverBonded, I think fights would be a good thing to throw in in terms of realism. Also, with 'Villain's Capabilities,' is this just about how physical they are, what kind of men, weapons, strategies, plans, etc. are backing them, and things like that? In essence, how efficient and powerful (in any sense) the villain is?
Most Realistic Bond Film
~ Bond's capabilities
~ Villain's main aims
~ Weapons and gadgets (including vehicles, methods of transport)
~ Villain's capabilities (physical, mental, influence on others, wealth/assets, etc.)
~ Portrayal of the world or situation that Bond finds himself in
~ Escapes and chases
~ Fights
~ Finale and resolution of the story
And a hearty welcome to you, @Creasy47! I'm glad I posted again about who are welcome to join in on this thread and why. Happy you are with us.
As for the villains' capabilities category: it encompasses all. Weapons and gadgets cover the villain as well as Bond, but the "villain's capabilities" category is for everything the villain is capable of: his power, his physical strength, his intelligence, his daring, etc. Whatever he is capable of.
We will start listing our top most realistic Bond films and break them down by using these categories, with discussions long or short - within the next few hours.
I just want to firm up the categories. Any other suggestions? I'm happy to consider others. I think we have the main points covered now, but I'll leave this open for a couple of more hours.
So don't list your realistic films yet! Soon, though. I will let you know when you begin. Thanks, everybody! :)>-
Another category idea I thought of would be cars/vehicles, but I suppose that would fit into gadgets. You could also throw that in with 'Weapons and gadgets,' so we can also discuss which vehicles had the most realistic gadgets/weapons within them, though I suppose almost all of them have the same add-ons: missiles, shotguns, machine guns, ejector seat, etc., though some do vary. It's up to you, just a possibility. :-)