› ›

SPECTRE Production Timeline

1…685686688690691…870

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    History has shown you can't do epic Bond and make it dark.

    Yeah, because OHMSS isn't a masterpiece.

    Yes it is, not its not an epic Bond. Very few locations are used. Plus, OHMSS isn't dark until the ending. Cut the last minute of the film and its a love story with a happy ending.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,274
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    History has shown you can't do epic Bond and make it dark.

    Yeah, because OHMSS isn't a masterpiece.
    And Moonraker was far well received by the general audience, than OHMSS.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2015 Posts: 8,392
    Zekidk wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    History has shown you can't do epic Bond and make it dark.

    Yeah, because OHMSS isn't a masterpiece.
    And Moonraker was far well received by the general audience, than OHMSS.

    Exactly, people loved Moonraker. It may seem weak by modern standards but back in '79 people couldn't get enough. Why is the concept of audience tastes changing with the times so hard for people to grasp? It's so self-evident from a mere cursory glance at the series history.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

    Exactly, people loved Moonraker. It may seem weak by modern standards but back in '79 people couldn't get enough. Why is the concept of audience tastes changing with the times so hard for people to grasp? It's so self-evident from a mere cursory glance at the series history.

    But the reason Moonraker became a big hit wasn't that it was fun. The reason it became a big hit was that it was the James Bond version of Star Wars. By the way, even if the audiences wanted FUN right now, how do you know that Spectre won't be THE movie to change what the audiences want yet again?

    Also, some people say that Dalton "failed" as Bond, because the audinces wanted more fun at the time, while Craig succeeded because the audiences were ready to watch more serious and "darker" films. That's simply nonsense. The reason Dalton "failed", while Craig succeeded is that Craig's Bond films (CR and SF) are miles above the Bond films starring Dalton.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

    Exactly, people loved Moonraker. It may seem weak by modern standards but back in '79 people couldn't get enough. Why is the concept of audience tastes changing with the times so hard for people to grasp? It's so self-evident from a mere cursory glance at the series history.

    But the reason Moonraker became a big hit wasn't that it was fun. The reason it became a big hit was that it was the James Bond version of Star Wars. By the way, even if the audiences wanted FUN right now, how do you know that Spectre won't be THE movie to change what the audiences want yet again?

    Because 2015 is the first year where light has triumphed over dark since the early 2000's. JW, F7, SW, MI5, AAOU, TMFU, KTSS. For the first time audiences prefer some escapist fun over heavy drama. The pendulum has to swing in one direction before it can swing back. We won't see that for at least 10 years, no matter how effective SPECTRE is as a dark film. It will be an outlier.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Because 2015 is the first year where light has triumphed over dark since the early 2000's. [...] For the first time audiences prefer some escapist fun over heavy drama.

    What? Take a look at these pages, and you will see that's simply not true:
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2001&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2002&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2003&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2004&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2005&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2006&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2007&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2008&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2009&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2010&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2011&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2012&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2013&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2014&p=.htm
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2015&p=.htm
  • ZekidkZekidk
    edited July 2015 Posts: 3,274
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

    Exactly, people loved Moonraker. It may seem weak by modern standards but back in '79 people couldn't get enough. Why is the concept of audience tastes changing with the times so hard for people to grasp? It's so self-evident from a mere cursory glance at the series history.

    But the reason Moonraker became a big hit wasn't that it was fun. The reason it became a big hit was that it was the James Bond version of Star Wars.
    Actually, MR was fun and still is fun, IMHO. It doesn't take itself too serious, like the other two Lewis Gilbert James Bond movies which I also rank very highly. All three have one thing in common: the money is all up there on the screen. And the visuals are stunning in all three. Besides MR wasn't primarily a hit because of Star Wars, but because TSWLM renewed the franchise, and expectations became high.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    By the way, even if the audiences wanted FUN right now, how do you know that Spectre won't be THE movie to change what the audiences want yet again?
    SP will surpass SF in action and visual spectacle. That's for sure. And it will probably be more lighthearted and less dark than SF, although motifs are carried over.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2015 Posts: 8,392
    Yeah, I wasn't talking about all of cinema. Of course there have always been kids animation and ROM COMs. I'm talking about the spefic category of BB the Bond films fall into. Nice charts tho.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Yeah, I wasn't talking about all of cinema. Of course there have always been kids animation and ROM COMs. I'm talking about the spefic category of BB the Bond films fall into. Nice charts tho.

    Have you heard of the little franchises called "Transformers" and "Pirates of the Caribbean"? I doubt anyone would call them dark and serious... Every single year there are fun big budget films that succeed and there are more serious big budget films that succeed. The last decade wan't some kind of "dark" period that ended this year.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Spider-Man 3 is a terrible movie and is yet the highest grossing movie out of all 5 movies. That same year we got Bourne Ultimatum, transformers, there will be blood, American gangster, fantastic 4: rise of the silver surfer, shooter, no country for old men, gone baby gone, Sweety Todd, Superbad and many others. Trends are always useful, especially when they an be pointed out but one trend that is forever consistent is, if you have a mainstream, commercial movie that is a critical success, people will see it and enjoy it, irrespective of the tone.

    In 2008 we got 2 of some of the best comic book movies in the genre, TDK and Iron Man. Both did well financially and critically. Last year we got captain america the winter soldier and GoTg. Again, two very different types of movies and extremely different in tone. Audiences didn't love one and then change their mind to dislike the other. What is consistent is that audiences appreciated the different tones of the movies and as individually well made films that are enjoyable. Also in 2008 we got taken and QoS; both relatively dark movies with the former being better received and naturally making less money for obvious reasons.

    In short, to echo, @Panchito and @RC7, in this day and age especially, the only thing audiences care about is justifying spending their hard earned cash at the cinema to enjoy watching a good movie. It's not rocket science. This year alone will see no less than half a dozen spy movies, each bringing their own flavour and so far all of them have been well received and next year we're getting Damon back as Bourne and it'll be in tge same vein as his 3 previous Bourne movies; dark and gritty and people will go and see it because they're good movies and not complete shyte like what legacy was.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Spider-Man 3 is a terrible movie and is yet the highest grossing movie out of all 5 movies. That same year we got Bourne Ultimatum, transformers, there will be blood, American gangster, fantastic 4: rise of the silver surfer, shooter, no country for old men, gone baby gone, Sweety Todd, Superbad and many others. Trends are always useful, especially when they an be pointed out but one trend that is forever consistent is, if you have a mainstream, commercial movie that is a critical success, people will see it and enjoy it, irrespective of the tone.

    In 2008 we got 2 of some of the best comic book movies in the genre, TDK and Iron Man. Both did well financially and critically. Last year we got captain america the winter soldier and GoTg. Again, two very different types of movies and extremely different in tone. Audiences didn't love one and then change their mind to dislike the other. What is consistent is that audiences appreciated the different tones of the movies and as individually well made films that are enjoyable. Also in 2008 we got taken and QoS; both relatively dark movies with the former being better received and naturally making less money for obvious reasons.

    e6facee6882ddfc676bf54194d55d5f0.jpg

    It's also worth pointing out that it seems @Mendes4Lyfe is confusing light and dark with fantastical and grounded. Much the same as with light and dark there are varying shades of grey along the way. Blockbusters cover that entire spectrum, not just opposite ends.
  • Lio007Lio007
    edited July 2015 Posts: 220
    [img][/img]
    marketto007 wrote:
    Good news, at last!!! The trailer has been finally classified by the BBFC.

    http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/spectre-filmtrailer-0

    jbbr_bbfc_spectre_trlr_2.png

    Great news!


    Also it seems Commander James Bond (France) has gotten some new pix from filming in Morocco: will be released tomorrow
    CJdrv3oXAAA-iZs.jpg
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Yeah, I wasn't talking about all of cinema. Of course there have always been kids animation and ROM COMs. I'm talking about the spefic category of BB the Bond films fall into. Nice charts tho.

    Have you heard of the little franchises called "Transformers" and "Pirates of the Caribbean"? I doubt anyone would call them dark and serious... Every single year there are fun big budget films that succeed and there are more serious big budget films that succeed. The last decade wan't some kind of "dark" period that ended this year.

    I didn't say there weren't fun blockbusters, just that they weren't the norm. And more often than not fun became associated with shoddy or lazy, like transformers and POTC. That's why I think the idea of the Bond films going back to being fun is met with such hostility by members here. Since 2000 BB action films aren't seen as important unless they take themselves seriously and deal with semi realistic depictions of the real world. Even MOS, a film about an alien in a cape who fights injustice is now treated with such reverance. I think its important to remember that films weren't always like this. Star wars, jurrasic park, Aliens, terminator 2, Indiana jones films that are essentially popcorn flicks. These films had that movie magic that seems to have left Hollywood in recent decades.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,842
    Interesting so over 2 minutes...

    I am quite happy with this.
  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    Posts: 1,208
    Lio007 wrote: »
    [img][/img]
    marketto007 wrote:
    Good news, at last!!! The trailer has been finally classified by the BBFC.

    http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/spectre-filmtrailer-0

    jbbr_bbfc_spectre_trlr_2.png

    Great news!


    Also it seems Commander James Bond (France) has gotten some new pix from filming in Morocco: will be released tomorrow
    CJdrv3oXAAA-iZs.jpg


    Will pictures from the production be released?
  • chipstickschipsticks NOT on TheDanielCraigForum where they think know Daniel Craig personally and Léa and Monica are ugly
    Posts: 560
    Lio007 wrote: »
    [img][/img]
    marketto007 wrote:
    Good news, at last!!! The trailer has been finally classified by the BBFC.


    Also it seems Commander James Bond (France) has gotten some new pix from filming in Morocco: will be released tomorrow
    CJdrv3oXAAA-iZs.jpg


    excited for this :-bd
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Y'all are still arguing over light and dark? Y'all are just in a panic worried that bond will fail. Very real worry yes ..very real. Like a 350million worry... but take it down a notch... lol. Just saying.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Y'all are just in a panic worried that bond will fail. Very real worry yes ..very real.

    No Bond film ever has been a financial failure. People who are worried about Spectre not making back its budget simply don't know how the film industry works.

  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    That's why I think the idea of the Bond films going back to being fun is met with such hostility by members here.

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes of in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    For me, when I compare CR with LTK, I see one distinct difference: CR has got British class, LTK not so much. The moment when 007 walks to the Casino Royale, or enters the hotel car to Splendide.....it simply oozes 1960's esque class. Add to that Lindy Hemming's wonderful wardrobe for Vesper and Bond.....and all other people behind the poker tables, and you see that CR has all those little extra details that LTK didn't have.

    The other day I was comparing the casino scenes from DN, TB, OHMSS and CR: They all have that sense of refined, "old money", royal, luxury. And they all have a sense of....being timeless.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes of in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    For me, when I compare CR with LTK, I see one distinct difference: CR has got British class, LTK not so much.

    Can we stop agreeing, please?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    Even so, TLD is better.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    Even so, TLD is better.

    I'm not denying it. Don't really know what it has to do with the ongoing conversation, though.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes of in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    For me, when I compare CR with LTK, I see one distinct difference: CR has got British class, LTK not so much.

    Can we stop agreeing, please?

    Please, not again (:|
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    Even so, TLD is better.

    I'm not denying it. Don't really know what it has to do with the ongoing conversation, though.

    Huh?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    Even so, TLD is better.

    I'm not denying it. Don't really know what it has to do with the ongoing conversation, though.

    Huh?

    What's your point?
  • chipstickschipsticks NOT on TheDanielCraigForum where they think know Daniel Craig personally and Léa and Monica are ugly
    Posts: 560
    dp
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I can't imagine there's a single member on here who doesn't want a fun Bond movie. That's the sole reason we watch them. Although it's not a word I'd particularly associate with Bond. SP looks like it could be truly exhilerating, an adjective I will hope to be using when I see it, rather than the word 'fun', which sits neatly alongside it's equally redundant and bland sister word, 'nice'.

    OK but pedantry aside, there's a reason I always preferred TLD to LTK. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the other does.

    You keep using the word 'fun', which is a vague adjective, it doesn't really tell me anything about what you expect from a Bond film. Hence the pedantry.

    I disagree on LTK. It goes off in new directions at times, but retains a lot of what one would expect from the traditional Bond template. The problem for me with LTK is that it doesn't have the high-end finish you'd expect from a Bond. It's missing that bit of cinematic class. From what we've seen I don't see anything to suggest this will be the case with SP. It seems to have a lot of classic tropes locked down, while retaining the ongoing vibe of the current era.

    Even so, TLD is better.

    I'm not denying it. Don't really know what it has to do with the ongoing conversation, though.

    Huh?

    What's your point?

    I just prefer that one. Great scene when Bond turns to camera 'yes, I got the message.' Most Fleming Bond Moment ever!
Sign In or Register to comment.