In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

2456751

Comments

  • Posts: 1,310
    Spectre isn't a bad movie, really, but I feel it is not terribly memorable for many people save for some of the hardcore fans. I remember people talking about Casino Royale long after it was out - at a time it was the highest selling Blu-Ray.

    But I don't hear anything about Spectre anymore. I honestly haven't really heard anything since the third weekend of release here in the States. I don't give it too much thought myself. Eh.

    Let's put it this way: if the Craig era ends tomorrow, people will only likely be talking about Casino Royale 30 years from now. Maybe Skyfall a bit, but the other two will only be remembered by us fans. Just my thoughts.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Murdock wrote: »
    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers.
    If Mendes/Craig do another one, there are not many ways to up the ante. So wait a bit before being sure of that you write on this topic :)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers.
    If Mendes/Craig do another one, there are not many ways to up the ante. So wait a bit before being sure of that you write on this topic :)
    So basically this?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Yes you're right there. And the way Bond shrugged it off despite Blofeld always bringing it up is kinda cool. Makes Blofeld come off as more of an overblown whiner though.

    Infuriating how they tried to make Blofeld so awesome by riding on the backs of every other villain. Lame.
  • Posts: 12,526
    I think it will become very appreciated!
  • Posts: 1,092
    Better appreciated because it suffered from high expectations when it was released. It's a great film; flawed but has enough awesome stuff to keep it among the elite of Bond.
  • Posts: 1,631
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Better appreciated because it suffered from high expectations when it was released. It's a great film; flawed but has enough awesome stuff to keep it among the elite of Bond.

    Agreed. What hurt SPECTRE the most were the expectations it had to contend with. Is it the best Bond film out there? No, it's certainly not, but I do think it's better than a large number of them, some of which are themselves very much celebrated.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Dalton ruined it for all Bonds after his, sadly...
  • Posts: 158
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.


  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.
  • Posts: 158
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.

    Legal guardian, not adoptive family member. If I'm taken in by my friend's family, does that automatically make me brothers with him? No.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    I think some people exaggerate their connection precisely like Blofeld does; Bond knows him, of course, but barely even cared. Oberhauser is crazy and Bond's job is to stop him. Blofeld is the one who keeps insisting there was something else, that Bond somehow shifted his father's attention from him. Blofeld is obsessed with Bond the same way that fans are obsessing over this tiny plot point that ultimately affects the plot very little.

    Is it stupid and contrived? Sure. But it also gives Blofeld a quick and convenient personal angle with which to attack Bond and be angry with him over, which is why some people love the Blofeld character so much, because it's personal for Bond. That was the old timeline. I would have been much more incensed if all of a sudden Blofeld brought up the events of OHMSS or Bond killing Dr. No or something like that. Does this derail SP and put it in the likes of DAF, MR, and DAD? A thousand times no. If the third act had been improved slightly SP would be top 10 material.
  • Posts: 158
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.

    Legal guardian, not adoptive family member. If I'm taken in by my friend's family, does that automatically make me brothers with him? No.

    It doesn't make any difference if Blofeld father is Bond's legal guardian, or if he is a brother or step-brother. It is ridiculous to discover Bond just happens to be that closely connected to his arch-enemy.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    tumblr_m7r3gcaUpU1r1ult6o1_500.gif
  • Posts: 1,098
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    I'm hoping Blofeld says in future movies that he was just playing with the stepbrother thing.

    Well it's going to be a Craig specific narrative, so unless you're planning on DC sticking around for another 10 years I don't think you have to worry. The next incarnate will not follow this storyline.

    True, but it bothers me that Craig's quadrilogy could be perfect but it isn't only because of a ridicolous contrived coincidence.
    Contrived? A little, The worst thing to ever happen in a Bond movie? no. It's a shame people are overreacting to the Brother line.

    More than a little contrived. Imagine if in the next Superman movie we learn that all along Lex Luthor was Clarke Kent's step brother, or the new Star Wars movie reveals that Darth Vader was really Hans Solo's real father. Maybe in the next Jason Bourne movie, we discover that the character played by David Strathairn is really Jason Bourne's father. These would all be the worst plotting decisions of any of the movies.

    Oh for crying out loud they WEREN'T stepbrothers, nor biological or foster brothers. They WEREN'T brothers at all. Blofeld clearly said, His father asked him to TREAT James like one. Not even close. Sheesh the exaggerated Hyperbole around here is starting to annoy me. Just enjoy the movie.

    Then they were like step-brothers. Anyway, too much of a coincidence that Bond's arch-enemy just happens to have that close personal connection.


    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.

    No they weren't. Who says they were even close? James was 11 when his parents died, Blofeld likely in his early to mid 20's. I'm sure he had better things to do then babysit.

    Blofeld's father was Bond's legal guardian. They were therefore step-brothers. It doesn't matter if they are the same age or not, or even if they were children at the same time. They were closely connected. That is laughable in a movie that was otherwise very good.

    Legal guardian, not adoptive family member. If I'm taken in by my friend's family, does that automatically make me brothers with him? No.

    It doesn't make any difference if Blofeld father is Bond's legal guardian, or if he is a brother or step-brother. It is ridiculous to discover Bond just happens to be that closely connected to his arch-enemy.

    Considering there are several billion people on this planet, it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, for Bond to of grown up with his nemesis.
    However, this is the film world, anything can be.
    The only problem for the writers of future Bond stories, is that they are now stuck with this as fact.

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Maybe in 25 years, you'll have to tell casual moviegoers that Austin Powers is not a parody of the brotherhood relationship of SPECTRE, that it was released well before SPECTRE :)
  • Posts: 158
    A James Bond movie should be like a multiple orgasm.

    It should build up with a series of climaxes (Bond escapes attempts on his life) building up to the main climax (Bond learns of and destroys the evil plan), and then there should be one more final climax (either a henchman or the main villain returns to fight with Bond).

    This orgasm was ruined seconds from reaching the main climax in a way that was like finding out that your lover is really your father's child through another marriage.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    What if that arch enemy is obsessed with you and is hellbent on destroying your life? Ergo, he doesn't have the baggage of the '60's Bonds but is just the head of an organization who he figured his enemy Bond would eventually come to face? Obviously Blofeld was monitoring Bond and trying to pick spots in which to hurt and humiliate him the most. Plus jealousy.
  • Posts: 486
    BondBug wrote: »
    MI6 would have to have the worst background checks on its employees to miss that, especially after the former agent who became a terrorist on the scale of Bin Laden in Skyfall, although that has been dne before with Sean Bean.

    I would say fire the human resources manager of MI6 and start recruiting people who don't have terrorist baggage or won't become terrorists.


    Miss what? That the son of Bond's mentor Hannes Oberhauser had also died in the accident?
  • Posts: 7,653
    James Bond is Jesus, he came back from the dead and because he is Jesus nobody questioned his whereabouts and he commenced showing them the other cheek. Blofeld never stood a chance.
  • Posts: 1,296
    Austin Powers is relevent again I don't mind, just another reason to pop in the Powers trilogy. :)
  • Posts: 1,296
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    James Bond is Jesus, he came back from the dead and because he is Jesus nobody questioned his whereabouts and he commenced showing them the other cheek. Blofeld never stood a chance.

    If Bond is Jesus, why can't he eat M&Ms?
    What do you mean? I ate M&Ms with my 2 viewings of Spectre, what about you?
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    They are holy hands.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    They fall through the holes in his hands.

    But didn't they drive the nails through the wrist as the tissue in the hand is not strong enough to bear the body weight and they would just rip off?

    Another ahem nail in the coffin for those who take the bible literally.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited December 2015 Posts: 7,314
    I already appreciate it a little more but I don't see it ever making it into my top ten. It will probably always be a mid-table Bond for me, which is not a terrible thing by the way. I agree with the sentiment that it's already been forgotten by mainstream audiences.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    pachazo wrote: »
    I already appreciate it a little more but I don't see it ever making it into my top ten. It will probably always be a mid-table Bond for me, which is not a terrible thing by the way. I agree with the sentiment that it's already been forgotten by mainstream audiences.

    I always think it's hard to assume on behalf of millions of people. I once made the mistake of assuming QoS hadn't really registered only to overhear an 8 year old in the queue for a football match talking to his Dad about Mr. White at the opera. We like to project an all encompassing rhetoric on films, when actually I don't think it's ever that simple. I imagine SP means a lot to many and nothing to just as many.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I can't disagree with that. I'm sure that i am projecting some of my own disappointment with the film. However, I just don't hear anyone talking about it like they did with SF three years ago. That's just been my personal experience.
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    Posts: 39
    I would say that it could very well go both ways. It all depends on how good Bond 25 is. Imo, if the next bond movie could in a sense progress further from whats established in SP, while making it feel more cohesive with SP, and it itself not being entirely based on SP (like SP does on every previous DC film), AND it itself being a good movie, then future audiences might view SP in a better light, as they see it as a buildup to Bond 25, which despite its flaws, manages to do that very well and make SP and Bond 25 feel more cohesive. SP leaves its end relatively open by not killing ESB (but again who does? =P) , so Bond 25 might very well have the opportunity to pick it up directly from there and make SP better, in a sense.

    That said though, on the other hand, audiences may less appreciate SP in the future, due to the flaws mentioned in many other threads, if they are not exposed to a big event of sorts that changes their perspective, which Bond 25 has great capacity to do so.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    People are losing their shit over Star Wars right now so it's hard to say
Sign In or Register to comment.