› ›

Would you rather attend a casino in Monte Carlo GE or sip cocktails on the rooftops of Shanghai SF?

1…106107109111112…155

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    There have been some great David Fincher movies. I loved The Game as it's twist was a stunner. Of course Seven is another fantastic film. Fight Club is another classic in my opinion. I can see him directing a Bond film but it might play on the tropes of the series or feel different from the usual.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    thedove wrote: »
    There have been some great David Fincher movies. I loved The Game as it's twist was a stunner. Of course Seven is another fantastic film. Fight Club is another classic in my opinion. I can see him directing a Bond film but it might play on the tropes of the series or feel different from the usual.

    I can’t choose one, number one film, so I have about ten films that are considered my number one. Seven is one of them. I watch it once or twice a year. It always shocks. It’s incredibly conceived and shot. And the two leads are perfect opposites.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited June 16 Posts: 9,082
    I watched both films only once each so far, and quite frankly, neither left a lasting impression on me. I couldn't even describe the plot of Knives Out off-hand (though I vaguely remember an Agatha Christie vibe and enjoying it for the evening - but hey! I didn't even notice that Ana de Armas was in it!), and regarding Tattoo I can do that mainly because I read the book and saw the Swedish production, maybe twice, before I ever watched the Fincher/Craig film. I remember that I found it quite well-made, but also quite superfluous, especially given the fact that they talked Swedish in the original. (At least they didn't make Craig talk English with a Swedish accent for the remake.)

    I guess I'll vote for Knives Out but only because I ought to give that one another try.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,598
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I watched both films only once each so far, and quite frankly, neither left a lasting impression on me. I couldn't even describe the plot of Knives Out off-hand (though I vaguely remember an Agatha Christie vibe and enjoying it for the evening - but hey! I didn't even notice that Ana de Armas was in it!), and regarding Tattoo I can do that mainly because I read the book and saw the Swedish production, maybe twice, before I ever watched the Fincher/Craig film. I remember that I found it quite well-made, but also quite superfluous, especially given the fact that they talked Swedish in the original. (At least they didn't make Craig talk English with a Swedish accent for the remake.)

    I was fine with the idea that in this film's world, anyone who's Swedish speaks English with a Swedish or English accent- but then there's a scene where one of the characters travels to London to meet someone, so I was kind of thinking 'okay, so are these people here English or Swedish?' :D
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    thedove wrote: »
    There have been some great David Fincher movies. I loved The Game as it's twist was a stunner. Of course Seven is another fantastic film. Fight Club is another classic in my opinion. I can see him directing a Bond film but it might play on the tropes of the series or feel different from the usual.

    After Tamahori I'm not so keen on directors with a certain 'expectation' to them. If you've seen 'once were worriors', one of the darkest and roughest films I've ever seen, then it's just astounding what came over Tamahori when he did DAD. And not in a good way.


    For the choices laid before, I'll choose Dalton in 'Rocketeer' as I haven't seen it and it looks like a lot of fun, and TGWTDT for the same reason, except for the 'fun' part.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    On the last Bond and Friends podcast they mentioned how bigger budgets don't mean better films. I wonder if Tamahori was like a kid in a candy shop and decided to overindulge just because he could. One would think the studio would be egging him on as they wanted a BIG celebration of the 40 anniversary.

    You think back to DN and it's hard to believe that film was done on the budget it was. A case of "every penny on the screen" but no excesses.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 17 Posts: 3,157
    Also, as was discussed in here once before, SF had a lower budget than QOS and there was a fair bit of griping over on AJB at the time about EON supposedly trying to do Bond on the cheap - but SF looked great and if the budget cuts hadn't leaked to the press, no one would ever have been able to tell. They know that they're doing - this stuff doesn't worry me, tbh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 17 Posts: 16,598
    What is the concern about larger budgets from the point of view of a fan? Bigger budgets don't mean better films, but smaller budgets don't automatically mean better films either, do they?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 17 Posts: 41,011
    Thankfully nobody was saying that's the case, though I find it odd to still see this question getting asked as if to suggest there's no plausible reason a fan might have for feeling concerned about these behemoth budgets of late.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,300
    I suppose there’s a case that having smaller budgets means more creativity has to be used in order to compensate for certain limitations. So potentially you get something much more interesting…

    But honestly, it really depends. There have been films under and over budget which have been disasters. And of course the story/what’s needed is another factor.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 17 Posts: 16,598
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Thankfully nobody was saying that's the case, though I find it odd to still see this question getting asked as if to suggest there's no plausible reason a fan might have for feeling concerned about these behemoth budgets of late.

    But I didn't say whatever those reasons for concern are aren't plausible: I was literally asking 'what is the concern?'. I don't know what the reasons are.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose there’s a case that having smaller budgets means more creativity has to be used in order to compensate for certain limitations. So potentially you get something much more interesting…

    But honestly, it really depends. There have been films under and over budget which have been disasters. And of course the story/what’s needed is another factor.

    Thanks, yeah I guess that's possible. I think even on big budgets they have to use a lot of creativity to keep it in their budget too though: no film has a limitless budget. And if you look at YOLT vs Dr No, where famously the crater base was the same cost as the entire film of Dr No, I don't know if I'd say YOLT is less creative as such.
    I know you're not saying that maxim is definitely true, but it does seem a bit vague to really carry much weight, and yeah, I agree that story is a big factor.
    I tend to think that if there's anything we can actually point at which affects these films badly it's often lack of time rather than having too much money.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited June 17 Posts: 4,300
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Thankfully nobody was saying that's the case, though I find it odd to still see this question getting asked as if to suggest there's no plausible reason a fan might have for feeling concerned about these behemoth budgets of late.

    But I didn't say whatever those reasons for concern are aren't plausible: I was literally asking 'what is the concern?'. I don't know what the reasons are.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose there’s a case that having smaller budgets means more creativity has to be used in order to compensate for certain limitations. So potentially you get something much more interesting…

    But honestly, it really depends. There have been films under and over budget which have been disasters. And of course the story/what’s needed is another factor.

    Thanks, yeah I guess that's possible. I think even on big budgets they have to use a lot of creativity to keep it in their budget too though: no film has a limitless budget. And if you look at YOLT vs Dr No, where famously the crater base was the same cost as the entire film of Dr No, I don't know if I'd say YOLT is less creative as such.
    I know you're not saying that maxim is definitely true, but it does seem a bit vague to really carry much weight, and yeah, I agree that story is a big factor.
    I tend to think that if there's anything we can actually point at which affects these films badly it's often lack of time rather than having too much money.

    I agree. There’s so much more it comes down to, including as you say a lack of time. Every film is different too. It is a skill in and of itself keeping a budget for a film in check/coming up with creative solutions to certain problems due to costs as you said, regardless of what the number actually is.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    Within the podcast the panel was saying that a massive budget doesn't guarantee good Box Office. They were wondering if we see studios shrink budgets to protect themselves from the losses that recent films are experiencing.

    With the context of this discussion someone made the point that Tamahori directed a very different film before DAD. I suggested that the extra budget maybe was used without care or thought of the final product.

    I do think Hollywood studios need to adjust their blockbuster model as people aren't going to the cinema for any film, they are going for very specific films. The Fall Guy and the last Mad Max movie show that even a critically acclaimed success doesn't equal butts in the seats for films. Though Inside Out 2 just premiered to a massive take!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,598
    thedove wrote: »
    Within the podcast the panel was saying that a massive budget doesn't guarantee good Box Office. They were wondering if we see studios shrink budgets to protect themselves from the losses that recent films are experiencing.
    So far it's hard to say that would be something which affects Bond films, but I guess that's untested in the weird waters of the last couple of years.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited June 18 Posts: 5,477
    I am of an old enough vintage where James Bond appeared in TV specials. These were clip shows where clips from the movies were shown and then they teased the next feature. Two stand out in my mind and I thought it would be fun to see which one you would rather watch.

    In one we have a former James Bond, Roger Moore, hosting the special and appearing as James Bond, it is very meta. LOL! He even wears the clothes from Eyes on the ski slopes and they integrate his TV appearance with Eyes footage. He boards a train and it segues to Spy and LALD. It was done for the 25th anniversary and was teasing TLD.

    In the other we have Elizabeth Hurley hosting and it was called The World of James Bond and it teased Pierce in GE. She looks glamorous and does a great job of introducing the clips. She's sexy, breezy and fun as a hostess and does a great job!

    Both are found on the DVD and Blu Ray sets.

    Would you rather watch Happy Anniversary James Bond OR The World of James Bond?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I loved Happy Anniversary with Roger , when I was a kid. It has my vote.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,926
    They're both quite similar, aren't they? If I have to choose, I think Happy Anniversary since those types of shows were rare back then and it had Moore as host.

    I actually liked the one with Desmond Llewelyn as host in '97, The Secrets of 007, better than the Liz Hurley one. James Bond: The First 21 Years from '83 was special since it came out the week my family got cable TV and I didn't have to go elsewhere to watch it since it wasn't shown on any local stations by antenna only.

    My favorite of all is probably The Incredible World of James Bond, which came out before I was even born but on the TB videos. I can just imagine the excitement leading up to TB's release in The Man From UNCLE's timeslot having Bond on your television years before they were ever shown on the network.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    There has been some good ones to be sure @BT3366 I recall the one in 97 being hosted by Peter Coyote which I never understood why him? I love the craziness of Roger Moore hosting a special about a character he played. Imagine Daniel coming back to host a clip show? I can see Pierce doing one and maybe Dalton. Not Craig.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 19 Posts: 16,598
    I want to see Pierce host one in the style of the Robin Hood Prince of Thieves thing.

    "His name (hand waving gesture, pause for effect).... was James Bond. Good evening (pained inhale, thoughtful nod)... I'm Pierce Brosnan. Just who is 007? Tonaaight... (another inhale, pursed lips)... (longer pause) we'll find out" (Turns from camera, satisfied half-smile, nods at nothing, walks away)
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    I can picture it @mtm great writing skill!

    Okay lets move on to another aspect of Bond. Videogames!

    Would you rather play Agent Under Fire OR Nightfire?

    Both offer some great game play. One features Bond played by Pierce Brosnan, the other is a likeness of Pierce.

    Which one are you popping into your gaming console?
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,295
    Forgive me @thedove but I believe you may have mistaken one of these games for Everything or Nothing; the game that actually featured Brosnan in the role.

    Sticking to the question however, I love both of these games as they’re my go-to if I’m looking to play a Bond game. I probably play Agent Under Fire more but my choice would have to be Nightfire.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,680
    From memory, AUF had a generic Bond face and a different voice actor, while NF featured Brosnan's likeness with Maxwell Caulfield? (Grease 2) doing the voice. Anyway, I choose NF because although AUF is awesome (that first level is very memorable due to its golden hue), NF feels like more of a defined and complete experience with cooler gadgets imo.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Nightfire. It's an all-round slicker package. Though I don't dislike AUF, but it's like comparing DN to FRWL.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Nightfire for sure. I played the heck out of the ice lake driving sequence just like in DAD.

    AUF was the first game I ever played on the Ps2. While fun with the driving sequences great as well. Especially the Streets of Bucharest level with the Bond theme blasting while driving the DB5 or the Lotus. The weaponry felt clunky and the bullets came out looking like ping pong balls.

    NF felt like a cinematic Bond experience in the first person
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,300
    Haven’t played either in years, but both are great. NF I think would just about win from memory (I have a lot of fond memories playing the multiplayer with friends when I was young).
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,207
    I absolutely love both, and I dare say they are all in my top 3 Bond games (together with FRWL).

    NF gives the more cinematic 'Bond film' experience though, mixing the atmosphere of the Lewis Gilbert films with the later Pierce era.

    So even though I wish I could give something to AUF, I'll have to be honest to myself and give it to NF.

    Moreover, NF has the superior multiplayer with arenas and characters (incl. bots) from the film franchise.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    thedove wrote: »
    Within the podcast the panel was saying that a massive budget doesn't guarantee good Box Office. They were wondering if we see studios shrink budgets to protect themselves from the losses that recent films are experiencing.

    With the context of this discussion someone made the point that Tamahori directed a very different film before DAD. I suggested that the extra budget maybe was used without care or thought of the final product.

    I do think Hollywood studios need to adjust their blockbuster model as people aren't going to the cinema for any film, they are going for very specific films. The Fall Guy and the last Mad Max movie show that even a critically acclaimed success doesn't equal butts in the seats for films. Though Inside Out 2 just premiered to a massive take!

    Just to give you an idea of the difference in tone between what made Tamahori famous, and compare this to DAD..



    On the games, I don't know, I played neither. I did like Bloodstone though. So the one that's most like that one probably.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Bloodstone is a great game in terms of a filer story between QOS and SF
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,295
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Bloodstone is a great game in terms of a filer story between QOS and SF

    I agree. I recently played the console version of Bloodstone for the very first time and it was nice being able to experience another Craig Bond adventure after NTTD.

    I can pretty much say the same thing about EON and FRWL; both games served as wonderful send offs for both Brosnan and Connery - much better than the actual films did.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    Very true @007ClassicBondFan

    Okay lets do another fun and light topic.

    Would you rather go for a boat ride with Pam (LTK) OR Tatiana (FRWL)

    Both boats will run out of gas! LOL! Both boats take some gun fire. But who would you rather take with you on the boat? You can consider this from the character, situation or any other angle you wish!
Sign In or Register to comment.