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
I remember it well, we had never seen anything like it.
To me personally, 80s films are far superior to the current decade we're in. 70s, 90s, and 00s are possibly (and probably for the first two at least) superior, but the 80s still have far more true classics than we have now; to name a few big ones - Blade Runner, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Shining, The Elephant Man, The Thing, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Full Metal Jacket, Blue Velvet, Raging Bull, Die Hard.
I think it goes without saying that modern filmmaking tanks, I just mean out of the big decades from the 40s to the 80s the 80s is the one I'm least interested in. I don't have the Star Wars hype so that's gone, and Indy is alright, but every time I think of the decade-or hear the films comprising it discussed, actually-I just think of the very bland action hero movies or the self-aware comedies of the day. The more challenging and interesting filmmaking that is a carry over from the 70s aren't talked about as much as they should be, for me. Anyway...
I think the 80's was the last great decade, both in film and in music. The decade gets a bum rap from some, I feel. Sure, it was definitely more popcorn & spectacle oriented than the 70's, but it brought back some of the flair (as opposed to flare) and confidence of the 60's.
And that's the way studios want it. Better to latch onto something that worked thirty years ago than anything new that is a risk to finance and shoot. That's why Star Wars will never die now, why Ghostbusters, Star Trek, Transformers and loads of other properties are coming back. The nostalgia people have for the 80s and the emphasis studios put on those properties has really made this a sore ten plus years of filmmaking. And people go out and pay to see them.
Bond's the only consistent franchise since its inception, though. He isn't pulled back to get shills to pay for their shot of nostalgia, but a constantly evolving brand. And might I say, the least slimy franchise out there as far as its reputation and how it's run. The way Disney alone runs its productions gives me frights. This is why monopolies in any industry are always ill-advised.
Perhaps we're just at a stage in time when much of what can be done in the creative arts has been done? Technology has helped us to retain and even restore those old works so that they now look better than ever. Inevitably we compare contemporary work to what we've seen before, and as time progresses there is so much past art to see and appreciate due to technology. Art is usually appreciated in the context of its time too. When I watch To Catch A Thief or North By Northwest or DN, a lot of my appreciation for the product is subjective, and with an understanding of the time in which it was made. It's more difficult to be wowed these days, since we have such a repository of past great hits to watch.
There's always slumps. But I don't think the Craig era would be so melodramatically hated by some if it wasn't stirring the pot and doing something fresh with a formula-driven property. Bond has taken itself about as far as it could reasonably go since the 60s, from serious to light, to f@#$in space for crying out loud.
Other properties, including the new Star Wars films, not only want to just remake what films worked in the past, they are using the old films to branch off new money making opportunities. With a remake of New Hope with fresh paint and a prequel to the same film being the first released, not to mention spin-offs of all the old 70s and 80s characters that are coming, it's clear people don't want anything new. Disney can have at it milking this one, as the audiences shall be their sheep for it.
When Tom Cruise is talking with his old pianist friend about the mysterious party, he hears he's supposed to bring a costume and that's all the detail he's given.
He shows up dressed perfectly to blend in with everyone.
My dumb ass probably would have shown up dressed as Batman. :))
I figured there was more of the conversation we missed considering how the scene cuts off abruptly, so it's possible there was more detail about the costume. Hope you enjoy the film; such a good one.
@Master_Dahark, and knowing how many fat cat elitists would be at the party, you'd risk running into Bruce Wayne himself while he's doing reconnaissance on the city's corrupt 2%. He'd look at your costume and think, "How the hell does he know? Wait, does he know about me?"
Then he thinks, "No Bruce, remember what happened at that ball with Selina? Better stay out of it."
The Terminator is a bonafide classic and was an incredibly influential film.
Low budget genius from James Cameron.
Saw it at the cinema way back in 1985. Still sadly have the ticket stub.... :))
This made me think a bit. For the last few years I've found myself watching old classics or movies I've seen before - and enjoyed, instead of checking out new titles. Has anyone been there before?
Actually, I don't think I've been to the cinema since Spectre!
I think I've seen two movies in the cinema since. Nothing has been capturing me enough to see.
At the moment i find myself checking out alot of classic movies rather then checking out new ones, i wonder why...